OT.....Heroes

[Rob1519]

On Tuesday, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, the surviving Doolittle Raiders gathered publicly for the last time.

They once were among the most universally admired and revered men in the United States. There were 80 of the Raiders in April
1942, when they carried out one of the most courageous and heart-stirring military operations in this nation's history. The mere mention of their unit's name, in those years, would bring tears to the eyes of grateful Americans.

Now only four survive.

After Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, with the United States reeling and wounded, something dramatic was needed to turn the
war effort around.

Even though there were no friendly airfields close enough to Japan for the United States to launch a retaliation, a daring plan was
devised. Sixteen B-25s were modified so that they could take off from the deck of an aircraft carrier. This had never before been tried -- sending such big, heavy bombers from a carrier.

The 16 five-man crews, under the command of Lt. Col. James Doolittle, who himself flew the lead plane off the USS Hornet, knew
that they would not be able to return to the carrier. They would have to hit Japan and then hope to make it to China for a safe landing.

But on the day of the raid, the Japanese military caught wind of the plan. The Raiders were told that they would have to take off
from much farther out in the Pacific Ocean than they had counted on. They were told that because of this they would not have enough fuel to make it to safety.

And those men went anyway.

They bombed Tokyo, and then flew as far as they could. Four planes crash-landed; 11 more crews bailed out, and three of the
Raiders died. Eight more were captured; three were executed. Another died of starvation in a Japanese prison camp. One crew made it to Russia.

The Doolittle Raid sent a message from the United States to its enemies, and to the rest of the world: We will fight. And, no
matter what it takes, we will win.

Of the 80 Raiders, 62 survived the war. They were celebrated as national heroes, models of bravery. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer produced a motion picture based on the raid; "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo," starring Spencer Tracy and Van Johnson, was a patriotic and emotional box-office hit, and the phrase became part of the national lexicon. In the movie-theater previews for the film, MGM proclaimed that it was presenting the story "with supreme pride."

Beginning in 1946, the surviving Raiders have held a reunion each April, to commemorate the mission. The reunion is in a different
city each year. In 1959, the city of Tucson, Arizona, as a gesture of respect and gratitude, presented the Doolittle Raiders with a set of 80 silver goblets. Each goblet was engraved with the name of a Raider.

Every year, a wooden display case bearing all 80 goblets is transported to the reunion city. Each time a Raider passes away, his goblet is turned upside down in the case at the next reunion, as his old friends bear solemn witness.

Also in the wooden case is a bottle of 1896 Hennessy Very Special cognac. The year is not happenstance: 1896 was when Jimmy Doolittle was born.

There has always been a plan: When there are only two surviving Raiders, they would open the bottle, at last drink from it, and toast their comrades who preceded them in death.

As 2013 began, there were five living Raiders; then, in February, Tom Griffin passed away at age 96. What a man he was. After
bailing out of his plane over a mountainous Chinese forest after the Tokyo raid, he became ill with malaria, and almost died. When he recovered, he was sent to Europe to fly more combat missions. He was shot down, captured, and spent 22 months in a German prisoner of war camp.

The selflessness of these men, the sheer guts ... there was a passage in the Cincinnati Enquirer obituary for Mr. Griffin that, on
the surface, had nothing to do with the war, but that emblematizes the depth of his sense of duty and devotion:"When his wife became ill and needed to go into a nursing home, he visited her every day. He walked from his house to the nursing home, fed his wife and at the end of the day brought home her clothes. At night, he washed and ironed her clothes. Then he walked them up to her room the next morning. He did that for three years until her death in 2005."

So now, out of the original 80, only four Raiders remain: Dick Cole (Doolittle's co-pilot on the Tokyo raid), Robert Hite, Edward Saylor and David Thatcher. All are in their 90s. They have decided that there are too few of them for the public reunions to continue.

The events in Fort Walton Beach this week will mark the end. It has come full circle; Florida's nearby Eglin Field was where the Raiders trained in secrecy for the Tokyo mission. The town is planning to do all it can to honor the men: a six-day celebration of their valor, including luncheons, a dinner and a parade.

Do the men ever wonder if those of us for whom they helped save the country have tended to it in a way that is worthy of their sacrifice? They don't talk about that, at least not around other people. But if you find yourself near Fort Walton Beach this week, and if you should encounter any of the Raiders, you might want to offer them a word of thanks. I can tell you from first hand observation that they appreciate hearing that they are remembered.

The men have decided that after this final public reunion they will wait until a later date -- some time this year -- to get
together once more, informally and in absolute privacy. That is when they will open the bottle of brandy. The years are flowing by too swiftly now; they are not going to wait until there are only two of them.

They will fill the four On Tuesday, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, the surviving Doolittle Raiders gathered publicly for the last time.

[BumbleBeeDave]

For a gripping account read "30 Seconds Over Tokyo."

The word "Hero" has very little meaning to me anymore. It has been cheapened in so many ways in so many different forums in recent history that it has pretty much lost its meaning, at least in a public context.

I've heard it said over recent years that every soldier coming home from Afghanistan or Iraq is a "hero." Every person who died in 9/11 was a "hero." Every policeman who goes to work every day is a "hero."

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. But yeah, these guys who went to attack Japan like this WERE all bonafied "heroes' in my book.

BBD

[texbike]

This brought tears to my eyes. As a kid, I must have read "30 Seconds over Tokyo" 10 times.

Unfortunately the last couple of years have claimed the last of our family from that generation that served. I regret a number of things that came from that time period (namely our countries development and use of its nuclear capabilities), but truly believe that that generation was the greatest our country has seen in its history. The valor, sacrifice, the things that were held sacred, their achievements, etc haven't been witnessed since. I truly wonder if we will again see a generation in this country that is as grounded and capable as the one that we see passing from us now.

My grandparents, great aunts/uncles, and their generational peers are an inspiration for me personally and I thank them for all that they've provided.

Texbike

[firerescuefin]

I was stationed at Eglin..met a few of these guys...one of the few times I have felt "awed in the presence of"....good excuse to see that region of the country. Destin's beaches are amongst the best in the world (google Destin in images)..and NAS Pensacola (hour east) has amongst the best air museums I've ever been to.

[MattTuck]

These guys certainly fit the bill. Hero with a capital H. That generation was something special. I have a family reunion coming up this weekend, should see my grandfather (who was on a ship on its way to invade Japan the day that the surrender was signed) and his brothers from that generation. It is always special to see them, but I'll try to pay more attention to their perspective.

You're right that what passes for 'hero' today is being a good citizen, neighbor or friend.

PS. The mods on here are heros :)

For a gripping account read "30 Seconds Over Tokyo."

The word "Hero" has very little meaning to me anymore. It has been cheapened in so many ways in so many different forums in recent history that it has pretty much lost its meaning, at least in a public context.

I've heard it said over recent years that every soldier coming home from Afghanistan or Iraq is a "hero." Every person who died in 9/11 was a "hero." Every policeman who goes to work every day is a "hero."

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. But yeah, these guys who went to attack Japan like this WERE all bonafied "heroes' in my book.

BBD

[snah]

I think this is the best post I've ever read on this forum!!

[Gsinill]

The word "Hero" has very little meaning to me anymore. It has been cheapened in so many ways...

...I've heard it said over recent years that every soldier coming home from Afghanistan or Iraq is a "hero." Every person who died in 9/11 was a "hero." Every policeman who goes to work every day is a "hero."

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way...
BBD

I couldn't agree MORE!

[Seramount]

very thoughtful post.

agree on comments regarding what really constitutes a hero. we've severely diluted the true meaning of the word.

my dad served in the USN in the Pacific theatre but never offered much detail about his time in service. I recently found some photos of his ship being launched, his crew at the commissioning ceremony, and a shot of their passage thru the Panama Canal...I had these and a replica of his rating patch mounted and framed. it is a very nice piece of memorabilia.

when I presented it to him at the nursing home, the look in his eyes was startling to me. altho he suffers from dementia, you could see him going back in time and being right there on deck with his shipmates.

he stared at it for a long time before looking at me and saying, 'those were some damn good men.'

I truly think he and his generation were something special.

[redir]

I read the book 30 Seconds Over Tokyo and then just like now I think yes sure it was heroic but also pretty stupid. I don't think lives should be sacrificed for a morale boost. But heroism and stupidity often go together. It definitely took a lot of bravery to walk on board one of those aircraft knowing the likely out come.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I read the book 30 Seconds Over Tokyo and then just like now I think yes sure it was heroic but also pretty stupid. I don't think lives should be sacrificed for a morale boost. But heroism and stupidity often go together. It definitely took a lot of bravery to walk on board one of those aircraft knowing the likely out come.

. . . in this particular context. I would wager that none of us discussing this on this forum were alive as adults at that time, and so can never have a full understanding of the true events and feelings of the time. So we are not at all qualified to make the judgment as to whether the sacrifice of their lives was worthwhile in the frame of OUR experience.

But I do think it took real, honest-to-God courage because I'm reasonably certain that they did know exactly why they were doing it and what the likely outcome would be--and they did it anyway. They knew what was on the line--and they did it anyway.

BBD

[67-59]

I read the book 30 Seconds Over Tokyo and then just like now I think yes sure it was heroic but also pretty stupid. I don't think lives should be sacrificed for a morale boost. But heroism and stupidity often go together. It definitely took a lot of bravery to walk on board one of those aircraft knowing the likely out come.

At the time, the US was living under the very real belief that Japan and/or Germany - two countries notorious for their appalling treatment of all who opposed them - could take over the planet. It's hard for me to relate to that, and as such, to call these actions "stupid." The telling thing for me is that the people who did live through that fear universally praised these men.

[firerescuefin]

I've heard it said over recent years that every soldier coming home from Afghanistan or Iraq is a "hero." Every person who died in 9/11 was a "hero." Every policeman who goes to work every day is a "hero."

BBD

I am going to carefully agree with this......I would add that there are countless more heroes out there than you could imagine. There is heroic ···· going down every day in the career fields you mentioned. Id love to see you inbed as a photographer in a military unit in Afghanistan (no sarcasm). It would be a paradigm shifter for you..especially regarding this topic. When I met these guys (Raiders...or Medal of Honor winners)...I am in humble awe...but they don't see themselves that way...and there are countless others that would make the same sacrifice and effort....and many that have that never received any outward signs of honor.

[Keith A]

Just a quick question for the OP, it looks like the 71st Reunion has already happened in Ft. Walton back in April. Is this a new even that you are talking about?
http://www.doolittleraider.com/

[Rob1519]

Just a quick question for the OP, it looks like the 71st Reunion has already happened in Ft. Walton back in April. Is this a new even that you are talking about?
http://www.doolittleraider.com/

Event happened earlier this year. The story was made known to me today

[Seramount]

At the time, the US was living under the very real belief that Japan and/or Germany - two countries notorious for their appalling treatment of all who opposed them - could take over the planet. It's hard for me to relate to that, and as such, to call these actions "stupid." The telling thing for me is that the people who did live through that fear universally praised these men.

the raid had multiple objectives. it was meant to demonstrate to the Japanese that their homeland was vulnerable to attack as well as provide the US military and citizens with a sense of retribution for Pearl Harbor.

and as you point out, the US was operating under the correct assumption that the Axis powers were engaged in a plan of complete domination of all Allied countries. this wasn't some regional geopolitical skirmish, it was a WORLD war. no one in succeeding generations has had that experience.

calling the raid 'stupid' simply because lives might be lost to 'improve morale' is a poor analysis of the situation.

[texbike]

I read the book 30 Seconds Over Tokyo and then just like now I think yes sure it was heroic but also pretty stupid. I don't think lives should be sacrificed for a morale boost. But heroism and stupidity often go together. It definitely took a lot of bravery to walk on board one of those aircraft knowing the likely out come.

Think about the anger and crushing blow that was felt by much of our nation after 9/11. 100s went down to their local recruiting offices to sign up to fight the perpetrators. We were dropping covert forces into Afghanistan within days and ready to deliver retribution to whomever delivered the blow to our country. Right or wrong, our country made decisions after 9/11 that were meant to boost morale and to show that we were doing "something". We were ready to fight- someone -anyone! I can only imagine what it must have been like after Pearl Harbor.

And yes, those were some brave SOBs to get inside of those planes and to carry out the missions. I've been inside of a couple of B-25s and like many aircraft from that era, they were spartan and rough-hewn. I'm continually amazed that as many returned home after flying in them as did. At a minimum, they had to have had regular tetnus shots to survive all the sharp-edged surfaces in those things!

Texbike

[firerescuefin]

I read the book 30 Seconds Over Tokyo and then just like now I think yes sure it was heroic but also pretty stupid. I don't think lives should be sacrificed for a morale boost. But heroism and stupidity often go together. It definitely took a lot of bravery to walk on board one of those aircraft knowing the likely out come.

Huh?...who knows how that may have affected the war. Psychological operations are an important part of warfare....completely disagree with your take. Those lives were not spent in vain. Those guys knew how important that mission was.

[oldpotatoe]

Another bit of trivia..when asked where the aircraft came from President Roosevelt said they came from 'Shangri La'..why the USN named a CVA Shangri La..

[redir]

Think about the anger and crushing blow that was felt by much of our nation after 9/11. 100s went down to their local recruiting offices to sign up to fight the perpetrators. We were dropping covert forces into Afghanistan within days and ready to deliver retribution to whomever delivered the blow to our country. Right or wrong, our country made decisions after 9/11 that were meant to boost morale and to show that we were doing "something". We were ready to fight- someone -anyone! I can only imagine what it must have been like after Pearl Harbor.

And yes, those were some brave SOBs to get inside of those planes and to carry out the missions. I've been inside of a couple of B-25s and like many aircraft from that era, they were spartan and rough-hewn. I'm continually amazed that as many returned home after flying in them as did. At a minimum, they had to have had regular tetnus shots to survive all the sharp-edged surfaces in those things!

Texbike

Oh God don't even get me started on that :D

Suffice to say I am in complete disagreement with anyone that compares 9/11 with Pearl Harbor. It's not even apples and oranges, they are both fruit! No it's more like rocks and kittens. And I would dare say that if anything the events mentioned above vindicate my first post that jumping into a fight just to boost moral can lead to a disaster. If I remember correctly tens of thousands of Chinese were brutally killed by the Japanese looking for a hand full of Doolittle men. How many Iraqis died?

Anyway it's a great story none the less and you all are right. It was a very very different time and I'm probably not very good at putting it in perspective.

[RFC]

Japan, at that time, considered itself too remote for conventional air attack. The mission was intended to bring home the fear that the homeland was vulnerable, thus requiring Japan to commit troops and resources to defense.

There is one of the Doolittle B-25's at the SAC Air Museum in Omaha. These planes were modified with folding wings to allow them to be stored on the carrier.

As the son of a WWII 8th Air Corp Lead Bombardier who flew 29 missions over Germany (the per mission kill rate was 5%), I grew up on these stories.

[Keith A]

I do find this an interesting conversation...especially since I just visited Pearl Harbor a couple weeks ago.

[tiretrax]

Great post. My grandfather lived in a building owned by USAA. I met many distinguished WW2 veterans, and when they chose to share their stories, which wasn't often, they were riveting. The values of that generation need to get revivified somehow.

[malcolm]

Oh God don't even get me started on that :D

Suffice to say I am in complete disagreement with anyone that compares 9/11 with Pearl Harbor. It's not even apples and oranges, they are both fruit! No it's more like rocks and kittens. And I would dare say that if anything the events mentioned above vindicate my first post that jumping into a fight just to boost moral can lead to a disaster. If I remember correctly tens of thousands of Chinese were brutally killed by the Japanese looking for a hand full of Doolittle men. How many Iraqis died?

Anyway it's a great story none the less and you all are right. It was a very very different time and I'm probably not very good at putting it in perspective.

The Japanese were slaughtering the Chinese long before the Doolittle raid. Many historians will mark the start of WW2 as the Japanese invasion of China I believe in '37 and full two years before Germany invaded eastern/central Europe and a long time before Pearl harbor.
War always involves politics and stupidity by definition. Civilized humans settling differences with weapons.
The men and women on the ground are usually doing a job often times at great personal risk and are to be admired irrespective of politics. I'm amazed at the stories of personal sacrifice. The Doolittle men were true heroes and their mission sent a clear message to Japan, we may not be able to reach your borders in force but we will and we are coming.

redir this wasn't meant to call you out as I see your point and just used your post to make mine.
cheers

[redir]

The Japanese were slaughtering the Chinese long before the Doolittle raid. Many historians will mark the start of WW2 as the Japanese invasion of China I believe in '37 and full two years before Germany invaded eastern/central Europe and a long time before Pearl harbor.
War always involves politics and stupidity by definition. Civilized humans settling differences with weapons.
The men and women on the ground are usually doing a job often times at great personal risk and are to be admired irrespective of politics. I'm amazed at the stories of personal sacrifice. The Doolittle men were true heroes and their mission sent a clear message to Japan, we may not be able to reach your borders in force but we will and we are coming.

redir this wasn't meant to call you out as I see your point and just used your post to make mine.
cheers
Oh no problems at all.

My grandfather was a Major in Pattons army. He didn't speak much of the war to me, I was a kid, but when he did I listened!

[jimcav]

I remember my dad telling stories of everyone doing their part with rations and collecting scrap metal etc (he was 8 when WWII started here in the USA)--most of it never used for the war but everyone felt engaged. I find value and truth in all these posts, regardless of choice of words used. In every conflict, you will find stories of courage and heroism, and not just on the side of the eventual victor. In addition to these "greatest generation" tales, I grew up reading stories of men walking insane distances barefoot in winter in the revolutionary war, read the diaries of Lewis and Clark, studied low intensity conflict a bit in school.

There is always a dichotomy between the heroes of the mission or action, and the policies that put the men (and women) there.

And the PR machine will use any and all to best advantage. And often they are horrific for those actually involved--from the Hot Gates, to the Alamo, Charge of the Light Brigade, Pickets Charge, Little Big Horn, etc
Apart from the heroism in simply taking off that day, the amazing thing is how successful it was.

I also find it interesting the courage and heroism we tend to most acknowledge and focus on.

[67-59]

I also find it interesting the courage and heroism we tend to most acknowledge and focus on.

I'm gonna guess it often has to do with the success of the endeavor. For example, if all of the Dolittle planes had plunged into the Pacific as predicted, the mission would very likely have received far less acknowledgement...even though the men would have been no less courageous or heroic.

[93legendti]

...calling the raid 'stupid' simply because lives might be lost to 'improve morale' is a poor analysis of the situation.

Agreed. Every military action against an enemy has a risk of loss of life. I know many special forces warriors and none of them are stupid. In fact, I would describe them all as level headed.

[majorpat]

It's not stupid, it's called duty.

[texbike]

Oh God don't even get me started on that :D

Suffice to say I am in complete disagreement with anyone that compares 9/11 with Pearl Harbor. It's not even apples and oranges, they are both fruit! No it's more like rocks and kittens. And I would dare say that if anything the events mentioned above vindicate my first post that jumping into a fight just to boost moral can lead to a disaster. If I remember correctly tens of thousands of Chinese were brutally killed by the Japanese looking for a hand full of Doolittle men. How many Iraqis died?

Anyway it's a great story none the less and you all are right. It was a very very different time and I'm probably not very good at putting it in perspective.

Ummmm, I think that you may have misinterpreted my post. As you point out, there is no comparison between the two events. I was making reference to the public sentiments and desire to do something after 9/11 and using that as a point of reference to what must have been felt by the generation that was impacted by Pearl Harbor.

Now here is where I WILL make a close comparison between the two. Regardless of what your thoughts may be regarding the 9/11 attacks and the actions that followed, you have to admit that 9/11 was this generation's Pearl Harbor. As different as the two are, 9/11 has had long-term ramifications on the world of this generation, much like Pearl Harbor had on that generation.

Texbike

[oldpotatoe]

It's not stupid, it's called duty.

Gonna get yelled at but sometimes 'civilian' is a four letter word.

[malcolm]

Gonna get yelled at but sometimes 'civilian' is a four letter word.

Agree and so is military upper command. History is rife with ego based decisions that lead to rampant loss of life. I think you, me and most will agree the service man on the ground doing the job deserves respect and admiration. As a country we lost sight of the individual soldier and linked them with politics and command during one of our Asian wars. I think currently we are in a much better place in that respect.

[firerescuefin]

Agree and so is military upper command. History is rife with ego based decisions that lead to rampant loss of life. I think you, me and most will agree the service man on the ground doing the job deserves respect and admiration. As a country we lost sight of the individual soldier and linked them with politics and command during one of our Asian wars. I think currently we are in a much better place in that respect.

Read "Not a Good Day to Die" for a modern interpretation of the above...Great book!

[oldpotatoe]

Agree and so is military upper command. History is rife with ego based decisions that lead to rampant loss of life. I think you, me and most will agree the service man on the ground doing the job deserves respect and admiration. As a country we lost sight of the individual soldier and linked them with politics and command during one of our Asian wars. I think currently we are in a much better place in that respect.

Gross over generalization. That Asian war, if left to some senior military leadership instead of numbskulls like Macnamara and Johnson, would have had a more favorable outcome(and no I do NOT think Vietnam was a good idea. But any civilian leader, presented with similar circumstances in that late 50's, early 60's era, would have made the same decisions with regard to SE Asia).

'Upper military command', via the War Department and general staff during WWII, along with senior leaders like Eisenhower, Macarthur and many in the USN, made far more 'right' decisions than wrong ones.

The 'military' has only 2 missions, to kill people and break things..yes, people get killed but to say military upper command is consistently out to lunch is just not correct.

Recent history shows how poorly civilian leadership does...like the second Gulf war, the 'military', along with senior military leaders, defeated the 'enemy' in like 6 weeks..then the civilians lost the 'war'..gooned it up.

[Germany_chris]

Agree and so is military upper command. History is rife with ego based decisions that lead to rampant loss of life. I think you, me and most will agree the service man on the ground doing the job deserves respect and admiration. As a country we lost sight of the individual soldier and linked them with politics and command during one of our Asian wars. I think currently we are in a much better place in that respect.

Yes without the qualifiers of a particular war

Gross over generalization. That Asian war, if left to some senior military leadership instead of numbskulls like Macnamara and Johnson, would have had a more favorable outcome(and no I do NOT think Vietnam was a good idea. But any civilian leader, presented with similar circumstances in that late 50's, early 60's era, would have made the same decisions with regard to SE Asia).

'Upper military command', via the War Department and general staff during WWII, along with senior leaders like Eisenhower, Macarthur and many in the USN, made far more 'right' decisions than wrong ones.

The 'military' has only 2 missions, to kill people and break things..yes, people get killed but to say military upper command is consistently out to lunch is just not correct.

Recent history shows how poorly civilian leadership does...like the second Gulf war, the 'military', along with senior military leaders, defeated the 'enemy' in like 6 weeks..then the civilians lost the 'war'..gooned it up.

Yes, as a whole.

[malcolm]

Gross over generalization. That Asian war, if left to some senior military leadership instead of numbskulls like Macnamara and Johnson, would have had a more favorable outcome(and no I do NOT think Vietnam was a good idea. But any civilian leader, presented with similar circumstances in that late 50's, early 60's era, would have made the same decisions with regard to SE Asia).

'Upper military command', via the War Department and general staff during WWII, along with senior leaders like Eisenhower, Macarthur and many in the USN, made far more 'right' decisions than wrong ones.

The 'military' has only 2 missions, to kill people and break things..yes, people get killed but to say military upper command is consistently out to lunch is just not correct.

Recent history shows how poorly civilian leadership does...like the second Gulf war, the 'military', along with senior military leaders, defeated the 'enemy' in like 6 weeks..then the civilians lost the 'war'..gooned it up.

Here we'll have to disagree. McArthur while at times a military genius also made some of the biggest blunders of our military history and not for his very carefully manicured cult of personality he would not have survived at a top spot. He was a monumental egotist and had little respect for his commanders actually in theatre or actually anyone not his sycophant. Don't get me wrong he did some great things but he is the most overrated human to ever wear the uniform.
I completely agree with respect to McNamara, but the whole process was the pinnacle of our arrogance and lack of understanding of the people and place we were involved. Sad thing is McNamara was a bright and decent guy just had no business running defense just as Rusk shouldn't have been at state. A lesson in the difference between smart and wise.
To the original point of command, history will show in almost every war many leaders were governed by their own ego and furthering of career vs what actually was good for their men or prudent from a tactical standpoint.

[oldpotatoe]

Here we'll have to disagree. McArthur while at times a military genius also made some of the biggest blunders of our military history and not for his very carefully manicured cult of personality he would not have survived at a top spot. He was a monumental egotist and had little respect for his commanders actually in theatre or actually anyone not his sycophant. Don't get me wrong he did some great things but he is the most overrated human to ever wear the uniform.
I completely agree with respect to McNamara, but the whole process was the pinnacle of our arrogance and lack of understanding of the people and place we were involved. Sad thing is McNamara was a bright and decent guy just had no business running defense just as Rusk shouldn't have been at state. A lesson in the difference between smart and wise.
To the original point of command, history will show in almost every war many leaders were governed by their own ego and furthering of career vs what actually was good for their men or prudent from a tactical standpoint.

You tend toward the absolute, don't you. Macarthur's island hopping strategy in WWII and the landing at Inchon are the stuff of legend. I am SO happy he was an egoist, most really good leaders, are. So was Eisenhower, Halsey, Nimitz, many others. Swartzkoff..also. Macarthur, when he wanted to either invade China or nuke the Yalu river to melt the ice, WAS relieved by Truman, as he should have been. BUT w/o the Inchon landing, South Korea would be part of 'Korea' and perhaps China, now.

History has shown that VietNam was a big mistake but as I said, in the 50s, early 60s, any president would have made the same choice's as Eisenhower and Kennedy did given the information about what the Soviets and to an extent, the Chinese were doing. The conduct of the war was the problem, not the initial mission, however ill conceived it was(basically a war of unification after being split in WWII).

Yep, many were but not a majority by any measure.

In my 20 year USN experience, the 'problem' was the civilian leadership, not senior military commanders, even those with lotsa stars. Some issue with operational commandrs but the senior military who were most out of touch were the advisors to the President, like the CNO, not the operational commanders, like the numbered fleet commanders thru the CVBG commanders and CV/Airwing commanders. Of those, most had their ····e together, IMHO.

[93legendti]

Even Rommel made mistakes, as did Patten, Ariel Sharon, Aden Bren, Musa Peled, Dan Laner and all the other great armor commanders.

Back to the OP, "Raid on the Sun" by Rodger Claire is a gripping account of a "suicidal raid" that was 100% successful with no loss of life from the raiders.

[jimcav]

Even Rommel made mistakes, as did Patten, Ariel Sharon, Aden Bren, Musa Peled, Dan Laner and all the other great armor commanders.

Back to the OP, "Raid on the Sun" by Rodger Claire is a gripping account of a "suicidal raid" that was 100% successful with no loss of life from the raiders.

thats's how that raid was characterized in the conflict class I took. Never read that book, but remember discussing that operation and pretty sure several died in the work-up (practice) missions...but what I most remember now, is the absolute minimal collateral (civilian) life lost--in stark comparison to too many of our strikes in our GWOT efforts etc.

[malcolm]

OP I agree with you completely those features of McArthur were stellar the way he executed the island campaign in the Pacific was pure genius and saved numerous lives. Inchon was another touch of brilliance yet in the same war he marched a remarkably ill equipped army north to the yalu creating the most sparsely defended front anyone had ever seen all while ignoring intelligence of his commanders on the ground telling him they were vulnerable and there was evidence of massive accumulation of Chinese troops amassing on the other side of the yalu and this lead to one of the most devastating defeats in our history. He conducted Korea from Japan never setting foot anywhere near the battlefield surrounded by sycophants he hand selected and as a group they created intel to fit their needs. He continued to try and take credit for things Ridgeway and others did to clean up his mess even after he was relieved.

I tend not to be absolute and understand that we all make mistakes and in war the people that lead often make mistakes that cost tremendous a amount of lives and it's a huge burden and part of their job average folks can't imagine. I'll give you I may be too absolute concerning McArthur but after reading several histories of the man written by those obviously beholden to him and some clearly not I think he was unique among generals in the way he created his image and also almost created a McArthur's army inside the army. I'm convinced he acted in a manner governed almost entirely to advance his own interests and career with little consideration to anything else. That doesn't completely detract from the many great things he accomplished. I think it's sad that he let his ego push him to do things that were ultimately good for no one. It's hard to find many other generals that cared for him at the end even Marshall was not a fan. He was basically a hero to the masses due to the image he carefully created.
Anyway I think we are on the same page as tremendous fans of the military especially in WW2, except for me I just can't like McArthur, but what do you expect I was a marine so I can't completely agree with a navy guy. To bring this back to cycling I see McArthur as a military version of Lance.

I never said consistently out to lunch just often. Vietnam was a failure politically and by the military, mostly political. We failed to appreciated what Ho Chi Minh and the people were fighting for. We viewed it as fighting to stop communism and they were fighting to stop imperialism and were far more committed than we could ever be and they knew it as we did not.

[goonster]

The 'military' has only 2 missions, to kill people and break things
There are those who might disagree.

v. Clausewitz: Objective is to defeat the enemy and occupy their territory.

Sun Tzu: Objective is to bend the enemy to your will, sue for peace, and destruction of enemy forces is not necessarily a prerequisite.

The point being that the armed services' ultimate objectives (as determined by civilian leadership) are an end for which killing and breaking may be a means. I would refer you to Army Field Manual 3-24 ("Counterinsurgency") which, currently declining popularity aside, clearly codifies non-destructive activities.

like the second Gulf war, the 'military', along with senior military leaders, defeated the 'enemy' in like 6 weeks..then the civilians lost the 'war'..gooned it up.

This Goon considers the lessons of history and notes that the occupation of Europe and Japan was not farmed out to private contractors and twenty-something State Department officials.

I think I do agree with your larger point, i.e. that the invasion forces achieved their objectives, and that the lion's share of responsibility for failing to plan the long game lies with civilian leadership. (e.g. decision to dissolve the Iraqi Army was Paul Bremer's.) I am just pointing out that when the killing and breaking is planned out in the Pentagon, the people in uniform do have a responsibility to consider what happens afterward, and they have done this with some success in the past.

[oldpotatoe]

OP I agree with you completely those features of McArthur were stellar the way he executed the island campaign in the Pacific was pure genius and saved numerous lives. Inchon was another touch of brilliance yet in the same war he marched a remarkably ill equipped army north to the yalu creating the most sparsely defended front anyone had ever seen all while ignoring intelligence of his commanders on the ground telling him they were vulnerable and there was evidence of massive accumulation of Chinese troops amassing on the other side of the yalu and this lead to one of the most devastating defeats in our history. He conducted Korea from Japan never setting foot anywhere near the battlefield surrounded by sycophants he hand selected and as a group they created intel to fit their needs. He continued to try and take credit for things Ridgeway and others did to clean up his mess even after he was relieved.

I tend not to be absolute and understand that we all make mistakes and in war the people that lead often make mistakes that cost tremendous a amount of lives and it's a huge burden and part of their job average folks can't imagine. I'll give you I may be too absolute concerning McArthur but after reading several histories of the man written by those obviously beholden to him and some clearly not I think he was unique among generals in the way he created his image and also almost created a McArthur's army inside the army. I'm convinced he acted in a manner governed almost entirely to advance his own interests and career with little consideration to anything else. That doesn't completely detract from the many great things he accomplished. I think it's sad that he let his ego push him to do things that were ultimately good for no one. It's hard to find many other generals that cared for him at the end even Marshall was not a fan. He was basically a hero to the masses due to the image he carefully created.
Anyway I think we are on the same page as tremendous fans of the military especially in WW2, except for me I just can't like McArthur, but what do you expect I was a marine so I can't completely agree with a navy guy. To bring this back to cycling I see McArthur as a military version of Lance.

I never said consistently out to lunch just often. Vietnam was a failure politically and by the military, mostly political. We failed to appreciated what Ho Chi Minh and the people were fighting for. We viewed it as fighting to stop communism and they were fighting to stop imperialism and were far more committed than we could ever be and they knew it as we did not.

I don't like or dislike him. I admire what he accomplished during WWII and Korea. He took the ill equipped army North in large part because of the civilian leadership failing to fund the Korean War adequately.

Lance hurt cycling, he was liar. MacArthur's pluses and minuses are taught to this day in the service academies.

The CIVILIAN Leadership failed to appreciate who Ho Chi Minh was and what he was trying to do. We saw it as a communist threat and the US was close enough to WWII that is was important to support the French, as reconstruction in Europe was still going on and we 'needed' to support the French in European reconstruction. Ho even asked the US for help in dealing with the French..we should have helped him.

As you no doubt know, the VietCong ceased to exist after the TET offensive, due to the military. It was reported as a huge defeat when in actual fact, it was a huge military victory. The military was committed, most in the military never described it as a fight against communism, but in more basic terms.. Objectives, territory, mission. The civilians in DC kept trying to be the battlefield commander..with predictable results. The military's hands were tied..by idiots like Macnamara and Johnson, who was concerned about his 'Great Society'.

BUT not like lance at all....

[93legendti]

thats's how that raid was characterized in the conflict class I took. Never read that book, but remember discussing that operation and pretty sure several died in the work-up (practice) missions...but what I most remember now, is the absolute minimal collateral (civilian) life lost--in stark comparison to too many of our strikes in our GWOT efforts etc.

No pilots died. Some scientists who refused to stop working with Iraq died...

A few French engineers died, the IAF assumed the reactor would be empty...

The IDF Chief of Staff's son, died a few days before the raid (in an unrelated training accident in an A-4- he wasn't qualified for F-16's), yet Lt. Gen. Raful Eitan showed up to address the pilots as they prepared to take off. His speech was for the ages and worth while to read...("If our enemies should make us live by the sword, better it should be with an outstretched arm, than at our throats...").

(Lt. Gen. Raful Eitan is considered one of the 10 bravest soldiers in the IDF. After a successful 1968 raid on the Lebanese Airport, as payback for terrorist attacks, he led his men to the Airport Bar and ordered them drinks, leaving his name and number with the bartender and telling him to feel free to look him up in Israel.)

The raiding pilots used gravity bombs and only one pilot missed.

To expand, the IAF raid on the Iraqi reactor in 1981 was considered a suicide mission- not enough fuel to return home if they met enemy aircraft; no dogfighting weapons; and the planes were hot fueled after the engines were lit to increase their range by topping off the tanks. America believed the F-16's didn't have the range to get to Iraq and back.

The pilots weren't allowed to tell their wives about the mission and before they left, they were given figs to eat- so they would be used to Iraqi prison food.

Despite all that, Iftach Spector (15 dog fighting kills in the '73 War!) insisted upon taking the place of another less experienced pilot. Such was the driving motivation of the pilots.

I've met 2 of the pilots, Ilan Ramon (z"l) and Amos Yadlin. You want to ask them "what was it like?", but realize how silly the question sounds. I can talk strategy and missions with generals for hours, but not with those 2...

The Military Channel did a special called Raid on the Sun and interviewed some of the pilots. Well worth it.

Ilan Ramon died in the Columbia explosion. His son, Asaf, died 3 years ago in a training accident. His younger brother wants to be a pilot.

[malcolm]

last of the history debate on a cycling forum.

OP your take on Korea is just not accurate in my opinion. There was no reason to take our troops above the 38th, no other general except Ned Almond wanted to and he was in McArthur's pocket or actually up his arse. it served no purpose and needlessly exposed ill equipped troops to what they got a slaughter. Most of the commanders in the field were aware and warning of the situation. Independent intel was markedly different from what Almond and McArthur were generating. It was not a civilian failure, McArthur owned this one.

Vietnam was an indigenous peoples fight against being occupied. They viewed us much in the same way they did the French and we were equally successful. Diem was universally disliked by the majority of the Vietnamese people of the north and south. We lost very few if any actual engagements from a military perspective, but ultimately we failed, because we had a mission that made no sense. To the people we were fighting it was not about communism but about imperialism and being occupied. Ho Chi Minh was far more popular than Diem ever was among the people and no matter how much we killed or destroyed we wouldn't have won in 100 years. We should never have been their it was a failure of our government to understand the people of the country. It was a failure to understand that all communism is not the same. The politics were forged from recent history of the fall of China, McCarthy and his antics and the experience of Korea. Ridgeway was sent of by Kennedy to assess needs when we still had probably less than 100 people there and he said it would take 7-10 divisions years to be successful there and maybe not even then and recommended staying the hell out.

[93legendti]

On Tuesday, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, the surviving Doolittle Raiders gathered publicly for the last time.

They once were among the most universally admired and revered men in the United States. There were 80 of the Raiders in April
1942, when they carried out one of the most courageous and heart-stirring military operations in this nation's history. The mere mention of their unit's name, in those years, would bring tears to the eyes of grateful Americans.

Now only four survive.

After Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, with the United States reeling and wounded, something dramatic was needed to turn the
war effort around.

Even though there were no friendly airfields close enough to Japan for the United States to launch a retaliation, a daring plan was
devised. Sixteen B-25s were modified so that they could take off from the deck of an aircraft carrier. This had never before been tried -- sending such big, heavy bombers from a carrier.

The 16 five-man crews, under the command of Lt. Col. James Doolittle, who himself flew the lead plane off the USS Hornet, knew
that they would not be able to return to the carrier. They would have to hit Japan and then hope to make it to China for a safe landing.

But on the day of the raid, the Japanese military caught wind of the plan. The Raiders were told that they would have to take off
from much farther out in the Pacific Ocean than they had counted on. They were told that because of this they would not have enough fuel to make it to safety.

And those men went anyway.

They bombed Tokyo, and then flew as far as they could. Four planes crash-landed; 11 more crews bailed out, and three of the
Raiders died. Eight more were captured; three were executed. Another died of starvation in a Japanese prison camp. One crew made it to Russia.

The Doolittle Raid sent a message from the United States to its enemies, and to the rest of the world: We will fight. And, no
matter what it takes, we will win.

Of the 80 Raiders, 62 survived the war. They were celebrated as national heroes, models of bravery. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer produced a motion picture based on the raid; "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo," starring Spencer Tracy and Van Johnson, was a patriotic and emotional box-office hit, and the phrase became part of the national lexicon. In the movie-theater previews for the film, MGM proclaimed that it was presenting the story "with supreme pride."

Beginning in 1946, the surviving Raiders have held a reunion each April, to commemorate the mission. The reunion is in a different
city each year. In 1959, the city of Tucson, Arizona, as a gesture of respect and gratitude, presented the Doolittle Raiders with a set of 80 silver goblets. Each goblet was engraved with the name of a Raider.

Every year, a wooden display case bearing all 80 goblets is transported to the reunion city. Each time a Raider passes away, his goblet is turned upside down in the case at the next reunion, as his old friends bear solemn witness.

Also in the wooden case is a bottle of 1896 Hennessy Very Special cognac. The year is not happenstance: 1896 was when Jimmy Doolittle was born.

There has always been a plan: When there are only two surviving Raiders, they would open the bottle, at last drink from it, and toast their comrades who preceded them in death.

As 2013 began, there were five living Raiders; then, in February, Tom Griffin passed away at age 96. What a man he was. After
bailing out of his plane over a mountainous Chinese forest after the Tokyo raid, he became ill with malaria, and almost died. When he recovered, he was sent to Europe to fly more combat missions. He was shot down, captured, and spent 22 months in a German prisoner of war camp.

The selflessness of these men, the sheer guts ... there was a passage in the Cincinnati Enquirer obituary for Mr. Griffin that, on
the surface, had nothing to do with the war, but that emblematizes the depth of his sense of duty and devotion:"When his wife became ill and needed to go into a nursing home, he visited her every day. He walked from his house to the nursing home, fed his wife and at the end of the day brought home her clothes. At night, he washed and ironed her clothes. Then he walked them up to her room the next morning. He did that for three years until her death in 2005."

So now, out of the original 80, only four Raiders remain: Dick Cole (Doolittle's co-pilot on the Tokyo raid), Robert Hite, Edward Saylor and David Thatcher. All are in their 90s. They have decided that there are too few of them for the public reunions to continue.

The events in Fort Walton Beach this week will mark the end. It has come full circle; Florida's nearby Eglin Field was where the Raiders trained in secrecy for the Tokyo mission. The town is planning to do all it can to honor the men: a six-day celebration of their valor, including luncheons, a dinner and a parade.

Do the men ever wonder if those of us for whom they helped save the country have tended to it in a way that is worthy of their sacrifice? They don't talk about that, at least not around other people. But if you find yourself near Fort Walton Beach this week, and if you should encounter any of the Raiders, you might want to offer them a word of thanks. I can tell you from first hand observation that they appreciate hearing that they are remembered.

The men have decided that after this final public reunion they will wait until a later date -- some time this year -- to get
together once more, informally and in absolute privacy. That is when they will open the bottle of brandy. The years are flowing by too swiftly now; they are not going to wait until there are only two of them.

They will fill the four On Tuesday, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, the surviving Doolittle Raiders gathered publicly for the last time.

Thanks for posting this.

[Elefantino]

"The Doolittle Raid" (1964) by Carroll Glines is the definitive book on the mission. Not as romantic as Lawson's book and far less hyped than Merrill's "Target Tokyo." A must read.

Calling MacArthur "the most overrated human to ever wear the uniform" discounts quite a few presidents.

And WWII cannot be looked at through the prism of post-9/11 America. Sorry, it just can't.

[oldpotatoe]

There are those who might disagree.

v. Clausewitz: Objective is to defeat the enemy and occupy their territory.

Sun Tzu: Objective is to bend the enemy to your will, sue for peace, and destruction of enemy forces is not necessarily a prerequisite.

The point being that the armed services' ultimate objectives (as determined by civilian leadership) are an end for which killing and breaking may be a means. I would refer you to Army Field Manual 3-24 ("Counterinsurgency") which, currently declining popularity aside, clearly codifies non-destructive activities.



Required reading at the naval War College and I agree..defeat by making them hurt worse than you, occupy with force, sue for peace.

The civilians sue for peace, the military does the heavy lifting. I was in the USN.....have never read nor been exposed to an Army manual.

[oldpotatoe]

last of the history debate on a cycling forum.

OP your take on Korea is just not accurate in my opinion. There was no reason to take our troops above the 38th, no other general except Ned Almond wanted to and he was in McArthur's pocket or actually up his arse. it served no purpose and needlessly exposed ill equipped troops to what they got a slaughter. Most of the commanders in the field were aware and warning of the situation. Independent intel was markedly different from what Almond and McArthur were generating. It was not a civilian failure, McArthur owned this one.

Vietnam was an indigenous peoples fight against being occupied. They viewed us much in the same way they did the French and we were equally successful. Diem was universally disliked by the majority of the Vietnamese people of the north and south. We lost very few if any actual engagements from a military perspective, but ultimately we failed, because we had a mission that made no sense. To the people we were fighting it was not about communism but about imperialism and being occupied. Ho Chi Minh was far more popular than Diem ever was among the people and no matter how much we killed or destroyed we wouldn't have won in 100 years. We should never have been their it was a failure of our government to understand the people of the country. It was a failure to understand that all communism is not the same. The politics were forged from recent history of the fall of China, McCarthy and his antics and the experience of Korea. Ridgeway was sent of by Kennedy to assess needs when we still had probably less than 100 people there and he said it would take 7-10 divisions years to be successful there and maybe not even then and recommended staying the hell out.

I agree but Macarthur did and how poorly the 'war' was funded was exacerbated.

Diem, a puppet of the US and when we disagreed with him, the CIA got rid of him. Yep, studying the cascading events from WWII, to Korea, to the 'Iron Curtain, the occupation of parts of Europe and Germany..I think Vietnam was inevitable, if not there, somewhere but yes, the 'situation' in VietNam was completely misunderstood by Eisenhower, then Kennedy, then Johnson. Nixon got it and he should be applauded for getting us out..in spite of his other 'deeds'.