Set the Record Straight

By David H. Hackworth

Much of the U.S. press corps covering our military seems to work overtime reinforcing Hiram Johnson's on-target comment, "The first casualty when war comes is truth."

Perhaps I should cut my colleagues some slack because of the fog of war, the skill of the Pentagon's damage-control spinners and also because, less a squad or so of serious military reporters, most journalists on the GI beat couldn't tell a tank from a turtle if it were running them over. But when reporters ignore or fake the truth about our warriors, I get as mad as Mike Tyson on one of those days.

Right now, I'm ready to bite off a lot more than an ear. What's got my Irish going is the book No Gun Ri - A Military History of the Korean War Incident (Stackpole Books, February 2002), by Maj. Robert Bateman. Historian Bateman not only brilliantly depicts the early days of that war and just what a heartbreaker it was, he also blows away a big story the media jumped on three years ago during yet another ill-informed beat-up-the-military campaign.

Although I'd served in Korea in chaotic 1950-51 and saw many civilians get caught in the cross fire, I'd never heard of a massacre at No Gun Ri until the headlines exploded in 1999 accusing the troopers of the Army's famed 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment of war atrocities. I'd fought alongside the regiment and spent time in hospitals with heroic 7th Cav troopers, but unlike the early scuttlebutt from Vietnam that signaled the bloodbath at My Lai, I'd never heard even a whisper from the usually reliable GI grapevine about No Gun Ri.

Since the story didn't smell right, it wasn't exactly a shocker when I soon discovered the "atrocity" was barnyard droppings created by a hero wannabe named Edward Daily - who wasn't anywhere near the front, machine-gunning civilians as he claimed. In fact, he was a grease monkey, lubricating trucks far behind the lines, who made up the whole shameful mess and awarded himself a chestful of medals and a battlefield commission for extraordinary combat leadership along the way.

Daily claimed he got his kill-'em-all orders directly from a major at battalion HQ, although even a recruit knows majors seldom give orders directly to gunners. Nothing else reported by The Associated Press made much more sense, starting with the absence of bodies or mass or individual graves after the massacre. Or the seven war reporters who were with the 7th Cav at the scene - were they all blind or just not up for reporting what would have been the scoop of that brand-new war?

Daily's exposure would have put an end to this sleazy incident, except that the AP reporters who broke the story subsequently won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting!

Bateman's meticulously researched book points a damning finger at the AP reporters for basing their investigation primarily on Daily's fairy tales, even when there was enough doubt to drive a Sherman tank through the holes in his testimony. They flat ignored the facts, Bateman notes, choosing juice over the truth.

As with the Gary Condit circus, the rest of our media couldn't pile on fast enough, and the press was soon into a major media feeding frenzy. NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw - who apparently didn't bother internalizing the credo of choosing the hard right over the easy wrong while researching his best seller, The Greatest Generation - actually flew Daily to Korea so he could tearfully confess to the world from the "killing fields of No Gun Ri" how he'd mowed down innocent civilians.

Neither Brokaw nor AP has yet to set the record straight. Nor have they bothered to apologize for this bad story to the men of the 7th Cav who fought and died on the Korean peninsula. Or to their families. Or to the American people.

Korean vets from that terrible "Forgotten War" should not forget this slam to their honor and should demand that the Pulitzer Committee re-examine its procedures and standards - and withdraw the prize from AP.

At least in his fine book, Bateman shoots straight. Let's hope the next time there are rumors of a made-in-the-USA military atrocity, our media will try Bateman's approach and aim before they fire.

http://www.hackworth.com is the address of David Hackworth's home page. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. Look for his new book, "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts," (Rugged Land LLC, New York City).

© 2002 David H. Hackworth

Editor's Note: For an interesting account of the ongoing debate between Bateman and the AP over the AP's alleged massacre at No Gun Ri, see the article by Judith Greer, "What really happened at No Gun Ri?" (Salon.com, June 3, 2002).

Table of Contents

Islam Has Proven to Be Our Historical Enemy

By Patrick Hayes

Nearly a year after we went to war against terrorism, leaders in the West appear still unwilling, if not afraid, to name the actual enemy that we face - much less refocus the war against that threat.

Many Westerners have called this conflict a new "cold war" against "radical Islam" reminiscent of our "long twilight struggle" against communism during the Cold War. Other observers argue and believe that the current war in this new age of Islamic terrorism is being fought solely in and against specific groups in limited geographical areas such as the ousted Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in the Philippines, or the Muslim extremists in Chechnya.

The implication is that there is a larger Islamic world indifferent or neutral to the West, with only a narrow, hostile faction composed of extremists who wish to oust all Western influences from their societies, or want to wage war on American soil in the name of jihad.

It is time to correct that misimpression. It is time to end that illusion. As scholar Samuel P. Huntington has written, the struggle is indeed taking place in a much wider context. Huntington has accurately called it a "clash of civilizations" rather than merely a war between the United States and its allies on one side, and a conspiracy of sub-national terrorist groups on the other. Other experts agree.

If we are indeed committed to victory against the al Qaeda terrorists and their sponsors, we need to heed experts such as Huntington who say it is misleading and mistaken to identify the threat as stemming only from the homicidal and suicidal tendencies of "radical Muslims."

In other words, we have to face up to the ugly prospect that the enemy is Islam and its inherent hatred of the West and all the West stands for.

"Some westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued that the West does not have a problem with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists," Huntington wrote in The Clash of Civilizations - Remaking of World Order (Touchstone, New York, 1997). "Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise," he added.

This is not only because the acts of Muslim terrorism are worldwide, as is the war itself, which includes the search for Muslim terrorist cells within the United States and over 50 other countries. It is also because the roots of the current conflict span nearly 10 centuries of human history.

The assumption that al Qaeda is our only foe and that Afghanistan is the sole target of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts fails to recognize the tension that has existed between the Muslim world (with its archaic, 12th-century beliefs and traditions), and the modern Western world (which Muslims abhor for its computer gaming, high fashion and education for women, and fast foods). That conflict existed long before Sept. 11, 2001.

The mutual animosities between Islam and the West go back before the time of the First Crusades, to 711 A.D., when Muslim hordes overran a good portion of Europe, beginning with Spain. In 732, the Muslim Arab and Berber armies were defeated at the Battle of Tours, France, by the Frankish (German tribe) King, Charles Martel - a defeat that effectively halted the Islamic advance into Europe.

In their march west, the Muslim armies spread Islam where they could. The non-Arabs were called mawali, Arabic for "clients." Although the mawali were converts to Islam, they were considered second-class to their Arab masters. Much as they do today with their imported workers, the Arabs used the mawali as their servants and, in some cases, soldiers.

By the 8th century, in addition to conquering Persia (Iran), Central Asia and much of Eastern Europe (which is why the West is currently dealing with the problem of Muslim terrorists in the Balkans), the Islamic armies had conquered North Africa, the eastern Mediterranean and much of Spain, and had even established bases in Italy. Islam, in effect, still posed a serious threat to the rest of Europe.

By the 11th century, the balance of power was shifting back to the West and trade flourished. The Church became stronger and more centralized, doing away with the practice of allowing kings to appoint regional church leaders. Therefore, the Popes were able to unify popular support. With increased wealth and power, and the need to expand trade, in 1095, Pope Urban II called for the raising of Christian armies to free the Holy City of Jerusalem and the Holy Land itself from the Muslims. The actual Crusades lasted from 1096 into the 13th century.

Over the years, tensions between the West and Islam have continued to ebb and flow, but have never been far from the surface. The 18th century again saw the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in opposition to what was then perceived by the Muslim extremists of the day as the decadence of the Ottoman (Muslim) Empire.

In the 19th century, when the Jews began to move back to what is now Israel, tensions again grew between Arabs and Jews - a conflict that continues to this day with no reasonable end in sight.

During World War I, the Muslim Ottoman Empire sided with Germany against the western powers. During World War II, many Muslims sided with the Nazis because of their mutual hatred for the Jews. The Muslims in Central Asia were quieted for a while during the reign of communism, when the Muslim region became part of the Soviet Empire. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, several of the former Soviet Republics, including Russia itself in Chechnya, are facing their own war against Muslim terrorists.

To say that the current war against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is not religious in nature - at least as perceived by Muslim fanatics themselves - is to miss the point of history as addressed by Huntington.

Islam is currently at war with the modern world as much as it was with the West and Christianity in the 8th century. The Saudi princes, who today publicly voice distain and concern about the murderous acts of Muslim terror, continue to provide financial support to the Muslim terrorists who perpetrate those acts.

In 1998, Osama bin Laden told his followers, "The call to wage war against America was made because America has spearheaded the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two holy mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control."

Ranting though his statements may be, there is no denying the message bin Laden is sending, not only to the al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists, but to all Muslims worldwide. (Of course bin Laden, the Saudi princes and the mullahs in Iran discreetly ignore the facts, because facts may muddle the minds of Muslim fanatics and true believers.)

Besides its obvious support of Israel, the United States has also intervened around the globe and placed American lives at risk in defense of Muslims. These operations include going to war against Iraq after that country invaded Kuwait. In Somalia, the Bush I and Clinton administrations' mission was to help feed a hungry Muslim nation. That Clinton turned tail and ran at the first sight of American bloodshed obscured the fact that the intervention itself was aimed at saving Muslim lives. And American troops today remain in the Balkans, where Clinton twice intervened against the Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslims who faced ethnic cleansing and mass murder. However, American soldiers there must now deal with the threat of attack by Muslim terrorists.

But those facts carry little weight in a conflict defined by its radical organizers as a religious struggle. A recent article by Andrew Sullivan on the war against terrorism, which appeared in The New York Times Magazine noted, "The religious dimension to this conflict is central to its being." Sullivan added, "The words of Osama bin Laden are saturated with religious argument and theological language. Whatever else the Taliban regime is in Afghanistan, it is fanatically religious."

As bin Laden himself has said, the American "crusade" is not against the Arabs, per se, but "against the Islamic nation." This is a semantic distinction that few Americans appreciate: Those words were used to incite the involvement of every Muslim around the globe because there is, strictly speaking, no "Islamic nation." The message in bin Laden's own words, and the lesson the West needs to learn, is that the primary loyalty of any Muslim is to his religion and not to any one nation-state.

Given the official concern about Muslim terrorist cells within the United States, this issue of loyalty should cause those in Washington and around the country serious concern, given the number of Muslims of all races currently residing in the United States as well as the number of others still flowing into the country with visas of all types, or through the back doors of Mexico and Canada.

British author Salman Rushdie is another expert who fully understands what is at stake here. He is a Westerner who since 1989 has been living with a fatwah, or edict of death, on his head, decreed by the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In a recent commentary in The New York Times, Rushdie wrote, "If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda? Why did those 10,000 men armed with swords and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, answering some mullah's call to jihad? Why are the war's first British casualties three Muslim men who died fighting on the Taliban side?

Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic slander that "the Jews" arranged the hits on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the oddly self-deprecating explanation offered by the Taliban leadership, among others, that Muslims could not have the technological know-how or organizational sophistication to pull off such a feat?"

Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum, wrote in a New York Post article last Oct. 19, "To me, every fundamentalist Muslim, no matter how peaceable in his own behavior, is part of a murderous movement and is thus, in some fashion, a foot soldier in the war that bin Laden has launched against civilization. … By way of comparison, I would say precisely the same about Nazis and Leninists; however non-violently they might conduct their own lives, the fact that they back a barbaric force means they too are barbarians and must be treated as such."

Although many in the West clearly recognize the growing the threat of fundamentalist Muslim terror, a disturbing number of apologists in this country and in Europe continue to argue restraint in the war against Muslim terrorism. They argue that Islam is a "peaceful" religion, open and tolerant of all others.

Yet the Koran beseeches the faithful to kill the unbeliever: "And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush."

As much as bin Laden and other Muslim fanatics argue to the contrary, the West in general and Christianity in particular have no reason to attack Islam. The simple fact is that most western countries, including the United States, tolerate Muslims and their mosques within their midst, even though, as an example, the Muslims in England in particular are becoming a serious threat to the stability of that country. (As Rushdie points out, it was British Muslims who were among the first volunteers to go fight with al Qaeda and the Taliban.)

History provides a stern warning: The United States and its allies have no choice but to take aggressive action against an enemy that shows no willingness to negotiate. And unless specific evidence to the contrary appears - a movement within Islam itself to disavow and condemn the acts of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations - we should abandon the false distinction between the terrorists and the global religion that by all intelligence continues to support them.

Patrick Hayes is a contributing editor to DefenseWatch. He can be reached at gyrene@sftt.us.

Table of Contents

Project SHAD - An Update

By Robert G. Williscroft

Dr. William Winkenwerder is the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. On July 9, 2002, he announced an expansion of the Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD) investigation.

"DoD has an obligation to all service members - past and present - to keep them informed of any event during their military career that might threaten their health. We are committed to providing the Veterans Administration with the medically relevant information as quickly and efficiently as possible," he said, as he revealed that team of investigators will travel to Dugway Proving Ground in mid-August to review Deseret Test Center records.

According to Department of Defense sources, The Shipboard Hazard and Defense program was a subset of Project 112, a chemical and biological weapons vulnerability-testing program conducted by the Deseret Test Center from 1963 to 1969. The tests consisted of joint exercises involving the Army's Deseret Test Center, several Army and Navy vessels and Marine Corps and Air Force aircraft. Some veterans have expressed concern that they may have been exposed to harmful substances during these classified tests.

To date, the Pentagon has published 12 fact sheets that chronicle ships and units involved in the tests, when the tests took place, and the substances to which the crews may have been exposed. So far, according to the DoD, investigators have identified approximately 2,700 to 2,800 service members involved in these 12 tests, many in more than one test.

In earlier articles, I discussed the origins of Project SHAD and some of its ramifications (see "Project SHAD - Lesson from a Secret Experiment," DefenseWatch, Apr. 10, 2002, and "Secret Tests May Have Harmed Over 2,000 Sailors," DefenseWatch, Apr. 24, 2002). The most critical element in these articles was the astonishing fact that the DoD seemed to be dragging its feet on conducting the investigation, and appeared reluctant to release information it clearly already had.

Through its spokesman, Winkenwerder, the DoD now says that declassification of ship and personnel information for an additional 17 SHAD tests is under way. The DoD expects to publish additional fact sheets in early fall. According to the DoD, the work to be done at Dugway in August will complete the investigation of all Project 112 tests conducted by the Deseret Test Center.

Earlier reports from inside the DoD and elsewhere indicated that Project SHAD covered many more than these 29 acknowledged tests. From emails received here at DefenseWatch and from published news reports across the nation, it appears that the extent of these tests far exceeded the limited scope of the current DoD investigation. In fact, they have only revealed the tip of the iceberg.

During my investigation, on several occasions I discovered that the official reports regarding the location and deployment of vessels involved in these tests differed remarkably from the locations reported by crew members who actually sailed on these vessels during the same period. Since we are talking about events that happened forty years ago, it is entirely possible that Seaman Jones might have forgotten whether he was cruising off Charleston or Norfolk on any particular day. It is completely unreasonable, however, to believe that Jones was mistaken about which coast he was cruising. Most of us do know the difference between San Diego and Boston.

I remain reluctant to accuse the DoD of deliberately obfuscating the problem. I recognize that many of the records are very difficult to obtain and correlate, especially so since all this happened before the computerization of military records. Nevertheless, it appears that those assigned to get the facts are depending on only these official reports. They seem to be expending heroic effort to unearth records wherever they may be stashed, but I see no indication that anyone is attempting to gather information from still living crew members themselves, in order to establish the actual events.

Sen. Max Cleland, D-GA, chairman of the Senate Armed Services personnel subcommittee, recently announced that he will investigate whether the Pentagon intended to use American sailors as human guinea pigs during the 1960s testing of chemical weapons aboard Navy ships.

Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in a Vietnam grenade blast, says he is pushing for open hearings, but the Pentagon is insisting that some of the material stay classified.

I find it difficult to understand why something tested nearly half a century ago still needs to remain classified. The health and welfare of several thousand affected veterans is infinitely more important than keeping a secret that no longer matters.

Winkenwerder says, "We plan to augment staff as needed to finish this task efficiently and quickly. We owe our SHAD veterans resolution to events that took place four decades ago."

To date the Veterans Administration has sent notification letters to only about 600 identified participants. A cursory investigation reveals several thousand other affected participants who should be notified as well. It is time to pull all the stops and investigate Project SHAD in complete open detail.

Every day SHAD participants die, some for reasons that may very well be related to these experiments. It is time for the DoD to acknowledge its responsibility and to assign this investigation the highest priority. Investigators must examine the entire record, not just the military records stashed away in dusty archives. Crew members must be interviewed and their statements correlated by a central office until a complete picture emerges, and we know what really happened up and down our coasts on so many vessels to thousands of unwitting participants during this shameful chapter in our country's military history.

Robert G. Williscroft is DefenseWatch Navy Editor. He can be reached at dwnavyeditor@argee.net.

Table of Contents

A Proposed Code of Ethics for Military Leaders

By Matthew Dodd

What is going on here? All of a sudden I cannot log onto the internet or turn on the radio or television without reading or hearing about yet another moral failure by senior leaders or an ethical breakdown within some large and powerful American institution.

The list is almost too long to recount: The Enron bankruptcy, WorldCom and Arthur Anderson accounting irregularities, Martha Stewart insider-trading allegations, and the horrendous Catholic Church child molestations scandal are corporate and institutional examples. Military examples include the Crusader artillery system lobbying efforts, the Pentagon financial accountability fiasco (see my DefenseWatch article, "Pentagon Failure to Manage Funds Is a Disgrace" Apr. 10, 2002), and the ongoing influence of the military-industrial-congressional-complex (also identified as the military-industrial-congressional-empire by analyst Philip Gold in an excellent editorial column in The Seattle Times on July 1, 2002 - or the military-industrial- complex originally identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his now-famous farewell address on Jan. 17, 1961).

With alleged ethics failures under attack behind closed doors and in the news media distracting public attention from our ongoing global war against terrorism, I believe the time is right to review and reflect on the critical role of ethics in leadership. To better facilitate discussion and reflection, let me share with you a proposed command ethics code for the U.S. military:

UNITED STATES ANY COMMAND
COMMAND ETHICS CODE

This code describes what everyone in our organization should expect from my behavior, and what I expect of the behavior of everyone in our organization. I believe this code will help direct our daily actions and interactions with each other, and with those outside our organization. To make this code a part of our daily mindset, we must constantly ask ourselves, "What is this situation asking of me?" instead of, "Why is this situation happening to me?"

My behavior is not perfect all the time. I am not perfect. We all make mistakes. We first must admit, then learn from our mistakes, and the mistakes of others, to live up to our nation's high expectations of its warriors in the armed forces. I will use this code to receive feedback on my behavior, and to provide feedback to others on their behavior. I expect all leaders at all levels in our organization to use this code the same way. I don't want this code to be a forgotten document that gathers dust hanging on a wall or shoved into a desk drawer.

I believe this code helps set us up for success in three critical areas.

The first area is at the small unit level where our forces train to be placed in harm's way at a moment's notice. These forces rely on each other to do the right thing and to protect each other's flanks.

The second critical area is at the organizational level where senior leaders and supporting staffs plan and coordinate in support of their small units. These organizations rely on their relationships up, down and laterally through the chain of command for support to be mentors and servants to their small unit leaders.

The final area in which this code sets us up for success is in accomplishing our missions at all levels. Mission accomplishment is based on leaders making the right decisions for the right reasons at the right times.

The common glue between these three critical areas is people. Without people, missions, small units and organizations would not exist. We must not ever lose sight of this fact or we will betray the "special trust and confidence" of the American public to whom we account for our nation's ultimate treasure - its sons and daughters.

My desired endstate: this code explained to and understood by all members of our organization; all leaders at all levels taking all steps necessary to ensure that the spirit of this code is present in our daily routine; everyone prepared to discuss with me the strengths and weaknesses of this code at a moment's notice; and this code formally reviewed every six months by leaders at all levels with input from all members.

E
Ethical principles are our standards for behavior.

Fairness: giving everyone what they deserve; the same rules and rewards for everyone.

Honesty: thinking, speaking, and acting to not mislead others.

Integrity: thoughts, words, and actions are related; we accept and adapt to our respective Service and organizational values.

Human Dignity: respect everyone as a unique person with special talents; learn to disagree agreeably.

T
Trustworthiness is where it all begins, and it all begins with you.

Trust exists between people when persons are trustworthy; trust and teamwork go hand-in-hand. To be trustworthy, you must be a person of sound character and professional competence. Do others trust you? Do you have the same qualities you expect in those you trust? Do you know your job and always do it to the best of your abilities? Do you know how your job fits in and relates to everyone and everything around you?

H
Humility is a strength, not a weakness.

The only things we control are our decisions and our reactions to what happens to and around us. No individual can do it all by him or herself. Individuals may win games, but teams win championships.

I
Improvement is a continuous process.

Strive to always leave behind a better situation than the one you first encountered. Constantly look for opportunities to make yourself, others, and your surroundings better. Waiting in traffic or a long line is a test of your patience and self-discipline. Take a little extra time to help someone who is struggling with a problem. Pick up trash between your parking space and your office.

C
Choices you make decide your life.

You are responsible for the choices you make. You are accountable for the consequences that result from the choices you make. The key is to pause before you act or react and to think about your choices.

S
Set the example of being an ethical person; live this code.

This code is easy to understand, but difficult to apply in every situation of every day of our lives. Your challenge is to resist the many daily temptations to violate this code. Your reward will be the pride and satisfaction you feel from knowing you are a better person and for belonging to an organization of such high ethical standards.

I. M. DASINK
Combatant Commander
U.S. Any Command

Contributing Editor Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd is the pen name of an active-duty Marine Corps officer stationed at the Pentagon. He can be reached at mattdodd1775@hotmail.com.

It's Time to Get Serious About This War

By William F. Sauerwein

The current cavalier attitudes concerning our projected military campaign against Iraq are greatly disturbing, in part because they seem to be part of a larger failure by many Americans to take the war against terrorism seriously.

"Military experts" on television tell us how easy it will be to take out Saddam Hussein, while the Pentagon and State Department seem to have sprung more leaks than the Titanic. Journalists can hardly wait to print or broadcast alleged details of our military planning no matter what the potential consequences. Everyone seems to forget that national security and the lives of America's sons and daughters in uniform are at stake. I sincerely hope that all this leaked material is part of a Pentagon deception plan, because if it is not, we have serious problems.

Looking back after nearly a quarter-century of military service, I now understand that the last war this nation was genuinely serious about winning was World War II.

In each subsequent conflict - from Korea to Vietnam, to the small skirmishes of the 1980s, the Persian Gulf War, Somalia and operations in the former Balkans - we devoted fewer national resources to war, imposing hardships on fewer and fewer American citizens.

For example, we did not think our involvement in Korea and Vietnam demanded our total effort. Even though we held the technological edge in both of those wars, the outcome in both was less than decisive - a military standoff in Korea that lingers to this day, and a stalemate in Vietnam that only delayed North Vietnam's military conquest. We won battlefield victories in the Persian Gulf War, but struggled in the decade afterwards to contain Saddam Hussein. We definitely held the technological edge over Somalia, and the results were distressing: We cut and ran after one brief, but fierce battle.

I do not imply that the troops who fought those wars did not give their all, because they served admirably under difficult conditions. My point is that while they suffered and bled, the rest of America lived as if no war were taking place.

So before we become overly arrogant and complacent regarding our anticipated victory in the war against terrorism, or any war against Saddam Hussein and the "Axis of Evil" in general, we must wake up and face the realities.

I am not saying that the war against terrorism is exactly like World War II - after all, we are grappling with a shadowy network of terrorists and a handful of rogue states, rather than a formal alliance of three industrial nations. The "Axis of Evil" does not come close in overall military strength to the Axis Powers. But we do face the potential of devastating attacks by terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction, and that alone dictates that we once more face a threat to our very survival of a nation.

Waging World War II required about 16 million military personnel and the total mobilization of our nation. Every man deemed physically and mentally fit served in the military, and men and women not in service worked in defense plants. All industrial output went for the war effort, and we produced no civilian automobiles during the war. The federal government rationed gasoline and food, restricted nonessential travel and even limited material for civilian clothing. The entire nation, understanding the necessity, sacrificed to win the war.

On the home front, civilians regarded the war effort almost as seriously as our soldiers on the battlefront. Information was closely guarded and the catch-phrase was "Loose lips sink ships." The government instigated formal censorship in the news media, and journalists understood they were on "our side." Hollywood became totally involved, with celebrities entertaining with the USO, and studios producing patriotic movies. We guarded defense plants, enforced blackout conditions, patrolled our beaches and reported suspicious persons. Fearing espionage and sabotage, we removed Japanese-Americans from the West Coast and interned them in camps - a tragic error in history's judgment, but one that occurred because our national survival was at stake.

Such an industrial-age mobilization is not necessary today, particularly given our "all volunteer" military and the evolution of warfare from the massed forces of World War II to today's use of "smart" weapons.

But the stakes are the same today as in the 1940s: On 9/11, we suffered a "Pearl Harbor" attack that in absolute terms was more deadly than Pearl Harbor itself. More than 3,000 civilians died at the hands of terrorists who lived among us and used our open society and technology against us. We still do not know how many of these cells may still exist inside the United States, or what their missions and capabilities are.

All Americans must get serious - and stay serious - about this war effort, or our nation may yet suffer additional and possibly irreparable damage. We forget that many nations are jealous of our power, that some of them support terrorists like al Qaeda, and some of them certainly hope we fail.

It is distressing to see that in recent weeks as the military campaign in Afghanistan wound down, replaced by occasional reports of small commando raids, the political climate in this country has begun to return to a "normal" that I myself believe no longer exists.

Our politicians seem more concerned about election-year politics than helping in the war against terrorism, and some in Congress appear to be treating current homeland security legislation as merely another opportunity to rake in pork for their district or state. We seem unable, or unwilling, to secure our borders. Officials continue to leak all kinds of information to a news media whose neutrality sometimes makes no distinction between terrorists and their targets. Some of our fellow citizens even openly support our enemies, blaming us for the Sept. 11 attacks.

These hardly seem the actions of a nation determined to protect its citizens and defeat its enemies.

Contributing Editor William F. Sauerwein retired as a sergeant 1st class in 1994 after a 24-year Army infantry career that included combat service in Operation Desert Storm. He can be reached at mono@gtec.com.

Table of Contents

Fort Bragg Struggles With Violence on the Home Front

By Andrea West

The Army in recent weeks has struggled with a string of murders at Fort Bragg, N.C., the home of some of its elite Special Operations forces that have fought in Afghanistan.

In the past month, five persons were murdered, of whom four were either Special Forces soldiers or their spouses. The killings, some allegedly perpetrated by servicemen recently returned from Afghanistan, have sparked questions about the stresses of military life during wartime, particularly in the Special Forces.

The string of killings began on June 11, when Sgt 1st Class Rigoberto Nieves of the 3rd Special Forces Group allegedly argued with his wife, Teresa, and shot her with a .40-cal. pistol. Nieves then locked himself in their bedroom and shot himself. The couple's six-year-old daughter tried to get into the bedroom, but found that the door was locked. Nieves, just two days back from Afghanistan at the time of the killings, had reportedly requested leave to resolve personal issues.

On June 29, Jennifer Wright was strangled. Her husband, Master Sgt. William Wright reported her missing two days later, telling neighbors that she had run off with a friend. He claimed it wasn't the first time she had run off. Her family did not believe this, arguing that she would not abandon her three sons. On July 19, Wright reportedly confessed to strangling Jennifer and led the police to a wooded area where he had allegedly buried her. Wright had been back one month from Afghanistan, and had moved out of his house and into the barracks.

On July 9, Sgt Ramon Griffin of the 37th Engineer Battalion was charged with stabbing his estranged wife, Marilyn, at least 50 times and setting her house on fire. Her two children escaped from the house. Sgt. Griffin is not affiliated with the Special Forces, nor had he returned from Afghanistan.

On July 19, the same day Master Sgt. Wright was charged, Sgt 1st Class Brandon Floyd (said to be a member of Delta Force) shot his wife Andrea and then himself. Their three children were in Ohio at the time.

One other Fort Bragg murder took place on July 23. Maj. David Shannon, also of the Special Forces, was shot to death as he slept in his bedroom. This murder is still under investigation, and at the time of this writing no suspect has been named.

It is imperative that the Army sort out the reasons behind the killings and find ways to prevent future violence.

A number of experts have noted similarities between the cases. The New York Times on July 29 cited Dr. Angela Browne, a member of the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard, indicating that three of the four women shot to death had sought separation from their spouses. Studies have shown that this is the time when marital violence is most likely to occur, the newspaper added.

A second expert, Professor Jim Martin of Bryn Mawr College, told the newspaper USA Today that separation from the family and the traumatic aspects of warfare are not the main factor in domestic violence. "Most likely," said Martin, who teaches courses on military life, "these kinds of things are related to people having significant problems beforehand."

Mady Segal, a military sociologist, told USA Today that the overwhelming majority of military families cope well with service-related separations. She said that while some studies indicate that violence rates are higher among military families than among their civilian counterparts, comparisons of violence rates between military and civilian families may be difficult to make. She attributes this to the greater tendency of military communities to report abuse.

There is currently no clear explanation why five people associated with Fort Bragg were brutally murdered, four of them allegedly at the hands of their spouses.

The Army's investigation into the incidents will include an examination of the programs available to Army personnel, in order to better address the needs of soldiers and their families.

As Fort Bragg's garrison commander, Col. Tad Davis, told The Fayetteville Observer-Times on July 26, "I can guarantee you that we will be looking extremely closely at the last couple of cases … in a way to truly learn what occurred in the lives of these soldiers and their families so that we can take those lessons learned and improve the programs we have and do the best job we can to prevent something like this from happening again."

Army officials point out that the service does maintain a cluster of programs aimed at helping families cope with the stress of deployment and other causes. Most of these programs are available Armywide, and have counterparts in the other services as well.

Among the programs available to Army families is the Family Advocacy program, which deals with domestic violence and abuse, and which offers free classes on parenting, stress, and anger management. The Army Community Service Deployment and Mobilization program, which also helps units and families prepare for deployment and homecoming, has a readily available website for soldiers and their families. The Family Readiness Group's website offers a handbook to assist families with the deployment and homecoming process. In addition, the Chaplain Service offers counseling services for individuals, couples, and families.

In the meantime, Fort Bragg is scrambling to solve this baffling and troubling outbreak of domestic violence.

Andrea West is DefenseWatch Veterans editor. She can be reached at defensewatchvet@yahoo.com.

Table of Contents

For the Record: Rumsfeld on War Plans and Iraq

Editor's Note: The following are excerpts from a Pentagon press briefing on July 30, 2002 by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice Chairman Gen. Peter Pace USMC

Q: Mr. Secretary, as the questions at the briefing illustrate, there's an awful lot of speculation these days, in the press and among the punditry, about possible U.S. military action in Iraq, and the downside risk of some of that action, everything from Saddam using chemical weapons, to The New York Times weighing in with a story suggesting it might have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. Do you believe that you and other members of the Bush administration have adequately prepared the American people for what might be at stake if the U.S. were to exercise a military option in Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Well, I don't - first of all, we don't know if the United States is - would exercise a military option with respect to Iraq. And therefore, my impression is that what's happened in the world - and it's not just this administration, it's been a good many years that people have had as a policy for this country regime change in Iraq. The Congress has opined on it, the prior administration opined on it, clearly President Bush has. There are a variety of ways to address it, diplomatically, economic and military. We've got Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch going on.

You know, it is certainly a relatively easy thing for someone to write an article or a column or make a speech or comment on "this could happen or that could happen or this could happen or that could happen." And your question is, has the administration disabused the world of all of those conceivable things? And the answer is, I suspect not. But the American people have a very good center of gravity, and I don't know that we've not done anything we should have done. I think we've discussed things and talked about things to the extent they've matured and developed in a fairly forthright, direct way.

Q: So you don't agree with members of Congress who think that the administration has not been forthcoming with the American people? And they intend to hold hearings to try to get some of this information out in front of the public.

Rumsfeld: I think your statement that that's the view of the Congress suggests that there's 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate who have a common view. And they don't. They're all over the lot, as people are, as anyone looking at things. They look at it and have different views. There may very well be some members of the Congress who feel that way. I personally happen to think that if there are hearings, that's something that the Congress does from time to time. I've been asked questions about Iraq up in hearings already. I don't know that that's notable. I don't know that it demonstrates any particular opposition to anything, because there's nothing to oppose at the moment.

Q: Given all the speculation about this plan and that plan, could you tell us, where is the Pentagon and the U.S. military today in terms of planning for any p