In The Nation's Service
The reconnaissance planes, called Bird Dogs, which we Army pilots flew in the 220th Aviation Company in Vietnam, had no armor plate, not even on the seats. The fuel tanks were neither self-sealing nor fire retardant. Bullets sliced through the one-sixteenth-of-an-inch aluminum skin like tissue paper. Our radio call sign was “Cat Killer,” and we were always looking for kills. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong called us “The old women” because they said we were always talking to the ground commanders and telling them all that we saw.
The Standard operating procedure when covering a military operation was to deploy two aircraft at a time. The low plane, flying about a thousand feet above the ground, was directly involved in the military action taking place on the ground below. The pilot and his observer acted as extra eyes and ears for the ground commanders. They checked out possible enemy locations, looked for signs of ambushes, roadblocks or other enemy activity, adjusted naval gunfire on the enemy, and acted as the liaison between widely separated ground units.
The high flying wingman monitored the general development of the battle while always keeping the low plane in sight. If the low plane was shot down, the high plane took over the mission. It was a dangerous, demanding job that jangled nerves and drained the flight crews of energy, stamina, and good judgment. There were mental and emotional limits as to how many such missions pilots could fly in a given period of time. Part of my job was to decide when a pilot had crossed the line and to ground him for several days, until he had fully recovered. Of course the pilots all thought of themselves as a member of Superman’s family, so some time it took quite a bit of effort to get a pilot to agree to be grounded.
And then there were special cases. One of my older pilots awoke each morning with the shakes. They were so bad that he had to steady his coffee cup with both hands before he could drink from it. At the mess hall the other pilots and crew chiefs averted their eyes pretending not to see the struggle he was going through.
During the ride out to the flight line and through the preflight inspection of the aircraft his shakes kept getting worse. Finally, it was time to mount up and strap in to his Bird Dog. Somewhere between engine start and the take-off roll his shakes would suddenly stop. For the rest of the day his hands were as steady as my best pilots, of which he was one. He flew longer, lower and more dangerous missions than any pilot I had. Of course the next morning he awoke to the shakes again and had to go through the process of gaining control all over again.
One day near Dong Ha, just south of the Demilitarized Zone, while I was flying low ship and my wing man was covering me from high up
suddenly radioed, “My aircraft’s been hit … the Vietnamese observer in the back seat’s dead!” The observer was a bilingual Vietnamese officer whose job it was to communicate with Vietnamese units on the ground.
“You mean he’s been wounded,” I corrected.
“No, Sir, he’s dead ... Dong Ha is only a few minutes south of here. It’s got a short, dirt airstrip. Let’s rendezvous there?”
“Roger that. I’ll see you on the ground and I’ll radio ahead and have someone meet us.”
By the time I shut off the engine and climbed down from the cockpit, my wingman had already dismounted and was waiting for me.
Physically Vietnamese are slightly built. They have little bone or muscle mass to absorb the impact of or to deflect bullets and shrapnel. A single machinegun bullet had struck the officer’s left arm about halfway between the shoulder and elbow. It had drilled a trench straight across the chest cavity, ripping apart the heart and other organs and had exited through the right shoulder. His chest split open like a ripe melon and bits of bone and tissue were splattered against the back of the pilot’s seat and all over the observer’s compartment.
Just then a U.S. Signal Corps major and a sergeant drove up in a military pickup truck. We grimly greeted each other. The other Cat Killer took the dead officer’s feet and I grabbed his shoulders and we carefully laid him in the back of the pickup.
Then I took a clipboard and scraped the gore from the back of the pilot’s seat and passenger compartment. Using a handkerchief and a canteen of water we cleaned up more of the mess, but the smell of the blood and gore would not go away, probably not until the compartment was hosed down with water and disinfectant. Right then we didn’t have time for those amenities.
The major spread a rubberized poncho over the back seat, heaved his considerable bulk in on top of it and strapped himself into the seat. “I’m ready to go if you are,” he said, “and I speak Vietnamese.” He stayed with us doing interpreter and observer duty for the remainder of the day. We couldn’t have completed the mission without him.
In the press of things, it’s easy to forget that bravery is not limited to combat arms officers who are trained in skills like the Airborne, Rangers or Special Forces. Here was an American Signal Corps major who was volunteering to replace a South Vietnamese Lieutenant under the most dangerous of circumstances. No one expected a signal officer to engage in a direct combat mission. He could have easily gone back to his headquarters and let the system provide a combat arms replacement.
This is what makes the American military so special. All over the world I have witnessed this same spirit in all the branches of our armed forces. Our troops are always willing to go the extra step, to voluntarily make the unexpected sacrifice, to get the job done right and on time no matter what the cost. This is what it means to be an American fighting man.
* * * * *
Our armed forces exist as an instrument of the people which support and sustain our nation’s foreign policy and guarantee our freedom. It is the responsibility of every generation to prepare a better world for the generations following. There will be a tomorrow and the United States of America will continue to lead the civilized world toward the sun light of freedom.
“Winning at home and abroad is part of fighting. To fight and not to win is to fight to “no purpose.” The mission of the military is to train, equip and sustain disciplined units that are able to mobilize, deploy, fight and win, to field a fighting force that is both effective and affordable.
At the birth of our nation nearly two hundred and fifty years ago our forefathers fought for liberty and freedom. Since that time we have often had to reaffirm, on the field of battle, our intention and determination to remain, at all costs, the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” Today we find that the roots of America’s “tree of liberty” are still watered by the blood of its patriots, and that all is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world, is for enough good men to do nothing.
Often I’ve been asked how a military man like me, with a degree from seminary, could engage in as much warfare as I have done. The answer is that I see no conflict of interest. It is my faith in God and in this great nation that sustains me, and my knowledge that freedom is preserved only through the proper exercise of spiritual strength, the power of will, determination and, if all else fails, the exercise of the force of arms on the field of battle. Before a nation can flourish, it must first survive.
There are worse things than taking human life. There are those actions and policies that enslave, destroy, corrupt, demean and debauch our souls. Yes, we should always pray for a time of “no war” on earth, but not forget that, of necessity, there will still be times of war.
Actually, I think the proper question to ask is how can a military man go to war and not have a religious faith? How can a military leader make the multiplicity of daily decisions required in war without belief and faith in God and a greater good? I fear for anyone who directs the lives of others but lacks faith and a sense of eternal responsibility.
At our founding we were a nation that adopted a cultural requirement to maintain to maintain a certain level of decency and who refused to allow our moral Christian foundation to be undermined or desensitized by wickedness, shame, violence and scandalous behavior. Unfortunately immorality has now entered into prime time.
Many of the world’s and our own nation’s political and financial elites and intellectuals will continue to find fault with our country no matter what we do. But their view stands in stark contrast to the world’s common or average man. I’m talking about those who ford rivers, climb fences, and risk death while attempting to illegally get to the “Promised Land” that is called “The United States of America.”
We Are Not Allies, We Are Still The Infidels
There are two points the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense may want to keep in mind as they evaluate future problems in the Middle East and how to successfully address them. Both are easiest illustrated by real life happenings.
Many years ago I attended the Infantry officer Advanced Course at Fort Benning, Georgia. Probably ten percent of the students attending that ten month course of instruction were from foreign countries. For about half of the course my tablemate was an Arab. We studied together, completed homework assignments together, got to know each other’s families and generally enjoyed each other’s company. Part of that time we students were immersed in reading about, researching and discussing wars and problems of the Middle East. By this time my Arab classmate and I had, I thought, become close friends. A question popped into my mind and without evaluating it I said, “I have a question to ask you, but you may find it a little impertinent … or, perhaps, offensive.”
“That’s quite alright,” he replied. “We know each other well enough to be honest with each other. So go ahead and ask your question.”
“Well,” I began. “Each time you Arabs start a war with Israel, they beat your socks off. Why don’t you learn your lesson and quit making war on them?” The words hadn’t passed my lips before I knew that I shouldn’t have asked that particular question.
But I was wrong. My Arab officer friend didn’t get angry. He didn’t even think before replying.
“My dear friend,” he said in his British accent, “You are absolutely right. Each time we attack the Israelis they whip our asses. But have you noticed that with each loss we get better. We get whipped not as badly as in the war before.”
Then he got a faraway look in his eyes, pounded on the table and said, “Sometime in the next thousand years … we will win!”
Up until then I had never thought in terms of a thousand years, and I don’t think I’m very good at it today. But for those formulating foreign and defense policy for the nation, it is worth making the effort. For it is difficult to think in terms of the immediate future while negotiating with a nation whose leaders are thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of years.
Point two: during the first Gulf War U.S. and Arab forces fought side by side and some of the officers became close friends. When the war ended in victory there was a celebration in the officer’s club with everyone congratulating each other. A lot of handshaking and hugging was going on. It was a time of displaying real brotherly love.
Seeing this, one of the senior Arab generals felt the need to set the record straight. “Look,” he said to a small cluster of American generals. “We have fought together and some of us have died together. I know you feel that that makes us brothers. But that is not the way it is in my world.”
He looked around the circle making eye contact with all of them. “I don’t want to see you hurt so I need to share this with you. There will be no tomorrow for us jointly. No matter how much you have helped my country — and you came and helped us when we desperately needed your help – and no matter how friendly you feel toward us, we are still Muslims and you are still Christians. That means that in our eyes, we can never be brothers. I’m sorry but, to us, you will always be – Infidels!”
And so we Infidels have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have not made their countries nor their people depositories of freedom and liberty. No matter how hard we work to rebuild their governments, infrastructure, educational and medical institutions, and no matter how desperately they need our help — as the Arab general pointedly noted – we can never be brothers to each other.
Also, I learned what Kipling meant when he wrote, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” He was pointing out to the western world that to Muslims, we Christians will always be infidels!
Attack on the U.S. Army
It seems the United States Army will be reverting to the condition it is usually in when a Democrat is President and Commander-in-Chief. I remember those days well. Back then the Army didn’t have enough repair parts to keep its motor vehicles running and its helicopters flying so combat units were instructed to selectively cannibalize non-running vehicles and helicopters to keep as much of the fleet operational as possible.
Then the budget couldn’t sustain the military force at its authorized strength levels so there was a chronic shortage of experienced leadership at the middle and lower unit levels. Captains were doing the jobs that majors and lieutenant colonels were supposed to do. Sergeants were filling in for lieutenants. Lieutenants were filling in for captains and majors. The soldiers used to say that if the available manpower pool was rotated fast enough, it would give the appearance that there were sufficient people assigned to the units to make them look combat ready.
At the top of the command pole only flexible, amenable flag officers got the top jobs. I recall one four star who was called to the White House for interrogation -- examination is probably a better word – by the Commander-in-Chief before being offered a top job. When later asked how the interview went, he said that he had stuck by his principles but in so doing had failed his “Orals” and would not be getting the job. In those days he and his fellow flag officers believed that being faithful to principles always came first. Hopefully, today’s top military leaders share similar convictions.
It is criminal! Let me say that again, it is criminal to send our young men and women back for their third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh tour of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq -- even if they volunteer to go back for another combat tour. It is the same as signing their death certificates. Somewhere between the third and seventh tour the odds are that for many their luck will run out and they will return in a body bag.
Why does the Commander-in-Chief send the flower of American youth back for so many dangerously repetitive combat tours? Because there aren’t enough soldiers on active duty. Why? Because the current Army budget is too small and won’t sustain maintaining an adequate combat force so that units can be rotated on a reasonable, lifesaving basis. Still Congress and the White House want to reduce the military budget even further. And yes, there is waste in the military budget that needs to be eliminated.
The military represents about a fifth of the national budget. The deficit reduction deal which the White house, the Democrats and Republicans in Congress have agreed to is basically one that supposedly seeks a long term solution to the nation’s fiscal problems by restructuring the military services and redefining their missions.
Supposedly Congress will put the federal budget on the table and take an ax to it. If the Democrats and Republicans can’t come into agreement on what and how much to cut, the Department of Defense will be forced to swallow one half of the reductions. This isn’t fair and it will gut our armed forces. From the beginning of the budget negotiations, the White House and the Democrats had no intention of coming into agreement with the Republicans. All along they intended to make draconian reductions in the nation’s military forces; they just needed the Republican’s help or inattention.
It would be easy to lay this mindless idiocy entirely at the feet of the Democrats, since it is their ideas fueling the runaway Pentagon train. But the truth is the Democrats in Congress are only observers of this rape. Yes, they run the White House and the Senate, but the nation’s purse strings are loosed and gathered together by the Republican run House. It’s time the Republicans of today manned up, took charge and started acting like President Lincoln’s Republicans, instead of selling their souls to the Democrats for a cold bowl of bipartisanship.
In this supposed search for the finding of a solution to the nation’s budget and fiscal problems, everything is supposed to be on the table, including the military budget. Well, everything should not be on the table, especially the military budget. National Defense and Security should not be lumped and dumped together with programs like welfare and health care.
As usual, the Democrats have out maneuvered the Republicans. They have told them fairy tales, made all sorts of promises they have no intention of keeping, hummed them to sleep and while they were sleeping kicked the Republican can, with our soldiers in Afghanistan stuffed into it, far down the road. But I suspect that this inattention to the needs of the members of our armed forces in Afghanistan is only the beginning of the military’s troubles. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has already announced that he is working on a way to cheat our soldiers out of future pay raises and retirement benefits, and our flag officers remain mute.
Essentially Panetta is being told by the White House to come up with a plan that embraces technology and de-emphasizes active-duty “boots on the ground.” President Carter once took us down that same road. He declared that in the future, intelligence and spying would be done through technological means such as satellites, not people on the ground. He then went about systematically destroying the nations’ human intelligence and spying resources and capabilities. After all these years, we have yet to fully recover from his stupidity.
The Administration is guessing that our strategic interests are shifting away from Europe and NATO and moving more toward the western Pacific, East Asia and China. But who can say with certainty that our next military crisis or challenge will be in the Asia-Pacific area rather than in the Strait of Hormuz, the Middle East, Africa or South America? If not done carefully and properly, reorientation could prove to be quite risky.
Over the centuries our strategic interests have coincided more with Europe than with Asia because our history, religion, principles and beliefs have evolved from Europe. No matter in which direction we reorient foreign policy, our history will not change. The Vatican, seat of our Catholicism, will not suddenly relocate to Asia. Shakespeare will still be taught in literature classes. La Scala will still be the foremost opera house in Europe. True, our strategic involvement with China and Asia will increase, but we will still be Americans and our heritage and history will still have a European flavor.
The Army Chief of Staff, General Odierno, said recently that because the Army’s budget is being cut drastically, the reserve forces will have to be enlarged and kept at a much higher level of readiness than they historically have been. This is nonsense! Over and over history has recorded the sad results of adopting such a policy. It’s time we learned our lesson -- when the budget goes down, readiness goes down! There are no exceptions.
History tells us that when available funds dry up and bases are closed overseas and troops are returned back to the United States, they are not reassigned to U.S. military bases. They are discharged from the Army and other branches of the armed forces and their units disbanded, which further reduces the military’s size and power, which seems to have been the purpose of this Administration from the beginning.
Our soldiers deserve better. They deserve to serve in well trained units that are up to full strength. Their equipment should technologically be the latest and be supported by an abundance of repair parts and maintenance personnel. And they deserve to have their lives treasured and protected, and to have the full financial support of the Congress and the White House.
Thinking Muslim Style
There are two points the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense may want to keep in mind as they evaluate future problems in the Middle East and how to successfully address them. Both are easiest illustrated by real life happenings.
Many years ago I attended the Infantry officer Advanced Course at Fort Benning, Georgia. Probably ten percent of the students attending that ten month course of instruction were from foreign countries. For about half of the course my tablemate was an Arab. We studied together, completed homework assignments together, got to know each other’s families and generally enjoyed each other’s company. Part of that time we students were immersed in reading about, researching and discussing wars and problems of the Middle East. By this time my Arab classmate and I had, I thought, become close friends. A question popped into my mind and without evaluating it I said, “I have a question to ask you, but you may find it a little impertinent … or, perhaps, offensive.”
“That’s quite alright,” he replied. “We know each other well enough to be honest with each other. So go ahead and ask your question.”
“Well,” I began. “Each time you Arabs start a war with Israel, they beat your socks off. Why don’t you learn your lesson and quit making war on them?”
The words hadn’t passed my lips before I knew that I shouldn’t have asked that particular question. But I was wrong. My Arab officer friend didn’t get angry. He didn’t even think before replying.
“My dear friend,” he said in his British accent, “You are absolutely right. Each time we attack the Israelis they whip our asses. But have you noticed that with each loss we get better. We get whipped not as badly as in the war before.”
Then he got a faraway look in his eyes, pounded on the table and said, “Sometime in the next thousand years … we will win!”
Up until then I had never thought in terms of a thousand years, and I don’t think I’m very good at it today. But for those formulating foreign and defense policy for the nation, it is worth making the effort. For it is difficult to think in terms of the immediate future while negotiating with a nation whose leaders are thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of years.
Point two: during the first Gulf War U.S. and Arab forces fought side by side and some of the officers became close friends. When the war ended in victory there was a celebration in the officer’s club with everyone congratulating each other. A lot of handshaking and hugging was going on. It was a time of displaying real brotherly love.
Seeing this, one of the senior Arab generals felt the need to set the record straight. “Look,” he said to a small cluster of American generals. “We have fought together and some of us have died together. I know you feel that that makes us brothers. But that is not the way it is in my world.”
He looked around the circle making eye contact with all of them. “I don’t want to see you hurt so I need to share this with you. There will be no tomorrow for us jointly. No matter how much you have helped my country -- and you came and helped us when we desperately needed your help – and no matter how friendly you feel toward us, we are still Muslims and you are still Christians. That means that in our eyes, we can never be brothers. I’m sorry but, to us, you will always be – Infidels!”
And so we Infidels have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have not made their countries nor their people depositories of freedom and liberty. No matter how hard we work to rebuild their governments, infrastructure, educational and medical institutions, and no matter how desperately they need our help -- as the Arab general pointedly noted – we can never be brothers to each other.
Also, I learned what Kipling meant when he wrote, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” He was pointing out to the western world that to Muslims, we Christians will always be infidels!
The Star From The East
Larry’s battalion had left on a reconnaissance mission early that morning. But starting around noontime his battalion had been engaged in a series of firefights with the North Vietnamese Army (NVA). Sometimes under such circumstances the senior South Vietnamese (ARVN) officers suddenly became sick, got lost, mysteriously disappeared, or in some other way managed to separate themselves from the battle. In the process they ripped the officer’s insignia of rank off their fatigue shirt collars and threw them away because the NVA usually tortured and killed captured ARVN officers.
Now Captain Larry was three miles out in the jungle clinging to the top of Hill 867 along with a pitiful remnant of ARVN soldiers and a few, brave ARVN lieutenants and sergeants. Larry and his ARVN were grossly outnumbered, surrounded and the NVA were tightening the noose.
Miles away back at my Command Post (CP), the radio barked to life. Captain Larry’s muffled voice cut through the heavy static. “Can’t hold on much longer,” he said his voice urgent but controlled. “They’re killing us with 82mm mortars and B-40 rocket-propelled grenades!”
Reaching out I grabbed the radio telephone handset and mashed down hard on the push-to-talk switch. “Larry,” I said in what I hoped was my calmest, most professional, most reassuring voice. “Just hold on … we need a little more time to get you out of there.”
“We’ve lost them,” Colonel Vy the ARVN South Vietnamese Regimental commander sadly concluded. Suddenly it was dark.
Sick inside I stepped out of the rusty, corrugated tin CP into the open night air. Glancing up at the radio antennas silhouetted against the moonlit sky and leaned back against the rough bark of a Palmetto tree. I knew that deep in the jungle where Larry and his men were fighting for their lives, precious little moonlight was filtering through to their jungle graveyard.
Near the command post dug into the clay-like earth was a sleeping bunker I had borrowed from another U.S. advisor who was on R & R in Bangkok, Thailand. Ducking under the dusty burlap curtain that separated the office-sitting room from the sleeping area I knelt on the concrete bunker floor and prayed that somehow God would give me wisdom, show me a way to save Larry and his men. How long I knelt there I don’t know, but at last I felt that everything was going to work out land I thought I knew how.
Scattered across a several mile area were six U.S. and ARVN artillery battalions. In the CP I gathered the ARVN officers and U.S. artillery advisors around me and pointed to a red pin stuck in the map on the campaign table that was believed to be Larry’s position. “Let’s plot a horseshoe-shaped, one hundred meter thick wall of artillery fire around Captain Larry and his men and fire a time-on-target.”
A time-on-target meant that we would fire each artillery tube at a mathematically calculated moment, so that each round would explode on target at the same time. Just the concussion alone from the exploding artillery shells would shatter the eardrums of the dazed and confused enemy survivors. Those who were not killed outright would be left bleeding from their ears and noses. Hopefully in the noise and confusion, Larry and his men could fight their way out of the open end of the horseshoe.
This would only work if we knew precisely where Larry and his men were. Unfortunately we could only guess at Larry’s location so the artillery would be firing blind. Without thinking Colonel Vy said, “Yes, it is very risky.”
“Risky or not there’s no other option,” I countered. If we do nothing they’ll be overrun and killed.” Raising my voice for effect I loudly declared, “Let the record reflect that I advised Colonel Vy to fire the artillery. If any of our friendly forces are killed, I am to blame. It will be my fault, and mine alone.”
These were brave words, but more Hollywood than reality. The facts were that if the artillery killed Larry and our troops there would be an official inquiry and I would not be given the benefit of the doubt. It would be clear that I had knowingly over stepped my authority and my military career would be terminated under the klieg lights of the evening news.
Vy furrowed his brow, nodded absently, then in a formal voice said, “Thank you Colonel Curry. Your advice is noted for the record.” Turning to his officers he snapped, “Do whatever Colonel Curry tells you to do.” Then drawing himself up to his full military height he squared his shoulders and, without looking back, strode from the CP into the jungle night.
With the responsibility-and-blame question temporarily set aside, the ARVN artillery officers quickly plotted the horseshoe-shaped artillery fire. Over the radio I urged Larry to be patient. “We’ll get you out of there … I promise.”
“You gave me that crap a half hour ago, Colonel,” he threw back at me. “We can’t hold on any longer … it’s now or never!”
Somehow I had to tell Larry in which direction to lead his men once the firing started. If I gave him instructions over the radio in the clear, the NVA would hear them and when our guys tried to fight their way out of the horseshoe they would be butchered.
I couldn’t encode the information because Larry would be shot the second he snapped on his flashlight to copy down and decode it.
Again I picked up the radio handset. Larry’s voice was faint, the machinegun and mortar fire louder. Briefly I explained the plan then asked, “Do you remember the Bible story about the birth of Jesus?”
“Of course I do,” he snapped. “Men are out here dying and all you can do is tell us Bible stories.”
“Do you remember the star when Jesus was born?”
“Yeah, I remember.”
“Do you recall the direction the star came from,” I continued?
“Yeah … you bet,” he confirmed, the timbre of his voice lightening.
“That’s the side of the horseshoe that’s open,” I shouted over the sound of exploding mortar shells. “Fight your way out in that direction.”
“Give me five minutes,” he stated more than asked. After what seemed an interminable wait Larry’s voice broke through the static, “We’re all set!”
Turning to the ARVN artillery officers I commanded, “Fire!” Thunder boomed out across the jungle battlefield as a myriad of artillery tubes belched fire and death into the night. In the distance, the sky glowed pink, yellow and white as tons of explosives churned the earth. Cold sweat trickled down the inside of my camouflage fatigue collar.
As abruptly as the barrage started, it stopped. Impotently now the sound hung in the air. Then came the hard part, the waiting. In war there is much waiting, particularly when the outcome of a battle is in doubt. Larry and his ARVN soldiers still had to painstakingly pick their way through the jungle blackness to safety, all the way maintaining radio silence to avoid giving away their positions.
For seemingly a thousandth time I anxiously looked up at the eastern sky and asked myself, “Where is Larry? Is he dead, or captured, or laying wounded on some vermin-infested hillside?” Finally it was time. Stiffly I stood, brushed the dirt and bugs from my fatigues, belted on my .45 and Randal killing knife and walked through the calm of dawn to my waiting Jeep. Colonel Vy’s Jeep swung in behind mine and we lurched forward sucking along behind us as cloud of red dust. Finally, our Jeeps lurched to a halt near an old rope bridge that was strung across a sluggish, mud-colored river.
Larry’s jubilant voice burst from the radio, “We’re almost to the river!” For what seemed like hours but was probably only minutes, Colonel Vy and I stood at the near side of the rope bridge watching and waiting.
Suddenly, with a shout Larry sprang from the wall of green forest at the far end of the bridge. An Irish grin distorted his perspiring, mud smeared face and he waved joyfully. Wearily plodding along close behind him came the exhausted, but happy, ARVN soldiers.
Thinking Taliban
Our viable options are few and unfortunate. There appear to be two: we must either find a way to militarily bring this war to a successful conclusion, or we can rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and walk away. Those I talk to fear that any agreement with the Taliban will be reduced to a face saving maneuver. As soon as our forces are withdrawn the Taliban will politically outmaneuver Karzai’s government, trash the peace agreement with the United States and NATO, and reinstitute a totalitarian Muslim regime similar to the one that existed prior to the war.
Historically for the most part, Muslim countries have been ruled by pseudo-Islamic military gangs or by pseudo-military dictators. Control of these governments is, at best, shaky which further complicates efforts by the U.S. and its NATO Allies to negotiate any kind of a meaningful peace agreement with them. Additionally while Taliban leaders are supposedly cooperating with other Taliban leaders, in fact they are operating independently and each is fighting his own little war. That is, everyone’s involved to some degree, but no one is fully in charge of military operations.
Karzai, Prime Minister of Afghanistan, doesn’t trust the United States and we don’t trust him. Also, the Taliban leadership doesn’t trust Karzai and he in turn doesn’t trust them. He insists that in the negotiations he has authority to speak for the Taliban, which they dispute. So peace negotiations are scheduled to begin shortly in Qatar and we are not sure who we will be talking to.
Worse, we are on record as saying that the Taliban are terrorists and that we refuse to negotiate with terrorists. Therefore the Taliban must sever all their relations with terrorists before we can engage in peace negotiations with them. And we are not the only ones who have preconditions. The Taliban have three: formation of a pure – this probably means radical -- Islamic government in Afghanistan; release of key Taliban prisoners; and a guarantee that once the treaty is signed U.S. and NATO troops will immediately pull out of Afghanistan.
The Obama Administration thinks, as a sign of good faith, that if they give in enough to the myriad Taliban field commanders, it will build Taliban confidence in the peace negotiations. To sweeten the pot, the U.S. is considering releasing some of the Taliban fighters from incarceration at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What the U.S. State Department doesn’t fully understand is that no matter how many terrorist prisoners it lets go free, the Taliban will still never have confidence in anything the U.S. says or does. Taliban foreign policy is based on their warped view of Islam, not on what works or makes good sense. No matter what we do, we Americans will always be infidels to them – until the end of the world. As the Taliban leaders see it, the establishment of Islam is their most important priority. It is also the most important priority of the Kabul government, no matter how much they may pretend otherwise.
The Taliban and the Kabul government consider the implementation of government plans and programs of secondary importance to Islam and insist that all governmental actions be in accordance with Islamic interests, not just with national interests. Additionally the Taliban is on record as saying that they will not follow the Afghanistan government’s directions if they think those directions conflict in the slightest with their understanding of the tenants and teachings of Islam.
Showing a total disregard for civility and good faith, they are also on record as saying that they will continue to fight the U.S. and its NATO allies during the peace negotiations. That is, there will be no laying down of arms or cessation of hostilities while the peace talks are in process. Suicide bombers will still be doing their evil deeds throughout the Afghan provinces and Kabul, even while the Taliban leaders and Karzai’s government are talking of peace.
The Taliban resent that Afghanistan’s Prime Minister, Karzai, portrays them as subservient to his Afghan government in Kabul. They want to be seen as independent of Karzai, and if they can peacefully take control of his government, it will give the new Taliban government the appearance of worldwide legitimacy. So while they talk peace, the Taliban leadership is searching for a way to capture Kabul’s reins of power. Before the war they had forcefully seized power. This robbed them of the cloak of legitimacy, as flimsy as it would have been, and they don’t want to repeat that mistake.
They are also looking for a way to conclude a peace treaty with U.S. - led forces that will guarantee that all foreign armies will be withdrawn from Afghanistan not later than the end of 2014. Then somehow they hope to depose Karzai and his government. Even more complicating and troublesome for the Taliban is Afghanistan’s politically unstable, nuclear armed neighbor Pakistan, which could implode at any time -- without notice.
As they did when fighting against the Russians, the Taliban will take help from any quarter, even the devil himself. So they have enlisted Iran as a necessary but unreliable ally. Iran is willing to help equip the Taliban with military supplies provided there is a satisfactory payoff for them far down the road. The Taliban suspect that that payoff will be the requirement to subordinate Afghan foreign policy to Iran’s foreign policy, after the Taliban have taken the reins of political power in Kabul.
All this doesn’t mean that the U.S. should give up trying to bring the Afghan war to a satisfactory and peaceful conclusion. It just means that our efforts will continue to be complicated and difficult, and we will have to work much harder to achieve anything meaningful.
But what happens if we withdraw from world leadership and do nothing? Will the situation get better all by itself? Not hardly. Countries like Pakistan, Iran and China will openly work to foil our peace negotiation efforts, but that’s the nature of the beast. Still, nothing should be allowed to deter us from our efforts to bring peace and freedom to all of mankind.
Meeting The Challenge
The question is are we, as a nation, still up to the task of being the world’s leader and can we, in 2012, produce a president who is willing and capable of bearing the heavy and thankless burden of world leadership?
If the U.S. doesn’t lead the world, what nation will? Europe is too old and tired; just dealing with its own affairs exhausts it. Can or will China lead? No, the world won’t follow China -- or Russia for that matter --because they are incapable of putting the world’s affairs ahead of their own, as the U.S. has so often done.
In the early 1990s Japan tried to assume the mantle of world leadership, but stumbled and fell. The Arab nations have yet to figure out how to govern themselves let alone lead other nations. The continents of Africa and South America have not yet been able to produce regional leaders, let alone world leaders. So across whose strong and broad shoulders does the mantle of world leadership inevitably fall?
For whatever reason Providence seems to have reserved that task, that burden, to the U.S. – alone. And of one thing we can be sure. With proper presidential leadership, the United States of America is still more than capable of continuing to lead the world.
What kind of problems does the first decade of the 21st Century hold for our great country, what challenges directly threaten the U.S. and the world? Behind the curtains, there are a smorgasbord of problems waiting to spring to the center of the world stage and clamor for attention.
Internal political instability and North Korean and Chinese military miscalculations could cause all sorts of problems for the peninsula, including blundering into a war with South Korea. An accidental military clash with China’s blossoming new navy or a Chinese miscalculation concerning Taiwan could also create a serious cause for concern.
Pakistan is ripe for a civil-military-nuclear-terrorist crisis and seems to be doing its best to stumble into or to create one. It could experience some kind of Arab Spring at any time. If so China, India, and Russia will be of little help. The only thing that is certain is that eventually there will be some kind of conflict in the Far East and, unless the U.S. is extremely careful or genuinely lucky, we will be drawn into it.
Saudi Arabia and the world oil market are cause for watchful concern. So far the Saudis and the Arab Emirates, with our help and cooperation, have managed the challenges presented quite well.
Islamic lawlessness in Europe can be expected to increase precipitating more civil-military instability and resulting in serious armed clashes.
Worldwide Islam can be expected to continue its nasty, dangerous, extremist ways. It’s the nature of the beast.
Iran will probably continue developing its nuclear weapons industry and sometime in 2012 that development will have to be significantly disrupted or eliminated altogether.
The U.S. is forecast to walk away from Afghanistan and the Taliban in 2014. In the meantime, what happens there is anyone’s guess.
In Iraq we have built the largest U.S. embassy in the world, State Department east? To what purpose? What is going on in Tehran? Do we really need to locate, in this third world country, a gargantuan ambassadorial edifice that is larger than our embassies in China, Russia, Paris and London? What is its real purpose for construction?
The cauldron of Palestinian statehood continues to boil and sputter and we will be lucky indeed if it does not explosively bubble over some time in 2012. Meanwhile the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are each day becoming more restive and politically unstable.
Most sinister and troublesome in the Middle East is the adherence of extremist Muslims and the abdication of moderate Muslims, to the notion that Israel is not a legitimate state, has no right to exist, and that it is the holy duty of Muslims worldwide to join in destroying Israel and all Jews everywhere. Even Hitler and Nazi Germany weren’t this ambitious.
More troubling, is the United Nation’s refusal to ban extremist anti-Israel movements. Countries that refuse to recognize Israel’s legitimacy should be expelled from the United Nations.
Closer to home, Mexican drug cartels and border crossers may get more out of control and cause the collapse of the Mexican government, forcing the U.S. to militarily patrol and protect its southern border.
How all these things fit into President Obama’s policy of “We will keep our military forces small and only be prepared to fight one war at a time” is not clear. What if our adversaries don’t agree to cooperate with such a policy?
Is now really the right time to cut over a hundred thousand soldiers and Marines from our armed forces, especially considering our nation’s current unemployment problems? Is the federal government forecasting similar reductions in its civilian work force?
Why aren’t Obama’s handpicked generals, admirals, intelligence, and defense officials publicly speaking out in opposition to these risky and dangerously unjustified cuts in America’s armed forces? Is their oath of loyalty sworn to the White House, or is it to the Constitution of the United States?
So the presidential election of 2012 is not just of vital importance to this nation, it is also of vital importance to the world.
A Time To Take Responsibility
Now that the length of our military forces’ stay in Iraq has been decided and we have committed to a troop pullout of no later than the end of the year, there are as many different opinions and suggestions as to when to pull out of Afghanistan as there are expert military and State Department opinions. Of course much depends on what we hope to accomplish, and by when we intend to accomplish it. Can we rely upon American history to illuminate a clear path for us to follow?
In the late summer of 1781 Lord Cornwallis and his army of British regulars retreated to the south eastern tip of the Virginia peninsula, to a place called Yorktown. Cornwallis ordered his soldiers to furiously shovel and throw up defensive earthworks. General Washington and his soldiers marched south hoping to entrap Cornwallis on the peninsula. Then on August 14, 1781 French Admiral de Grasse sailed with a massive fleet from St. Dominguez, bringing an additional 3,500 French troops to reinforce the army of Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette, “… sending the British fleet scurrying back to New York and leaving the French in undisputed control of the Chesapeake Bay.”
The situation in the thirteen colonies could have been much as it is in the Middle East today. Iraq and Afghanistan remain viable and stable countries probably only so long as American led allied forces do much of the serious fighting for them and keep their countries from falling apart. Indications are that when U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, the two countries may cozy up to Syria and Iran becoming terrorist sympathizers. We’ll know shortly.
If France had followed the same strategy after the Revolutionary War as the U.S. is now using in the Middle East, it would have kept its troops in our country for another ten or so years. France would have built utilities, provided schools and teachers, trained our armed forces and civilian police and improved the colonial infrastructure. But that was not what happened.
As the French and the thirteen colonies saw it, America was our country and if we didn’t know what to do with it once the war was won, that was our problem. Perhaps our efforts at self- government would fail. Perhaps we would descend into chaos. Perhaps we couldn’t protect ourselves from the so-called “savage Indians” on the frontier. We wanted independence, we got it, and it was up to us to make it work. Whatever happened, the future was to be all ours.
Without the aid of the French army and navy, it would have been impossible for General Washington and the Continental Army to defeat the British armed forces. After the Battle of Yorktown was over and the Revolutionary War won, the French lingered in the area only long enough, “… to protect the Continental Army while it gathered up supplies,” and they, “… set sail up the bay, then headed for the long trip back.”
Similarly, without the aid of the U.S. and its NATO Allies, it would have been nearly impossible for Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and introduce their country to the form of democracy they now have. What the leaders and citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq have to understand, is that their countries are theirs not ours. If they don’t make them work, we can’t do it for them no matter how much we might want to, and no matter how much they might want us to.
After our armed forces and civilian advisors are withdrawn they will have to pick up the pieces, tighten up the slack and make their countries function successfully. If they aren’t able and willing to take responsibility and do what is necessary to run democratic countries, then they will simply become two more failed Muslim states. Their destiny rests in their hands.
In the early 1960s I was an advisor to Korea, and in spite of U.S. efforts, Korea never became the success it is today until the Korean government took responsibility for the nation’s reconstruction. Seoul, Korea’s capitol city, was a mélange of oxcarts, ancient Japanese streetcars, trucks of all kinds, motor scooters, pedestrians and busses pounded out of 55-gallon gasoline drums – all intermixed and struggling for contrary passage. The result was endemic chaos on the streets of Seoul mixed with massive doses of gridlock.
One day Korea’s Supreme Council for National Reconstruction announced that the confusion on Seoul’s streets would end one week from the coming Monday. On that day only streetcars would run on the tracks in the middle of the streets. Cars, busses and motor scooters would run in the lanes on either side of the streetcars. Oxcarts and bicycles were banished to the area between the cars, busses and curbs. Pedestrians were to walk on the dirt paths alongside the open ditch sewers.
Of course everyone assumed that there was a zero chance that the Council’s orders would be obeyed. So we all were surprised, when on the appointed day shortly before daylight, Korean military trucks roared through the streets of downtown Seoul and screeched to a halt at major intersections. Rolls of concertina barbed wire were dragged out of the back of the trucks and dumped in the intersections. Other trucks disgorged squads of Korean Military Police. Day broke as usual, but this was not to be a usual day in the Capitol city of Seoul.
Grim, humorless, no-nonsense military police grabbed anyone who broke the new laws and herded them into hastily erected barbed wire enclosures. Once imprisoned, the offenders remained locked up in the enclosures for 24-hours, chilled at night, baked by a relentless sun during the day without food, water or toilets.
Within a week, order and discipline had been imposed on Seoul’s streets and traffic. Streetcars ran in the middle of the street, pedestrians walked on the dirt sidewalks and all other traffic moved in its appointed lanes. As quickly as they had appeared a week before, the concertina wire and military police departed.
It was their country and they had taken hold of it and given it a violent shake, which is precisely what the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan need to do. It is what our Founders did. They didn’t ask the French to stay and sort things out for them, or to insist that the British rebuild the nation’s infrastructure or somehow make reparations. No, they said, “It is our country and we accept responsibility for making it into a ‘Shining City on a Hill.’ It will be the envy of all the nations of the world and people will come from afar to admire what we have built here.” -- And so they did, and so they have.
Time To Move Past The Urination Incident
Making the rounds is a short video showing four Marines urinating on Afghan terrorist corpses in northern Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Evidently the Marines were letting off steam after a firefight and washing the bodies with urine instead of following the Muslim tradition of washing the bodies with water and burying them within 24 hours. Without doubt this was an aberration and such conduct should not and cannot be tolerated by our armed forces under any circumstances. It would be interesting to know the combat circumstances that led up to this incident.
At the same time, U.S. Army Spec. Ronald Wildrick Jr., was killed Dec. 11, 2011 by an improvised explosive device (IED) in Afghanistan’s Kundar province, one of many Americans who have given their lives trying to bring liberty and freedom to this Muslim country. I don’t know how much the sacrifices of our young men and women’s lives are appreciated by the Afghans, but I don’t read much of Muslim extremists being criticized by them or American heroes being thanked or praised.
Secretary of State Clinton said that anyone engaging in this act of urination should be held accountable, and I whole heartedly agree. But what does that mean: life in prison, castration, beheading, a slap on the wrist, administrative punishment, or a dishonorable discharge. The knee jerk outcry from Secretaries Panetta and Clinton does not bode well for our four Marines or their officers. A Marine Corps spokesman says that, “The actions portrayed are not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps.”
On the other hand, although Afghan Prime Minister Karzai and Taliban officials strongly condemned the Marines’ actions and called for a quick and through investigation followed by swift punishment, they did not hesitate to put the Marines’ actions in their proper context. Karzai refused to allow the incident to be used to inflame anti-American feelings as he has been overly quick to do in the past. Surprisingly the Taliban leaders, perhaps following Karzai’s lead, have said that the incident should not be allowed to derail the peace negotiations that are just getting underway.
We are told that showing disrespect for the dead violates Islam. What this means is that if you’re an American you shouldn’t desecrate the bodies of dead Muslims. But if you’re a Muslim, desecrating the bodies of dead Americans after IED attacks and then doing an Islamic dirty-double-standard dance is just fine, and merits no apologies from Karzai, Clinton or Panetta
Evidently desecration only applies to Muslim corpses. It doesn’t apply to the non-Muslim dead like journalist Daniel Pear. Muslims see nothing wrong with beheading non-Muslim bodies, cutting them up into pieces and dragging the pieces through the streets. In the case of Saddam Hussein, they saw nothing wrong with desecrating a Muslim corpse.
A terrorist’s body getting urinated on rates a phone call from the Secretary of Defense and an apology from the Secretary of State. An American killed by an IED rates a grave at Arlington National Cemetery. What does this tell us about America’s current leadership?
Supposedly the recent incident involving the four Marines in Afghanistan and like earlier ones that took place at Abu Ghraib prison, have turned Arab public opinion in the Middle East against the United States. That’s absolute nonsense. Muslim public opinion is turned against America in the Middle East because we are not Muslims.
We can do all the nation building our money and lost American lives can afford and it still will not be enough to make up for the void of freedom and liberty and that is found lacking in Muslim society. You can militarily win their freedom for them and give it to them on a silver platter, but you can’t plant the Tree of Liberty in their hearts, minds and souls. No matter how much you nourish and care for the tree, it will neither grow nor flourish.
Urinating on dead bodies may be reprehensible but it is not a war crime, nor should it be portrayed or pursued as such. Karzai and the Taliban got it right. The corpse desecration issue is an aberration that needs to be put behind us as quickly as possible so we can focus our energies and efforts on the more important work at hand, the drafting of a workable peace treaty which Karzi, the Taliban, and U.S. forces can honor.
The more we examine this issue, the more clear it becomes that it should be filed away under the category of a misdemeanor – not a felony.
Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
Historically these immunity agreements require some wrangling. The foreign countries with whom we are negotiating usually claim that giving U.S. troops immunity violates the country’s national sovereignty. On the other hand, U.S. negotiators take the position that sovereignty is necessary to get the U.S. Congress to authorize a continuance of troop deployments to that particular country.
Routinely the negotiations drag on for a year or so, or until we put the right sweetener on the table. Then the country we are negotiating with, while lapping up the sweetener, start losing interest in sovereignty and immunity. It’s an old foreign policy game played by countries all over the world. Iraq is no exception.
All countries know that it is just a negotiation game both sides are playing. Neither side expects their first “NO” or “YES” to be taken as either definitive or final. So imagine how surprised Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq must have been when President Obama said that he was pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of this year, supposedly because Iraq refused to sign an agreement granting U.S. troops immunity.
To complicate things even more and to make them even less palatable, Obama insisted that the immunity provisions would have to be approved by the Iraqi Parliament, not just by the Prime Minister’s office, as is often the case. Once the Iraqi Parliament got involved in the negotiations, things would become extremely complicated and difficult, if not impossible.
Certainly Maliki was stunned when Obama pulled his negotiators out of the negotiations without making a real effort to find an agreement. Both Obama and Maliki knew full well how the immunity, Status of Forces Agreement, game is supposed to be played. The first “NO” and “YES” are only negotiation openers, not a final offer.
Maliki must have suspected that something was amiss when by mid-summer of this year Obama’s State Department and Department of Defense hadn’t even begun preliminary talks with his negotiating team. These are not the actions of someone negotiating in good faith. Surely such a delay and show of indifference sent a clear signal to Maliki that Obama wasn’t serious about a continued commitment of U.S. Forces to help Iraq successfully transition to a democratic way of life and protection from a rogue Iran.
By then Maliki must have also known that this is Obama’s normal method of operation. He casually announces his policy intentions, which in this case were to withdraw U.S. Forces from Iraq before the end of December, and then leaves it to the Congress and the federal bureaucracy to worry about implementation while he plays golf or goes off on some overseas junket. With or without the Status of Forces Immunity Agreement, Obama never intended to extend the presence of U.S. Troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year.
In this case both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have publicly said that the withdrawal of U.S. Forces is precipitous and ill-advised. They also said that the numbers of troops scheduled by Obama to remain in Iraq past the end of the year aren’t enough to defend themselves, much less assist Iraq in the maintenance of law and order or in defending their country from predator nations like Iran.
Meanwhile Obama stands aloof maintaining plausible deniability. If the shortage of U.S. Troops leads to a disaster of some sort, he can claim that he wanted to leave more troops but Iraq said “NO” and refused to give our troops immunity. In the meantime Obama pretends to be innocent of the consequences of the withdrawal and is agreeable to his generals’ and admirals’ recommendations. In fact, he is deliberately dragging his feet hoping that events in Iraq will somehow overtake the ill-advised troop withdrawal. If things go well he can take credit for them. If they don’t go well, he can express concern.
So President Obama is simply using, for political purposes, Iraq’s saying “NO” to the extension of the Status of Forces Immunity Agreement as a convenient excuse to cover his withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki, who is left holding the bag, should learn to be careful what he asks for. He just may get it.