WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! ARTICLE 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A real Leader - Thoughts about Gunfighter Emerson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: A retired Non Com tells us what makes a good senior leader in response to Hack's recent article. Good leaders make a unit while bad leaders wreck it in no time! ************************************************************************ By Dave Nutter I just read your article in the Newsletter. My very first assignment as a 17 year-old private was the 1-72 Armor of the 1st Brigade of the 2d Division in 1974. Emerson was the Division Commander. He set high standards, took care of the troops, trained us to accomplish our mission and never lost touch. It was not unusual to go into a bar on the strip and find him in there having a beer. I can even remember signing out on pass at the same time his jeep rolled into the company area. He got out with my best friend (who was absolutely stumbling drunk) asked where this soldier's bunk was, took him up, put him in it and left. The only way the CO and First Shirt heard about this was from the CQ. Nothing official ever came down. What are the chances of that happening now? There was absolutely nothing politically correct about him and his soldiers loved him! As Viet Nam drew down he was in command of the Army's most forward deployed unit that was in imminent danger every minute of every day and he never tolerated poor leaders. One of the things I loved about being stationed in Korea was the further north you went, the less BS you had to put up with. It was as serious as it could get without actually having the two armies shooting at each other. I sure hope our military finds some more of Emerson's type for the next conflict, or we may experience a very rude awakening for our country! =============================================================== ARTICLE 6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "And So We Remember Vietnam (Cong Hoa) " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: 25 years after the end of the Vietnam War, few veterans remain on active duty. Here are the thoughts of a still serving senior Non-Commissioned Officer *********************************************************************** By Master Sergeant Jeffrey D. Gallant 525 M.I. Group, APO, SF, 96222 Republic of Vietnam, 24 April 1969 - 01 July 1971. On 30 April 1975, the events, people and places that were my, and many others experience in Vietnam, were relegated to a past that, in terms of the final outcome, never existed. It was all for nothing. In terms of those we knew, the friends and relatives we lost or left there, in terms of those who have since, and will again be asked to finish what we were not allowed to, this is the final tragedy of Vietnam. A small country, with those people who we thought were worth saving, is gone! A nation died, alone, with only a small bang, and a whimper that haunts some of us still, more than can be entwined in my words on this page. A nation died, and was mourned by too few, but how and why it happened is at "ground zero" on the stage of shame and the cause of anguish, among us who served, really cared, and tried to save this small country. Each person has his or her own opinion as to why the end came as it did. Some people say that it was underestimation of the North Vietnamese, overestimation of the South Vietnamese, or a little of both. Some still say that it really was just a civil war, won by heroic freedom-loving rebels. Some decry the political restraint placed on the American military force, that they believe could have won, if allowed to make its own battlefield decisions. Some blame that same military force directly. An easy answer is the media's grand pronouncement of the popular disenchantment and lack of will on the part of America to see this war through. Some citizens of this nation still rejoice at the outcome, victory for their friends. Some simply do not care. Some want to forget that it ever happened. We must never allow them to do that! But whatever you believe, those of us who fought in the swamps, hills, jungles, escarpments, caves, and also in the skies of Southeast Asia, with death dancing around us, did so in the finest tradition of the American Fighting Man. There was little personal glory in my Vietnam War, and we all knew it, with what was going on back home. While I was on leave after my first full tour, exactly thirty years ago today, my hometown, Framingham, Massachusetts, dedicated a flagpole in the town square to Vietnam Veterans. Counting me, there were eleven people in attendance on a beautiful spring morning. I remember being disbelieving of the fact that I was still alive after waking up on a damp morning, in the highlands, within view of the border of Laos. I was stunned with my apparent immortality, at the age of nineteen. In a thankless effort we carried the war to the enemy and continually tried to pull together the indigenous Southern forces to stand up and fight. With the passing of time, missions accomplished, and the cost of those missions recorded in friends lost and left behind, we plodded onward for our country, shedding our adolescence and our innocence bit by bit. Yet despite these things, despite vilification from our own countrymen, despite comic-opera restraints that decreed that the war could be fought only on the enemy's terms, despite defenses unmatched in the history of war in the air and on the ground, we flew and fought. And we almost pulled it off. The world will never know, nor does it want to hear, how we had victory in our grasp, only to have it traded away in one final concession by those to whom the politically expedient is the best way. Only we know, and we will keep that knowledge with us to our final breaths. Our courage, loyalty, professionalism, and patriotism are a matter of record, and are never to be questioned by anyone! And as the call has come, and will again, from the Book of Isaiah, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" those who follow the highest quest will answer as they always have. "Here am I; send me," said the author and so said many other fine young men, as they went off to war, most boys, but to become men of freedom. ============================================================== ARTICLE 7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Navy Vets Get Back Into Uniform ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed. We continuously read reports that the Navy is losing people in record numbers, but there is also another side -- many sailors discover that civilian life is nor for them and want to get back in. It's possible, as the following piece describes. ************************************************************************ By John Burlage The red-hot civilian job market isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. That's the implicit lesson behind the growing number of Navy veterans who are putting on their uniforms and returning to service. The Navy has stepped up efforts to recruit former veterans. Recruiting officials say that 1,472 "NaVets" and other-service veterans, or "Osvets," returned to the fold in the first six months of fiscal 2000, which started Oct. 1, 1999. That nearly matches the 1,852 recruited during all of fiscal 1999 and is more than three times the 528 recruited the first six months of the last fiscal year. Recruiting specialists are counting on at least 2,000 this year, and "we wouldn't object if the number went over 3,000," said Lt. Steve Zip, a spokesman for the Navy's recruiting command. The veterans are returning for many reasons, recruiting specialists say. But one big factor has to be the Navy's new campaign to bring them back, contacting them to let them know the door is open. For instance, the Navy sent more than 380,000 letters to sea-service vets since Oct. 22, 1999, under the signature of Rear Adm. Barbara McGann, the Navy's top salesperson. McGann tells the vets that "re-enlisting in the Navy is a viable option available to you." Thenice Fiedler, out of the Navy more than eight years, was waiting for new uniforms April 18 at the Transient Personnel Unit Great Lakes, Ill. The former aviation machinist's mate 3rd class was headed for basic skills schools that will let her convert to electronics technician. "It started as a joke," said Fiedler, 33. "I learned a friend was trying to get back into the Air Force. I asked my husband, 'What do you think about me going back in?' He said, 'Go for it.' " Fiedler left the Navy to start a family, but she's tired of the insecurities of civilian life, she said, and took the offer of training the recruiter gave her. Family reasons are why Darrell Lloyd, 25, left the Navy in June 1998 after four years. "I guess it was mostly my ex-wife saying everything would get better for us once I was out of the Navy," said Lloyd, whose second wife thinks it's wonderful he's returning -- and at his former rate of damage controlman 3rd class. Lloyd said he tired of being asked to cover up for lax attention being paid to safety measures at the processing plant where he worked as a safety supervisor. "I wasn't trained to do that in the Navy," he said. "I didn't want the responsibility of looking the other way." He's bound for duty aboard the aircraft carrier Constellation. Damage Controlman 1st Class (SW) Daryl Girnus, 29, was out of the Navy just eight months before he decided to return. "I have three kids," he said, "and I wanted to see them grow up. But it didn't take me long to learn that my civilian job would mean I wasn't seeing much of them anyway." So, with his wife's support, he's giving up a well-paying job as a security guard for a nuclear power plant in Michigan for an assignment to the guided missile frigate Ford out of Everett, Wash. "I wanted ET, but converting meant I'd have to drop two pay grades," Girnus said. "My recruiter wouldn't let me do that." There were 53 Navets and 23 Osvets in the Great Lakes transinet personnel unit as of April 18, said Lt. Ron Knighton, the TPU commanding officer. "That number is high," he said, "and it has been high over the last eight or so months since [the recruiting command] started to actively recruit Navets and Osvets." Rules governing re-enlistment of veterans are simple. They must agree to sign up for four years. Those with more than two years' prior service must have made at least E-3, and those re-enlisting as recruits or apprentices must have served less than two years in their first enlistment. Other time-in-grade requirements: * E-3 and E-4 can't have more than six years prior service. * E-5 can't have more than eight years. * E-6 can't have more than 12 years. The program isn't open to former sailors who left the Navy during the drawdown with an exit bonus. Whatever their reasons for returning, Knighton is certain Navets and Osvets are good for the Navy. "They're focused," he said. "They're more mature, because they've got a tour of duty under their belts. And they now know what they really want to do. They want to be here, and we need them." ============================================================== ARTICLE 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Case for the V-22 Osprey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ed.: The discussion surrounding the V-22 Osprey continues in light of the recent decision by the Marines to continue flight-testing. Although many contend that Osprey is too expensive, complex, dangerous and not needed, this reader comment provides a different and valid perspective. *********************************************************************** By Kenneth P. Katz In response to the editor�s request for viewpoints on the V-22 Osprey, I have perspectives that may be of the interest to the readership. To state my credentials, I am an MIT-educated aerospace engineer, former US Air Force officer who was assigned to the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, and former Boeing flight test engineer who participated in the V-22 Osprey flight test program. I bring to the issue a combination of military background, technological expertise, hands-on V-22 experience and objectivity (neither the military nor Boeing currently give me a paycheck). There are three questions that must be answered. (1) Are the users� requirements valid? The users include the US Marine Corps and the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). Both users need a medium transport aircraft that can hover and take-off and land vertically. Range and speed must be much greater than that of current helicopters. The long range is needed to keep the amphibious ships out of the range of increasingly lethal anti-ship missiles, as well as give AFSOC a deep infiltration and exfiltration capability. The high speed increases the rate of combat force build-up during assaults and is also critical to secondary missions such as rescue and medevac. Other user requirements include shipboard compatibility, a higher degree of survivability than current helicopters, night/adverse weather capability and protection of the occupants against nuclear, chemical and biological (NBC) contamination. In summary, these are the sorts of capabilities that give American forces an unfair advantage -- appropriate requirements for a wealthy nation that would rather expend treasure rather than blood. (2) Is the V-22 Osprey operationally effective and logistically supportable so that it can meet the users' requirements? Any machine that meets the demanding requirements defined by the users is going to be complex and expensive. The V-22 Osprey is guilty on both counts in spades. It is an amazingly sophisticated system -- a true wonder of technology. Let us be frank. Ospreys #1-#6 were science projects, not remotely suitable for the military. As well as being unreliable hangar queens, they were dangerously immature. However, they did prove the feasibility of this innovative new configuration, albeit at a heavy price in lives and dollars. Osprey #5 crashed on its first flight because of a manufacturing mistake. This was a display of incompetence by Boeing but not an indictment of the fundamental concept or design. The horrific Osprey #4 mishap pointed out a variety of design flaws that were rather easily fixed. Armed with the knowledge from the test program, the redesign produced an improved design for Ospreys #7 and on. By all accounts, the redesigned V-22 is operationally suitable. I have no inside knowledge of the reliability and maintainability of the newer Ospreys, having not been on the program for several years. However, modern aircraft are not inherently unreliable. To give just one example, the F-16 and F-18 are both much more reliable than the F-4 that they replaced. As for the most recent crash, it simply premature to draw conclusions until the facts are available. **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
