QandO
Questions and Observations| « God and Democrats and stuff | Main | Not in the face! » |
|
April 27, 2004 Medals and jet planes Over at TAPPED, Matthew Yglesias writes... Readers are probably aware that during a recent John Kerry appearance on Good Morning America we all got a chance to revisit one of the odder "controversies" of American politics -- did Kerry lie about throwing his medals at a Vietnam War protest. Kerry says he threw ribbons, rather than metallic medals, but that the ribbons were commonly referred to as "medals." Indeed, a cursory glance at the US Navy's ribbons page confirms the accuracy of this account -- you've got your "distinguished service medal" ribbon, your "good conduct medal" ribbon, your "Republic of Vietnam Campaign medal" ribbon, and a whole bunch more.Inasfar as this goes, I'd tend to agree. I'd also agree that, as far as "scandals" go, this one has a lot more tabloid to it than substance. We part ways after that, though... The real mystery in all this, if you ask me, is why Republicans persist in raising an issue that can't help but make their man look bad when the Bush and Kerry military records are contrasted.Perhaps. No question, but Kerry served honorably....but I'm not so sure that "John Kerry throwing medals (his, and otherwise) over a fence" is really the image the Democrats want the American public to have of their candidate. And if one looks a bit more in-depth - as I did here - it becomes apparent that John Kerry's "volunteered for duty in Vietnam" is not substantively different than Bush volunteering for duty in Texas. Both, after all, volunteered to a place they believed would be well away from actual combat. Both "didn't really want to get involved in the war". And, lest anybody claim I am a dolt for saying that John Kerry didn't want to get involved, let me point out that those were his words. Of course, "in-depth" is a bit more than we can expect the electorate to look. Still, on the face of it, I just don't see that the public is going to get too overwrought about the difference between their records. In fact, I expect the real problem will be a backlash against whichever candidate tries to exploit either of these "scandals". Face it, if the last 3 Presidential elections have taught us anything, it is that the voter just doesn't care what the candidate did in Vietnam. And stuff like this won't help.... Meanwhile, the best they can say about Bush is that he supported the war but went out of his way to avoid serving in it, choosing instead to do something that put him at no personal risk and had no beneficial impact on American security.security.Where to start? - - "went out of his way to avoid serving in it" - huh? Now, one might credibly say that he joined at a level that was unlikely to see service in the theatre of combat (though, the Squadron to which his unit was attached was actually flying combat missions when he joined), but the fact is that Bush DID serve. Presumably, active duty Guard service is still service, right? And Bush wasn't drafted - he joined voluntarily - so, it's hard to say that he avoided service. - - "choosing instead to do something that put him at no personal risk" - No personal risk? Flying a F-102 fighter jet?
I'm just sayin'. We also haven't quite gotten to the bottom of how, exactly, he managed to pull this plum job in the first place...Well gosh, Matt, I think we have gotten to the bottom of that. However, the Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets.My overall impression of these dual "scandals" is that sufficient evidence for a reasonable conclusion exists....but that evidence just never seems to get through to the partisans who see political capital to be made in pushing their story. And the voter? Any candidate who tries to push it may be in for an unexpected backlash. |
About this latest flap on Kerry's medal issue: ABC and the New York Times dug up the dirt this time. The Republican talking heads played it up, but basically they did not bring it to the front page.
Posted by: anon at April 27, 2004 02:01 PM
Quite a few falsehoods in this post. I'll only address a few of them.
though, the Squadron to which his unit was attached was actually flying combat missions when he joined
Untrue. At the time Bush received preferential treatment to get into the TX ANG, the F-102 was being phased out in Europe (too slow for its designed mission of taking on Soviet bombers, Soviets had new bombers). It had been used sparingly in VN because it had no real mission there. At the time Bush got in--the last flight of an F-102 over VN was nearly 2 years past.
Flying a F-102 fighter jet?
Not a fighter--an interceptor.
Really? Then why do we even have a National Guard?
The reality is that were--and are--NG units that won't see combat unless the bad guys start coming ashore on Long Island. The TX ANG was known as a "Champagne Unit" where privileged and well-connected youths could serve out VN without the risk of actually going over there.
Posted by: JadeGold at April 27, 2004 02:42 PM
I dunno as I can fully agree anymoe that Kerry served homorably, Jon. I look at the people in the ME now, and then look at what we know of Kerry's record and question anyone's calling it honorable.
There's much to raise questions about in the record of Kerry's "service"... and they're fair game, in my view. After all, Kerry's the one who changed his middle name to 'Served in Vietnam', so his service, such as it is, is fair game as a target. If tha's his campaign, he'd best be prepared to have the light of day shone on it, without flinching. And the fact his there's much to flinch from.
Here's the facts: Kerry spent a total of four months in country. Four months.
During that time, he suffered three flesh wounds, two of them minor... minor enough to cause questions about why they were even recorded.
When he got purple hearts for said injuries, they were given based on recommendations Kerry himself wrote. How many of US can be so fortunate as to write our own ticket?
Once he got his third Purple heart, he asked to be sent back stateside. This, he got, too, on a little known and even more seldom used rule.
Again, the poor litle rich kid writes his own ticket and dares call it 'sacrifice'. This is a serious dishonor to those who did serve us true.
His field commanders had serious questions about his service to this country. Even Adml Elmo Zumwalt stated flatly that he'd have problems in his political carrier based on his 'experiences' in 'nam.
I've had two people who apparently don't know each other, one of them a regular reader to my blog, suggest from personal brushes with the man, that the word was he was there to 'get a few medals'.
Once he came back from 'nam, he then proceeded to sit down before Congress and outright lie about a number of atrocities, committed he said, by American servicemen there. Yet, he never witnessed them.
In short Mr Kerry LIED, and slandered his fellow servicemen. (Gee, big shock, huh?)
This is a hero? This is honorable service? Sorry, I smell a fish.
There's enough in the public eye on these points already to raise serous questions about what we're NOT being told, which is perhaps why Kerry and his people so lothe to release his full military records.
Aside from all his other credibility issues, of course.
Posted by: Bithead at April 27, 2004 02:46 PM
The reality is that were--and are--NG units that won't see combat unless the bad guys start coming ashore on Long Island
Gee, I'l have to relay that info to the NG units serving in Iraq today.
Posted by: Bithead at April 27, 2004 02:48 PM
"Not a fighter--an interceptor"
Uhm. So, way back when in the 1970's the plan was, if a MiG was to come up from Cuba or somewheres and the Texas Air National Guard scrambled a pilot and a jet to go intercept it ... the TANG 'interceptor' was to throw flowers and welcome the tourist? Light off a sparkler to celebrate? Drop a few flares to light up a runway so the jet (persumably ALSO not a 'fighter' or even a 'bomber' but some other special kind of jet, uh, maybe somebody here could educate me about what such a thing might have been of interest to the TANG and their interceptors...) could land safely in the dark and dust?
Uhm. I guess I don't quite get it. What does an "interceptor" do?
Posted by: Pouncer at April 27, 2004 02:54 PM
"Face it, if the last 3 Presidential elections have taught us anything, it is that the voter just doesn't care what the candidate did in Vietnam"
Well, now, you know. You got your Viet Cong. You got your Khmer Rouge. You got your Pathet Lao.
And you got your P.O.W.s. And you got your boat people. And you got your Hmong, and you got refugee camps in Thailand, Hong Kong, the Phillipines, and I dunno where all...
And you got some folks who are sorta, like, you know, ashamed of promises broken, lives losts, and victims ignored. And then you got some folks who're actually PROUD of what happened, and what they themselves did back when to lead us all to the time, place and situation we're in now.
And I suppose each of those groups, looking at all that, are in the minority. The majority, I guess, really don't have the time or energy or
perspective to care about events going back a quarter century.
But there's a few who suppose that, HELL YEAH, the war in Iraq is very much like another Vietnam. The question on the table is not how high the body count will go. The question is whether the US will win, or pull out to leave Syria and Iran to become another Cambodia or Laos. The question is how many Iraqis who had
cooperated and collaborated with the US in our efforts will thrive, or how many will lose family, property and health as they flee to refugee camps scattered around the world. The question is whether we are content to replace Saddam Hussein as easily as (it has been alleged) we replaced Ngo Dinh Diem to haywire up a stable but compliant client regime; or, do we take the decades and investment required to build a free nation from the ruins of a conquered dictatorship and a fallen economy?
Posted by: Pouncer at April 27, 2004 03:23 PM
Pouncer:
It's less true now than in the 50s, but a Fighter is/was a multi-role aircraft, expected to fight enemy fighters over their airspace, protect our attack planes and helicopters, perhaps do a little ground attack, and other things. You need a good "dogfight" ability, multi-role munitions, the ability to hit things on the ground, and so on. The F-4 was a typical Fighter in the 60s.
An Interceptor was made to, well, intercept enemy airplanes (generally bombers) approaching our airspace. The F-102 and its derivative the F-106 were great interceptors. Interceptors need a very good climb rate to get from the airfield to where the bombers are (the F-106 set several time-to-altitude records in its day). They need powerful missiles that can kill a bomber, and a radar set than can detect them from a long way away (i.e. before they launch cruise missiles or drop nukes). They usually DON'T need to fight other fighters or attack ground targets.
A Fighter can be a decent interceptor. In fact, we now only have Fighters and use them in both roles. (The F-16s patrolling our airspace are Fighters being used as interceptors.)
An Interceptor is a less-than-decent Fighter. We experimented with using F-102s (such as GWB as training to fly at the time) in Viet Nam. Like many other McNamara-era experiments, it was not a success. The people were willing, but didn't have the right training (and on-the-job training is generally a bad idea in the military), and the airplanes were not suited for it.
Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds at April 27, 2004 03:33 PM
Gary: you're dead wrong in your first sentence, above. It is more true now that the "fighter" designation stretches across "multi-role" applications. Witness the nickname of the F-14D: "Bombcat", or the F-15E "Strike Eagle": strapped-up with blobs after an era of "not a pound for air-to-ground" Fighter Mafia growling. By comparison, the old days (like: Century Series) were a positive agora of specialization, at least from design perspectives. Actual battle went in different directions from the drawing boards. In 1953, nobody remotely conceived of the F-105 working the strategic role while B-52's worked the tactical mud-moving, but that's exactly what happened less than fifteen years later. The fact is that all bets were off by '65, and it was time to re-write the whole book.
And I can't find the quote right now, but somewhere in Col. Jack Broughton's combat memoir "Thud Ridge", he lays tribute to the Deuce as a fighter (specifically: its ability to corner). And details like that are where it gets sticky. Morons like "Jadegold" (the rotten libeler) have no idea about any of this stuff, because military things are icky. However, people with their thinking caps on can, sooner or later, get a grip on concepts like energy-depletion after the first turn in the fight, which is how a MiG-17 got the bite on a '102 in 1968, up North. Now, one might attempt to argue that that fact only makes your point, but it's not at all that simple. Hell, man, for years -- until energy-management and split-plane maneuvering tactics got into the game -- the F-4's were getting their asses kicked around by (yup) MiG-17's. That's because those guys didn't know how to fight their airplanes right. Meanwhile, the Thunderchief drivers were learning, the hard way, to fight a fight that the jet was not designed for.
To say that "the airplanes were not suited for it" neglects almost the entire air war in Vietnam until about 1972, because very few of the airplanes over there were doing what they were designed to do.
Now, that whole thing I just pointed out is just one tiny piece of the puzzle. When you start figuring stuff like the personnel tangles and the timing of Bush's training, it becomes obvious that waterheads like The Creep Here count about as much as Mickey Mouse when it comes to serious remark.
He's an utter dipshit, like all of them.
Posted by: Billy Beck at April 27, 2004 04:03 PM
From a Harvard Crimson profile of Kerry from 1970, describing Kerry's military service:
When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy. The Navy assigned him to the USS Gridley which between December 1966 and July 1968 saw four months of action off the Vietnam coast. In August through November, 1968, Kerry was trained to be the skipper of a patrol boat for Vietnamese rivers. For the next five months, until April of 1969, Kerry was the commanding Lieutenant of a patrol boat in the Mekong Delta. He was wounded slightly on three different occasions and received a Silver Star for bravery. His patrol boat took part in Operation Sealords, mostly scouting out Viet Cong villages and transporting South Vietnamese marines to various destinations up and down narrow rivers covered with heavy foliage on either side. One time Kerry was ordered to destroy a Viet Cong village but disobeyed orders and suggested that the Navy Command simply send in a Psychological Warfare team to be friend the villagers with food, hospital supplies, and better educational facilities
Posted by: Another Thought at April 27, 2004 04:07 PM
Kerry tried to avoid going to Vietnam, then enlisted because he thought as long as he would have to go into the military he would rather be a commanding officer.
He also tried to get assignments that shielded him from combat; it was just that circumstances changed the nature of the way swift boats were used.
So Kerry hardly volunteered to rush into combat.
But regardless, any service in wartime is honorable enough.
However, what is shocking is what Kerry did when he got back home.
1) He literally accused the entire US military of pursuing a deliberate policy of mass war crimes, a charge which was later proven utterly false. However, largely because of Kerry, Vietnam vets had to suffer a negative image when they returned home.
2) His words were so anti-American and so derogatory of the soldiers that his speeches were literally used against our POWs to try to break down their will during torture.
3) Kerry also stated that he saw a moral equivalence between democracy and communism as forms of government structure.
4) Kerry also stated that he believed we could never defeat communism.
Kerry sees everything through the lens of Vietnam, which is the lens of defeatism and doubt.
Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief.
Posted by: Another Thought at April 27, 2004 04:14 PM
Billy Beck brings us the military perspective of a sometimes-employed roadie for has-been and never-were bands.
Perhaps he can find a quote from some band like WhiteSnake.
The fact is the F-102 had limited VN service; they were used for a time to do some recon but it was a very limited mission for an aircraft not particularly well-suited to do it. Of course, the F-102 was long gone from VN before Junior thought about "blowing his eardrum out with a shotgun" to avoid VN.
I'd also remark that Junior jumped ahead of thousands waiting to get into that particular unit. It's a matter of public record; former Speaker of the (TX) House, Ben Barnes testified he got Junior in as a favor to the Bush famiglia.
Posted by: JadeGold at April 27, 2004 05:00 PM
...which is how he got to volunteer for PALACE ALERT.
Right.
Posted by: Billy Beck at April 27, 2004 06:47 PM
> "Untrue. At the time Bush received preferential > treatment to get into the TX ANG, the F-102 was > being phased out in Europe"
- - -As Billy points out, he applied for Palace Alert in 1970. The F-102 was still flying at the time, although it was winding down....in 1970.
He was trained on the F-102 because the F-102 was the prominent jet being used to train NG pilots at the time. It was also quite a difficult jet to fly, and dangerous to boot.
> Not a fighter--an interceptor.
- An interceptor. Used primarily to destroy other planes. Let's not parse words here. It was a tremendously dangerous task.
Posted by: Jon Henke at April 27, 2004 07:31 PM
Mr. Henke: there's a world of difference between a fighter and an interceptor. If you wish, I'll be happy to explain it.
Also, the F-102 had a very, very good safety record. You can do a 'google' on F-102 and 'safety' and find that out on your own.
Flying circles around TX and the Gulf of Mexico is not "tremendously dangerous" unless you're still hung over from the happy hour at Chateau Dijon.
Posted by: JadeGold at April 27, 2004 07:40 PM
Billy's military experience is...how many years? Oh, that's right...none.
WRT Palace Alert, Bush suggested he was interested but he didn't have the quals. IOW, if Bush was volunteering--which isn't clear that he did--he didn't have the flight hours to qualify.
Posted by: Jadegold at April 27, 2004 07:44 PM
One additional item about Palace Alert. It closed down on 30 June 1970.
Bush graduated from combat school on 23 June 1970.
There is also no documentary evidence to support the idea Bush wanted to volunteer for the last week of Palace Alert.
Posted by: JadeGold. at April 27, 2004 08:10 PM
For laymans purposes, there's an insignificant difference, Jade. Plus, it did fly missions consistent with "fighter". But again, let's not parse words over a meaningless matter. If you like, I'll agree...it was an interceptor. Whatever. It doesn't change the crux of the matter.
Safe? Only when compared to some of the other fighter jets at the time. In real terms, it was still a mightily dangerous task.
Posted by: Jon Henke at April 27, 2004 08:59 PM
"One additional item about Palace Alert. It closed down on 30 June 1970. Bush graduated from combat school on 23 June 1970."
- - -Gosh, so what you're saying is...Bush graduated from training shortly before the Palace Alert program came to a halt? That must mean....well, nothing. It certainly has no bearing on this argument, unless you want to argue that it was shut down so he could not go.
"There is also no documentary evidence to support the idea Bush wanted to volunteer for the last week of Palace Alert."
- - -There wouldn't be, would there? Even according to his story - and that of the officer he spoke to - he was rejected out of hand due to insufficient flight-hours.
Posted by: Jon Henke at April 27, 2004 09:02 PM
Jadegold: please, since you're so interested in Beck's military experience, please tell us about yours.
Actually there ISN'T a "world of difference" between a fighter and an interceptor which is why most of the squadrons which had a counter-air role at the time were known as fighter interceptor squadrons (the "interceptor" was later dropped). Its also why when knowlegable people write about F-102s you'll see them refered to thusly:
"Like all the other Century Series fighters, of which the F-102 was a part, a two seat version of this fighter was placed in production. Labelled the TF-102A; over 111 of this type were constructed. Because of its unusual seating arrangement, the aircraft did not possess the speed of the fighter version and was only able to break the sound barrier in a dive.
Interception is part of the air superiority mission the Air Force has. Its what all fighter aircraft do when they seek to destroy enemy aircraft or missiles or, in other words, establish air superiority. Air superiority missions are flown by fighter aircraft. The designation as fighter interceptors refered to those aircraft squadrons and wings with primarily air superiority roles. The F-102 was a fighter designed for a single role -- AIR SUPERIORITY (although there were attempts in VN to expand that role, including attempts at close air support). The way it accomplished that role was to fly to and INTERCEPT enemy aircraft and shoot them down. That's what ALL fighters do in an air superiority role unless you can think of another way they might engage and destroy an enemy aircraft.
The Air Force has 5 essential air superiority missions (and by the way, that IS the first mission of the Air Force ... air superiority. AF doctrine makes it very clear that the air superiority mission has priority over all other missions). Per the Airforce it goes like this:
"Two missions involve offensive air superiority operations to defeat enemy fighter aircraft and surface-to-air defenses within enemy territory, and three involve defensive air superiority to protect friendly territory against enemy aircraft, cruise missiles, and theater ballistic missiles.
Note the first mission in the defensive air superiority mission ... that was the F-102's primary mission.
What's happened SINCE then is we've gone to multi-purpose, multi-mission aircraft.
We wanted more flexible roles for our aircraft because of their cost. An example is the F-15. It was originally designed to strictly be an air superiority fighter, just like the F-102, but was later adapted to a ground attack (CAS) role in the F-15 Strike Eagle. Same with the F-16.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you'd be so kind as to tell us the "world of difference" between a "fighter" and an "interceptor".
Posted by: McQ at April 27, 2004 09:41 PM
Billy Beck:
Yeah, it didn't come out the way I meant. What I meant to say was that long ago, we had Fighters and Interceptors and they were different. Unfortunately, I (mis-)used Preview, did some swapping of paragraphs around, and then didn't do a second Preview.
Now, the part about the 102 being good in cornering surprises Me, because a major weakness of the MiG-21 vs. the F4 (found out when we flew some we "acquired") was it lost so much energy in turns because of its delta wing. The 102 of course has a delta wing, yet it was GOOD at cornering? [sigh] I'm sticking with missiles; at least I understand them.
While a particular fighter/bomber/interceptor may have a "good" safety record, flying ANY military a/c is not a "safe" profession.
Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds at April 27, 2004 09:44 PM
G., -- Yes, the deltas will honk a turn. Take a good long look around fighters, today. It's not an accident that stuff like Eurofighter and Gripen are modified deltas. Even F-14 and MiG-21 are deltas in their own right, the former extremely modified, and the latter merely augmented with a standard tailplane. In the pure planform, however, the way the '102 and '106 were laid out, they drain airspeed in turns like nothing else. That's the price of cornering like that. Performance details like that mean special tactics, to the pros. Before it can be said that they can't hack the mission, the mission needs extreme specification and the drivers' view of tailoring the fight ought not be discounted.
As for editing text: don'tcha hate when that happens? Not like it's ever happened to me, or anyting...
Posted by: Billy Beck at April 28, 2004 02:31 AM
Rats. That's suppoed to be "F-4", above. Not "F-14".
See what I mean about editing? It finally happened to me. (hah)
Posted by: Billy Beck at April 28, 2004 02:32 AM
Bruce -- that's a good outline you posted. Here's another perspective: an F-105 vet (100 rides up North) with whom I correspond likes to say, "Air-to-air is something a fighter pilot does on the way into and out from the target." Ed anticipated mission integration of today's jets by decades, at least conceptually. The thing is, the concepts go all the way back to the beginning.
And when it comes to the "personal risk" of the F-102, I'll point out an essential distinction that afficionados of the Bowers Fly Baby like to draw for the uninitiated: "There are two kinds of airplanes: single-seaters and trainers." Kindly note that none of these snivelers were riding in that cockpit with Bush, and you can take it from there.
Posted by: Billy Beck at April 28, 2004 02:46 AM
With the howls from a lot of Democrats this days about Kerry's chances, (See the Village Voice article this morning) all of this may be a moot point.
Posted by: Bithead at April 28, 2004 08:36 AM
McQ: I'm a graduate of one of our Federal Military Academies; I'm not an aviator, though I've worked with aviation and associated aviation engineering programs as part of integrated combat weapons systems for most of the last decade.
The difference between an interceptor and a fighter is pronounced. Let me preface this explanation with the fact that virtually all aircraft have primary and secondary missions. For example, an F-18D/F could be used for VIP transport in the second seat--but that is hardly a primary (or secondary) mission area for that aircraft.
You make a lot of noise about air superiority but most of it isn't applicable to the F-102 and belies an understanding as to the primary function, or mission, of the F-102 interceptor. The job of the F-102 interceptor was to quickly intercept Soviet bombers before they could could get their targets and release. Thus, interceptors were designed and built to get to a distant target fast; speed and range were key, maneuverability (the absolute key for a fighter) was not.
The F-102 was designed in the early 1950s to counter the Soviet Tu-47 (IIRC) bomber. When the Soviets came up with the Tu-28 and the Yakovlev --the F-102 essentially became obsolete as it was no longer fast enough.
That's it in a nutshell; the AF began phasing out the F-102 by the mid-1960s.
Posted by: jadegold at April 28, 2004 10:02 AM
Jadegold:
Obviously you missed the point I made about the defensive counter-air mission which would have been the primary mission for the F-102. IOW, it was strictly an air superiority fighter for the defensive counter-air air superiority mission.
You must have further missed the point where I said we changed our focus from single purpose jet fighters (i.e. strictly air superiority fighters) to multi-purpose fighters which could perform a number of missions (CAS, BAI, AS). This is one of the reasons the F-102 became obsolete.
You must also have missed where I pointed out that interception is a MEANS of engaging, not a type of an aircraft. Thus the nomenclature "fighter interceptor" squadrons. That name was a change from 'pursuit' squadrons. I would hope you wouldn't try to convince us that "pursuit" is description of an aircraft (however those in pursuit squadrons WERE called 'pursuit fighters' and did use pursuit as a MEANS of engaging the enemy).
Lastly, F-86s were fighters and were replaced by F-102s ... in the fighter interceptor squadrons. No one, to my knowledge has ever tried to claim the F-86 was an interceptor and not a fighter.
The difference between an interceptor and a fighter is pronounced.
Really? We'll I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation concerning the difference. In fact, other than your claim above, I see nothing in your comment which even attempts to explain this so-called 'pronounced' difference.
So I still await your monologue on the vast and pronounced differences between a fighter and an interceptor.
Posted by: McQ at April 29, 2004 12:39 PM