Then and Now: Lessons Unlearned

It appears to be a rule in "military history and lessons learned" that we don't remember the lessons.

Below is an article by Vince Morris of the New York Post, who is probably too young to remember a little "conflict" called Vietnam. But I won't forget it, or the lessons we learned, since I was a young US Marine infantryman who did my share of rice paddy wading in I Corps in 1965-66.

One of the lessons American fighting men learn in the first few days of war is that our rules don't count. We learn about the enemy, his methods, madness and motivations. We also learn that they do not, ever, think or act like Americans. It seems we never learn that we are different, and they don't play by our rules.

Americans are a kind and compassionate people. We try to "liberate" and not "conquer" when we go to war. Liberating Iraq and fighting terrorism now is identical to defending South Vietnam and fighting Vietcong terrorism in the '60s. I landed with H Company, 2nd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment at DaNang in July of 1965. Within three days of our landing we were entrenched around a village called Duong Son and began receiving fire from guerrillas of the Doc Lap battalion of Vietcong (based in a tunnel complex under the village of Cam Ne, one kilometer across the paddies to the west).

We established an outpost of one platoon on a small island in the paddies between us and Cam NE, and sent two wiremen to string commo wire to the "little ville" (which was one building used as a schoolhouse). They left just before dark and never arrived at the "schoolhouse." They never came back either.

The next morning we sent out patrols and found them at the edge of Cam NE, hung up by their heals in a tree, tortured and killed as a signal to us of what would happen in the future. There were other atrocities that had been done to the bodies that I won't describe.

But it backfired. It had just the opposite effect on us that it may have had on other nationalities. It did not scare us. It did not terrify us. It did not make us want to quit and go home. Instead, it galvanized us--and changed the rules.

Americans begin by being kind and understanding and compassionate. But don't anger us. Don't try to shock us. Don't hurt any of our people. Because if you do, you will bring down more fire and brimstone than you ever reckoned existed.

Seeing the two bodies caused us (the entire Regiment) to change our attitude about the enemy and the Vietnamese in general. This would last for the rest of the war. THEY are the ones who caused more grief and death and destruction on their personnel than would have happened if the two young Marines had not been captured, tortured and executed. For the next 11 months I never took a prisoner on purpose. I killed every VC and NVA I could get in my sights (and later my scope as a sniper). I hated them and when I took up the trigger slack on every target, I thought of those two wireman who went home in body bags after only three days in Vietnam.

Now we have young soldiers and Marines faced with the latest version of the "wiremen incident of Duong Son." American National Guard reservists from Texas, serving in a support role, made a wrong turn in Iraq and evidently drove up to Iraqis wearing civilian clothes. No one knows what happened next, but whatever happened it is evident that our guys were not prepared for combat. If they had been, there would have been Iraqi bodies on the road instead of American. Our guys expected Iraqi "civilians" would be glad to see them, and they probably assumed these "civilians" would be helpful if they stopped to ask directions. The Iraqis were either soldiers in civvies, or militia. So, it appears no defensive shots were fired. But the Al Jazeera TV footage shows dead GIs with head wounds that appear to be from very close range. This was an execution of POWs by war criminals. This is the Iraqi War version of the Wiremen Incident. And now our guys are relearning the lessons we learned in Vietnam: There Is No Compassionate War.

In my opinion, there are two missions for the man in the field: Win the war quickly, and go home alive.

To do this, a warrior has to be careful, cautious and ruthless. We must know we cannot fight a "careful war" in which we try not to hurt anyone. The mission of the military is not that of policeman. The mission is to go places, destroy real estate, break things, and kill people. We have to relearn this in every war. But it is a lesson we quickly learn, albeit often a bit late, and with far too much of our own blood.

When one sees the liberal socialist media whining about civilian casualties, just put these images in your mind: Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie, the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, the attack on the USS Cole, the 9-11 WTC and Pentagon attacks, and the crash in Pennsylvania. Also remember that we have over 100 Iraqi terrorist cells, not to mention al Qaeda in this country just watching and waiting for a chance to "avenge Saddam."

Here's to our troops: God Bless, God Speed, and now that you know the "rules," Good Hunting!

Semper Fidelis,

Craig Roberts
LTC, USAR, INF, (Ret)
L/Cpl, USMC, Vietnam, '65-66
www.riflewarrior.com

Now, read on, my comments are in brackets...

ARTICLE:

****Marines Out To Avenge Blood Of 'Executed' GI's****

The Marines at this chopper base near the Iraqi border are seething with rage and talking revenge over the treatment of American POWs - paraded on TV and some possibly executed.

"OK, they want to play that way. We can play that way," vowed one enraged pilot. Marine after Marine had the same message - many of them warning that there would be "no second chances for those Iraqis now." Virtually every conversation here touched on the POW's treatment and possible executions yesterday. It was discussed on chow lines, in the bomb shelters, outside the latrines.

(This is the latest version of The Wiremen Incident that changed the rules of engagement in the field for the average grunt)

Robert "Doc" Davenport, a Marine medic trained to both save people and kill them, was among those struggling to digest the appalling news. "It makes it harder to do my job," he said, explaining he'll now think twice about dressing the wounds of injured Iraqis. "If we run across one of them and he needs my help, it will be harder for me to do it," he added.

(Our Doc Lindstrom felt the same way. As a Navy Corpsman, he wanted to help people and save lives, but after the wireman incident he added four grenades to his aid bag).

Many Marines on this desert base - affectionately known as "Snakepit" - said they believe they were sent to Iraq not to hurt people, but to free them from Saddam Hussein's ruthless grip. "We want to help these people and look what they're doing to us," said more than one shocked Marine.

(Exactly what we thought and said at Duong Son in '65)

"What we should do is go in there and kill every last soul," growled Sgt. Mike Brady. "If they realize that we are going to kill them like that, they'll be like 'OK, OK, we surrender,' " said the 28-year-old Texas native. Brady, who mans the twin 50-caliber machine-guns aboard a Sea Stallion chopper, said he'll be much more wary now when he's flying over Iraqi positions. He'll no longer give enemy soldiers the benefit of the doubt when they start waving white flags. "I'm going to be a lot quicker to pull that trigger if I think they're up to something," he said.

(Our Sgt. Shireman said almost the same thing, but his version was "no prisoners, any questions?")

During an air raid yesterday - when everyone rushed into the bomb shelters with their gas masks and chemical and biological gear - one Marine's muffled swearing was heard above the din. Repeating the sneering nickname used for Saddam Hussein, he kept saying, " 'So damn' insane, 'so damn' insane. I'm going to come up there myself and kill you."

(Ho Ho, Ho Chi Minh, We're gonna hit you on the chin. Then we'll fire shot and shell and send you sorry ass to hell!)

Of course, not everyone on the base is calling for blood - yet. Cpl. Joseph Michinki said he's not convinced the executions actually took place. "They can fake all kinds of things with video," noted Michinki, 21, of Georgia. "But if that really was Americans being killed, I'd be pretty pissed," he added.

(This young Marine will learn, eventually. We all do)

Article by Vince Morris, NYPost.com (italic comments by Craig Roberts, Consolidated Press Int'l)
March 25, 2003
(Reporting from a Marine helicopter base in the Kuwaiti desert)

The (3rd Infantry) division commander, Maj. Gen. Buford Bloat, is candid about the threat. "The Bah Party is very well organized and very active with a lot of forces in Najaf and Samawah," he said in an interview Monday night. "And they are capable of responding fluidly to us."It has always been the hope of the American war planners to avoid Iraq's cities, so as to minimize both American and Iraqi casualties. But there are doubts. "I think these guys are going to keep coming out and harassing us," Bloat said. "I think eventually we're going to have to go in there and kill them. I think we will have to kill them unless we can get rid of the top guy in Baghdad."

Liberating Iraq and fighting terrorism now is identical to defending South Vietnam and fighting Vietcong terrorism in the '60s.

This statement proves that the author is an idiot.

I don't know. I wasn't in Vietnam and I'm not in Iraq now, but are there not similarities between VC tactics and those of the fedayeen? In both cases, the enemy has regular and irregular armies, and the irregulars are proving to be the real nuisance, disregarding any rules of war and in many cases flouting them.

The thing is, we pretty much never fight wars against "civilized people." We use diplomacy with the civilized.

When we go to war, it is as a last restort, and against those who are grossly evil. So what can you expect?

I tihnk the big thing he's missing is what happens after we win. The less damage we do and the more goodwill we have when we win the less time we'll have to hang around in the area. He got the goal right: win quickly and go home, what he failed to understand is that those are actually mutually exclussive goals and that forces us to walk a tightrope.

First, this isn't a civil war. Iraq has been at war with the U.S. for over a decade; 911 just woke SOME of us up to it, that's all. So, we're fighting for our security, not just the "innocent" Iraqis'.

Second, how do you win a war when the innocent and the evil all look the same? Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, it's going to either be A BUNCH of American Soldiers in body bags OR A BUNCH of Iraqis wearing all kinds of clothing in body bags . . . guess which choice we SHOULD MAKE?

The choice has already been made. I saw a report on FNC where a car driving toward a checkpoint failed to stop and was immediately fired on. The (civilian[?]) occupants lived but they were a little shot up.

Once burned twice shy, eh?

He got the goal right: win quickly and go home, what he failed to understand is that those are actually mutually exclussive goals and that forces us to walk a tightrope.

As long as the Saddam loyalists fight that's true. They could let us off the tightrope by surrendering but that ain't gonna happen!

This statement proves that the author is an idiot.

Well, I won't go that far -- maybe the author makes some good points later in the article. But I stopped reading when I got to that statement.

Some old soldiers never seem to get beyond the war they fought. David Hackworth comes to mind.

Then there is the father character in The Four Feathers, always deriding the contemporary British effort in Africa, comparing it negatively to his exploits in what he called a 'real' war (the Crimean). By the end of the story, he was a laughingstock. Of course that is fiction; but it rings true.

They're mutually exclussive because the fastest way to victory is via maximum damage which means the rebuild will take longer and our guys have to stay to keep the peace longer.

Of course mass surrender sure would make things easier. Popular uprising that hangs the loyalists would be good too, I'm not picky.

To assert that the conditions of one conflict are not merely similar but "identical" to another is absolutely preposterous.

Old soldiers apparently do have this tendency, however - though not as flamboyantly grandiose as this writer. Viet vets got the same kind of rhetoric from Korean vets, I understand.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.