Embedded

[Chris Mark]

Just finished a good read on the most recent Iraq war, "Embedded," by--drat!
brain function failure again!--anyway, the online booksellers will have the
details. It's a series of vignettes of various embedded reporters' adventures.
I know that doesn't sound like much, but it really is a rip-roaring good read,
and gives a very graphic depiction of the horror house that was Saddam's Iraq.
Goes on the shelf with "The March Up."

Incidentally, I have sat in on a few conversations with returning military
types, plus read some letters and e-mails from folks still in country, and
there certainly does seem to be a huge disconnect between what they are saying
about conditions in Iraq and what is reported on the news. Something is
screwy.


Chris Mark

[Cub Driver]

>Just finished a good read on the most recent Iraq war, "Embedded," by--drat!
>brain function failure again!--anyway, the online booksellers will have the
>details. It's a series of vignettes of various embedded reporters' adventures.
>I know that doesn't sound like much, but it really is a rip-roaring good read,
>and gives a very graphic depiction of the horror house that was Saddam's Iraq.
>Goes on the shelf with "The March Up."

There are a couple of unflattering anecdotes about embedded
correspondents in The March Up, including one where a European?
reporter is seen looting an Iraqi store. (Marines were looting too,
but they got scorched by the sergeant major. Nobody scorched the
reporter.)

But the neatest touch in the book is when the commander of the 1st
Marine Div decides to enter East Baghdad in force, based on his
knowledge of the warm greeting his marines were getting in the city.
This intelligence he garnered by looking at the TV in his tent, which
was tuned to CNN. There was a CNN camera crew embedded in his forward
patrol.
>
>Incidentally, I have sat in on a few conversations with returning military
>types, plus read some letters and e-mails from folks still in country, and
>there certainly does seem to be a huge disconnect between what they are saying
>about conditions in Iraq and what is reported on the news. Something is
>screwy.

Well, I don't know. Is it screwy or just standard operating procedure?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Chris Mark]

>From: Cub Driver look

>conversations with returning military
>>types, plus read some letters and e-mails from folks still in country, and
>>there certainly does seem to be a huge disconnect between what they are
>saying
>>about conditions in Iraq and what is reported on the news. Something is
>>screwy.
>
>Well, I don't know. Is it screwy or just standard operating procedure?

Ah, yes, there is that, since the days of Vietnam.
One specific example I was thinking of was with our local volunteer fire
department. All nine of them were reservests or Guards and were activated for
the war. (Their loss was devastating for our community, btw, being firemen,
EMTs and citizen's patrol police force [some with military police training],
our only police for being highway patrol and county sheriff who are usually far
away and busy.) Anyway, some of these guys are back, and the letters and
e-mails of those still over there are virtually public property. They are
*furious* over the post-war reporting on Iraq, one describing the fellow who
intones the CBS radio news as "Lord Hawhaw." I find it interesting that, in
contrast to Vietnam, where most of the troops were young unmarried guys, many
too young to legally buy a drink when they came back from their tour, who could
easily be ignored by the larger society, the troops in Iraq are older, and
especially with the Reservists and Guards, well established in their home
communities, people whose opinions are respected and valued. So when they say
the real story about Iraq is not being told, people tend to listen, especially
when they back it up with their own videos and almost real-time messages from
the front.
Example: a day or two ago AOL on its opening page had a blurb, "Fierce
Fighting West of Bagdad." I was with a guy recently back. He read that,
scowled, muttered an obscenity and began clacking away on the keyboard. Very
shortly we had info from guys *who were actually west of Bagdad* telling us,
within the confines of military security, what the real deal was.
So you have a bunch of guys and gals, ranging in age from 15 to 78, some who
have been to Iraq, some who are about to go, way to hell and gone in rural USA,
who know from the horses mouth what the situation is in Iraq from direct
personal knowlege who are reading and listening to "professional" news reports
that they *know* are, to be kind, less than entirely accurate. I don't know if
there has ever been such a situation ever in history. Something big will surely
come out of this revolution in information sharing.


Chris Mark

[Cub Driver]

On 03 Oct 2003 16:38:03 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:

> Something big will surely
>come out of this revolution in information sharing.

Let us hope so. I think, though, that the Chattering Classes are so
secure in their nests that they simply don't admit the existence of an
alternate universe--the universe inhabited by firemen, police, and
soldiers. (It seems to me that whenever I see an article about a
reservist or guardsman in Iraq, he or she turns out to be a cop or
firefighter in real life.)

I was particularly struck by the cover of Time magazine, in which Bush
makes a second appearance in his aircraft carrier walk-on, but this
time hadlined: NO, IT'S NOT OVER, or words to that effect. Time can
trust to the short memory of its readers, that what the man said was
something entirely different: major combat operations are over, which
they most certainly were and are. That cover could have been a paid ad
by the Dean campaign! Yet the Good People at Time would have apoplexy
if you accused them of bias.

Kinda makes me yearn for the days when Time was a right-wing
publication.

Lately I have been watching Walter Cronkite's narration of the CBS
Video Library of World War II. Repeatedly he refers to "our troops".
Can you imagine any TV anchor today using that phrase? It would be
"American forces" or more likely "the Bush administration".


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[John Mullen]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On 03 Oct 2003 16:38:03 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:
>
> > Something big will surely
> >come out of this revolution in information sharing.
>
> Let us hope so. I think, though, that the Chattering Classes are so
> secure in their nests that they simply don't admit the existence of an
> alternate universe--the universe inhabited by firemen, police, and
> soldiers. (It seems to me that whenever I see an article about a
> reservist or guardsman in Iraq, he or she turns out to be a cop or
> firefighter in real life.)
>
> I was particularly struck by the cover of Time magazine, in which Bush
> makes a second appearance in his aircraft carrier walk-on, but this
> time hadlined: NO, IT'S NOT OVER, or words to that effect. Time can
> trust to the short memory of its readers, that what the man said was
> something entirely different: major combat operations are over, which
> they most certainly were and are. That cover could have been a paid ad
> by the Dean campaign! Yet the Good People at Time would have apoplexy
> if you accused them of bias.
>
> Kinda makes me yearn for the days when Time was a right-wing
> publication.
>
> Lately I have been watching Walter Cronkite's narration of the CBS
> Video Library of World War II. Repeatedly he refers to "our troops".
> Can you imagine any TV anchor today using that phrase? It would be
> "American forces" or more likely "the Bush administration".

That might be because WW2 was a war worth fighting.

John

[Chris Mark]

>From: "John Mullen" no@

>
>That might be because WW2 was a war worth fighting.

But they are still our troops. And in the case of the reservists and guards,
they are our neighbors, the guys who put out your garage fire and issue you
burn permits, who check to see if your house is okay when you're on vacation,
and work the jaws of life and extract your highschooler from his wrecked Camaro
and give him emergency medical aid as they rush him to the hospital...they are
*us.*

As far as the war being worth fighting, I was sort of reluctantly for it,
knowing that something has got to be done about the whole middle east sooner or
later, and sooner will be easier than later, and Iraq is probably as good a
place to start as any.
I did read a very good argument for not having invaded Iraq from Bernard
Henri-Levy (author of the excellent "Barbarism With A Human Face"), who
described Iraq as "yesterday's enemy" along with Libya and Cuba, while today's
real, serious enemies are in order, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. About
Pakistan he said, "the stench of the apocolypse hovers over it." His view is
that we should have moved from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Sounds like a plan,
but doubtless much, much easier said than done. And, of course, just who is
this "we"? The USA alone, or all the west and western allies such as Japan
combined? If the latter, exorcizing Pakistan might be doable; if just the US
alone or with a handful of allies...I sure wouldn't be first in line to urge my
country to do that.
And Saudi Arabia? Yemen, maybe we could do something there, but the
Saudis--what do we do there? Every body has a solution when sitting around the
backyard barbeque sipping beer, but really, what do you do...what do you do?


Chris Mark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Embedded
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 10/4/03 12:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: "John Mullen" no@
>
>>
>>That might be because WW2 was a war worth fighting.
>
>But they are still our troops. And in the case of the reservists and guards,
>they are our neighbors, the guys who put out your garage fire and issue you
>burn permits, who check to see if your house is okay when you're on vacation,
>and work the jaws of life and extract your highschooler from his wrecked
>Camaro
>and give him emergency medical aid as they rush him to the hospital...they
>are
>*us.*
>
>As far as the war being worth fighting, I was sort of reluctantly for it,
>knowing that something has got to be done about the whole middle east sooner
>or
>later, and sooner will be easier than later, and Iraq is probably as good a
>place to start as any.
>I did read a very good argument for not having invaded Iraq from Bernard
>Henri-Levy (author of the excellent "Barbarism With A Human Face"), who
>described Iraq as "yesterday's enemy" along with Libya and Cuba, while
>today's
>real, serious enemies are in order, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. About
>Pakistan he said, "the stench of the apocolypse hovers over it." His view is
>that we should have moved from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Sounds like a
>plan,
>but doubtless much, much easier said than done. And, of course, just who is
>this "we"? The USA alone, or all the west and western allies such as Japan
>combined? If the latter, exorcizing Pakistan might be doable; if just the US
>alone or with a handful of allies...I sure wouldn't be first in line to urge
>my
>country to do that.
>And Saudi Arabia? Yemen, maybe we could do something there, but the
>Saudis--what do we do there? Every body has a solution when sitting around
>the
>backyard barbeque sipping beer, but really, what do you do...what do you do?
>
>
>Chris Mark


I think WW II was worth fighting. in fact it had to be fought. I am not so
sure about Iraq. My doubts run quite deep.And it is the same "US" that fought
in WW II that are now fighting in Iraq. It is always "US"

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Chris Mark]

>From: artkramr@

>I am not so
>sure about Iraq. My doubts run quite deep.

Bernard Hernri-Levy's argument that Iraq was already checkmated and impotent
before the war, seem pretty sound. Of course it was the US and Britain who
were doing the checkmating afaik, and not anybody else, and there is the
argument that the situation was ultimately untenable, UN sanctions would be
lifted, the no-fly zones would go away, that Saddam's successor might be even
worse and have vast and dangerous ambitions. Who knows?

The main thing that concerns me now, the war being an accomplished fact,
however you felt about it, is the apparent poor and biased reporting coming out
of Iraq, reporting that does not jibe at all with the stories I hear from the
people who were and are actually there now.
Even the Brookings Institution (no member of the vast right wing conspiracy
they) has had some kind things to say about the current situation there.
Click the link:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030930.htm

to go to a "what I did on my vacation" report (nothing deep) from a Brookings
senior fellow on his trip to Iraq last week. We are not in the deep do-do, the
media insists we are.



Chris Mark

[Chris Mark]

Forgot this link, as well:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030929.htm

which gives a more studied look at the current situation, and should please
anti-Bu****es (and cause pro-Bu****es to choke on their Wheaties) with phrases
such as "unilateralist rush to war," but is nonetheless quite positive about
the situation, while giving a good thumbnail description of the lay of the
land.


Chris Mark

[Cub Driver]

>Bernard Hernri-Levy's argument that Iraq was already checkmated and impotent
>before the war, seem pretty sound. Of course it was the US and Britain who
>were doing the checkmating afaik, and not anybody else, and there is the

I'm still scratching my head over Saddam's treatment of the weapons
inspectors. If he had simply cooperated with them, and especially if
he hadn't dumped that absurd multi-million-page compliance document on
the UN, the U.S. would have found it impossible to make the case for
invasion.

Again, Time magazine and all the rest can trust the short memories of
the public to forget all that stone-walling.

>argument that the situation was ultimately untenable, UN sanctions would be
>lifted, the no-fly zones would go away, that Saddam's successor might be even
>worse and have vast and dangerous ambitions. Who knows?

There is still the point that we made the point: it's not safe to
knock over the World Trade Center. Further, it's not safe to do
business with Bin Laden.

Again--short memories! That Al Qaeda is for all practical purposes
impotent will be overlooked. It's like the fall of the Soviet empire
in 1990. That it fell is simply regarded as proof that it never was a
threat.

Don't worry, Art! They'll rewrite the history of WWII as well, the
minute the last vet is gone.
>
>The main thing that concerns me now, the war being an accomplished fact,
>however you felt about it, is the apparent poor and biased reporting coming out
>of Iraq, reporting that does not jibe at all with the stories I hear from the
>people who were and are actually there now.
>Even the Brookings Institution (no member of the vast right wing conspiracy
>they) has had some kind things to say about the current situation there.
>Click the link:
>
>http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030930.htm
>
>to go to a "what I did on my vacation" report (nothing deep) from a Brookings
>senior fellow on his trip to Iraq last week. We are not in the deep do-do, the
>media insists we are.

Thanks for the pointer, Chris.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>which gives a more studied look at the current situation, and should please
>anti-Bu****es (and cause pro-Bu****es to choke on their Wheaties) with phrases
>such as "unilateralist rush to war," but is nonetheless quite positive about
>the situation, while giving a good thumbnail description of the lay of the
>land.

Shucks, I suppose I'm a pro-Bu****e. But I regarded it as a rush to
war, and it was of course unilaterla, or at least bilateral.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Embedded
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 10/5/03 3:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>>which gives a more studied look at the current situation, and should please
>>anti-Bu****es (and cause pro-Bu****es to choke on their Wheaties) with
>phrases
>>such as "unilateralist rush to war," but is nonetheless quite positive about
>>the situation, while giving a good thumbnail description of the lay of the
>>land.
>
>Shucks, I suppose I'm a pro-Bu****e. But I regarded it as a rush to
>war, and it was of course unilaterla, or at least bilateral.
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford

We have men dying every day. Is it worth it?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Embedded
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 10/4/03 1:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >

>We are not in the deep do-do, the
>media insists we are.
>
>
>
>Chris Mark

Define deep do-do. No WMD. No connection to WTC. Young Americans are dying.
It'll cost a billion before it is all over. And no sign of the imminent
threat from Iraq. The picture is less than rosy. It is hard not to question the
administrations judgement under these conditions.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Chad Irby]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

> We have men dying every day. Is it worth it?

We have hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians *not* dying every day, and
a large number of fairly monstrous assholes who are really, most
sincerely dead.

It is.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chris Mark]

>From: artkramr@

>Define deep do-do

Not facing a guerilla war. Not facing a hostile population on the verge of a
national uprising against US presence. Not even close to "another
Vietnam"--not that I ever thought that Vietnam was a "Vietnam."

>And no sign of the imminent
>threat from Iraq.

That is one of Bernard Henri-Levi's key points. He agrees that invading Iraq
was right morally--to depose an odious dictator, period. But it was wrong
politically and strategically because it took our eyes off the main threat
which is principally to the US, but in the long run to all of Western
civilization. This threat--and it is a very, very serious one--in his view
emanates from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent from Yemen.
Now the US is tied up with Iraq, there is no solid allied front against radical
Islam in the West...and the most violent and devastating attacks against the
West are building towards their inevitable execution while the West and its
sole remaining paladin (I *love* that description of the US--especially coming
from a Frenchman!) squabble among themselves and focus on the wrong enemy.

It sure would have been nice if the US and Europe (and even Japan, Thailand and
other Asian nations) could have sat down together and planned out how to
counter this real challenge to our civilization and acted together to defeat
it. If Pakistan was determined to be the real core that needed to be taken on,
I would love to have seen French and German troops attacking alongside US,
British and Aussie forces.
Somehow we have messed up this defense of the West. i don't see it as solely
the fault of Bush. The French certainly were confrontational when they
probably could have been more effective as concerned but cooperating friends.
The Germans weren't much better....well, we all know how things have played out
among the allies.

>It is hard not to question the
>administrations judgement under these conditions.

I don't believe there has ever been an administration whose judgements I
haven't questioned; that's part of being a concerned citizen.
I tend to see Bush as like Truman in a number of ways, both in his personality,
his previous political experience, his unexpected ascension to power, the way
the press treats him and especially in the huge and unexpected foreign policy
threats he faces, threats that will not only define his presidency and his
place in history, but will change the direction of US and world history for
decades to come.


Chris Mark

[Chris Mark]

>From: Chad Irby cir

(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> We have men dying every day. Is it worth it?

>We have hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians *not* dying every day, and
>a large number of fairly monstrous assholes who are really, most
>sincerely dead.

The "men dying every day, is it worth it" mantra is the fraidy cat school of
foreign policy embraced by the isolationist left and locked onto by the news
media. "Another GI dies in attack by Iraqi guerillas" is the lead (following
the mode of the latter Vietnam war) , not "Six enemy die-hards killed in
firefight. One of our servicemen also perished." (the WW2 style of reporting).

That argument essentially urges us to cut and run. If we keep doing that,
especially after we kick ass militarily, we might as well simply abolish our
armed forces, replace the Pentagon with an answering machine saying, "To whom
it may concern: Yes, we really are very, very bad. Everything is our fault.
We surrender and throw ourselves upon your mercy, but don't be too kind to us,
because we deserve to be punished."



Chris Mark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Embedded
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 10/5/03 10:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20031005134124.25523.00000317@

>The "men dying every day, is it worth it" mantra is the fraidy cat school of
>foreign policy

Unless it is you who are going to die.


>That argument essentially urges us to cut and run.

Nobody said cut and run. That is your interpretation alone.

>To whom
>it may concern: Yes, we really are very, very bad. Everything is our fault.
>We surrender and throw ourselves upon your mercy, but don't be too kind to
>us,
>because we deserve to be punished."

All in your mind. Nobody elses. You just made it all up. The alternative to
thoughtful discussion is not surrender. No one ever said what you just accused
them of saying. Or anything close.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Chad Irby]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >From: (Chris Mark)
>
> >The "men dying every day, is it worth it" mantra is the fraidy cat school of
> >foreign policy
>
> Unless it is you who are going to die.

Then don't volunteer for military service.

And don't get a job as a tuna fisherman, which is more dangerous than
being a member of the US military in Iraq...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Mullen]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From: artkramr@
>
> >Define deep do-do
>
> Not facing a guerilla war. Not facing a hostile population on the verge
of a
> national uprising against US presence. Not even close to "another
> Vietnam"--not that I ever thought that Vietnam was a "Vietnam."

Hmm. I'm afraid that saying this makes you look like an idiot in my view.
Sorry.

> >And no sign of the imminent
> >threat from Iraq.
>
> That is one of Bernard Henri-Levi's key points. He agrees that invading
Iraq
> was right morally--to depose an odious dictator, period. But it was wrong
> politically and strategically because it took our eyes off the main threat
> which is principally to the US, but in the long run to all of Western
> civilization. This threat--and it is a very, very serious one--in his
view
> emanates from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent from
Yemen.

Maybe.

> Now the US is tied up with Iraq, there is no solid allied front against
radical
> Islam in the West...and the most violent and devastating attacks against
the
> West are building towards their inevitable execution while the West and
its
> sole remaining paladin (I *love* that description of the US--especially
coming
> from a Frenchman!) squabble among themselves and focus on the wrong
enemy.
>
> It sure would have been nice if the US and Europe (and even Japan,
Thailand and
> other Asian nations) could have sat down together and planned out how to
> counter this real challenge to our civilization and acted together to
defeat
> it. If Pakistan was determined to be the real core that needed to be
taken on,
> I would love to have seen French and German troops attacking alongside US,
> British and Aussie forces.
> Somehow we have messed up this defense of the West.

Yup.

>i don't see it as solely
> the fault of Bush.

Him, his team, and our very own poodle Mr Blair.

>The French certainly were confrontational when they
> probably could have been more effective as concerned but cooperating
friends.
> The Germans weren't much better....well, we all know how things have
played out
> among the allies.

The French and the Germans made the right choice for themselves and for the
world. Sometimes it takes more guts to hold fire until the right target
comes along.

> >It is hard not to question the
> >administrations judgement under these conditions.
>
> I don't believe there has ever been an administration whose judgements I
> haven't questioned; that's part of being a concerned citizen.
> I tend to see Bush as like Truman in a number of ways, both in his
personality,
> his previous political experience, his unexpected ascension to power, the
way
> the press treats him and especially in the huge and unexpected foreign
policy
> threats he faces, threats that will not only define his presidency and his
> place in history, but will change the direction of US and world history
for
> decades to come.

And threats which are (unlike Truman) often largely of his own making.
Certainly the ongoing casualties in Iraq fall into this last category.

John

[Chris Mark]

>From:

>>The "men dying every day, is it worth it" mantra is the fraidy cat school of
>>foreign policy
>
>Unless it is you who are going to die.

Well, my grandson served in the 3rd on the charge up. We didn't hear from him
from Feb. 25 until almost the end of May. One of my strongest impressions of
the war was the brief footage of that trooper curled up asleep beside his
vehicle while a sandstorm raged. I was very concerned at the time about how
extended the drive seemed to be and the possibility of a major counter-attack
by the enemy cutting them off (groundless concerns as it turned out). I was
influenced in my thinking by my time assigned to the 3rd in Korea in 1950 with
a TACP. When we went into to the Wonsan area we were told not to worry, just
some final mopping up operations, the NKs were all done, although they still
had some fight in them. Those "mopping up" operations were inflicting hundreds
of casualties on the troops. But that was nothing compared to what happened
when the Chinese poured in and the 3rd began a fighting retreat centered on
Hungnam, which it held with the help of round-the-clock artillery, naval and
air support, and the magnificent cussed stubborness of the dogfaces, who just
refused to be defeated, allowing the largest amphibious evacuation in US
history, getting out more than 100,000 troops, 100,000 civilians, almost 20,000
vehicles and 350,000 tons of equipment and supplies--all the while under
ferocious assault from the Chicoms, amid some of the most bitter cold
imaginable. It was the most memorable and miserable six weeks of my life. I
have rarely had a nightmare about WW2 but I have frequently woken up pouring
sweat, heart pounding, mind totally lost in another reality, from a dream about
Hungnam.
My son-in-law is the battalion commander of a Guard unit that was activated not
long ago, his son--my grandson--serves under him. They are both now in Iraq
working to help establish Iraqi law-enforcement and suppress criminal activity.
We do worry about them.
How about you? Any fruit of your loins participatants in the current dust-up?


Chris Mark

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:

> I was particularly struck by the cover of Time magazine, in which Bush
> makes a second appearance in his aircraft carrier walk-on, but this
> time hadlined: NO, IT'S NOT OVER, or words to that effect. Time can
> trust to the short memory of its readers, that what the man said was
> something entirely different: major combat operations are over, which
> they most certainly were and are. That cover could have been a paid ad
> by the Dean campaign! Yet the Good People at Time would have apoplexy
> if you accused them of bias.

I too was somewhat surprised with the Time cover when I saw it.

For one of the "mainstream" media outlets, allegedly controlled by
the "gumint", surely someone in the editorial review board was going
to be sent off to the Gulag for that one!

Question the war if you must, but that cover and title was a cheap shot,
with little journalistic merit.


SMH

[ArtKramr]

>How about you? Any fruit of your loins participatants in the current
>dust-up?
>
>
>Chris Mark

I got one grandson ready to go. (sigh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Cub Driver]

>Well, my grandson served in the 3rd on the charge up. We didn't hear from him
>from Feb. 25 until almost the end of May. One of my strongest impressions of

I'm glad he got through it, and I hope he comes safely home.

>influenced in my thinking by my time assigned to the 3rd in Korea in 1950 with
>a TACP. When we went into to the Wonsan area we were told not to worry, just
>some final mopping up operations, the NKs were all done, although they still
>had some fight in them. Those "mopping up" operations were inflicting hundreds
>of casualties on the troops. But that was nothing compared to what happened
>when the Chinese poured in and the 3rd began a fighting retreat centered on

Well, I doubt Syria or Iran can or would be willing to back up Saddam
as China backed up North Korea.

A friend of mine served with the British army in Korea and used to
tell stories about the Americans' dislike of personal combat--using
artillery instead of sending out a patrol, etc. But when you read of
the campaigns in WWII and Korea, what's astonishing is the williness
to take huge casualties. Units routinely lost 10 percent of their
strength in 48 hours--that sort of thing.

I suppose it was Vietnam that changed that, as it changed so many
things.

It is always good to hear from you, Chris. Your posts are a pillar of
sanity on this newsgroup. I especially appreciated learning a bit more
of your personal history.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Chris Mark]

>From: Cub Driver look@m

>A friend of mine served with the British >army in Korea and used to
>tell stories about the Americans' dislike of >personal combat--using
>artillery instead of sending out a patrol,

That's the American way of war: Fire kills.

>But when you read of
>the campaigns in WWII and Korea, >what's astonishing is the williness
>to take huge casualties. Units routinely >lost 10 percent of their
>strength in 48 hours--that sort of thing.

Yes. It makes you puzzle over why, today, a handful of casualties so small
they wouldn't have even been enumerated--only listed as "light"--causes such
national upset.

>I suppose it was Vietnam that changed >that, as it changed so many
>things.

I suppose so, too. That was the great watershed, in so many ways. It wasn't
WW2 or Korea that really changed the character of the country. It was Vietnam.
Just like there was America before and after the Civil War, so is there
America before and after Vietnam.

>It is always good to hear from you, Chris. >Your posts are a pillar of
>sanity on this newsgroup.

Most kind of you to say so. Right back at you.

On the subject of Hangnam, it is pretty much a forgotten episode. The Marines
battle at Chosin is rightly remembered, as they went through the Chicoms like
Caesar through Gaul. (Wasn't that where Chesty Puller said, "They've got us
surrounded--they won't get away this time!) But the Army was there, too (and
the Air Force!). A few memories stand out for me. One was, having driven our
jeep up to a high point to get better radio reception, one of the boys looked
around at the scene and said, "Well, I wouldn't have believed it, but it's
true--hell can freeze over." (I think that was actually a pretty common line
during the Korean War, but it was the first time I had heard it.) And another
one was a casual comment I heard, one dogface saying to another, "What the hell
are you bitching about? You're getting paid $2.60 a day ain't you?"

Don Chase, 1/15/3, penned some pretty decent poems about the Wonsan-Hangnam
episode. A sample:

"Fallen Comrades"

No matter what I'm doing, or where my steps may roam,
I think about my comrades who never came back home.
Many years have passed, but my memory hasn't dimmed;
A picture of those men, still clings and lies within.

I see their unlined faces, which never did grow old;
The shy, timid, withdrawn ones, and also those so bold.
Still hear their youthful banter, brightening many dreary days,
Keeping all their fear Inside, each one in different ways.

Yet all did their duty, as good soldiers do so well,
Existing under conditions, that offtimes were sheer hell.
I remember all the sharing, both rations and packages from wives;
This generousness of spirit, always kept so much alive.

All of this stays with me, ever turning in my mind,
Faces drifting pass my eyes, from another place and time.
So many times I've wondered, why them instead of me?
Maybe in some future world, I'll be allowed to see.

****

Excerpt from a longer poem, "Ballad of a Retreat"

They had us all surrounded,
I could hear them scream and yell,
My feelings at that moment,
No tongue could ever tell.
I saw the bursting mortar shells,
And the bullets around me flew,
As all my strength had left me,
And all my courage too.

With the breaking of the morning,
Just before the dawn,
I heard the sounding bugles,
And the big attack was on.
The cotton quilted uniforms
Against our bullet spree,
The screaming yelling banzai,
They called the human sea.

Baby faces bearded,
And chapped with hardenin'mud,
Parkas that were dirty,
And stained with frozen blood.
Here a bunch of youngsters,
Who fought on till the end,
In the battle without an end,
Where boys were changed to men.

Twelve long miles of convoy,
Headed for the sea,
Roadblocks at every turning,
Down to the frozen sea.
The frost bite and the wounded,
With their dead and dying too,
No matter what the objective be,
These boys were going through,
The Captain he informed us.

Perhaps he thought it right,
That before we reach the river, boys,
We're going to have a fight.
We're going out like Americans,
In an organized withdrawal,
And no matter what the rumors say,
It's no retreat at all.

We fought at least nine hours,
Before the strife was o'er
And the like of dead and wounded,
I've never seen before.
But the everlasting promise,
Kept along each bloody yard,
No one leaves behind the wounded,
'Cause there ain't no fight that hard.

The chaplain collected dog tags,
In his hands were quite a few,
There was Captain Smith's, McCloskie's,
And Corporal Bryan's too.
And before we reached the river,
And fought our way back through,
The sergeant had the dog tags,
And he had the chaplain's too....
.....

If I made you pause one moment,
And take a little time,
Then I know it wasn't just in vain,
That I put these words to rhyme.
For there're just too many people,
Who take this all in stride,
Who hear these tales of battles,
Then cast it all aside...


Chris Mark

[vincent p. norris]

> The Marines battle at Chosin is rightly remembered, as they went through the Chicoms like
>Caesar through Gaul. (Wasn't that where Chesty Puller said, "They've got us
>surrounded--they won't get away this time!) But the Army was there, too

According to _Breakout_ by Martin Russ, the Army units up north were
so inept they were a burden on the marines, rather than help. They had
to be rescued by the marines as the latter fought their way out.

The Army's performance was so bad the U.S. Congress conducted an
investigation to determine what went wrong and why.

vince norris

[Chris Mark]

>From: vincent p. norris

>According to _Breakout_ by Martin Russ, the Army units up north were
>so inept they were a burden on the marines, rather than help.

The only things the Marines did at Hungnam was march through the perimeter held
by the 3rd ID, board ships and leave. Next to be evacuated were the ROK troops.
Remnants of the 7th ID which was strung out in a rapid advance when the
Chicoms hit and was badly mauled, left next. Then 100,000 civilian refugees
which streamed into the city were evacuated. The 3rd which had been dealing
with the NK in the Wonsan area and had made a fighting retreat to Hungnam,
secured and held the perimeter, some 7 miles deep, throughout the entire
evacuation. 3ID troops were the last off the beach. The 1st Marine division
played no role at Hungnam other than evacuating from there.
As far as the situation when the Chinese attacked, it was worth a congressional
investigation to find out just what happened. Remember than Gen. MacArthur
had pushed 8th Army's Gen. Walker to advance faster and threatened to remove
him if he didn't. X Corps MG Edward Almond was aware of that and pushed his
units to move forward on the double. The 7th ID, NNW of the lst Marines, did
as ordered. The Marines' Gen Oliver Smith moved forward very slowly, so slowly
that Almond chided him repeatedly. One reason Smith was so cautious is that
the Marines had run into Chicoms in the first week of Nov.--when no chinese
were thought or anticipated to be in Korea. Had the 7th ID had a similar
encounter, they might have slowed and been better prepared to resist the hit of
some 300,000 Chicoms. Smith himself said that if his division had been
dispersed like 7ID it would have been wiped out. As it was, he was able to
command a compact legion that scythed through the Chicoms and reached a port of
evacuation held by a US Army Division, the Third, which had had to fight its
way there itself--with nary a marine to be found.
The 3rd, which nominally a full division, was understrength by an incredible
8,500 men when it was sent to assist in "mop up" operations of North Korean
troops around Wonsan. The shortage at the time wasn't considered a bid deal
because major combat was assumed to be over.
This mopping up cost hundreds of casualties, but was considered "light" by the
standards of the day. But by Dec.1, when the 3rd was ordered to secure
Hungnam, the Chicoms had infiltrated troops into the area and cut the rail
lines and placed roadblocks along the road routes. The 3rd fought its way
through all of these, made it to Hungnam, and secured it. No Marines had to
rescue them.
A month after leaving Hungnam the 3rd was back in action in brutal fighting to
secure bridgeheads over the Han river and was in fierce fighting beyond the
Han. During a massive Chinese counterattack during the last week of April 1951
iirc about a half dozen CMHs went to 3ID soldiers. Then they went into the
original "Iron Triangle" (before the one in Vietnam). And on through the war.
I would not consider myself an expert on the Korean War, but Russ's comments do
seem to be out of line.


Chris Mark

[Cub Driver]

>The Army's performance was so bad the U.S. Congress conducted an
>investigation to determine what went wrong and why.

It also affected the U.S. Army for years afterward! I went through
basic training in the winter of 1956, and of course the cadre were all
veterans of Korea. They were intensely aware of how badly the troops
were trained for that conflict (as I recall, the army set up training
centers behind the lines, so as to knock some skills into the men who
were sent over), and they were determined that it wouldn't happen on
their watch. They ran us ragged.

I believe that even the system of putting every recruit through "first
eight" of infantry basic was the result of the Korean experience.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Chris Mark]

Found this poem that explains how the Hungnam perimeter was held by those
worthless dogfaces (author unknown):

There is a story that should be told
Of seven brave men
Facing death in a place called Hungnam
Snow 3 feet deep and 40 below
A night patrol is ordered
Seven volunteer, alive and wounded.

Beards crusted with ice and blood
Feet frozen beyond pain.
Lives depend on this patrol
Loved ones pray for their return
A sniper's aim is true
Six alive and wounded.

Hungnam port is 7 miles south;
Safety, warmth and food,
Quietly they advance, inch by inch
One man coughs:
Five alive and wounded.

Night becomes day
Flares burn slowly in the black sky
Silent is the air, too cold for sound
Grenades explode, a deafening roar
Three alive and wounded.

One hour without movement
Bones and muscles resist
Nerves strained and tense
Make one want to scream
A burp gun shatters the silence
Two alive and wounded.

A bullet races on its way.
Flesh gives way to steel;
One alive and wounded.

Alone and scared remains the one:
Forty below and sweating.

An upward look into a Chinese face,
Frozen hands can't pull the trigger.
A blow to the head and blessed sleep;
One alive, wounded, and a prisoner.





Chris Mark

[vincent p. norris]

>>According to _Breakout_ by Martin Russ, the Army units up north were
>>so inept they were a burden on the marines, rather than help.
>
>The only things the Marines did at Hungnam was march through the perimeter held
>by the 3rd ID, board ships and leave.

What happened at Hungnam is irrelevant. Neither Russ's book nor my
posting was about Hungnam.

>I would not consider myself an expert on the Korean War,

In that case, you might learn something by reading Russ's book.
You could also read the Congressional hearings cited in his book.

And see Dan Ford's posting.

vince norris.

[Chris Mark]

>From: vincent p. norris

>What happened at Hungnam is irrelevant. Neither Russ's book nor my
>posting was about Hungnam.

yeah, but my post to which you responded was, only making a passing reference
to the Marines (and a complimentary one), and you said "the Army units up
north" and Hungnam is "up north." You came out of left field with an uncalled
for slur on dead young men. I suppose you spend your vacations traveling to
military cemetaries and ****ing on graves. Another asshole for the killfile.





Chris Mark

[vincent p. norris]

>Hungnam is "up north."

To the Marines, "up north" means the Chosin Reservoir.

vince norris