Target Centermass

Category: Military History

  • Dying for Another Tet in Iraq

    The Islamists and the Saddamites wanted another Mogadishu, hoping to bloody the American nose and move in after the subsequent withdrawal. They failed. Badly.

    And so, they turned to an earlier model of American failure — Viet Nam. And the American Left and the media were so glad to help, as calls of quagmire and failure rang out, intertwined with moaning for an “exit strategy” and plantings of draft rumors.

    Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam

    —Sen. Edward Kennedy (source)

    Unfortunately for them, things haven’t been going the way of the terrorists. The terrorists, despite vows to the contrary, had to watch an Iraqi citizenry give the finger to fear and vote for their own future. The attacks against U.S. troops have repeatedly failed and casualties are declining. It is time for the terrorists to turn back to the Viet Nam playbook — they need another Tet.

    And what better place than Abu Ghraib, a prison tragically more known internationally for a handful of rogue American atrocities (prosecuted or being prosecuted) than for countless thousands of murders and horrors committed previously by the Saddam regime (blank check in the global community from prosecution or even reputation). The terrorist movement had learned they couldn’t really hurt the American military effort. The Iraqis’ disgust with their victimization by the foreign Islamists, criminals and Saddamists was growing fast. Luckily for the murderous bastards, the American and international media remained fascinated with all things Abu Ghraib. Well, all things post-conflict.

    The scene was set for another Tet-like defeat of the Americans — make statement-type attacks and let the media take it from there. Target: Abu Ghraib.

    I didn’t have time Saturday to do anything other than post the link to the initial attack on the prison. Mark that, failed attack, as there were no American deaths and no prisoners freed. There were headlines, though.

    And believe me, the Islamist bastards tried to milk it for all it was worth.

    Al-Qaeda in Iraq, meanwhile, posted a second internet statement boasting that its fighters carried out the bold attempt on Saturday to force their way into the prison. The statement, posted late on Sunday, said two fighters were injured and 10 more were killed in battle, including seven suicide bombers.

    It said a group of about 20 militants scaled the prison’s walls, and that one reached a prison tower and yelled: “God is great!”

    Today, the scumbags continued in their efforts for another Tet.

    Another attack around Abu Ghraib

    A suicide bomber driving a tractor blew himself up Monday in the second attack in three days near the Abu Ghraib prison.

    I argue that the operative word in that lead paragraph is “near,” signifying that the terrorists get ink and a gold star from the press just for trying.

    Are they making a dent with this latest rush of bloody sacrifice? No, but unfortunately that may only be a matter of timing. I have no doubt that editors across America and around the globe would salivate over the headlines they could trumpet about the attempts by the terrorists to right all of the American wrongs at Abu Ghraib.

    What’s stopping them? Simply and sadly, probably only timing.

    Minor skirmishes that achieve nothing cannot help but be overshadowed by the passing of Pope John Paul II.

    Maybe the pope’s last great accomplishment will be to stop another Tet-like failure, just as progress is taking hold in a region thirsting for it.

  • Revolutionary War Remnant Washes Ashore

    Here’s an interesting little treat for the military history buff: an underwater portion of a bridge crossing Lake Champlain to the famed Fort Ticonderoga has floated to the surface and been recovered.

    For more than two centuries, the waters of Lake Champlain have hidden the remains of a marvel of 18th-century engineering — a bridge built by 2,500 sick and hungry Continental soldiers.

    Now a piece of that bridge sits in the preservation laboratory at the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, destined to give visitors a portal into revolutionary times.

    “When you look at what they wanted to do, it connects you right to the American Revolution,” said the museum’s executive director, Art Cohn.

    Historians say the bridge was constructed in March and April 1777. Thousands of huge pine logs were skidded onto the ice and notched together. Weighed down with rocks, these caissons sunk to the lake bottom through holes the soldiers cut in the ice.

    By spring 22 caissons, some up to 50 feet tall, reached the lake’s surface. They were joined by a 16-foot-wide deck that linked Fort Ticonderoga in New York and Mount Independence in Vermont.

    […]

    If the part of the bridge above the water was destroyed, the part under the surface was not. The caissons were set so deep that they did not interfere with boats on the lake.

    The bridge was largely forgotten until 1983, until divers discovered the caissons, still largely intact, laid out in an arc between the two shores.

    Cohn and others began to study the bridge more intensely in 1992, mapping the locations of the caissons and recovered thousands of Revolutionary War artifacts believed dumped in the lake when the British abandoned the fortifications in late 1777. Some of those artifacts are now on display at the Mount Independence Visitor Center in Orwell.

    Then, last year, a 26-foot beam estimated to weigh between 1,500 and 1,800 pounds surfaced and was pulled to shore near Fort Ticonderoga.

    The story gives a little more information on the roles that the bridge and the fort played in the war. It goes on to discuss the preservation efforts and plans for display. Go read and enjoy if you find these types of things as intriguing as I do.

  • We’re Gonna Need a Bigger Boat

    JohnL over at TexasBestGrok has a regular installment he calls Aircraft Cheesecake in which he focuses on an particular airplane from days gone by. The latest is a look at an interesting Soviet bomber prototype from the ’30s.

    Now, Varifrank has posted some seacraft cheesecake about a couple of massive Japanese WWII submarines, the wreckage of one of which was just confirmed today. Perhaps most interesting about these two subs was that, with the fall of Japan, they were ordered to surrender while en route to attack North America … from the air. Go read about these fascinating submarines that were also submersible carriers.

  • Vietnamese Agent Orange Claim Dismissed

    If the 2004 presidential election proved anything, it’s that the controversial legacy of the Viet Nam War ain’t going away anytime soon. Well, maybe one lawsuit spawned by the conflict will finally be laid to rest.

    A U.S. federal judge has ruled American chemical companies are not liable for damages caused by the spraying of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.

    Judge Jack Weinstein Thursday dismissed a lawsuit that accused the companies of committing war crimes by producing the highly toxic chemical.

    The suit was filed on behalf of Vietnamese citizens who have blamed Agent Orange for health problems including cancer and birth defects.

    U.S. forces sprayed some 80 million liters of the chemical during the war to kill jungle foliage that communist forces were using as cover.

    Judge Weinstein said the plaintiffs’ claims have no basis under any national or international laws. He also said the plaintiffs had failed to prove a clear link between Agent Orange and their illnesses.

    There was no immediate reaction from plaintiffs or the Vietnamese government.

    So many aspects of that war against communist aggression, one of the key hot theaters of the Cold War, have long since become indelibly and unfairly cemented into the public mind — the tales of American atrocities, images of a summary execution or a naked child running in fear, the anguished stereotypical veteran, the phrase “We had to destroy the village in order to save it” (which I plan to blog about at a later date), and the lingering horrors of the defoliant Agent Orange.

    What is the truth behind the actual health effects of exposure to Agent Orange? Well, despite today’s decision, the scientific jury is still out decades later. However, as the Mackenzie Institute noted in a paper on the controversy surrounding depleted uranium rounds, the evidence to date is not looking too good for those who continue to trumpet the evils of the defoliant.

    Anyone remember Agent Orange?

    Starting in 1969 and continuing through until the early 1990s, hundreds of Vietnam veterans blamed health problems, tumors and even psychological conditions on purported exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. The Agent Orange scare was strongly encouraged by the environmental lobby, the Peace Movement, and the Hanoi government. Fabricating or distorting evidence is quick and simple, while a truth that depends on scientific evidence can take a long time to show up. Naturally, as the scientists were dragging their heels, the media turned to the sensationalists and the Agent Orange Myth took on a life of its own.

    Dioxin, the accused killer in Agent Orange can be dangerous and in large dosages is very lethal … to laboratory rats. Exposures humans receive are another matter. However, the thousands of Italians who were exposed to heavy doses of dioxin in a 1976 industrial accident did not develop excessive birth defects or reproductive failures. A 1984 Journal of the American Medical Association article on workers who had been exposed to a heavy dose of dioxins in a 1949 accident indicated these men did not have higher rates of cancer, heart or liver damage, nerve problems, kidney damage, reproductive problems or birth defects than was the average for men of their age group. They did have slightly higher rates of chloracne and digestive tract ulcers — both of which are quite treatable.

    If any Vietnam Veterans had come down with problems related to Agent Orange, it would have been the high living “cowboys” of the Ranch Hand project — the US Airmen who actually sprayed the stuff. Flying at near-stall speeds about 50m above ground level, these servicemen took a lot of ground-fire. Indeed, one of their aircraft — known as “Patches” — is in the Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio. Often, they ended up coated in Agent Orange when they sprayed it or had it sluicing around their ankles after being shot-up again. Moreover, at initiations for new members of their Squadron, both the newcomers and the older veterans would drink a glass of the defoliant.

    Over 1,174 of the 1,206 veterans of this squadron have participated in a careful 20-year study of the results of their exposure to Agent Orange. Net result? The Ranch Hand group continues to have the same mortality rate as their control group of 1,293 similar men — and both have a lower mortality rate than the average American Male population. The only real difference in rates of those ailments associated with dioxin, despite massive exposure to Agent Orange, was that the Ranch Hand vets had a slightly higher tendency to display problems related to heavy drinking — something many of them engaged in as young servicemen on a nerve-wracking duty.

    Otherwise, after $400 million in real research, the great Agent Orange scare turned out to be a bust. Real — verifiable and accurate — scientific research does not indict the material. However, it remains an article of faith among environmentalists and peace-movement members that the stuff is deadly. They believe and that is enough.

    Too bad the verdict has already been rendered in the court of public opinion, but that’s true of so much about the Viet Nam War.

  • Sixty Years Ago: the Bulge

    Today marks the sixtieth anniversary of the opening of the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler’s last offensive and one of the most desperate and courageous stands in the storied history of the U.S. Army.

    American veterans mark and remember the day. The day is also remembered and honored by the people of Belgium, who lost thousands of civilians during the fighting.

    More on the U.S. veterans of the battle can be found here.

  • Remember Pearl Harbor!

    Destroyer USS Shaw explodes, 7 DEC 1941

    December 7, 1941, a date which still lives in infamy.

    The Commissar has collected a list of sites with information on Pearl Harbor (hat tip to Ben). I expecially recommend the National Geographic entry.

  • The Age-Old Problem During, Between and After Wars

    War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.

    —Winston Churchill

    The above quote is most assuredly true and unavoidable. War is a series of traps, a string of opportunities for error. Perhaps the most difficult pitfall to avoid actually begins before combat commences. In fact, it begins immediately in the aftermath of the previous conflict, be it a small engagement or a worldwide conflagration of hostility, and continues on into the next conflict. Put simply, the mistake I write of is the misuse or neglect of possible lessons to be learned. I’ll leave it to Cyril Falls to put it more eloquently:

    Those who study warfare only in the light of history think of the next war in terms of the last. But those who neglect history deprive themselves of a yardstick by which theory can be measured.

    The obvious mistake is to misinterpret or neglect the abundant information available, be it from failures or successes. An example of this would be the successful torpedo-plane attack on Taranto in early World War II. The Japanese chose to learn from the British air success against a shallow, sheltered harbor, while the Americans learned little or nothing from the sinking of three Italian battleships. Result: five American battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor, less than thirteen months later.

    The more subtle trap is to fall into the thinking that the next war will be fought in the manner of the previous one. This leads to limitations on both strategic and tactical thinking and their subsequent effect on training and preparation. Drawing from WWII again, an easily identified example is that of the French. Having seen the trench warfare, relatively stable fronts and bloody results of attacks against fortified positions, the French relied too heavily on this experience with their dependence on the fixed fortifications of the Maginot Line. Result: the capitulation of France to Nazi Germany in just six weeks.

    During my time in the National Guard, I saw first-hand this type of thinking, at both a strategic and tactical level. Even into the latter ’90s, much of the US armor training was based on the planned defense-and-counterattack of the anticipated massive tank showdown with the Soviets in Europe. On a small-scale level, my platoon was going through a move-to-contact engagement on the tank simulators at Ft. Knox (I’m talking about the old platoon-to-battalion level SimNet, which may or may not still be in use). The exercise was late in the day and the platoon reacted poorly to the eventual enemy attack. Overnight, the platoon leadership planned for the same exercise, anticipating the meeting with the OpFor to be in the same location. Sure enough, as the engagement was rerun the following morning, the enemy were in the same location and were decimated. We had made a mistake and been rewarded for it — wrong lesson learned.

    Military history is replete with examples of both lessons that were failed to be grasped and lessons that were learned too rigidly. How best to avoid this trap? Learn the lessons of the previous conflict but don’t allow them to exclusively dictate doctrine or tactics. Innovate while anticipating innovation. Despite the above case of Pearl Harbor, along with my own examples and many more throughout our history, the modern American military has generally been pretty good about this, overcoming the potential pitfalls with flexibility and innovation. One of my old lieutenants liked to say, “We train in chaos.” (He also, in his fair share, was fond of saying, “I’ll get the next pitcher.” He’s still a dear friend.) This has been noticed by our foes as well, as a Soviet military document apparently held the following gem:

    One of the serious problems in planning against American doctrine that the Americans do not read their manuals nor do they feel any obligations to follow their doctrine.

    So far in the war against Islamist terror, this potential trap has played to our advantage. In Afghanistan, the Taliban felt secure without a build-up for a repeat of the Soviet engagement. In Iraq, Saddam and his military seemed paralyzed when the ground onslaught took off without a lengthy air campaign, as was expected from the first Gulf War. In both, the US used innovation and adaptation to overcome the enemy without allowing them the luxury of benefitting from their acquired experience.

    A trio of historical examples are driving today’s war — Viet Nam in general, Tet specifically, and Mogadishu. The Islamists are hoping that a slow bleed or a sudden hemorrhage will cripple the will of the American public.

    Which is stronger — the will of the American people to succeed or their fear of the failures of our history? The hopes of our current enemy based on our past or the future imaginative actions of the American military?

    I anticipate having children someday. They and their children will live in the world that results from the answer to that.

  • A Veterans Day Message

    In Flanders fields the poppies blow...I was asked today and have often wondered something about Veterans Day — who is it truly meant to honor? Memorial Day is easy — that is a day to remember and pay homage to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the uniform (though everyday we wake up free should be such a day). I knew the origins of today’s holiday, with Nov. 11 (the anniversary of the end of World War I in 1918) formerly being set aside as Armistice Day to honor those who served in that great conflict. In 1954, the name of the holiday was changed to include the veterans of WWII and Korea. Obviously, Veterans Day is a tribute to veterans, but my question was if it was truly meant for combat veterans or those like myself who only served in peacetime?

    Well, according to the FAQ on the government’s official Veterans Day site, the answer is as follows:

    Q. What is the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day?

    A. Many people confuse Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Memorial Day is a day for remembering and honoring military personnel who died in the service of their country, particularly those who died in battle or as a result of wounds sustained in battle.
    While those who died are also remembered on Veterans Day, Veterans Day is the day set aside to thank and honor ALL those who served honorably in the military – in wartime or peacetime. In fact, Veterans Day is largely intended to thank LIVING veterans for their service, to acknowledge that their contributions to our national security are appreciated, and to underscore the fact that all those who served – not only those who died – have sacrificed and done their duty.

    In light of this confirmation, I would like to thank all who served before me, all who served with me, all who served after me and all who currently serve and sacrifice.

    Why the picture of the flowers on my posts about Veterans Day? That’s a pic of poppies from Flanders Field in Belgium, and the significance of that particular flower and its relation to Veterans (formerly Armistice) Day stem from the poem “In Flanders Fields” by WWI Canadian army physician John McCrae. The poem and its history can be found here (hattip to Damian Brooks at Babbling Brooks).

  • Kerry: the Ultimate Monday Morning Quarterback

    If John Kerry had been president after 9/11, the U.S. would’ve already had Osama bin Laden behind bars or in a body bag. Just ask him.

    Kerry accused President Bush of allowing bin Laden to escape by relying on Afghan warlords to try to hunt the al-Qaida chief down in the caves of Tora Bora in December 2001.

    “Can you imagine trusting them when you have your 10th Mountain Division, the United States Marine Corps, when you had all the power and ability of the best-trained military in the world?” Kerry told a rally at the University of Nevada-Reno. “I would have used our military and we would have gone after and captured or killed Osama bin Laden. That’s tough.”

    Yes, that is truly a tough stance. It is so easy to picture the glory-clad senator, standing on that tall hill and framed by a magnificent sunrise in America, strongly guiding our fine country with his perfect hindsight.

    Of course, there’s no reason to believe there’s any truth to his assurance of a success that could’ve been. In fact, there’s every reason to scoff.

    Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said the Democrat’s claim was “another exaggeration of John Kerry, saying anything no matter how untrue it is.”

    “During the time of when the United States was engaged in offensive operations in Tora Bora, John Kerry praised that strategy and tactics,” Schmidt said.

    Also, the Kerry’s accusation of Bush’s failure stands contrary to not only his own words at the time, but also to the current stance of the U.S. commander during the action in question.

    “As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora and I can tell you that the senator’s understanding of events doesn’t square with reality,” retired general Tommy Franks wrote in The New York Times.

    Kerry has repeatedly accused US President George W. Bush of surrendering the job of hunting for bin Laden to allied Afghan tribal leaders, who were unable to find the Al-Qaeda leader in the caves of the mountainous Tora Bora region in late 2001.

    Franks said he did not know to this day whether bin Laden was in Tora Bora in December 2001 to begin with.

    “Some intelligence sources said he was,” he wrote. “Others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time. Still others suggested he was in Kashmir.”

    According to Franks, the US military relied heavily on Afghan forces in that battle because they knew Tora Bora after fighting there for years against the Soviet occupation.

    “Third, the Afghans weren’t left to do the job alone,” the retired general continued. “Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes.”

    Franks, a declared Bush supporter, said the president had “his eye on that ball” in conducting the “war on terror” while Senator Kerry did not.

    This is not leadership on Kerry’s part. Rather, this is some couch potato watching his team on Sunday giving up a shutout on the last play of the game, only managing a 42-7 victory. Said potato cheers at the time, then bitches the next day that, had he only been coach, that last touchdown would’ve certainly been prevented by a sack. This would be GOP candidate Thomas Dewey in 1944 promising that, were he president instead of FDR, the Americans would’ve handled Kasserine Pass differently and better, brashly claiming on the campaign trail that he would have secured victory in the action and the disastrous battle was Roosevelt’s fault. Dewey didn’t do that, because it would have been a disgusting tactic in a wartime election. Then again, Kerry has never been one to be overly concerned with using disgusting tactics in his choice of words while American troops were still in the field.

  • Farewell, 49th Lone Star

    49th AD Lone StarEvery unit patch I wore on the left arm of my BDUs is now officially a memory.

    During my nine-year enlistment in the Army National Guard, I wore two unit patches on my BDUs (granted, it should’ve been three, but my time officially drilling as a member of the D.C. Guard was so brief I never received the Capitol Guardians patch). When I signed up in 1990, the Texas Guard had seven M60-A3 battalions, five in the 49th Lone Star Armored Division and two joined with the New Jersey Guard in the 50th AD. My unit, HHC 7/112th AR, was part of the 50th.

    In 1993, the Texas Guard upgraded to M1s but also, as part of the general post-Cold War reduction in force, was reduced to five battalions, all part of the 49th AD. My unit served temporarily as HHC 5/112 before becoming HHC 4/112 AR. Shortly after my return from D.C., I transferred to a line company to become a gunner on an old buddy’s tank. I served out the remainder of my time, including an extended enlistment, in D Co, 5/112 AR. I left the Guard in April 1999. Immediately after that year’s annual training period, D Co was done away with as part of an across-the-board restructuring of armored battalions. My last unit was no more.

    Now, albeit well past the actual occurence, I’ve recently found out that the 49th AD is also no more.

    “We are transforming our Army to better meet the demands of the 21st century,” said Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee. “Today’s re-flagging from the 49th Armored Division to the 36th Infantry Division is representative of these changes.”

    Brownlee and Texas Gov. Rick Perry attended the unit’s re-flagging ceremony, resulting in the National Guards’ loss of all armored divisions. The Guard Soldiers stood reverently as their commanders changed colors July 18 on Camp Mabry’s parade field in Austin, Texas.

    “Transformation is not new to our Army or the Texas National Guard,” said Maj. Gen. Michael H. Taylor, commander of the 36th Inf. Div. “We’ve transformed many times in the past 200 years, especially since World War II. Our job is to stand ready, leave our family and our jobs, augment the active forces to serve our nation. It’s what we do.”

    The 49th was organized after World War II. Since then, it has supported the Berlin crisis, operations in Bosnia, Operation Nobel Eagle and Operation Enduring Freedom.

    The 36th “Texas Division” was originally established at Camp Bowie, Fort Worth, Texas, prior to World War I with units formed from Texas and Oklahoma. The patch is a “T” in front of an arrowhead.

    “It is a patch worn by thousands before you who stood steadfast for freedom, who placed themselves in harms way for liberty and life,” said Perry.

    The 36th Soldiers fought in World War I and it was the first American combat division to land in Europe during World War II. The unit was deactivated in 1968 as part of the Department of the Army program to reduce the number of division-size units.

    “Tough days lie ahead,” Perry said. “The work of freedom is a tough duty. But we must keep our eyes on the goal and remember the reason that you set out.”

    By next year, about 4,000 36th Inf. Div. Soldiers will be in Iraq.

    “Places change, soldiering stays the same,” said Taylor.

    Yes, the 36th ID has a great and storied history. Yes, I may still go back and, if so, I’ll be proud to wear the patch of the 36th. Still, I’ll miss the 49th AD. Farewell, Lone Star.