David H. Hackworth

It has been six weeks since the terrorists struck at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and by now we know that we are in a war on two fronts. Overseas, thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are involved in the military campaign against the Taliban regime and the al Qaeda terrorist network, and here at home it is becoming clear that as-yet undiscovered terrorist cells are attempting to sew panic by the release of anthrax through the U.S. postal system. There is an underlying theme in the various articles our contributors have written for this issue of DefenseWatch: The need for Americans to truly realize that Sept. 11, 2001 was a major turning point in our history, requiring a patience and dedication that has no end date.

It is with no little pleasure that I call your attention to three articles under the “Feedback” and “Counterpoint” headlines. As in previous issues, we are attempting not only to inform and report on critical events, but to stimulate discussion and debate as well. These informative responses affirm that you, the readers of DefenseWatch, are fully engaged in the topics at hand.

Lastly, I call your particular attention to the remarks by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on Oct. 22 in response to the publication of several news stories on Oct. 19 revealing the presence of Special Operations commandos inside Afghanistan - at the time Army Rangers and other commandos were indeed engaged in a night parachute and heliborne assault against several Taliban targets. I invite your assessment of whether these news reports were appropriate, or whether they went “over the line” to endanger the troops. Please send your comments to me at defensewatch@aol.com and we will publish a cross-section of them next week.

Ed Offley is Editor of DefenseWatch.

Footnote: The ultimate success in reviving and expanding SFTT depends on everyone. We need your financial contributions to continue our operation. While any amount is welcome, we suggest a $30 annual contribution from each member will enable us to succeed.

The IRS recognizes SFTT as a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Educational Foundation (IRS EIN 31-1592564).

Donations are tax deductible. Send us some moral support and encouragement to help in the struggle to improve combat readiness. Every little contribution helps. Mail your checks to:

Soldiers For The Truth Foundation
P.O. Box 11179
Greenwich CT 06831

Table of Contents

Hack’s Target For The Week: Fight or Flight: Use Fear Positively

By David H. Hackworth

My No. 1 son rang from Florida: “Dad, we're scared. We're starting to wonder if we made a mistake leaving Indiana.” Another Floridian, Frederick George, wrote: “I've never been more depressed than now. I'm 86 years old, and I've seen a lot.”

My phone rings off the hook, and my mailbox is jammed. Most of the messages say: We're not coping well with this War Against Terrorism.

My como back: Get used to it!

We're in this fight for at least 30 rounds, and Round One is far from being over. My 5- and 8-year-old grandkids will probably be in college before the last terrorist creep has been hunted down and folks can get back to the way things were before Sept. 11.

You can try running, but you can't hide from fear. Just ask the yellow-stained members of the House who ignored the report from the Hart-Rudman Commission last year predicting “a direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century,” and then cut and ran when the first shot came their way last week.

But the attack on the World Trade Center proved in spades that all citizens of every free country in the world are now targets, so there's no longer any place safe to run. The quickest way to get a grip and make it through this new kind of war is to check out -- and copy -- the combat soldier's MO. The whole living-on-the-bayonet-edge mindset becomes almost second nature once a grunt accepts that his life can be snuffed out any second. His ears get used to incoming - they automatically tell him to hit the deck because a round is about to thud in close, or to finish that smoke because it's going over the hill. He's used to walking through areas where one misstep will explode a mine and take his leg or life, and he learns to take care of himself and his buddies almost without thinking.

Or he lets fear rule and goes mad. Or he goes into denial and gets killed.

Many of you are combat vets: You just don't remember that for most of your lives you lived with the fear of being instantly incinerated and radiated by The Bomb. Remember the air-raid sirens and the "Duck and Cover" drills? Those 25,000 Soviet nuclear warheads once pointed at you and yours would have done a zillion times more damage than terrorist bombs, kamikaze planes or bugs and germs.

On the battlefield, I wore my steel pot begrudgingly. It was heavy and a pain. But I knew it would improve my chances of staying alive, so I cursed it while I wore it. Now I resent wearing a surgical mask and gloves and opening much of my mail outside. But just like wearing that helmet, it helps keep me stay alive while the FBI and the police track down the terrorist sleepers imbedded in our society.

And so must all of you learn to live on a potential killing field. Instead of letting fear knock you down, use it as warriors do to stay alive. Fear can pump up your reactions if employed positively, and let you make it through the darkest night. Survival is our strongest instinct, and we will win this sucker just as we did World War II, the Cold War and the conflict that follows this one.

The other survival skill you should borrow from a grunt is alertness. A soldier asleep on guard duty is a dead soldier. A terrorist will have a tough time doing his thing if we all keep a sharp eye out for whatever doesn't compute. Like some weirdo learning to fly a plane who wants to give takeoffs and landings a miss. Or a non-islander buying a one-way air ticket to Hawaii or Guam.

Fortunately, most Arab terrorists coming our way will be easy to spot except on Halloween. If you see some character at the water reservoir, parked near the nuclear reactor, fiddling with a building's air-conditioner intake vents, delivering unordered fire extinguishers or bicycling around with a backpack, keep him under surveillance and notify the authorities quick smart.

Use that fear to Stay Alert and Stay Alive.

Http://www.hackworth.com is the address of David Hackworth's home page. Sign in for the free weekly Defending America column at his Web site. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831.

© 2001 David H. Hackworth

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 1 - “My Oath”

By Paul Connors

Every member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America takes an oath before he or she enters into military service. For officers, it is their commissioning oath and for enlisted members, it is the oath they take at the time of enlistment.

The one thing that all members of the military have in common, regardless of rank or position is that they have taken an oath prior to entry into military service. Perhaps what is more important is that since the end of the draft in the early 1970s, all members of the military have taken that oath voluntarily. There have been no threats or coercion and members now serve because they choose to do so.

What many civilians, especially those who have never served in uniform or who have not had a close family relative or friend in military service do not realize, is that most members of the armed forces take their oaths very seriously. And so do the respective services.

That is why only officers can administer them and why they are always conducted in the presence of the American flag. There is more than symbolism to the presence of the flag, but that symbolism is a very important part of the ceremony that commissions an officer, enlists a new recruit or re-enlists an experienced non-commissioned officer. It is our common oath that binds us to the service whose uniform we wear and it is the flag that binds us all together as a nation.

What does “my oath” mean to me? I've given that much thought. My oath was, and is, my word. I gave my word that “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same .… ” But what do the words really mean? To me, they are extremely personal as I hope they are to everyone who recites them. They are especially personal now, after the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001.

I have always believed that my primary allegiance is to the Constitution. It is not to the government, because governments can become tyrannical, dictatorial, repressive and brutal, especially to those people they seek to govern. My oath is not to the American people, because after all, they are just a large number of individuals who happen to inhabit the same part of the continent of North America that I do. My oath is not to the president or to any leader. After all, he or she is just a temporary head of government.

Some would say that The Constitution is just a document, a guide, a framework for the way things should be done. But there is an inherent genius in it. Written in a simpler time, by men who feared the encroachments on individual God-given rights and liberties by men who sought power for nefarious purposes, it is a document that was designed to guarantee and protect freedom, not limit it. It is this purpose, this very genius that makes it the powerful living thing that it has been since it was first ratified. It is what we, as a free people use to govern ourselves, protect our cherished freedoms and to limit the power of a central government.

The Constitution provides a moral as well as a political framework for this grand place we Americans call home. For without it, we would have no country and we wouldn't be Americans, at least not in the way we have come to think of ourselves. It is this faded piece of parchment that those of us who wear the uniform of the U.S. armed forces swear to protect and defend.

Millions of servicemen and women before me thought that the Constitution was worth defending because by defending it, they defended the very concept of America. Many of them never came home because they made the supreme sacrifice defending a concept and an ideal and because they had honored their oaths.

We are now engaged in a different kind of war. It is one that we are unaccustomed to fighting. We face a determined and fanatical enemy who does not share our common love of liberty and tolerance for different ways. It is an enemy that must ultimately be destroyed or it may destroy all that we have built. Given my belief in what the Constitution has provided for us, I know, now more than ever, that it is time to honor my oath.

As the nation faces the uncertainty of this new form of warfare, all Americans should know that those of us in uniform will not fail or turn back.

We will honor our oaths.

Paul Connors, Sr., DefenseWatch Air Force Editor, serves in the Air National Guard.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 2 - Soldiers in Europe are Prepared

By J. David Galland

Those of us who have served in the European theater over the years, through thick and thin, can reflect on many changes that we have witnessed.

We made it through the terrorist threats of the Baader-Meinhof Gang and The Red Army Faction, and we weathered the less-than-peaceful anti-nuclear protestors of the mid 1980s. After a few fairly quiet years, notwithstanding the fall of communism in Europe, we worked our ways through layered security during the early stages of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and many of us fought the desert ourselves.

But this time, it seems that U. S. Army Europe (USAREUR) has pulled out all the stops. Ten years ago, military communities in Germany could count on combat arms soldiers from various locally stationed units to take up force protection defensive positions. There were many more soldiers in Germany then. I recall that members of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment came down from Fulda to secure the Frankfurt Community, and they did a great job.

With the plethora of threats and the worldwide reactions caused by the tragedies of Sept. 11, the military communities in Germany are hard-pressed to secure themselves. All military operations have been scaled back considerably in Heidelberg, the home of the USAREUR Headquarters. Skeleton crews man places of duty. The need to provide soldier power for guard forces is the overriding priority.

Long lines of soldiers and family members are queued in groups of 30 to 50 vehicles to enter the kasernes. Waiting in these lines is necessary, in many cases just to get to work. If a family living off-post needs something at the commissary, they have to prepare for a long wait. Massive gridlock is the order of the day during rush hour at just about any army base in Germany. The security is necessary and it is working.

The guard forces are full of young soldiers who largely appear confident, but noticeably nervous about who, or what, might come speeding around the corner. Prior to taking up their positions, soldiers have to earn a Force Protection Certification. During this instruction, soldiers are briefed on the rules of engagement. They are taught how to search people and vehicles, shown how to stand and what to wear, and then are encouraged to learn how to bellow instructions to potential intruders in three or four languages.

In prior training exercises, soldiers in the guard force were not trusted with live ammunition. Now, they are fully armed. German police agencies, including the Bundesgrenzschutz (Federal Border Police), are playing a prominent role and they are reinforcing the American guard forces at all installations. A great deal of host nation support has been provided to U. S. Forces in Germany, much of it transparent, but nonetheless important. German law enforcement agencies have been extremely proactive in their heightened levels of interest and concern.

The American communities in Germany have changed their lifestyles in a very short period of time. With the approach of the Christmas season, Americans, for the first time in my memory, are being urged to remain clear of the traditional German Christmas markets. The residential communities have become insular and restricted. Many family members no longer dare to stray from the confines of the U. S. housing areas, and largely remain glued to the only American broadcast news that they have access to, CNN.

So from the European front, I report that all is well as a result of a solid team effort. It may take a great deal more time to get anywhere now, and things are moving a
lot slower, but U.S. forces are soldiering on and completing our missions as always.

We have overcome many obstacles in the past, many bumps along the road of life with the military in Europe, and we will take the latest changes in stride as we always have. With a distinct sense of pride and care for our fellow soldiers, we will continue to make our contribution. If we don't make it home for Christmas this year, we hope you understand.

J. David Galland, Deputy Editor of DefenseWatch, is a career U.S. Army senior Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in Germany who has served in combat in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and the Balkans.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 3 - First Homeland Security Steps are Crucial

By Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd USMC

Spend any time inside the Capitol Beltway, and you quickly realize that many people make their living pursuing the “crisis du jour” like ambulance chasers. With the public tuned in to CNN for the latest updates on anthrax and the global war on terrorism, the hottest “buzz phrase” to come around Washington in a long time is homeland security.

The short-term and easy response by the Bush administration to the newly recognized terrorist threat was to create the Office of Homeland Security. The long-term and difficult task is organizing and coordinating the many diverse homeland security issues, interests, and organizations. They include but are not limited to the military (roles of active duty, reserves, and National Guard and their inclusion in homeland security and existing war plans); the inter-agency “alphabet soup” (FEMA, CDC, FBI, CIA, DOJ, DOT, DOE, USCS, USBP, etc.); Congress; medical and healthcare providers; first responders; federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; security of critical infrastructure (i.e. power plants, nuclear reactors, laboratories, dams and bridges, airports, etc.); and air and coastal defenses.

The very first step on this unprecedented journey should be to get a single set of accepted homeland security terms and definitions. Experience has taught us that a common language among governmental partners is essential. What is the difference between homeland security and homeland defense? Who is the lead federal agency? What is civil support? What is the clear definition of “supported” and “supporting” agencies? Does cyber security fit into homeland security?

We must prove that we learned that common language lesson before trying to move on to the more complex and critical homeland security issues.

Homeland security is too big and complex to be a shared priority for any commander. No commander should be “dual-hatted” to accommodate homeland security responsibilities. A focused, senior, and morally courageous commander, with interagency expertise and proven team-building skills, would be ideally suited to lead this “coalition-of-cooperation” effort.

The focus of all involved must be the national best interests, not parochial “rice bowls.” Security of the homeland is an effort that cannot be allowed to fail. For years, senior decision-makers paid too little attention to resolving the challenges of homeland security. The attacks on Sept. 11 exposed how unprepared we really were.

Now all of Washington is working overtime and playing catch-up. And the depth of our unpreparedness has been underscored by the sheer number of homeland security meetings, briefings, and congressional hearings.

After Sept. 11, everyone publicly recognizes homeland security as our very top priority. Where were they when their efforts, interests, and involvement would have helped prevent the terrorist attacks? History will show whether we have reactive figureheads who only respond to crises, or visionary leaders to ensure our homeland security now and in the future.

Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd USMC is the pseudonym for an active-duty Marine Corps officer serving in the Pentagon.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 4 - A Blueprint for Victory Against the Terrorists

By Col. Bruce Clarke USA (Ret.)

The war on terrorism cannot be both quick and decisive. For U.S. efforts to be decisive, we must wage a five-stage, long-term campaign. The five phases of this war, which need not occur sequentially, are: (1) Homeland Defense; (2) Find the culprits - past and future; (3) Fix and then attack the terrorists; (4) Long-term cause amelioration and pre-emptive attacks, and (5) Victory.

Before we can explain how this war will be waged we must understand what the objective is. What is "victory"? When will we know that it has been achieved? The long-term objective is that terrorism is no longer a weapon for political change. This represents a true challenge as one man's freedom fighter may be another's terrorist. What this means in an operational sense is that it is not internationally accepted to intentionally target civilians to effect political change. One must remember that often the terrorist's goal is to cause an over-reaction and thus radicalize the population. This is what Osama bin Laden hopes, as evidenced by his most recent remarks, that the United States will do and what Hamas seeks with each of its terrorist attacks on Israel.

Homeland Defense is both the first phase and a continuing process. The key to our ability to attack terrorism is an ability to defend ourselves and deny the terrorist targets of opportunity. This is currently being characterized by: (1) Reserve forces call-up; (2) Air defense patrols and aircraft on strip alert; (3) Increased port and other critical facility security, and (4) Police efforts to find both those involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but more importantly those that may be positioned for the next wave of attacks.

In the longer run, Gov. Tom Ridge, the head of the new Office of Homeland Security, has a Herculean task ahead of himself to coordinate the efforts to prevent future attacks and also be able to react quickly to minimize the impact of such attacks should they occur. The ability to react quickly to both threats and actual attacks may also contribute to our ability to deter them if it is perceived that the attacks will be ineffectual then the opponent will seek alternative means.

This means that this will be a dynamic process.

Finding the culprits, as noted above, is both a current task and a continual one. This will require significant intelligence activities. These activities will use all of the technological resources available, but must also seek human intelligence. Human intelligence in the near term will come from allies. In the longer term, as the people who have harbored terrorists see an alternative life style as being possible, they may provide information on the terrorists.

Obviously coalition building - military, political and intelligence - is critical. The United States needs foreign facilities around the world, intelligence support and assistance in the economic aspects of the war on terrorism. As time evolves forces will be positioned to exploit the intelligence developed. Once the culprits are found we must then fix and attack them as we are beginning to see in Afghanistan.

Fixing and attacking the terrorists will be a military and economic endeavor. First, we must physically isolate the terrorists to prevent them from escaping. This may be done both psychologically and physically. Once the enemy is fixed, the full weight of the military will be involved. The operations have begun with psychological efforts to separate the terrorist from the people and the host government. In the case of Afghanistan, it also includes separating the Taliban from its own military, other Islamic nations and the Afghan people.

The initial effort, which began on Oct. 8, involved air strikes for air defense suppression and elimination. Quickly achieved, it set the stage for the secretive and ongoing special operation forces raids into suspected Taliban and al Qaeda sites.

The attacks will likely continue with the goal of seizing a local operating base by additional commando strikes launched either from the United States or heliborne attacks launched from the deployed aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk.

During such attacks air support will provide firepower to support the attacking forces. Once the operating base is established, attack helicopters and artillery will be located there to facilitate operations at the time and place of our choosing.

Once the terrorists in Afghanistan or any other target country are eliminated, the United States will withdraw. But we should anticipate similar, subsequent efforts in Somalia, Sudan, Algeria, the Philippines and elsewhere.

With the number of troops currently deployed, it will be most efficient to use them against multiple targets in sequence before our forces redeploy to the United States.

Over the longer term, we need to take efforts to cause amelioration of the causes of terrorism and conduct pre-emptive attacks - military, economic and socio-psychological - against the root causes of terrorism. We need to provide hope for political and social change to those who would be terrorists. We also must take active economic and military actions to dry up their resources and pre-empt nascent terrorist cells so as to stop them before they can become operational.

The active pursuit of these five phases will result, over time, in victory in the war on terrorism.

Col. Clarke is a defense consultant and strategist. Before retiring from the U.S. Army, he was the Director of International Security Studies at the Army War College and previously commanded the 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. The original version of Col. Clarke's commentary was written on Sept. 11, 2001 -- three days after the terrorist attacks -- this version has been updated to reflect ongoing military operations.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 5 - COUNTERPOINT: Responding to Dr. Koontz Interview (Oct. 17)

By Robert G. Williscroft

I respect Robert Koontz's accomplishments in several fields in which I also take an active interest. I respect his meticulous research, and the manner in which he discovered the information on “coded” art cited in his interview with DefenseWatch on Oct. 17 (“Expert Warns al Qaeda Planning Major Biological Attack” and materials posted on his internet site at:

http://www.bringmenews.com/Messages/National_Security/Alerts/Alert_003.htm.

I take issue, however, with his conclusions, specifically that the paintings he has presented contain coded communication or directives from a central controlling authority to the field soldier or agent of the al Qaeda.

I agree with Dr. Koontz that the painting titled "Downfall" clearly indicates that the artist had prior knowledge of Osama bin Laden’s plans. In my experience, however, people do not normally create convoluted communications systems that are prone to error. This is no more true than with an organization that needs to be nimble and light-footed. Initially, al Qaeda relayed on “disposable” cell phones for critical communications, and there is some evidence that this mode still is used for the most time-critical communications. For the most part, now however, they use couriers.

It makes absolutely no sense to create a series of paintings that may or may not be seen by the individuals responsible for taking action, especially in order to signal pre-developed plans at predetermined times. This only requires a go or no-go signal. I see the artwork as a coded means of inspiring the “faithful,” a way for a true believer to hang on his wall a symbol of what his action may help bring about.

I do not wish to minimize the potential threat these terrorists present, but I also do not want to overestimate their potential abilities.

You cannot spread Ebola using the backpack technique. It is impossible. Lacking sophisticated biochemical equipment and abilities, you need to import this disease in a living simian close to the human strain, such as a gorilla. Since the average lifetime of an infected creature is just a few hours, you will need to have a significant number of ready individuals, and will have to develop a technique for transmitting the infection from one to the next before the first expires, and keep this up until you can release the infection into the general population. This is tough to do!

Despite some public assertions to the contrary, there are only two caches of smallpox in existence, and we know where both are. I think we should destroy them, but in any case, we know where they are. If al Qaeda terrorists somehow got their hands on some, they still have a problem. Smallpox is only infectious during the “pox” stage, where the victim is generally so weak that he or she is bedridden. So causing a general epidemic is not a walk in the park. It will be recognized almost immediately, and steps taken immediately to minimize the effect. I don't see it as a major threat. Since we have an effective vaccine, we should not make a big deal of this disease.

Anthrax is not normally fatal. Even when infected with the inhaled form, a properly educated public can avoid nearly all fatalities. This could be significantly enhanced by passing out two Cipro tablets to everyone, with instructions to take one only if a public announcement to this effect is made, followed by the second 12 hours later, and an immediate visit to the nearest clinic.

There are other biologic weapons, but the terrorists under bin Laden's control are nowhere close to being sufficiently sophisticated to deal with these. The real threat is and continues to be explosives brought to specific locations by apparently unconnected groups of trucks and vans. Targets could be the Golden Gate Bridge, the Oakland Bay Bridge, one of the other significant bridges anywhere in the United States, one many significant tunnels under major rivers or even a dam.

Note, however, that most dams are sufficiently strong that no one could assemble a sufficiently large amount of conventional explosives nearby, so that a small nuke would be required to take them out. I do not believe the al Qaeda has a SADM or the Russian equivalent (if they ever really developed one). Remember that the Chinese had the plans for such a weapon for 10 years without being able actually to build one.

So let's not chase our tails. These terrorists can keep us running in circles until hell freezes over simply by sending an envelope here and there if we don't gain a national understanding of the real nature of the threat against us.

Dr. Williscroft is a contributing editor to DefenseWatch.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 6 - FEEDBACK: Responses to Hackworth Column (“Time to Lock and Load”)

Weapons Training Needs Boost

In response to Col. Hackworth’s column (“Time to Lock and Load, Oct. 17), I am a Marine and was in Kosovo in June 1999, assigned to the 1st Infantry Division. The most dangerous area in the entire province was at the Camp Bondsteel entry control point. The clearing barrel was like a free fire zone. From colonel down to private, I saw more improper clearing procedures for weapons from 9mm pistols to M249G Squad Automatic Weapons. Prevention of negligent discharges was simply a matter of training the soldiers before they arrived in theater, the most basic training. We have sailors today without any weapons-handling training tasked with standing armed posts. This is a recipe for disaster. The easy answer being ordered today: Rather than fixing poor or inadequate weapons training, leaders are not give giving personnel the rounds with their weapon or - worse - ordering them to tape or wire shut the weapons. The leaders that make these decisions should stand post themselves without the wherewithal to defend themselves and the property they were ordered to protect. -A Marine Corps officer

What Weapons?

At my reserve center, the guards don't even have weapons to use as clubs. I guess they send bad guys to sensitivity training. And now the lieutenants and captains don't carry pistols -- they only have M-16s -- thereby depriving themselves of symbols of office of commissioned officers. The Army is continually being cheapened. The brass thinks everyone running around in BDUs all the time shows battle readiness. --A Concerned Reservist

What Ammunition?

More than three years ago, the leadership of the Army Reserves deemed that the only time a reserve soldier needs to qualify with his individual weapon is upon mobilization or for promotion points for junior enlisted soldiers. As an E-8, I haven't qualified in six years …. Current regulations state that drill sergeants and instructors assigned to training battalions are supposed to qualify on several different types of small arms at least annually or every two years (M-16, M-9 pistol, M-203, M-60 or M-249 MG). That hasn't happened in years because we can't get the ammo. In my opinion, it all comes down to dollars. U.S. Army Reserve Command doesn't want to spend the money on the real meaning of “taking care of soldiers” - preparing them to survive on the battlefield - because the Army Reserve is theoretically all combat support or combat service support Units. The problem is, if I don't remember how to fire the 25mm gun on a Bradley or the main gun on a M1 Abrams tank, or have never touched a M-249 SAW, how can I teach a soldier in basic training, AIT or One Station Unit Training? --A Worried Master Sergeant

Training Inadequate

I really enjoyed reading Col. Hackworth’s column (“Time to Lock and Load, Oct. 17) and having someplace to vent my anger. It is nice to see that I am not the only Guardsman who still has the esprit de corps to want to be the best but is hampered by the higher-ups worrying about their own personal agendas. As for training, what a joke: They send grunt units to the field without weapons to train with because it is such a “logistical nightmare” for the supply sergeant to handle. The few times we do get our old, beat up M16A1s to train with, there is not enough money in the budget for blanks. Or when they go to fire the old M2 .50-cal. Or M60 machine gun, there is not even enough money for everyone to get enough ammo to fire. But the general and the officers have government cars to drive. Let's pray that when they do put troops in Afganistan they don't call the untrained NJANG to go because half of these “citizen soldiers” don't Know which way the ammo goes into the magazine. -A Concerned Guardsman

Don’t Scare the Dependents

I can tell you exactly why soldiers cannot be trusted to handle locked and loaded weapons. They are not trained in how to handle loaded weapons, and what reinforcement they get is wrong. The Army wants safety, but the Army version of safety is to avoid potential unsafe situations instead of training people for the situation. Safety is the buzzword that opens doors these days. As a result, no one trains at full speed, few risks are taken, and commanders are ingrained with the notion that no one must be hurt. Commanders should take care of their men, but the attitude being instilled is wrong. When I was in Baumholder, Germany at the time of the 1986 Libyan raid, they put armed guards at the entrance to check IDs. At first, they had loaded weapons. Then there was an accidental discharge incident. After that, they had loaded magazines in the weapon, but they weren't locked and loaded.

There was yet another incident, so they took the magazines out altogether. I noticed this one day as I came on post. I asked the specialist on duty, “Why don't they at least let you keep a magazine in the weapon so that it looks loaded?” He replied, “They told us that magazines in the weapons scare the dependents.” I said, “Don't terrorists scare the dependents?” -A National Guard Major

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 07 - FEEDBACK: Response to Duke L. Peters Article (Oct. 17)

By William Sauerwein

While Duke L. Peters is entitled to his opinions under the First Amendment (“Response to David Horowitz Article”, DefenseWatch, Oct. 17) David Horowitz also has the same rights. The First Amendment further gives this newsletter's editor the discretion to publish articles he/she feels worthy. If we stifle those opinions we find objectionable we have just stifled free speech, and the “robust exchange of ideas.”

Unfortunately, this attitude has taken hold on many segments of the American population, including many college campuses.

I have read both of David Horowitz's books covering the anti-war movement, Radical Son, and Destructive Generation, and believe he is correct. Unfortunately, today we give a reverence to the anti-war protesters of the Vietnam War more than they deserve. I will not go into my opinions of why this occurred, that would take entirely too much space. One problem that no one has discussed is when does “dissent” cross the line to “aiding and abetting the enemy”? I believe when someone carries the enemy's flag, and chants pro-enemy slogans, that is not anti-war, but anti-American. When these people, who claim to be against all forms of violence, assault military personnel; plant bombs in military targets and burn building, they are not dissenters, but terrorists supporting the enemy.

I do not dispute the fact that many of these people were truly against the war. They were duped by sinister elements, and they must come to that realization, and quit giving themselves so much credit.

I do not believe the dissenters had any effect on the replacement of Gen. William C. Westmoreland. He had been in command in Vietnam for over three years, and was due for rotation. The average tour of duty for most military personnel was one year, thirteen months for Marines. I am no fan of Gen. Westmoreland, but I am no detractor of him either. He was put in a difficult position by our civilian leadership, in a new type of warfare.

President Johnson and Secretary McNamara manipulated him, just like they manipulated a gutless Joint Chiefs of Staff. Westmoreland took command during the “advisory phase” of our involvement and either did not, or was not allowed to, make any changes.

The war changed in 1965 with the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley against NVA regulars. But we refused to see and adapt to the change and this led to our defeat. I further believe that the “attrition strategy” was McNamara's idea because of his obsession with statistics. Countless books have been written on this subject, and there is plenty of blame to go around.

With all due respect to Mr. Peters, the Viet Cong were destroyed as an effective fighting force during the Tet Offensive. Before Tet, the NVA had been sending “fillers” to VC units, which amounted to about one third of their strength. Following Tet, the NVA bore the brunt of combat, but the dissenters ignored this fact.

Did the dissenters affect our war effort? Yes, they did, but not for the reasons they claim. First, LBJ wanted to be loved, and wanted his “Great Society” to have priority over the war. He was a great manipulator, and he and McNamara controlled every aspect of the war.

While in the beginning, there was great support for the war, it soon became apparent that neither the White House nor the Defense Department had a strategy for waging this war. Strategy was dictated from Washington regarding targets for air strikes, fire zones for ground combat, and sanctuaries for our enemies.

This control was exercised partly for appeasing the dissenters, and jeopardized our combat forces fighting under these restrictions. This also increased the number of American and allied casualties, something the dissenters conveniently overlook. In addition, the dissenters encouraged the North Vietnamese to continue the war in spite of their own mounting casualties. This caused untold suffering on all parties involved, including innocent civilians from both sides.

How did this vocal minority gain such power? It is simple: We gave it to them. The news media, looking for sensational stories, gave them unlimited media coverage, which encouraged their behavior. The government initially ignored them, which caused them to push the envelope in order to get a reaction.

When Richard Nixon became President he faced a hostile Congress, not controlled by his political party. He was hated by the media, who did everything in their power to discredit him. Operations into “neutral” Cambodia and Laos (which should have happened years earlier) were severely limited by Congress. Nixon was every bit of a manipulator as LBJ, and the ultimate end of his presidency demonstrates this. But he managed to end our combat commitment through the relentless bombing of North Viet Nam (which also should have happened years earlier).

Since the dissenters want to take credit for ending the war, they should also take credit for the misery that followed. For example, Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge, who then murdered millions of their own people. When South Viet Nam fell, thousands of former South Vietnamese soldiers were either executed, or sent to re-education camps. Laos also fell to the Pathet Lao, who then set about exterminating the Hmong tribes. An unknown number of Southeast Asian people have died in their attempts to escape from these dictatorships. Our nation was split asunder, with only the Civil War being worse, and those wounds still fester today. Finally, we still have the unresolved issue of our POW/MIA's left behind in our haste to leave.

With this record of the dissenters, I hope we can avoid a repetition of it for our war on terrorism. Today's dissenters are as uninformed about the situation as were their counterparts during the Vietnam War. While I am not in favor of suspending civil rights, I am in favor of countering these people with other opinions. That is the only way to have a robust exchange of ideas and pursue the elusive truth.

Saurwein is a retired 1st sergeant in the U.S. Army

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 08 - FOR THE RECORD: Secretary Rumsfeld on SOF Leaks

Excerpts of comments by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon press briefing, Oct. 22, 2001.

Rumsfeld: At Whiteman Air Force Base on Friday, a number of you will recall that I was asked repeatedly about newspaper reports that had appeared that morning concerning U.S. Special Forces inside of Afghanistan -- reports that appeared, obviously, as the result of someone in the Pentagon leaking classified information. When I was asked those questions, the U.S. Rangers were still in Afghanistan, which of course I knew. I knew that they had not cleared Afghan airspace or returned. As a result, I refused to respond to the questions.

The fact that some members of the press knew enough about those operations to ask the questions and to print the stories was clearly because someone in the Pentagon had provided them that information. And clearly, it put at risk the individuals involved in the operation.

I recognize the need to provide the press -- and, through you, the American people -- with information to the fullest extent possible. In our democracy, the work of the Pentagon press corps is important, defending our freedom and way of life is what this conflict is about, and that certainly includes freedom of the press. And you can be certain that I will answer your questions directly when I can and that we'll do our best to give you as much information as we can safely provide.

This weekend, for example, we released footage of those Special Forces operations -- the first time, to my knowledge, that such footage has been provided. But we cannot and will not provide information that could jeopardize the success of our efforts to root out and liquidate the terrorist networks that threaten our people. To the extent that the Taliban and the al Qaeda know the goals and the purposes of our operations, they will be in a better position to frustrate those goals and those purposes. It is not in our country's interest to let them know when, how, or even why we're conducting certain operations. …

We certainly want to work out ways to work with the press that makes the most sense from all of our standpoints. Because the nature of this conflict is so different from previous ones, I suspect that old models won't work and that what we'll have to do is to work together and find ways that do make sense as we go forward, because of the notable differences between this conflict and previous conflicts. …

Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, you seem to be suggesting that the news-media reporting on Friday somehow jeopardized or put in jeopardy the lives of U.S. troops.
Rumsfeld: It did not. They all returned safely.

Q: And I was going to say, if that was the case, I was wondering what in particular you thought jeopardized the mission.
Rumsfeld: No, no. I just think that the idea of someone in this building providing information to the public and to the al Qaeda and to the Taliban when U.S. Special Forces re engaged in an operation is not a good idea, besides being against -- a violation of federal criminal law.

Q: Well, which information reported on Friday prior to the operation do you think crossed the line?
Rumsfeld: I think that the release by a person in the government who had access to classified information to the effect that the United States of America was planning and was about to engage in a special operation in Afghanistan clearly was (a) a violation of federal criminal law, and second, it was something that was totally in disregard for the lives of the people involved in that operation. Anyone who decides that it's -- for whatever reason, maybe they want to seem important, maybe they want to seem knowledgeable, they totally disregard the fact that people's lives could be put in jeopardy by giving notice to the al Qaeda and the Taliban that U.S. forces were planning to make an entry into their country. That does not seem complicated to me, and it seems so self-evident, that it just floors me that people are willing to do that.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you, in your opening remarks, pointed out that there was video coverage of this operation for the first time -- a special operations …. But this was video coverage and selection of material that was controlled absolutely by the military and the government. Could you talk about why that's preferable, in your opinion, to having these decisions made by media independent of government?
Rumsfeld: Well, in the normal conflict you have a front and you have media embedded in the U.S. troops. In the case of the special operation, where people parachute in to a hostile environment, it obviously is not some place that the press is going to be parachuting in with a very small -- relatively small number of American Rangers and special forces doing that.

Q: Why is that?
Rumsfeld: Because -- why is it that the press should not be parachuting in?

Q: As opposed to a military photographer, who is still necessarily -- is still a cameraman with camera equipment.
Rumsfeld: Well, it seems -- I'm amazed at the question. I would think that the world would fully understand that it does not make sense, when a handful of American soldiers are parachuting into a hostile place and are going to be fully occupied in dealing with the opposition forces and shooting them, to the extent it's necessary, collecting intelligence, photographing things so that they know what's going on, and then being extracted -- the idea of embedding a press pool into that group seems to me to be outside of the realm of reasonableness. … I couldn't care less where the source of the leak is; the responsibility is the same. It puts people's lives at risk and it's just terrible.

(Transcript prepared by the Federal News Service.)

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 09 - To the Taliban

Editor’s Note: This the text on one of several leaflets being air-dropped on Taliban positions in Afghanistan:

Attention Taliban! You are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you sentenced yourselves to death. The Armed Forces of the United States are here to seek justice for our dead. Highly trained soldiers are coming to shut down once and for all Osama bin Laden's ring of terrorism, and the Taliban that supports them and their actions.

Our forces are armed with state of the art military equipment. What are you using, obsolete and ineffective weaponry? Our helicopters will rain fire down upon your camps before you detect them on your radar. Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows. Our infantry is trained for any climate and terrain on earth. United States soldiers fire with superior marksmanship and are armed with superior weapons.

You have only one choice ... Surrender now and we will give you a second chance. We will let you live. If you surrender no harm will come to you. When you decide to surrender, approach United States forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your back muzzle towards the ground. Remove your magazine and expel any rounds. Doing this is your only chance of survival.

Table of Contents

ARTICLE 10 - Medal of Honor Recipient - YNTEMA, GORDON DOUGLAS

Editor’s Note: Today in the war on terrorism it is our Special Forces troops who will be taking justice to our enemies.

YNTEMA, GORDON DOUGLAS

Rank and organization: Sergeant, U.S. Army, Company D, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne).

Place and date: Near Thong Binh, Republic of Vietnam, 16-18 January 1968.

Entered service at: Detroit, Mich.

Born: 26 June 1945, Bethesda, Md.

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life and above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Yntema, U.S. Army, distinguished himself while assigned to Detachment A-431, Company D.

As part of a larger force of civilian irregulars from Camp Cai Cai, he accompanied two platoons to a blocking position east of the village of Thong Binh, where they became heavily engaged in a small-arms fire fight with the Viet Cong. Assuming control of the force when the Vietnamese commander was seriously wounded, he advanced his troops to within 50 meters of the enemy bunkers. After a fierce 30-minute fire fight, the enemy forced Sgt. Yntema to withdraw his men to a trench in order to afford them protection and still perform their assigned blocking mission.

Under cover of machinegun fire, approximately one company of Viet Cong maneuvered into a position which pinned down the friendly platoons from three sides. A dwindling ammunition supply, coupled with a Viet Cong mortar barrage which inflicted heavy losses on the exposed friendly troops, caused many of the irregulars to withdraw.

Seriously wounded and ordered to withdraw himself, Sgt. Yntema refused to leave his fallen comrades. Under withering small arms and machinegun fire, he carried the wounded Vietnamese commander and a mortally wounded American Special Forces advisor to a small gully 50 meters away in order to shield them from the enemy fire.

Sgt. Yntema then continued to repulse the attacking Viet Cong attempting to overrun his position until, out of ammunition and surrounded, he was offered the opportunity to surrender. Refusing, Sgt. Yntema stood his ground, using his rifle as a club to fight the approximately 15 Viet Cong attempting his capture. His resistance was so fierce that the Viet Cong were forced to shoot in order to overcome him.

Sgt. Yntema's personal bravery in the face of insurmountable odds and supreme self-sacrifice were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect the utmost credit upon himself, the 1st Special Forces, and the U.S. Army.

Editor’s Note: If you know of any MOH recipient who is hospitalized or has passed away recently, please email MOH Correspondent James H. Also, if you would like more info on MOH recipients and their stories, please email James H at bulldogleader@mindspring.com.

Table of Contents

EDITOR'S NOTE: Article Submission Procedures/Subject Editors Sought

1. Try to keep articles to 750 words or less. SUBMIT IN MS WORD FORMAT, if possible!

2. Submit your piece to one of the following editors:

Ed Offley, Editor
defensewatch@aol.com

J. David Galland, Deputy Editor
defensewatch02@hotmail.com

DefenseWatch is looking for volunteer subject editors willing to assist in screening and editing article submissions. We are looking for experts in the following areas: U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Operations forces/counter-terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (NBC), Reserve and National Guard affairs, and veterans affairs. If interested in joining the DefenseWatch team, please contact Ed Offley at defensewatch@aol.com.

Table of Contents

DEBUNKING TERRORIST RUMORS:

Because of the hundreds of unfounded allegations and unproven rumors that are circulating each day during the current crisis, we thought you would find the following website useful. The “Urban Legends Reference Page” at www.snopes.com is posting each allegation as it surfaces with a rebuttal or confirmation.

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF MILITARY ACRONYMS:

We've had numerous requests from troops in different branches of the military to establish this link so that we will all know how "all you others" talk that talk. The DoD site is not working but the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists has an excellent online acronym roster. Please see below:

http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/acronym.htm

Table of Contents

HACK BOOK SALES

Hack's books, About Face, Hazardous Duty, The Price of Honor and The Vietnam Primer can be found at www.hackworth.com. They make a great addition to any library. Hack is offering them at a special SFTT price.

Table of Contents

Subscribe/Unsubscribe - Make Changes to your E-mail addresses:

An Automated Subscription Manager is Online at URL: (Coming soon)

Manual E-mail Subscriptions See Instructions below

To SUBSCRIBE to SFTT-News - Send e-mail to (Coming soon)

Enter [ subscribe sftt-news ] in the body of the message. No subject is required.

To UNSUBSCRIBE from SFTT-News - Send e-mail to (Coming soon)

Enter [ unsubscribe sftt-news ] in the body of the message. No subject is required.

For help or questions with the mailing list send to (Coming soon)

For help or suggestions on the new SFTT web, send e-mail to (Coming soon)

ENDTEXT