Free Subscription! To receive future columns by e-mail
click here and sign up.
The content of Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review may be copied or retransmitted for information purposes, but may not be used for any commercial purpose without my written permission. Include this notice and credit the source as Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review by Fred Edwards.
May 27 2004 Memorial Day 2004 - Total War
Feb 19 2005 Iwo Jima: two flags, two symbols
Feb 23 2005 Iwo Jima: after Suribachi
Nov 04 2005 Aye, aye sir! -- Observations on the creation of the Marine Special Operations Command
Nov 09 2005 The odd couple: Military recruiters and gays battle for college campuses - and the armed forces
Nov 10 2005 U.S. Marine Corps History; an index
Nov 26 2005 Iraq "Exit Strategy" -- Let's put the war into perspective
Dec 06 2005 Army halts inactive callups: The glass is half full - or is it half empty?
Dec 13 2005 Here are the facts about our troops -- They are not your grandfather's army - ask any corporal, seaman or airman
Dec 21 2005 Hillary pulls a Hillary on the flag desecration issue
Dec 29 2005 One-time lump sum VA disability payments -- Would some veterans take their lumps?
Top | Home
Memorial Day 2004 -- Total War
by Fred Edwards
(The following is a transcript of a speech given on Memorial Day at the Largo Court of Honor in Florida.)
May 27, 2004 -- World War II involved both the home front and the military forces because it was a total war - because every man, woman and child was involved -- because the stakes were our home towns, our neighborhoods, our schools, our churches -- and our individual freedoms.
In a total war, survival drives strategy.
* So we bombed German cities to rubble.
* We destroyed Italian monasteries used by the fascists for observation posts.
* We fire-bombed Japanese cities to ashes.
* And we unleashed two atomic bombs that virtually disintegrated the Japanese complexes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Some historians may claim we could have taken other avenues.
* Perhaps they didn't see the Italian fascist invaders kill 275,000 Ethiopians when they invaded in 1935.
* Perhaps they didn't record the rape of Nanking in 1937 when Japanese invaders murdered 200,000 captured Chinese soldiers and civilians, raped and slaughtered 20,000 women and girls, and tossed babies onto bayoneted rifles.
* And perhaps they don't believe that the Nazis murdered and cremated more than 2-million human beings at death factories such as Dachau and Auschwitz.
But Americans who did believe felt that any means were necessary to keep such monsters from occupying their home towns. That is total war.
So we remain ever-thankful for the generation that kept such horror from our shores.
Our warriors ended the war with Unconditional Surrender by three far-right dictatorships -- in Italy, Germany and Japan. They kept us free.
Of course human history is a history of inhumanity -- a history of wars. And soon we found ourselves in another total war -- this one against a far left dictatorship - Communism -- which threatened to "bury" us. Fearful of nuclear attack, American families built and stocked fallout shelters, school children learned to scramble under their desks, and medical authorities studied how to treat casualties in the millions.
That Cold War spawned hot wars in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere.
Then a dictator named Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and we fought the first Gulf War to drive him back to Iraq.
Thus we arrive at today's war. It, too, is a total war because we learned on Sept. 11, 2001, that every man, woman and child in this country is a target. We have learned that no city, no neighborhood, no transportation network, and not even our mail, is safe. Most important, until the extremist Muslim jihadists have been subdued, our future is in terrible jeopardy. That jeopardy spreads to the millions of Muslims who disagree with the extremists.
We didn't ask for a total war; a group of religious radicals brought it to us. They want to destroy us.
* They want to destroy us because we believe that our government can operate only with our consent -- because we believe in the contract that we call our Constitution, whereby we tell those in government what they can and cannot do.
* They want to destroy us because we say that our leaders shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of our individual religion -- and that guarantee is in our Constitution.
* They want to destroy us because we believe in all the other freedoms that the Western World developed through the Age of Reason -- freedoms which also are guaranteed by the Constitution, and promised by our Declaration of Independence.
* They want to destroy us because they believe our freedom to think independently, to allow women to be human beings as equal as men, and to accumulate material comforts for ourselves and our families have made us decadent and weak.
* In short, they despise our way of life -- especially our insistence on separating religion from government. What we see as sexual freedom and equality of the sexes, they see as depravity. While we encourage scientific advancements, they fear them as threats to age-old religious dogma. To Islamic radicals, our society is corrupt and profane. We will never change their minds by offering the other cheek or turning over a new leaf.
So what must we do?
* We must understand that thousands of young Muslims have been, and are being indoctrinated in radical religious Madrasas.
* We must understand that many of them may be beyond the ability to comprehend the freedom that the Reformation and the Age of Reason brought to the Western World. * We must find those radicals, and kill them -- or confine them indefinitely.
* Kill them or confine them indefinitely? Yes. As Vice President Dick Chaney said on April 23, 2004: "Such an enemy cannot be deterred, cannot be contained, cannot be appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed."
* He added that to defeat these religious extremists we also must wage a war of ideas to win the allegiance of a new generation that needs to see that freedom is a vastly better choice than their hatred.
* So we are fighting another total war. Our troops are dying overseas once again. And this war will last a long, long time.
* As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on May 17, 2004: "The global war on terror, like the Cold War before it, will be the work of a generation."
* And we must be prepared for acts a thousand fold more horrible than the destruction of the Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11, a thousand fold more horrible.
* But we must also remember that very few Muslims are radicals.
* And for our salvation we must - we must - find a way to chop out the radicals and coexist in peace with the billions of moderates.
I'm confident we will succeed -- just like the 20th Century's greatest generation succeeded. We must, because there has never before been a country like ours that is free because its own people rationally decided how to govern themselves.
As Daniel Webster said, "We live under the only government that ever existed, which was formed by the deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would leave a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism."
Our veterans of many wars who have fallen -- and those who fought alongside them -- made sure this did not happen. Because of them we are free, we can be here today, of our own free will, and see our great flag flying, and pay them homage.
One thing we must never forget about those whom we honor today is that each one of them lived -- and died -- for something very sacred to those who wear the uniform. Each of them raised a right hand and said: I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I will obey the orders of the officers appointed over me, so help me God.
Because we're all in this new total war -- whether or not we signed up for it -- that oath applies in many respects to all of us.
Top | Home
Iwo Jima -- two flags, two symbols
by Fred Edwards
Feb. 19, 2005 -- On Feb. 23, 1945, The Marines and Navy men still alive greeted D-Day Plus Four on a barren island shaped like a dragon, with an extinct volcano for its head and a deep lava flow for its body. Black volcanic sand and rock covered the lava. The island spanned two miles wide and five and a half long. It was named Iwo Jima, but Marines and Navy men ashore called it Sulfur Island because of the smell. Four days earlier, 70,000 assault troops from the 3rd, 4th and 5th Marine Divisions had eaten traditional steak and eggs for breakfast. Then at H-Hour they had stormed ashore unopposed on a beach only 3,000 yards wide. The volcano, Mt. Suribachi, looked down their flank from the left. At H Plus One, Japanese enfilade artillery and machine gun fire had opened up and Hell began.
Iwo, 650 miles from Tokyo, belonged to the Tokyo prefecture. This made the mayor of Tokyo also the island's mayor. The Japanese believed that time began with the eruption of Mount Fujiyama, which created their home islands, including Iwo Jima. So Iwo was sacred. It had to be defended.
On the island, the Japanese had burrowed down under the rock as deeply as 40 feet. They had created 1,500 underground rooms, many of them electrified and ventilated, some with plaster walls. Sixteen miles of tunnels connected the fortifications. The 22,000 Japanese defenders had stocked more than five months of water and rations.
Iwo was athwart the American direct flight path to Japan, so its Japanese forces flashed early warning to Tokyo every time American bombers flew overhead. The island also maintained Japanese fighter aircraft that U.S. bombers had to face coming and going. It's seizure would provide an American refueling and casualty dropoff site. It had to be taken.
So it's D-Plus Four, February 23, 1945. The Americans have suffered 4,574 casualties during the 1,000-yard advance to sever the dragon's head and isolate Suribachi. Suddenly the volcano, surrounded by members of the 2nd Bn, 28th Marines, under the command of Lt. Col. Chandler Johnson, goes quiet.
Johnson orders a 40-man patrol up the mountain, and hands 1st Lt. George Schrier a 54-by-26-inch American flag he had brought ashore from the USS Missoula. He instructs Schrier, "If you get to the top, put it up."
For 40 minutes, thousands of men ashore and afloat watch the patrol snake up Suribachi, expecting hell to break loose again. But hundreds of Japanese inside the mountain have created their own hell, grasping grenades to their stomachs and pulling the pins. So the patrol claws its way to the top without a shot fired above ground.
They fix the flag to an abandoned piece of drain pipe and prop up the post with rocks and stays made from communications wire. Cheers erupt from the beaches and the hinterland. Dozens of ships lying off the beach blow their whistles and sound their horns. Staff Sergeant Louis Lowery, a photographer for Leatherneck Magazine, takes posed "gung ho" shots.
In seconds, this victory flag has become a powerful symbol of a successful milestone for the warriors fighting for Iwo Jima. So powerful that Navy Secretary James Forrestal, who has just come ashore, decides he wants it as a souvenir.
Colonel Johnson, the battalion commander, tells his assistant operations officer, Lt. Ted Tuttle, that his battalion took Suribachi and his battalion is going to keep the flag. He dispatches the lieutenant to the beach for a replacement big enough to impress Secretary Forrestal. Tuttle returns with an 8-foot by 4 1/2-foot flag from LST-779 that originally had belonged to a ship that sank on Dec. 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor.
Johnson hands the replacement flag to Pfc. Rene Gagnon and tells him that Lt. Schrier, at the summit, is to switch flags. Sgt. Mike Strank, Gagnon's squad leader from the 2nd Platoon of Easy Company, tells Gagnon and three more of his men, Pfc. Ira H. Hayes, Pfc. Franklin R. Sousley, and Cpl. Harlon H. Block: "Colonel Johnson wants this big flag run up high, so every son of a bitch on this whole cruddy island can see it." They climb the mountain, accompanied by a short AP photographer named Joe Rosenthal.
They rig the replacement flag on a larger drain pipe than the first, and will raise it before lowering the victory flag. As they move forward with the 100-pound pipe, a Navy corpsman, Pharmacist's Mate 2nd Class John H. Bradley, carrying an armful of replacement bandages, drops the bandages in order to pitch in to help.
Little notice is paid to the flag switch. Photographer Rosenthal, standing just off the crest, piles up some rocks to stand on and barely finds time to snap off a single shot.
Rosenthal then poses another "gung-ho" shot of 18 men in front of the flag. He won't know he already has taken the photo of the century until long after his roll of film has been developed and printed back on Guam, and plastered over newspapers throughout the States.
The replacement flag, left to fly until it was shredded by the wind, became a powerful symbol for all the Americans at home. It symbolized that the war in the Pacific, which had begun so ignominiously, was being won. The memorial to that second flag raising remains to this day in Washington. It contains the words spoken by Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz to the fighting men on Iwo Jima: "Uncommon Valor was a Common Virtue."
Top | Home
Iwo Jima: after Suribachi
by Fred Edwards
Feb. 23, 2005 -- By the day of the two flag raisings on Iwo Jima, Feb. 23, 1945, Americans had suffered 4,574 casualties on the island. But Mt. Suribachi, the extinct volcano on the left flank of the assault beaches was only the head of the dragon. The body stretched over the hinterland like a nightmare of fire and steel. The battle was only beginning, and would last four more weeks. By the time it was over, Marines and Navy men would suffer 26,000 casualties, including 7,000 dead.
Of the 18 men who posed for what Marines call a "gung-ho" shot that became the first flag picture,14 would become casualties.
Of the six who raised the second flag - a scene depicted in the Marine Memorial in Washington - Sgt. Strank's chest was blown out six days later on March 1. That same evening his replacement, Cpl. Block, would be blown to pieces. Two days later, Lt. Col. Johnson, who had returned the first flag to his safe, was blown to bits. On March 21, while the Marines and Navy men were reboarding transport ships, Pfc. Sousley, exhausted from more than a month of constant combat, wandered onto an unsafe road, and was killed by a sniper.
But the press - and the public - had their symbol. And the second symbol was just beginning its campaign.
War expenses were off-budget, and war bonds were the chief mechanism for financing. Six drives had been completed. With the war in Europe ending, many Americans didn't realize that they hadn't even started loaning money and giving sons.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, FDR, needed money for what was planned to be the largest and costliest operation in the annals of warfare: 1.5 million combat troops would be committed to the initial assault waves against the Japanese home islands, with reserves bringing the total to 4.5 million. In addition to paying for training, transportation, weaponry and supplies, the country would have to pay the cost of bringing 1 million of the 4.5 million Americans home as casualties. The goal of the Seventh Bond Tour was $14 billion. This amounted to $100 per man, woman and child, when the average annual family income was $1,700, a four-year Harvard education cost a thousand dollars, and a hotel room in New York was three dollars.
With this in mind, on March 16, an editor telegrammed FDR, recommending that the flag-raisers be brought home for the Seventh Bond Tour. Roosevelt went for the idea and sent secret orders to bring them back. Spearheading the drive would be the three surviving flag raisers, three grieving Gold Star Mothers, and the Symbol.
The goal was $14 billion. The Symbol brought in $26.3 billion.
And then we dropped two atomic bombs
5. Postscript - the cold, stark numbers.
The Japanese military command had indoctrinated its conscripts that dying for the emperor would make them Samurai, although they could never really hope to enter the Samurai caste. So, Lt. Gen. Tadamichi Kuribayashi had ordered his 22,000 men to defend to the death. Each Japanese had a duty of killing 10 Americans before he died. The Japanese military command hoped this kill ratio would force the Americans into a negotiated peace, rather than attempt an invasion of the home islands.
Almost all the 22,000 Japanese died, and the Americans took 26,000 casualties. But that only included some 7,000 dead. Kuribayashi wanted 10-to-1 in his favor, but got 1-to-3 against. He failed.
In comparison, in the Ia Drang battle in Vietnam, 12 North Vietnamese were killed for every 1 American. The Americans thought such numbers would win them the war, thus the body count concept. North Vietnamese Gen. Giap bet he could feed 12 young North Vietnamese into the war for every American killed, until the American public would no longer stomach their own casualties. Giap won.
After the Iwo Jima battle, some 2,400 distressed B-29 bombers, carrying 27,000 crewman, made emergency lifesaving landings on the island. So three American airmen probably were saved for every Marine and Navy man killed.
Regardless of the bean counters, America had two symbols from two flag raisings.
The first symbol was for the combatants who eventually took Iwo. They thought, "We took Suribachi, now let's get on with the rest of it and take the island." And they did.
The second symbol was for the folks back home. "We're winning. We're planting the flag in the emperor's backyard. Now let's get on with the rest of it." And they did.
The second symbol remains with us today at the Marine Memorial in Washington. It's one of the most famous symbols in American history.
Top | Home
Aye, Aye, Sir!
Observations on the creation of the Marine Special Operations Command
By Fred Edwards
Nov. 4, 2005 -- "Aye, aye, sir." All Marines know this is the only answer a Marine can make to an order. You first answer, Aye, aye, sir," then figure out how to comply. And it's been that way ever since Marines conducted the first American amphibious raid at Nassau in the Bahamas on March 3, 1776. That raiding force of 200 Marines and 50 sailors, led by Captain Samuel Nicholas, had a classic special-operations mission - to seize a store of arms and powder and transport it to the continental United States, which they did. Is this going to be a lesson in Marine Corps history? Nope. It's just a way to suggest that the upcoming assignment of the Marine Special Operations Command (MSOC) to U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) may be a historic event, but it doesn't mean that Marines are doing a radical makeover. For example, the basic deployable Marine unit, a 2,200 member amphibious Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEU), has been "special operations capable" (SOC) since the 80s. Although the Corps will lose about 2,600 special ops Marines to MSOC, Marine officials say they will alternate between assignments to MSOC and the MEUs. This would promote three efficiencies: First, the Marines reporting for a MEU (SOC) deployment would not be green troops. Second, by returning to a MEU (SOC), they remain steeped in the basics of being a Marine, which is projection of power from the sea. And third, by rotating into MEU (SOC)s, these highly trained warriors could ply their skills for most of their careers without fear of being treated askance by their fellow Marines. Askance? Consider five Marine special ops battalions of World War II. Organized in January 1942, the four raider battalions and the 1st Parachute Battalion did a magnificent job in the Pacific for almost two years. Here's what published Marine records show: * Aug. 17, 1942. Lt. Col. Evans F. Carlson's 2nd Raider Battalion of 221 men raided Japanese-held Makin atoll in the Gilberts and tore up Japanese who thought they were in a safe rear area. Carlson received a Navy Cross. * Aug. 7, 1942. While other Marines were landing on Guadalcanal, Lt. Col. Red Mike Edson's 1st Raider Battalion taught the Japanese on Tulagi that they were far from invincible. * Sept. 12-14, 1942. The 1st Raider Battalion along with elements of the 1st Parachute Battalion held Edson's Ridge on Guadalcanal during a night of vicious hand-to-hand -fighting. Among the many decorated for heroism was Edson, who received a Medal of Honor. * June 21-22, 1943. Lt. Col. Michael S. Currin's 4th Raider Battalion showed the enemy in New Georgia just how deadly raiders could be. * And on Nov. 1, the 2nd and 3rd Raider Battalions under Lieutenant Colonels Joseph S. McCaffery and Fred S. Beans joined other Marine and Army units to slog through Bougainville and cut down the enemy at every step. Hardly more than two months later the raider battalions and the paratroop battalion were wiped out. What happened? Dedicated Marines on both sides had fought behind the scenes over whether to retain the raiders and the paratroop battalion. The theme of the winners was twofold: All Marines are elite, so none can be more elite than others, and all Marines are riflemen, whether or not they jump out of airplanes or conduct special ops missions. (At the same time the Marine Corps abolished shoulder patches for the same reasons.) So the Commandant of the Marine Corps ordered the raiders and paratroopers to become infantry units in the re-established 4th Marine Regiment that had been lost in the Philippines in 1942. The response of the raiders and their supporters? "Aye, aye, sir." Fast forward some 60 years. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pressures the Marine Corps to provide a contingent to SOCOM. In June 2003, the Corps forms Detachment 1 at Camp Pendleton. This 86-man unit trains at Coronado Naval Amphibious Base. It deploys to Iraq in April 2004 for a combat trial under the provisional command of the unified U.S. Special Operations Command. And today? A 2,600-member Marine Special Operations Command, to be led initially by Marine Brig. Gen. Dannis J. Hejlik, will report to SOCOM. Will this make Gen. Hejlik's Marines any more elite than other Marines? No. All Marines are elite. And they all answer, "Aye, aye, sir."
Top | Home
The odd couple
Military recruiters and gays battle for college campuses - and the armed forces
by Fred Edwards
Nov. 9, 2005 -- We hear bleating complaints that our magnificent military force is becoming increasingly alienated from society at large. These worriers register concern that the percentage of Republican service members - or at least conservative-prone members - is dangerously high in the armed forces. They conclude that "the military is just not like us."
You betcha they're not, and the carpers should be happy they aren't. George Orwell said it best: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." An operative phrase here is "on their behalf." These rough folks are working for us, no matter how different some segments of our society may be.
Disturbing our sleep, however, are 31 law schools, amalgamated under the cloak of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR). This group that filed a law suit Sept. 2003 to block enforcement of the 1996 Solomon Amendment. They lost a round in federal district court in New Jersey in Sept. 2003, but that didn't end it.
On the surface, the issue seems straightforward. The Solomon Amendment, as amended and interpreted, bars the federal government from handing money to colleges and universities that obstruct on-campus recruiting by the military. Until the New Jersey court's ruling, the law has prohibited disbursements to all parts of a university if any one of its units obstructs military recruiting in any way.
So what gives here? The FAIR group claims the Solomon Amendment is inconsistent with their constitutional right to free speech. They say they should be free to shun a policy they consider discriminatory.
The military is discriminatory? On campus?
Yes, according to FAIR. The interpretation of the Solomon Amendment conflicts with most law schools' policies that forbid discrimination that withholds career placement services from employers who exclude employees on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Read "The military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.
Got it? They're saying, "If you discriminate against gays, we have the right to refuse to let you recruit in our law schools."
On Nov. 29, 2004, the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit granted FAIR an injunction against enforcement of the amendment, saying it "requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this freedom." Thus the court gave educational institutions a First Amendment right to bar recruiters without losing federal money.
On May 2, 2005, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case of Rumsfeld v. FAIR, No. 04-1152, which was filed to overturn the circuit court's ruling.
Here's what Bill Carr, principal Defense Department deputy for military personnel policy says: "The Solomon Amendment establishes that for military recruiting, which is an important public function, to be done, the schools have to provide (the Defense Department) at least the level of cooperation that they give to other employers. That's a reasonable quid pro quo, and federal funding being contingent on that seems reasonable, as well."
What Carr didn't say was that, if the FAIR group prevails, this will further estrange today's military from its civilian counterparts, at least from those of the Ivy League and other schools of similar persuasion. Furthermore, if the military is not allowed to recruit on a campus, it would be unfair to any student there who might have been suited for a career as a military officer, and who might have signed up, but who lost the chance to talk to a military recruiter about what it means to be an officer.
And, by excluding college students from the recruiting pool, this FAIR group certainly will be able to say of the officer corps, "They're just not like us." How right, uhh left, they'll be.
It would appear that this group must want more than just to restrict military recruiting on campus. Indeed. They want to force homosexuals and lesbians on the military. Perhaps they also want soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to be "just like" them. Or maybe they simply want to weaken our warrior force.
Oral arguments on the issue are scheduled for Dec. 6 before the Supreme Court and a decision is expected by July 2006.
Top | Home
U.S. Marine Corps History -- an index
by Fred Edwards
Nov. 10, 2005 (the Marine Corps birthday) -- On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress in Philadelphia authorized two battalions of Continental Marines, a date which Marines celebrate as the birthday of the Corps.
The first Friday night Happy Hour took place that night in nearby Tun Tavern. Owner Robert Mullan was commissioned a captain and became the first recruiting officer.
Samuel Nicholas, owner of another tavern, also was commissioned a captain, and became the Marines' first commandant.
On March 3, 1776, in the nation's first amphibious operation, Capt Nicholas and 268 Marines stormed British forts on New Providence Island in the Bahamas. They captured cannons and 600 barrels of gunpowder for use by the Colonial Army .
On July 11, 1798, John Adams signed an act creating the U.S. Marine Corps. This is the date that was later written into law to establish protocol precedence for parades and for placement of the colors - American, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and NOAA.
During the war of 1801-1805 against pirates operating out of Tripoli, Lt. Presley N. O'Bannon and five other Marines, marched a group of 400 Greeks and Arabs from Alexandria 600 miles across the Sahara to attack the Barbary pirates' fortress from the rear. On April 27, 1805, the Stars and Stripes were hoisted for the first time in the Old World, at Derna, Tripoli, by O'Bannon. From this operation comes the line in the Marines' Hymn: "To the shores of Tripoli."
In Mexico City on September 13, 1847, Marines helped seize the fortress of Chapultepec and occupied the National Palace on the site of the Halls of the Montezumas. The Bloody Battle of Chapultepec brought forth the line of the Marines Hymn - "From the Halls of Montezuma."
In 1918, during World War I, the 4th Marine Brigade mounted out for France and fought at Belleau Wood, Soissons, St. Mihel, Blanc Mont, and the Meuse?Argonne, earning two awards of the French Croix de Guerre.
The Germans also bestowed an award on the Marines. They called them the "Teufelhunden" meaning "fierce fighting dogs of legendary origin." In short - "Devil Dogs."
During World War II, a total of six Marine Divisions took turns assaulting Guadalcanal, Bouganville, Tarawa, New Britain, Kwajalein, Enewetok, Saipan, Guam, Tinian, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
During 1950-53, the 1st Marine Division fought in the Korean War. At one point, surrounded by eight Chinese divisions, Col. Chesty Puller proclaimed, "Now we've got them where we want them; they can't get away." As the Marines fought their way out of the Chosin Reservoir, all eight Chinese divisions ceased to exist as effective fighting forces.
In Vietnam, III Marine Amphibious Force, consisting of three Marine divisions and an air wing, fought in the I Corps sector of northern South Vietnam. The last American killed in that long war was a Marine, during the North Vietnamese assault on Saigon and the extraction of thousands of Americans and South Vietnamese by Marine helicopters. The last helicopter that lifted off from the American embassy in 1975, shortly before the North Vietnames stormed into the compound, was filled with Marine defenders who had stayed until the last.
In the Persian Gulf war, the I Marine Expeditionary Force attacked through its assigned sector, retook Kuwait City, and made an amphibious feint to tie down Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard while Army and coalition forces executed a classic turning movement from the west.
In the Iraq war, I Marine Expeditionary Force, including two divisions, an air wing and a separate task force, attacked through its assigned sector, with the First Marine Division taking eastern Baghdad, and one of its task forces moving on to occupy Tikrit.
Today, Marines are deployed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of these warriors are on their third combat tour in the war against Islamic Fascism, and can see a fourth on the horizon.
Top | Home
Iraq "Exit Strategy"Let's put the war into perspective
by Fred Edwards
Nov. 26, 2005 -- Some of the media have been telling us ad infinitum that support for the war in Iraq is getting thinner, that we have no goal and we have no "exit strategy." Look at this blaring headline in the editorial section of my local newspaper on Nov. 25, 2005: "War weary nation. With support for the Iraq war waning and our goal there unclear, it's time for the administration to start planning to reduce our troops' presence."
Does the editorialist claim we are war weary because of the financial costs of the war? Let's put that into perspective by examining the Gross National Product (GNP). Retired Navy Vice Adm. Norbert R. Ryan Jr. laid out a GNP graph at the annual meeting of the Military Officers Association of America in San Antonio Nov. 18, 2005. Ryan, MOAA president, showed that, since the end of World War II, military expenditures have averaged 5.7 percent of the GNP in peacetime - and in 2005 while we are fighting two wars, the GDP is barely scratching 2.7 percent.
In fact, the nation is not war weary because the "nation" is not fighting a war. Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia said it succinctly: "The nation is not at war; our military is at war." That means just 1 percent of the population is fighting the war. Yes, those valiant service members are war-weary, but I have yet to talk with one veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan who doesn't speak proudly of what the U.S. is achieving, and who doesn't offer personal experiences to show progress.
During a luncheon meeting on Nov. 19, 2005, Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, commander of the Army's III Corps and Fort Hood, strode from table to table, laying out the facts about his experiences when he was commanding the Multinational Corps in Iraq some eight months earlier.
Although the troops -- some of whom were on their second and third combat tours - undoubtedly must have been war weary, the general repeatedly proclaimed that "our troops are wonderful young men and women," and emphasized that he could depend upon them to accomplish any mission he assigned.
Much of their motivation comes from the enemy, which he characterized as "brutal, ugly, despicable thugs." In an understatement, he added that they "are not popular." But do we have a goal? You bet, says Metz. He looks for a 60 percent effort of Iraqi troops and security personnel as more than satisfactory to replace a 100 percent coalition effort, and that's the goal. It's nation building along all lines of operation - military, security government, public works and health. And being part of that nation building is the second motivator for our troops.
Gen. Metz's "60 percent effort" equates to statements by officials in Iraq that U.S. and coalition forces from other countries can draw down when enough Iraqi units reach a readiness level of two, on a scale of one to four, with one as 100 percent. An Iraqi unit at level two can execute military operations and control local battle space if it has U.S. military support for logistics, intelligence and transportation. Thus our "exit strategy" is underway and has been for months.
Some 40 of the roughly 120 trained Iraqi Army battalions are conducting operations at level two, said Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who led the training effort in Iraq until earlier this year. (The readiness of most police units has not yet reached that of the Iraqi Army.)
Gen. Metz said we are living in a time as dangerous as World War II. "These thugs want to move us back, take us down. They want to go back 2,000 years." He warned that we must move the Islamic world into the 21st Century or we'll be looking at a second Dark Age.
He concluded: "Do we have the will to win?"
He received a standing ovation.
And that's the compelling question for nay sayers like the editorialist I mentioned in the beginning. They revel in terms like "war weary," and "unclear goal." Do they have the will to win?
Top | Home
Army Halts Inactive Callups
The Glass is half full - or is it half empty?
by Fred Edwards
Dec. 6, 2005 -- In June 2004, the Army called 6,535 members of the 115,000 soldiers in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to active duty. These soldiers had completed their required years of duty either in an active component or in the Selected Reserve - normally from three to six years. The enlisted members, however, remain in the IRR until they complete eight years of total service. Officers normally stay in the IRR longer unless they resign their commissions.
Was the callup legal? You bet. Under section 12304 of Title 10, US Code, the President has the authority to activate up to 200,000 members of the Selected Reserve and the IRR, with up to 30,000 coming from the IRR, for up to 270 days for any operational mission.
The problem with the callup was that many IRR soldiers never expected to be called up. Perhaps they thought they were civilians. They had civilian jobs and businesses. Many had lost their military physical fitness. Some had family responsibilities more stressful than they would have taken on during their earlier military years. Maybe most of them felt they had paid their dues.
But the Army thought of them as well-trained soldiers available for further duty when needed. And about half of them - 3,300 -- answered their country's call.
Another 1,450 received exemptions for medical and personal reasons, and 400 who were supposed to report by October can't even be found. Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey says poor records management is to blame for the latter, which will be corrected. (The numbers don't balance because the callup apparently is still underway.)
Although officials said last year they expected to dip into the IRR again in 2005, Harvey said the Army will cancel further call-ups beyond the 6,500 level. The Army also announced it would stop involuntarily activating some of the 15,000 officers who have already completed their eight years of required military duty but have not resigned their commissions. They now will have the chance to resign.
Those without exemptions who fail to report can be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but the Army appears reluctant to do that.
So 3,300 amounts to just about 50 percent of 6,535. If more report for duty, the percentage would be higher, but the problem glares at us from inside a half-full - or half-empty glass. Can our country count on 115,000 soldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve, or do we have only 57,500?
Top | Home
Here are the facts about our troops
They are not your grandfather's army - ask any corporal, seaman or airmanby Fred Edwards
Dec. 13, 2005 -- The next time you hear that our military service members came from a second-rate segment of American society, pay careful attention to the belly-acher's source. It just ain't true. Bill Carr, the top Defense Department official overseeing military personnel policy, states flatly that the idea that men and women entering the service today are less educated, less affluent or less likely than other 18- to 24-year-olds to have alternatives to military service is just plain bunk. He collected statistics showing that new recruits are head and shoulders above their civilian contemporaries, and he says: "They are so clearly a cut above America." They are not the dunces that some media would have them be. They are shrewd young people, filled with a combination of volunteerism and commitment to service that prompts them to enlist. Here are five often-quoted myths, each debunked by Carr's facts: Myth 1 - Today's recruits are less educated than other young Americans. The facts - They are far better educated than their civilian peers. More than 90 percent have a high school diploma, compared to about 75 percent of the U.S. youth population. This means that 70 percent of them will complete a three-year enlistment versus 50 percent of non-graduates. Myth 2 - The military attracts people with lower aptitudes. The facts: Recruits have much higher average aptitudes than their civilian contemporaries. In fiscal 2005, 67 percent of them scored above the 60th percentile on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, against a 50 percent scoring for the average young person. And every year since 1985, 60 percent of new enlistees have scored at or above the 50th percentile. They are the source of today's noncommissioned officers Myth 3 - The military attracts a larger percentage of poor or underprivileged youth. The facts: Military recruits are solidly from the middle class rather than from either the poorer or wealthier strata. Myth 4 - A disproportionate number of recruits come from urban areas. The facts: Inner cities are actually the most underrepresented area among new recruits. The suburban and rural areas are overrepresented. Myth 5 - The military does not geographically represent America. The facts: The southern United States generates 41 percent of the recruits from a youth population of 36 percent. Twenty-four percent of recruits come from north-central regions, which have 23 percent of the youth population. The west, with 24 percent of the nation's youth, contributes 21 percent of the new enlistees. And the northeast, with 18 percent of the youth population, provides 14 percent of new recruits. Now let's put these facts together with a most important statistic. Today's recruits are filling the ranks of an Armed Force of 1 percent of the population of the United States that is taking 100 percent of the war to the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they're good at their profession. Ask any corporal, seaman or airman to tell you about their comrades in arms. Or better yet, ask any Islamic Fascist who has faced them.
Top | Home
Hillary pulls a Hillary on the flag desecration issue
by Fred Edwards
Dec. 21, 2005 -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has gone from left to right on the issue of flag desecration - or has she? From the left side of her mouth, she said she opposed a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. From the right side she announced she had co-sponsored along with Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, a bill that, at first glance, would appear she changed her mind. But we must remember; this is Hillary. Her legislation might impress some of the majority of Americans who want to protect their flag from desecration in public. According to the proposal, an offender who burns an American flag and knows the act is "likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace" would be socked with up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine. But the proposed act doesn't square with the 1989 Supreme Court ruling, in Texas v. Johnson, that flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment. And it ignores that, when the consequent Flag Protection Act of 1989 became law, the Court decreed, in Eichman v. US, that the law was unconstitutional. In short, no law to protect the flag from desecration has withstood judicial review since the original Supreme Court decision. At first glance it might appear that she was simply pandering to the right. If so, it failed to work with either the right or the left. One liberal newspaper in fact said she's in "pander mode." Another called her action a "pathetic ploy." From the right, American Legion commander Thomas L. Bock said the only effective use of the statute has been by those who - like Sen. Clinton - want to evade the amendment, but give the constituents the impression they are doing something to protect the flag. But there's more to this story. Let's say her (and Sen. Bennett's) Flag Protection Act of 2005 becomes law. It most surely will go to the Supreme Court where it will be struck down like all the others. And she can say, "American Legionnaires (who have led the fight for a constitutional flag protection amendment since the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling), I love my flag as much as you do. I did my best to protect it, but I failed." Presto, she has become an instant champion of flag protection. Here's another aspect to the story. If she can shift the pro-amendment sentiment toward her bill, and it passes and is struck down, this will once again forestall solid constitutional protection that would be guaranteed by an amendment. Of course many believe that to remove First Amendment protection from those who desecrate the flag would place us onto a slippery slope. "What would be the next constitutional amendment?" they ask. Would the ultimate amendment be crafted to prevent people from, say, snoring? Supporters of a flag amendment, as do most Americans, believe the flag is a sacred object. They revere the national anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner." Combat veterans treat the flag as a symbol of support and victory over loneliness, fear, despair, hunger, thirst, exhaustion, pain, torture, and bloody death. But there is nothing either sacred or sacrilegious about snoring. Who besides an angry spouse or two kept awake by snoring would want an anti-snoring amendment? So perhaps this so-called "slippery slope" should be re-named "one step at a time," with each possible amendment being considered fully on its merits, as Americans have done ever since the Constitution was approved. If the people want an amendment, the Senate should join the House and get started. It's a safe process because our founders built ample safeguards into it. It takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate to propose an amendment, but that's only the beginning. The proposal then must be ratified by three-quarters of the states, either by their legislatures or by conventions. If such an amendment should ultimately be ratified, that certainly would not be the tyranny of the majority that Robert's Rules describes. Nobody knows whether the required number of states would ever ratify such an amendment. Nevertheless, many people and organizations insist that the voters - or at least the states -- should be given the chance. We know how fervently the American Legion feels about this. In another example, the Military Officers Association of America has resolved that such an amendment should be approved by both houses and sent to the states, so the people can decide. MOAA members have approved that resolution by over 90% in 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004. Now here's the kicker. Even if the states ratify an amendment, the process still would not be complete, because the proposal would do nothing more than give Congress the authority to pass actual anti-desecration laws. My, my, think of the fate of an amendment against snoring! Perhaps the small, hard-liner First Amendment group in the Senate simply doesn't trust Americans to be sophisticated enough to get a chance to vote on this issue. If so, Sen. Clinton is leading the pack by her "pathetic ploy."
Top | Home
One-time lump sum VA disability payments
Would some veterans take their lumps? by Fred Edwards
Dec. 29, 2005 -- In 1996, the Veterans' Claims Adjudication Commission suggested that the Department of Veterans Affairs switch to a one-time lump-sum payment to veterans with disabilities rated at 30 percent or less. This would replace monthly payments to the lesser disabled vets. The commission asserted that a one-time payment would reduce the processing backlog caused by veterans making repeated claims in attempts to raise their ratings. Although the idea didn't fly in 1996, it resurfaced in 2005. The numbers involved fit. Cynthia Bascetta from the Government Accountability Office told the House Veterans Affairs Committee in December 2005 that some 65 percent of VA disability ratings come in at 30 percent or less, so that's the obvious place to look for processing relief. She also quoted a survey taken in 2000 that disclosed about a third of vets recently rated with disabilities might opt for a one-time payment in lieu of monthly disability checks. Bascetta added that a lump-sum payment might help some veterans make the transition from military life to civilian life, but she suggested that the veterans should have a choice between a lump sum or monthly checks. If the goal is to reduce processing time, would the option be fair to veterans? If, say, a male veteran of a certain age and medical condition is expected to live for 25 more years, his choice, at first glance, might be $400 a month for 25 years or $120,000 in a lump sum. At second glance, however, the present value of his future income will be affected not only by inflation but also by changes in interest rates. Forecasting those two factors can easily take us into dreamland. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Congress wouldn't place a lower value on the lump-sum payment simply to save money. Thus the veteran might find that a financial tradeoff wouldn't be fair on a dollar-for-dollar basis. On the other hand, if the veteran in this example should die the day after receiving the lump sum, the survivor would benefit. Altogether, it seems logical that the only benefit the veteran would receive from a lump-sum payment would be instant money of some amount for whatever purpose it might be needed. In addition, such a system comes with dangers that would have to be overcome. American Legion spokesman Donald Mooney provided the House Veterans' Affairs Committee with examples. If a one-time settlement is final, for example, then a veteran whose service-connected condition later deteriorates would be ineligible for an increase, although a peer drawing monthly disability checks would see the payments rise. Or if the veteran should die later of service-connected causes, a surviving spouse could be left with nothing, while fellow survivors are drawing monthly benefits. With that in mind, if Congress should write a lump-sum bill, perhaps it should give spouses a veto choice over the military member's decision for a lump-sum payment at the get go. And it's important to remember that the VA historically has assigned inaccurate disability ratings that it later has had to correct. If this should happen to our hypothetical veteran, the machinery should be built in for a monetary readjustment, or perhaps even a change in option. Congress should be prepared for other, unforeseen, problems, so it should move very carefully, if at all, before implementing this major change in veterans' disability benefits. A better move would be to let the 13-member Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission take up the issue. That body is charged with reviewing the entire VA disability system, with emphasis on the lower-rated disabilities. It's report is due Aug. 2006, but that date could slip. If it is delayed because of the lump-sum issue, so much the better. Any decision about future veterans benefits must first be given every bit of study it requires. And if any doubt remains about instituting a one-time lump-sum option, the answer should be "no," and it should be given the same treatment it got in 1996. Our veterans of the war against the Islamic fascists deserve no less.
|