-Caveat Lector-
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date sent: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:34:45 EDT
Subject: DEFENDING AMERICA Newsletter, 1999-05-26-A
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
***********KOSOVO: ALLIED FORCE DAY 63************
********** DEFENDING AMERICA
**********
********** 26 May 1999
**********
*****************************************************************
(To stop getting this newsletter, click the "reply" box, put UNSUB or DELETE
in the Subject line, and hit "send." If your address is NOT in our mailing
list, a third party is "redirecting" you a copy ~ which we have no control
over, are not responsible for, and have no way to remove.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES
Hack's Column
Veterans Have Paid the Price, But Have No Voice 1
Mac Notes
2
>From The Field:
I Am a Ground Troop
3
It Only Takes a Few To Make a Difference
4
Does This Make Sense and Save Money? 5
Army Aviation Is a Hollow Force 6
Book Review: by Lt. Jack Daly, USN 7
Medal of Honor:
Hammond, Francis C., Hospital Corpsman, USN 8
Attached: First Marine Division, Korea, 26-27 March 1953
Commentary:
When Wars Fail, So Do Democrats, by Kevin Phillips 9
No Humor This Week
=====================================================
ARTICLE 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VETERANS HAVE PAID THE PRICE, BUT HAVE NO VOICE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By David H. Hackworth, 25 May 1999
While bombs rain down on Yugoslavia and politicians around the globe
argue about expanding or ending that terrible conflict, America again honors
its dead and living veterans from past wars on this Memorial Week.
The ultimate reward for our living veterans who have "walked the
walk" in the valley of death would not be more stale parades, perfunctory
celebrations and recycled Memorial Day speeches, but only that we listen to
their counsel regarding the most critical decision a country can make: to
employ the military solution.
Had President Clinton sat down with a group of veterans -- veterans
who had stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, stopped communist
attacks on snow-covered mountains in Korea, waded through the minefields of
Vietnam and whipped Saddam in the Gulf -- and asked their advice about
jumping into a civil war in Yugoslavia, they'd have said, "Don't go there."
And had he abided by their hard-won wisdom, America would not now be sinking
in that quagmire or have kick-started another cold war with China and
Russia.
Unfortunately, President Clinton never calls upon our vets for
advice about matters affecting the security of our country. Instead, he
seeks counsel from advisors such as "It-will-be-a-short-war" Albright,
"Just-give-us-a-little-more-time" Berger, and "We-are-prevailing" Cohen, an
inner circle of dilettantes with a perfect record of fumbling badly in the
life-and-death matters of war.
Back in Arkansas, when Clinton's septic tank overflowed, I'm sure he
had the horse sense to bring in a plumber rather than a lawyer. Smart folks
like Albright, Berger and Cohen wouldn't know a plunger from a monkey wrench
--
just as they can't possibly know a real war from an episode of "M*A*S*H".
And while we assume Clinton's uniformed advisers know their job, so far
they're performing that old familiar go-along-to-get-along dance -- much as
the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did during the Vietnam War --
instead of standing tall and sounding off.
After the bombing began, 2.8 million members of the American Legion
did sound off. They called on President Clinton and Congress to pull United
States military forces out of Yugoslavia immediately.
Their commonsense stand didn't get much ink or tube time, and the
majority of Congress gave it a miss, a clear indictment of just how much
influence our veterans have in an America where so few members of the
federal government or the media have worn our country's uniform. Today,
school shootouts take up more tube time than repeated threats from the
Russians that World War III is once again just a launch away!
In the presidencies of war veterans Harry Truman and Dwight
Eisenhower, the America Legion's message would have been carefully
considered. It also would have been well-reported at the top of the news by
the Edward Murrows and Walter Cronkites, reporters who saw combat and well
understood the horror and waste of war. But today's news anchors -- among
whom only Dan Rather has served our country in uniform (and he was medically
discharged before finishing Marine boot camp) -- chose to ignore the
veterans.
Harold L. Miller, the national commander of the American Legion,
also asked that the president do the following concerning future use of our
forces:
a. Provide a clear statement of why it's in America's vital national
interests to be engaged in hostilities.
b. Establish guidelines for the mission, including a clear exit
strategy.
c. Ensure that both the U.S. Congress and the American people fully
support the mission.
d. Ensure that U.S. Forces be commanded only by U.S. officers.
From all reports, Legion Commander Miller -- who unlike our
representatives
in congress has a son on active duty with a strong chance of being sent to
Kosovo -- has had his get-out-of-Yugoslavia message ignored.
Clinton found time to attend fund-raisers all over the country,
visit Littleton, Colo., on the anniversary of the shootout for a photo op and
to pass through New York City to promote a vote-getting scheme for the
Democratic party concerning a new Penn Station. But he couldn't find the
time to meet with Miller.
So sure, let's remember our veterans this week. But if we fail to
heed their experience, we, as a nation, do not deserve their sacrifices --
past, present or future.
=============================================
ARTICLE 2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
********MAC NOTES********
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reports that the conflict in Kosovo could be nearing an end with a
"multinational" peacekeeping force being put in place is a good thing for
us to hear with Memorial Day weekend coming up.
All the talk of a settlement comes amidst renewed hype about "ground
action," an infusion of 50,000 troops by mid-June and Gen. Wesley Clark's
arrival in Washington last week for these discussions. With Memorial Day
approaching, we should reflect upon what might have been -- and still could be
-- a very ugly, very gruesome turn of events for our Armed Forces.
Several things have been pointed out to us during this debacle that
require only a sixth grade education to understand. One is that this
administration, and their supporters, is clearly out of their depth
regarding military power. Two, their foreign relations and national security
teams are inept and more concerned with PR for their boss than they are with
matters of national and international security. And three, the world, as a
whole, suffers when the United States is reduced to a third-world power --
globally, the balance of power is thrown off its axis when the U.S. is made
to look a fool by its own President and his "experts."
Let's examine "Military Power." If the United States plans on
keeping the title of "leader of the free world," it must have the ability to
project military power swiftly and totally when it is required -- hopefully
not often and only when clearly defined objectives are spelled out. To do
this you must prepare and train the proper mix of forces that can respond
according to the Principles of War. Never stray from the Principles. If you're
going to gut the military budget, introduce poorly conceived and irrational
social experiments, cut the force structure, pay them poorly and then
increase their workload, you better not plan on getting into a shooting
war. Only someone that is totally ignorant of the military, military
sciences, and global politics would ever attempt such a thing. Doing this,
in this day and age, as a policy, borders on the criminal.
The second order of business is foreign relations and national
security. My God is this bunch pathetic. As Owen Harries, editor of The
National Interest, wrote in the 16 May issue of the NY Times, "Prestige and
credibility are important in international politics. Properly cultivated and
used, they can be an effective substitute for the actual use of force. But
in Kosovo they have been dissipated and squandered, with the result that
instead of prestige being an effective substitute for force, increasingly
the use of force is being justified by the need to restore credibility."
Harries goes on to say the Clinton administration "has given us the weakest
foreign policy team in 60 years."
Lastly, the impact of this foreign policy disaster has been to cast
the United States in the shadow of a role not seen since the mid-1930's.
Back then we were essentially a third world power. It took Bill Clinton, of
all Presidents, and the end of the cold war, to get NATO -- a fifty-year
alliance without a shot fired -- involved in a shooting war in Europe. And
guess what? This whole farce is illuminating how stretched to the bone our
military has become. If some crazy leader wanted to strike a blow against
us, or an ally, now would be the ideal time to do so.
It reminds me of the old axiom of "Green Lieutenants" -- no offense
to our young officers. However, the purpose of our military is to win
battles, but the guy in charge at the small unit level -- where the rubber
meets the road -- is the most inexperienced in the whole defense chain. Today
the situation is more exaggerated. Today our CNC and this administration are
like the green lieutenant: over eager, over confident, in charge and
pitifully inexperienced. "Fire! Aim! Ready!"
The exception to this comparison is that we teach our young officers
leadership: leadership by example. Never give an order that you, yourself,
are not prepared to carry out.
Have a safe and enjoyable Memorial Day.
Don't bunch up.
Robert L. McMahon
Editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
====================================================
ARTICLE 3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I AM A GROUND TROOP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SUMMARY: The author discusses the disconnected attitudes regarding today's
American culture and it's military. An All-Volunteer Force was hailed as a
great thing as long as they didn't have to march into the killing fields of
Southeast Asia, but what sort of attitudes does this encourage within the
civilian leadership and the military?
********************************************
By Lt. Col. Matthew Moten, USA
I am a ground troop. I'm the guy you've heard pundits, politicians,
pollsters, and very occasionally, real people talking about. You will
usually hear them talking about "sending in" guys like me. But what we
"ground troops" are to be "sent in" to do is the subject of much muffled
mumbling.
The banality of such discourse stems from the poverty of the average
American's military lexicon. This country has now reared a second generation
that cannot tell a colonel from a corporal, a soldier from a Marine, a
howitzer from a tank. And the reason for this limited vocabulary is a dearth
of military experience. The fact is that most Americans have not served,
have never thought of serving, and have no close tie to anyone who has
served in the military.
Now, one might argue that a societal ignorance of military
experience is a good and precious thing. Indeed, America remains the only
superpower, economically as much as militarily. And the power and reach and
sophistication of our armed forces is such that we see no "peer competitor"
on the horizon as far as we can project. It is a luxury, and an accident of
history, that we enjoy such prosperity and security when our citizens are so
free from the burdens of military service that they give little thought to
war, or conflict, or much else that happens beyond our shores.
There's the rub. Americans give almost no attention to matters of
national security. When a crisis rears, they give practitioners of the
military art, us "ground troops," an unwitting compliment. They believe that
we are equal to any task. Over a coffee break with a strategic wave of the
hand, they "send in the ground troops," those undifferentiated and
interchangeable parts of military power, and assume that all will be well.
The American military profession is partly to blame for this
cavalier attitude. In the quarter century since the Vietnam War, we have
rebuilt the military into an all-volunteer, professional force. We won the
Cold War and then Desert Storm with such efficiency and such
blood-stinginess that most Americans now view war as antiseptic. America now
expects, and regularly receives, military action that results in no U.S.
casualties and little loss of innocent life among our adversaries.
The recent bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Serbia are all
examples of the art. It seems that we have achieved a Clausewitzian
absurdity. Carl von Clausewitz, the vaunted Prussian military historian and
theorist, argued that Napoleon's great and horrible contribution was
bringing the people into warfare. Prior to the French Revolution, war was a
sport of kings, wherein the maneuver of small, expensive, professional
armies was frequently an end in itself. As on a chessboard, the
outmaneuvered opponents of Marlborough or Frederick often capitulated
bloodlessly and acquiesced to the limited political demands of the victors.
Napoleon, on the other hand, wielding the emotion and violence of
the levee en masse, ruthlessly and bloodily conquered enemies who still
played by these old rules. Clausewitz theorized that Napoleon had changed
the rules for all time, thereby transforming war. And as the Industrial
Revolution reinforced state-harnessed popular violence, bloodbaths in the
American Civil War and two World Wars ensued with greater and greater fury.
Now it seems that we have returned to the pre-Napoleonic era.
American military forces are again small, expensive, and professional.
Thanks to Information-Age technology they are also growing ever more
effective and lethal. But the people are no longer there. That change is not
technological. It is political. As Joseph Califano has recently reminded us,
young Americans began turning against warfare in 1968. That is when the
Johnson Administration took steps to see that the sons of the middle class
would begin to bear the burdens of military service alongside their poorer
and darker fellow citizens. War protests began in earnest once the oxen of
the articulate were gored. The war became unpopular. Johnson, then Nixon in
his turn, lost support of the people. America lost that war in 1973 and
turned away from conscripting its citizens to fill its military ranks.
Since that time the armed forces, and especially the Army, have
recruited an all-volunteer force disproportionately from the cohorts of the
working class and the poor, the African-American and the Latino. Even so,
most of these do not join. And the sons and daughters of the middle and
upper classes rarely consider volunteering for military service. This
phenomenon has had some salutary effects. Many of the less-privileged have
come to see military service as a socio-economic ladder, and rightly so. And
the military has become the most racially and ethnically integrated and
diverse institution in the country. It is commonplace for our bosses, peers
and subordinates to be of other races and ethnic backgrounds than us.
But in a larger sense, the voluntary filling of our military ranks
has caused a gap between the civilian and military cultures that is bad for
both, and worse for our national security. Some military officers and
thinkers have begun to note and even to celebrate this separation as
significant of greater sacrifice, higher patriotism, purer morality in the
armed forces. Richard Kohn and Andrew Bacevich have reviewed this trend,
expressing concern over the coming "Grand Army of the Republicans." Their
worries are well placed. Civilians, feeling no connection to our military,
have a detached view of our foreign policy. How long has it been since
national security concerns have played any significant role in an election?
No coherent foreign policy consensus has emerged since the collapse
of the Soviet Union, largely because our leaders perceive no political
benefit to engaging the public on issues in which there is such widespread
disinterest. The American public tends to focus on foreign problems only so
long as Christiane Amanpour does, and then with far less fervor. Whither
now? I would suggest that Americans try to view our role in the world just
as we "ground troops" do, which is, to ask the question-does this policy
objective engage our national interest to the point that I am willing to
fight and die for it? Don't misunderstand, we "ground troops" don't vote on
which missions we intend to support. We have all sworn to uphold the
Constitution and to obey the orders of the President of the United States.
We will go when and where we are ordered. Still, we cannot and do not detach
ourselves from critical evaluation of American foreign policy, because we
have that personal stake in it.
I realize that my prescription is a tall order for countless
millions of Americans who have no such stake and who know of no one who
does. Yet I am reminded of the admonition that former Senator Bill Bradley
gave us about our national struggles with race. He noted that most of us
have never sat and honestly engaged a member of the other race in a
conversation about racial issues. And he asked us, as Americans, to do so.
Those who have taken up his challenge have found the experience
enlightening, often moving.
Let me make a similar suggestion. Find a "ground troop" and ask what
he--or she--is willing to die for. You will be moved, even enlightened. And
our collective thinking about our national interests will be the richer for
your conversation.
==========================================
ARTICLE 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IT ONLY TAKES A FEW TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SUMMARY: The author brings up a good point; what's more important honesty or
loyalty? Before you answer, read on.
**********************************************
By Paige Rockett
Two years ago, General Richard Hawley, commander of Air Combat Command
(retiring in June) fired one of his troops for "lying" -- because "lying
affects good order and discipline."
His troop, Captain Kelley Flinn, the Air Force's first female B-52 pilot,
was charged with adultery.
The American people rose up in outrage to rip the Air Force mask from its
face, a mask they claimed was one of sanctimony and self-righteousness: a
mask hiding institutionalized Air Force hypocrisy and deceit.
General Fogelman, then Air Force Chief of Staff, went on record before
Congress - and the American people - representing the official U.S. Air
Force stance by stating, "This case is about lying."
The message, I believe, was clear to all of us: We in the Air Force do not
lie. Nor do we tolerate those who do.
Captain Flinn was damned and drummed from the Air Force.
That Air Force mask -- so rightly identified by the American people -- just
slipped. Air Combat Command has gone on public record as sanctioning lying
-- in the name of "loyalty" -- to spare one's chain-of-command
"awkwardness."
This command sanction and official endorsement of lying was baldly
proclaimed in a recent commentary in the Langley Flyer (May 14, 1999), the
base newspaper on which Col Felix Dupr� (Brig. Gen. select), 1st Fighter
Wing Commander is listed at the top of the masthead. (Col Dupr� -- soon
after he assumed command of the 1st Fighter Wing in April this year -- had
gone on public record stating that he would not tolerate those who lied.)
In this piece in the base newspaper, entitled, "Commanders: handling ethical
dilemmas" by Col Bruce Oksol, 1st Fighter Wing Medical Group commander (one
of the senior officials on Hawley's and Dupr�'s watch), was the following
statement:
...Consider the first paradigm: truth versus loyalty. How do you report your
unit's readiness status to higher headquarters when you know that by the
numbers you fall slightly short, yet in reality you feel comfortable that
you could execute the mission? Do you report your status "as is" -- the
truth -- or do you "assess up" to minimize putting your boss in an awkward
position -- loyalty.
Until I read this piece by a senior Air Force official -- after serving my
country for almost 30 years in a variety of capacities for the Department of
Defense all over the world -- I never knew that such a "dilemma" existed for
me as an Air Force professional: truth versus loyalty.
Until this officially sanctioned endorsement of considering truth versus
loyalty, I believed my "only loyalty" -- to the American people, to my Air
Force, to my bosses -- was simply this: Tell the truth. Always.
Am I alone in noting that there is a reason that the oft-repeated Air Force
core values -- "integrity; service before self; excellence in all that we
do" -- deliberately dis-include "loyalty" as one of the core values?
Am I alone in believing that "loyalty" was deliberately omitted as one of
the core values to prevent the exact dilemma to which Oksol introduces us
for consideration -- deceit versus loyalty? That loyalty was not included in
the core values so that people could not then make the self-serving excuse:
"I am lying in order to be loyal" (let's trade this core value for that core
value).
I have never experienced or observed a relationship -- either personal or
professional -- to be "successful" if it is not based on mutual trust: I
don't lie. You don't lie. We don't lie to each other.
I was never led to believe that integrity is "negotiable." Nor that
truth-telling is an "embarrassment," something which could cause my boss
"awkwardness." Belatedly, I appreciate one luxury during my almost-30-year
journey with the U.S. military which I now cherish beyond words: I have
never once expended the time, energy or thought or worry about
"embarrassment" -- other than my own.
My ultimate embarrassment would be to "assess up" or "assess down:" Lying.
Did not Vietnam teach us that lying by our military members -- "assessing
up" -- such as distorting body count figures -- was unacceptable to the
American people?
Oksol scares me. Hawley and Dupr� scare me.
The implication of Oksol's "dilemma" -- "It's OK in our Air Force to lie
sometimes -- even to your boss, especially if telling your boss the truth
would "put your boss in an awkward position" -- rips the mask off the
institutionalized sanctimony that is today's Air Force.
According to ACC's corrupt standards today, Captain Flinn should have been
given a medal: after all, she spared her commander the "awkwardness" of
confiding to him the full unblemished details of her messy private life: an
act of supreme loyalty according to Oksol.
During the last four years while assigned to ACC, the largest command in the
Air Force (sometimes called "Pentagon South" in inner Air Force circles),
this is what I have observed: an unimaginable horde of senior Air Force
officials: lying, butt-covering, buck-passing, blind-siding, bull-slinging,
back-stabbing, butt-kissing careerists.
American people: I hope you hold hard to that skepticism which served you so
well when you rose up to challenge the hypocrisy and deceit of senior Air
Force officials as they drummed -- and damned -- that young officer from
their ranks.
I conclude with a recent comment made about "Catch-22," Joseph Heller's
acerbic look at the then-Army Air Corps almost 50 years ago: "The target in
Catch-22 is not just the self-serving attitudes of some military officers,
but also the Air Force itself as a mad military bureaucracy."
Air Combat Command is institutionalized insanity. Heller should be given a
belated Pulitzer prize for his right-on look at an institution which hasn't
changed at all in 50 years.
I wish you well, Kelley Flinn, wherever you are. It's a far, far better
place, I believe, than where you were.
I conclude with your words, David Hackworth:
"It only takes a few to make major changes and make the military more
accountable for waste, corruption and bad leadership."
====================================================
~~> more articles in Part B ~~>
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
