doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Are these liberals you guys talking about?

Just for the record, William Cohen, Sec. Rumsfeld's predecessor and appointed by President Clinton is a moderate Republican. He was not a Democrat.

As far as serving in the National Guard goes, if you were a draft-age male alive in the sixties, and not real keen on slogging through rice paddies, then you were looking for a National Guard Unit that wasn't full. And, those units were full all around the country, not with a bunch of guys looking to get some pre-training in before they were activated. I know of people that traveled far and wide looking for a unit that wasn't full. Spending the Viet Nam era in a Guard Unit did not say much about your patriotism. No offense to our National Guard, but that was the reality of the mid and late 60's. I was always surprised that this did not get much talk during all the "Swift Boat" stuff. I also had many friends in the Guard during this time that missed a lot of drills and this was overlooked with a "wink and a nod." Remember how our military was viewed at that time and I think you will, maybe reluctantly, have to agree. It is no surprise that a President's Guard duty records seemed to be non-existent for some of that period.

Sorry if this offends any of you, but the 60's were not that long ago to remember just what was going on here and especially with respect to finding your way in to the National Guard.

best regards,

Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont

Ed: Republican, Democrat (and I am neither), it doesn't matter. My point is that most SecDefs in recent years haven't served in uniform in any capacity. For that matter, neither FDR nor Wilson served, yet both led the nation into war. So Will's finding "interest" in the Bushies' lack of service is disingenuous at best.

As for the Guard, members have always been on call for service, whether in natural disasters, civil upheaval or national defense. Whether or not they are called up depends on the state and the nation. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. I was in the Guard from 1953 to 1961, and make no apologies for being willing to serve - rather than getting deferments - while going to school and while raising a family.

Like it or not, GWB and Rummy earned the right to wear US military uniforms. Their predecessors, most of their vociferous critics - and most Americans today - have not.

Does "patriotism" depend on whether or not your outfit was activated?

Will, did YOU ever serve? I get a kick out of the folks who question W's service, which happened to be in the Air Guard. I was in the Guard also--joined pre-Nam, Nov 62, when they'd take most anyone who could walk and chew bubblegum simultaneously. No problem at all getting in. All you had to do was be willing to sign on the dotted line and wear the uniform. Others waited to be drafted; others ended up in Nam. Their choice. But I served in 1/133d Infantry. If you watch "60 Minutes" this weekend, you'll see that they're now in Iraq. And our sister battalion--2/133d Infantry--did indeed serve in Nam. But flying an F-101, as W chose to do . . . even if "influence" was exercised to get him into a Guard unit, there are far safer and more comfortable ways to stay out of combat than to train as a fighter jock. And remember, when we went to war in Iraq, the administration was scarcely shy on military experience. General Powell was still around, in addition to Rumsfeld. That's a bunch more military experience than there was in the upper echelons of the Clinton Administration.

Missing drills during Nam . . . it did indeed happen. My own service record has some similarities to the president's. When I left Iowa to work for the CIA, I still had several months left before my Ready Reserve obligation was completed. The full time personnel in my unit told me that by law, I was required to find another unit in the DC area and complete my 6 year obligation. But they also told me I probably would not be able to do so, and that I should not worry about it. They were right. This was 1968, all the Guard units were full, and no one wanted to mess with a soldier who had only a few months left to serve. So I ended up with what's called a "bad year" in Reserve terminology. I did not attend Annual Training, and I missed several drills. Much was made of W's similar circumstances. But here's just how big a deal that was, in the Reserve Components of that era: Several years later, with my records available for one and all to review, I was able to reenlist. I got--and kept, for the next 23 years or so--a Top Secret security clearance, including several periodic reinvestigations. Again, records with my missing training available for consideration. I received a direct commission--again, records right there for all to see. I was promoted several times, eventually to the rank of colonel, and was selected for command twice--again, records right out in the open. So I either get frustrated, or else get a big chuckle, as a result of those who tried to make much out of W's service record, from the same time period. It would've been a big deal, if a soldier in one of the units I commanded had missed drills and annual training. But it was most definitely NOT a big deal in the Reserve Components during Nam, if there were any sort of extenuating circumstances--like moving and being unable to find a unit, or being a pilot attached to a unit that had no aircraft you were qualified to fly.

And Will, I certainly do appreciate your evaluating my intelligence background as "adequate". How does it compare to, say, your own? Ritter . . . I did not "dismiss" him at all. I indicated--I believe correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong)--that he signed on with the other inspectors, when they left in 97, that Saddam still had hundreds of tons of unaccounted for chem weapons. And he also knew that Saddam was into playing hide and seek when weapons inspectors were on the ground.

Whether I support the war or not is irrelevant. All I'm doing is evaluating the DECISION to go to war, based on the intelligence available at the time that decision was made. And I have yet to see any stream of reporting (if you can point me in the right direction, please do so) that would have led the intelligence community--and please note, an NIE is the product of the ENTIRE intel community, not just CIA--that Saddam no longer had WMD's. I have no idea about his credibility, but there's a former Iraqi general, now in this country, who says Saddam did indeed have them, but got them out to Syria before the invasion. Anyhow, as a former analyst and commander of analysts, I can assure one and all that in the intelligence business, you do not discard what you know to be true--which is that Saddam had WMD's--without solid evidence that it is no longer true. Yes, the intelligence community got it wrong--mainly because, IMO, they did not have reliable sources on the ground, in Iraq, providing them with information on Saddam's WMD programs. They relied very heavily on what the UN inspectors told them, up until 97--which was that the WMD's were still there, even though they could not locate them. That's why President Clinton, and just about every other prominent Democrat, believed that Saddam still had them in 02-03, when we were considering taking military action in Iraq.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Unfortunately, intelligence analysts aren't in the hindsight game. Once more, I would recommend the opinion piece from the May 22 Wall Street Journal, written by a very prominent Democrat with very credible military experience (former senator Bob Kerrey), and far better credentials on the terrorist threat (courtesy of his service on the 9/11 Commission) than most politicians from either party. That article clearly demonstrates that you don't need to be a "neocon", or even a Republican of any stripe, to support the decision to invade Iraq. And sadly, I have to wonder how much of the current opposition to the war in Congress, on the part of the Dems, is based on either the polls or the desire to recapture the White House next year. Doing what's popular is the easy way. Doing what's unpopular, when you believe it's the right thing, is the true test of leadership.

Don't forget, Larry - you also had to be willing to go when and where they sent you. When I joined the 121 Tank Bn. ING in 1953, there were still Guardsmen dying in Korea, and Guard units being activated. Like the draft, joining the Guard was a crapshoot - the main difference being that you could choose your unit in the Guard, and serve with your friends.

I had three uncles who were career Guardsmen - they all fought in North Africa, Sicily and Italy during WWII. One of them also went on to Korea.

For Ed Pirie, who seems to know who is "patriotic" and who is not, a few questions:

- Were my uncles not "patriotic" when they joined the Guard?
- Did they become "patriots" after they were activated?
- Were the Guardsmen who died in Korea and Vietnam not "patriotic" until they were called up?
- If my outfit had been sent to Korea, would I have been as "patriotic" as a draftee quaffing his beer in Garmisch-Partenkirchen?

I hope that was 53 if Guardsmen were still dying in Korea, Jack.

34th Infantry Division (Red Bull), a National Guard outfit, had more days in combat in WWII than any other division.

Jack, if you haven't read it, I'm sure you'd enjoy "Bataan Uncensored" by a guy named Miller. Commanded the tank battalion, out of northern Minnesota, that covered the retreat onto the Bataan Peninsula. There were a significant number of Guard units activated a year or more before WWII started.

Thanks for the correction, Larry. 1953 it was.

Jack:

I am not questioning you or your uncles' or, for that matter, any one in your family's patriotism. My point is, to bring up this question at all, is just what we have gotten from this administration for the last six years. If you did not agree, then you were something less than a full fledged American.

What this is all about is we are stuck in another undeclared war that sure looks awful open ended. We are stuck in this war because of poor leadership. Go back to the First Gulf War, going into Iraq was not just idly considered, but it was dismissed, and by far more knowelegeable people than me.

Many supporters of the current Iraq policy seem to feel that only the Republican party can provide for our defense and fight wars. If I remember my history correctly, outside of Grenada and Panama, all our other wars were fought under Democratic administrations. I am pretty sure that the Republicans haven't successfully proscuted a war since the Civil War under Lincoln.

I have a real hard time underestanding the wisdom of fighting a major war with a divided country behind you. You may want to debate the issue of "dividedness," but I think most of the recent polls and elections support my view.

I voted for GHWB,Reagan,and Ford. I would have voted for Nixon, but I wasn't old enough in '68, but I did in '72. I have a picture on my office wall with my father and GHWB which I treasure. Where I departed with this current administration was the arrogance, stubborness, and failure to admit mistakes. They might keep their extreme right wing base, but they are doing their very best to drive away and moderate Republicans and independents.

You can defend them all you want. I thought "W" made a promise when he visited NYC a day or two after 9/11 to go after the people that brought these buildins down. Well, that sure seems pretty secondary to anything we are doing now. Unless I am mistaken, the people that brought the World Trade Center down are hiding in Pakistan.

best regards,

Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont

Ed: I do not defend the Bush administration, nor have I ever supported it. But I object to the mean-spirited political partisanship on both sides that is polarizing this country, and to the parroting of inuendo, lies and urban legends to demean the opposition.

And I very specifically object to your blanket slur on the patriotism of National Guardsmen - of any era - including GWB. On what basis do you consider yourself qualified to judge anyone else's patriotism?

Ed, the war may be "undeclared", but it was certainly voted on by Congress--AFTER Congress had a chance to read the Oct 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and WMD's.

One reason going into Iraq to topple Saddam was "not considered" during the Gulf War had to do with the very remarkable coalition (which included several Arab nations) that GHWB put together. The goal was to liberate Kuwait--period. And many of the coalition members would not have supported the war had the goal been to overthrow Saddam.

Your comment about Republicans not having successfully prosecuted a war since the Civil War is more than a bit inaccurate. Spanish American War, quite successfully prosecuted. And while Democrats were in charge at the beginning of both the Korean War and Vietnam, Republicans were in charge at the end--so I'd say that the success or failure of both of those were somewhat shared.

Ed, if you believe that what the president (or the nation) does should be guided by a poll of the people, then I hope you voted for Ross Perot, because that was his idea. Leadership, as I noted above, is often characterized not by doing what's popular, but by doing what's right. (See JFK's book, "Profiles in Courage".)

We have not ceased the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Those who criticize the CIA ought to read "First In", by Gary Schroen, concerning who first had "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan, and played a pivotal role in ousting the Taliban and shattering Al Qaeda. Yes, OBL escaped--but while the surge in Iraq has occupied most of our attention, there was a recent surge of CIA activity in Afghanistan, stepping up the hunt for OBL and Zawahiri. Unsuccessful to this point, but if he's hiding in the border region of Pakistan, which is quite likely . . . you have to remember that that region was never under the control of even the British, when their empire was at its most powerful, and Pakistan was part of it.

Wherever Ground Zero of the war on terror was on 9/12, I agree with former senator Bob Kerrey that it is now in Iraq. To ignore that fact is to walk around with very serious blinders in place. If we leave in a precipitous fashion, as a majority of Americans would perhaps like us to do (according to the polls), that would give Al Qaeda a free hand to establish terrorist bases in Iraq. And Iraq is a much more critical location for terrorist activity, given the proximity to the majority of the world's oil supply, than Afghanistan ever could be.