Flag Wavers
Last week I heard a senatorial candidate say that the Clint Eastwood movie Flags of Our Fathers increased his support for the Iraqi war. His reasoning was the current death toll of 2,800 service lives pales in comparison to the losses incurred at Iwo Jima. This nod to "Stay the course" is as simplistic as it's progenitor.
The over 5,000 persons killed on Iwo Jima are still dead, as they say on SNL. This fact leads one to try to justify this expenditure of lives. The standard justification for the brutal Iwo invasion was that it saved lives in the long run by giving U.S. airmen a "safe haven" airfield on which to ditch their damaged aircraft. But historians now question the validity of that claim, after examining the figures. The benefits did not outweigh the costs. Airmen's lives were not more valuable than infantrymen's.
Tactical battles should not be undertaken unless they benefit the strategic plans of a nation. Iwo could have been bypassed, isolated and starved without a great expenditure of U.S. lives, but U.S. battle blood was hot. Sound familiar?
Using the movie as a hopping off point, it did demonstrate that the sacrifice and dedication of the U.S. fighting man is always a given. The U.S. fighters on Iwo are equalled by today's military.
But unlike today's entanglements, the mission on Iwo was clear: close with and destroy the enemy by fire and manuevers. Oh, for such simple times. This, by the way, is the simply- stated mission of the infantry soldier. Such clarity of purpose would be welcome in our present Iraqi misadventures, and it is the reason why America reveres our WWII and Korean vets. They were driven to defeat a clearly defined threat.
In the film, the enemy was clearly defined and isolated on the battlefield. In order to destroy an enemy, you you must first fix them, part of the classic find/fix/destroy that the U.S. military is so good at. But to find means you can identify the enemy, a near-impossibility for many of today's infantrymen who are placed in untenable policing situations. You can't nail cranberry sauce to the wall.
The military and civilian leadership as depicted in the movie was well-advised to create and display heroes on bond drives. Why are today's heroes unknown to the taxpayers? Show us our heroes. George Bush decked out in flight suit just doesn't cut it as a prototype of American manhood.
There are plenty of real heroes out there. In fact, why has only one Medal of Honor (MOH) been awarded in this present conflict? Each service should be allocated two MOH's. On D-Day, each Army engaged Regiment was authorized one MOH. This is a good, realistic quota.
At Iwo, the Secretary of the Navy was present during the entire battle. This is the type of engagement that used to be a hallmark of U.S. leadership. Having a turkey dinner in the Green Zone after secretly sneaking into country does not equate.
The over 5,000 persons killed on Iwo Jima are still dead, as they say on SNL. This fact leads one to try to justify this expenditure of lives. The standard justification for the brutal Iwo invasion was that it saved lives in the long run by giving U.S. airmen a "safe haven" airfield on which to ditch their damaged aircraft. But historians now question the validity of that claim, after examining the figures. The benefits did not outweigh the costs. Airmen's lives were not more valuable than infantrymen's.
Tactical battles should not be undertaken unless they benefit the strategic plans of a nation. Iwo could have been bypassed, isolated and starved without a great expenditure of U.S. lives, but U.S. battle blood was hot. Sound familiar?
Using the movie as a hopping off point, it did demonstrate that the sacrifice and dedication of the U.S. fighting man is always a given. The U.S. fighters on Iwo are equalled by today's military.
But unlike today's entanglements, the mission on Iwo was clear: close with and destroy the enemy by fire and manuevers. Oh, for such simple times. This, by the way, is the simply- stated mission of the infantry soldier. Such clarity of purpose would be welcome in our present Iraqi misadventures, and it is the reason why America reveres our WWII and Korean vets. They were driven to defeat a clearly defined threat.
In the film, the enemy was clearly defined and isolated on the battlefield. In order to destroy an enemy, you you must first fix them, part of the classic find/fix/destroy that the U.S. military is so good at. But to find means you can identify the enemy, a near-impossibility for many of today's infantrymen who are placed in untenable policing situations. You can't nail cranberry sauce to the wall.
The military and civilian leadership as depicted in the movie was well-advised to create and display heroes on bond drives. Why are today's heroes unknown to the taxpayers? Show us our heroes. George Bush decked out in flight suit just doesn't cut it as a prototype of American manhood.
There are plenty of real heroes out there. In fact, why has only one Medal of Honor (MOH) been awarded in this present conflict? Each service should be allocated two MOH's. On D-Day, each Army engaged Regiment was authorized one MOH. This is a good, realistic quota.
At Iwo, the Secretary of the Navy was present during the entire battle. This is the type of engagement that used to be a hallmark of U.S. leadership. Having a turkey dinner in the Green Zone after secretly sneaking into country does not equate.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:14 PM
4 Comments:
Lurch,
Your point's well-taken re. the Iwo battle; I'll have to do more research to back up my thoughts on the question of tactics. The brilliance of the island-hopping strategy was to bypass and isolate Japanese strongpoints.
I agree that anyone outside the project was unaware of the atomic bomb.
Re. the MOH allotment idea: this was the policy used on the D-Day invasion, and it worked beautifully. Surely there was no wanting for medal material, as is true today, also. It is a personal bias here, but I think we are being stingy with the awarding of these citations. I beleive each division deserves at least one MOH for this invasion. I'm definitely not advocating for a daily/monthly quota; the award is too dear.
We had more MOH's in the Battle of the Little Bighorn in one day than we've seen in the last two desert wars. Several of these MOH's were for filling canteens for the wounded; I'm not advocating cheapening the award, but I think we should be more realistic.
Thanks for reading so closely. We're proud to have such fine correspondents.
Jim and Lisa
A follow on to Lurch:
After consulting History of Marine Corps Aviation in WWII, I found Okinawa was 385 mi/ closer to the home islands than was Iwo, therefore, I can't grasp why it was used as an emergency field if Okie was closer.
Nonetheless, the book notes while 5563 Marines alone died in the battle of Iwo, 24,700 crewman were saved in emergency landings, so I stand corrected.
Lurch,
I've done further research as you recommended. Since Halsey did know about Manhattan, therefore it's logical that King did, also.
I did a map study and although Iwo is closer than Okinawa, the logical ditching strip would be Iwo, since it was on the flight path to Tinian. Originally, Okie was scheduled to be fought 6 wks. after Iwo.
I just think our forces deserve recognition via more MOH's being awarded.
Lurch,
I don't think it's resistence at the field level; strictly DoD strictures on the number of awards given out. It does not have to be an officer who recommends for it, as you probably know; anybody witnessing the event can write it up.
It's generally a feather in the cap of any CO when one of his men distinguishes himself.
If there is a reluctance at unit level, I've often observed that heroes have a hard time accepting other heroes. This was the hardest thing to accept in a Ranger assignment. --Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home