 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! March 12, 2004 Our Next President will be a VeteranBy GreyhawkHere in Mudville we don't consider George Bush or John Kerry's military records as "off the table" or "ancient history". We do recognize their current views are much more important, and won't hesitate to reflect and discuss them. In fact, over the next several months the focus here will certainly shift to those aspects of the campaigns. But being a military blog, well, we aren't going to shy away from discussing the military service of those who would seek our votes for the position of Commander-in-Chief. Likewise, we don't like comment threads on other topics being hijacked for discussion of these issues. Threfore, it's time to present a compilation of entries dealing with these "hot button" issues. Many of these entries have extensive comment threads, with inputs from lots of knowledgeable (or opinionated) people. Many links to other sites (often with opposing views) with even more discussion on the issues can be found in these entries too. You will not likely find a more comprehensive resource for information and opinion on these topics anywhere. Was Lt Bush AWOL? Bowling for Voters Bowling for Voters II Memefighter AWOL Again Bush AWOL It's Not the Economy, Stupid The "Ahhh" Moment Ahhhh... so the carrier landing, in which the CinC "dressed up in a flight suit and paraded around" is what's got the kollektiv lefty panties in a knot? Politary
Kerry: "Buck Fush"! Veterans Sound off on Kerry What did you do in the War? The First Cut is the Deepest The Second Purple Heart The Bright and Shining Moment Ol' Cut n' Run Ten Little Brothers, Standing in a Line, One Voted Bush, and Then There Were Nine. Forgive? Update to follow. Much more to come, including the "John Kerry Winter Soldier" section. Posted by Greyhawk / March 12, 2004 6:54 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackI can't believe that John Kerry is comparing US companies to Benedict Arnold. This coming from a guy who testified that all vietnam servicemen were committing atrocities? Kerry's Plan Targets 'Benedict Arnolds' By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer... Read More 12 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
It's hard for me to understand such one-sided antipathy for a man who served honorably in the military. He put his life on the line, which is a damn sight more than GWB did.
Tom, the purpose of comments is for debate. There can be no one-sided debate. Thanks for starting this one.
No antipathy, it's just that Kerry is the only known example of an American military commander abandoning his troops in time of war. Few Americans are aware of this. Benedict Arnold was also heroic prior to comitting treason.
By the way, are you saying that piloting military aircraft isn't inherently dangerous?
Answer required before proceeding. Careful here...
Granted, piloting (or even riding in) a military aircraft is dangerous. Flying domestic in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War exposed one to considerably less danger than going to Vietnam, however. Many would see the opportunity to avoid combat AND getting to fly high performance aircraft as a win-win situation.
Your point about the carelessness over "AWOL" and "desertion" charges is well-taken, but I think we can agree that one can stay out of trouble and collect an Honorable Discharge in many different ways, not all of them honorable.
As for being "the only known example of an American military commander abandoning his troops in time of war," what are you talking about?
Dan, did you catch the quotes (from Kerry) in the "Forgive?" thread?
"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," the Globe cites Mr. Kerry saying in a 1986 book about Vietnam. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to do."
Yep. That's putting your life on the line, all right.
The man spent only 4 months in-country (if you want to include service in the electrical department of a missle frigate as in-country)! He got three scratches, then bugged out as soon as he could, using those three scratches as an excuse.
Me, I normally wouldn't be too hard on a record like this, but from day one of his campaign, Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) has been pushing his "war veteran" status into the public eye, with the enthusiastic cooperation of the media.
He wants to spotlight his record? Fine. But he better be able to stand up under the glare, amigo.
What he did was game the system so he could get his ticket punched the same way Kennedy did, and come back a "war hero," then get elected. Which plan, by the way, went by the wayside for 20 years after he encountered the political climate in 1969. So he publicly threw (what turned out NOT to be his) medals away to curry political favor instead, and literally accused his fellow veterans of war crimes.
Are there any other questions?
Great point, Casey. Also a great point from Tom:
what are you talking about?
we're talking about the fact that 68% of Americans think John Kerry did his duty for his country in Vietnam but only 49% know what he did in Vietnam.
He curtailed a one-year tour at after 3 months of duty (Dec-Mar). He left with three purple hearts for three scratches.
Might be okay for some but Kerry had command. Thus the only American commander to abandon his troops in time of war. ( Although the Iraqi commanders abandoned their troops in Desert Storm.)
And yea, Casey, I think we'd all let him live with his shame but the Democratic sleaze machine wants to call him a hero, and nobody in the media is going to call them on it. Word will get out because of sites like this one.
Spread the word.
Thanks for answering my question. It seems we could partition voters in three groups, let's call them left, right and center. You all are on the right, I'm on the left; we're not going to change that. The election is going to be decided by the center, some of whom served, most of whom didn't.
In this analysis of the candidates' military service, it seems the left/right discussion is colored by our politics. I don't see much desire here to weigh the facts, but rather a desire to select those that support previous conclusions. Vietnam was about as divisive a war as we've had. Clinton dodged military service completely, Bush got a good ol' boy pass into the ANG and Kerry got his "ticket punched" as safely as he could (by the analysis I read here). None of these compare with the less-privileged who served full terms without fame, who sacrificed limbs, lives or the chance for an untroubled life.
Of the two current candidates, it seems clear to me that Kerry's service had significantly greater risk, and honor. George W. Bush has matured and gained honorable qualities, but his "early days" are documented well enough that trying to put a gloss on his time in the Texas ANG seems like a desperate partisan exercise.
When Kerry came home, he protested against the war, as did other veterans, and many more who did not serve. Our ability -- our right -- to question military actions of our government is one of the things that makes this country worth fighting for. If you disagree with the stance he took, it's "abandoning the troops." If you agree with it, he was doing what he could to stop an unjust war and save more lives, on both sides.
But that was then, this is now.
The more salient questions are about our future. As so eloquently expressed in the essays on this site, our country has been attacked, and our focus on defense is extremely important. The response to 9/11 in the first months was measured, focused, and arguably effective. It seems unfortunate that a pre-determined agenda against Hussein's regime in Iraq distracted us from the "war on terror."
There is a huge difference between the honorable and patriotic support of our military, and the acceptance of all missions they are sent on by politicians as honorable. Strategically, I'm afraid that our adventure into Iraq is a collossal blunder. We were not prepared to deal with an ongoing insurgency, we let ourselves be misled by the INC and now we our resources and our people are being pushed to the limit, even as other threats in the world fester. If we'd directed our "nation-building" at Afghanistan, I think we'd be in a much stronger position: militarily, economically, and in creating an international coalition against terrorism.
Tom you seem reasonable. (Some folks show up here and defend Saddam, you are far from that sort) but you'll have a hard time convincing military guys that they
1. Weren't prepared for Iraq, bwefore or after the end of major hostilities - we were.
2. Kerry was honorable in service - no, he was the only American to abandon his command. Can't be glossed over.
3. Kerry saved lives by protesting - no, he prolonged the war. All protestors did. That's according to the North Vietnamese.
And if you want to say "the military is stretched" then the only way to finish that sentance is to say "so we must pull out of Bosnia and Kosovo now."
I could go on, but I'll let others have a shot.
But I'll add that America is nowhere near total war (think WWII) yet in the war on terror. And though it may never occur to you to join up and fight, it will to many others should the need arise.
Patriots, if you will, in the true sense of the word.
Its all about the oil-for-food Tom. We know whats going on.
Nice try though.
And Tom, we're neither left nor right - we're military. This is a military point of view.
We defend all. We don't fit that mold.
Tom, thank you for an intelligent answer. I have to say it's rather refreshing to hear from someone who can disagree without wearing a tinfoil hat. :)
Just to get it out of the way, I'm not "right wing." It just so happens that I disagree with Bush, and much of the conservative/GOP less than I disagree with the liberal/DNC. I am more or less a Federalist. You don't find many of us these days. :)
I noticed that you have backed away from your earlier statement that "[Kerry] put his life on the line." I'm glad to see that you (apparently) agree that that was not the case after all.
Your claim that "Kerry's service had significantly greater risk" is statistically weak. You can find summaries of Vietnam casualties at http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/CASUALTY/vietnam.pdf. Please note that total hostile deaths for the U.S. Navy is 1,628. Note that this does not include non-hostile deaths. Total wounded -not mortal- is 4,178.
Note that the Navy had the lowest casualty rate of any service in Vietnam. Also note that U.S. Army non-hostile deaths are over 4 times the Navy hostile deaths.
I had trouble finding specifics on F-102 accident rates. Aside from comments from men who flew the Dagger, I found this: http://www.milblog.org/MTA/archives/000827.html
"The F-104 was sort of like owning the sharpest knife in the world. It was an honest airplane; you knew what was going on all the time. but like using a sharp knife, you better not make any mistakes. it did not suffer fools at all. The engine-out landing pattern was wild; 15,000 and 260 over the runway and one turn, 240 KIAS over the threshold. Drop the gear by the emergency release during the flare! Rate of descent stabilized with gear down, engine off, at 240KIAS was about 11,000FPM. No slack there. The bird got a bad rep during its infancy - in the USAF about a third of them were lost to engine failure before GE got the bugs out of it. In the Luftwaffe a lot of accidents were due to a combination of green pilots, poor maintenance and lousy (normal) European wx. With 4 tanks - fairly common LW configuration - the liftoff speed is around 215 KIAS. On an 8000 foot runway there is NO slack at all."
Note that this refers to the F-104 Starfighter, not the F-102, but the Dagger was nearly as dangerous. I did find: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/KJJ.htm
which said that losses for the F-102 for the first 90,000 hours was 27, while losses after 213,000 hours was 38. Comparable numbers for the F-104 were 43, and 88.
I also found: http://www.milblog.org/MTA/archives/000816.html, wherein a veteran wrote
"[Bush] flew an aircraft that had a 1 in 5 chance of killing him over a 10 year period."
1/5 ten years
Blast it! That's what I get for hitting "Post" insted of "Preview."
Then the browser ate my follow-up. Aack.
Conclusion: I think that Dennis had it right: this is a division between military, and non-military; or at least those who just don't understand how things military work.
Ok, if the dimension at hand is military / non-military, I'll acknowledge being the latter, and attempt to respond to some of the points raised.
Iraq preparation: it seems an awkward fit, at best, to have a military fighting force serve as police in a foreign country. I mean no criticism of military preparedness, but rather that the administration leaders did not anticipate the needs beyond a successful Blitzkrieg. Looting, attacks on infrastructure, insurgency, that sort of thing. The rational thing for Iraqis to do would have been to welcome the US and coalition forces as liberators, but war has a way of messing with rationality. Imagine how we'd respond to foreign powers attacking the US to depose a corrupt and despotic regime.
"The only commander to abandon his troops" -- I'm still not buying that, I'm sorry. Accepting the facts as laid out here does not support that charge, any more than Bush's glide through the ANG supports a charge of desertion.
"Its all about the oil-for-food Tom. We know whats going on." Hmm, I guess I don't. What does this mean, exactly?
"...you have backed away from your earlier statement that '[Kerry] put his life on the line.'" Again, I don't understand this. The facts referenced on this site that are undisputed show him in the theater of war, wounded by shrapnel, the enemy shooting at him and so on. That he chose to take the administrative exit offered for someone with 3 Purple Hearts does not strike me as cowardice. I don't know where my own breaking point is, and can't guess where it is for anyone else. I won't dispute there are greater heroes in our history and our present-day military. We've seen measures of both candidates responses under fire, and both can be criticized. (I'd be interested in your military responses to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html, for example.)
The statistics of relative risk are an interesting analytic pursuit, but they don't tell us much about character or honor. We all drive cars and don't give much thought to the risk involved; no one treats it as heroism. Would I rather skipper a patrol boat in Vietnam or fly an F-102 for occasional sorties over Texas? I'm pretty sure I'd take the latter. Up until the last one broke up on re-entry, I would've taken a seat on the shuttle without hesitation. I'd probably still do it, but I know my palms would sweat a lot more now.
Point of note
If that was then and this is now, then why worry about Bushs service?
In either event he served his full tenure while carry bailed after 4 motnhs then turned around and began protesting as well as be littling all the mud sloggers still in service overseas.
Bush never criticised his fellow soldiers.
Thats enough for me right there.