WAR WITH MEXICO?

"Another War With Mexico?"

Posted by Robert Klein Engler
Sunday, October 19, 2003

At the time of the first Mexican-American War, there were strains in Mexican as well as American society that parallel the strains in both societies today. Most importantly, the Mexican government at that time was split between the Federalists and the Centralists. The Centralists favored an autocratic government and wanted to regain the lost territory of Texas, whereas the Federalists we more in favor of democratic reforms.

In the United States, the major strain was between the liberal Abolitionists who feared that Texas would become a slave holding state, and the Nationalists who envisioned America stretching ''from sea to shining sea.'' It may be helpful to look again at some of this history to see if we can understand what the future may hold for these two countries.

People on both sides of the Mexican/U. S. border have to be reminded that Mexico has a different history from the United States. The indigenous Aztecs practiced such cannibalism and human sacrifice that it shocked even the brutal Spanish conquistadors. Mexico has yet to repudiate its Aztec past the way the Germans repudiated their Nazi past.

The 1910 revolution in Mexico was no stroll down the Paseo de la Reforma, either. One just has to read Martin Luis Guzman's book The Eagle and the Serpent, to realize how bloody that revolution was. Although military casualties were high on both sides of the American War Between the States, civilian casualties were much higher during the Mexican Revolution.

Mexican culture is also different from American culture. An example of one important cultural difference between Mexico and the U. S. is religion. Mexico has Roman Catholic traditions, while the U. S. mainly has Protestant traditions. There were cultural reasons why Texas did not want to remain part of Mexico and first seceded and then became part of the United States. Many of those reasons are still valid today, in spite of NAFTA and Mexico's immigration and nationalization policies. Many Mexican immigrants to the U. S. have no desire to assimilate, to speak English, nor to become Americans. They are aggressively seeking to replace our culture with theirs.

When we celebrate Columbus Day in the U. S., and the Mexicans celebrate ''El Día de la Raza,'' a statement is being made about how two cultures view their place in the world. El Día de la Raza can be translated as ''The Day of the Race,'' an expression that has definite racist overtones. Columbus Day may carry overtones of conquest, but it links our culture with Europe. The Day of the Race links Mexican culture with a brutal and indigenous people, the Aztecs, and carries shades of revenge and empire. The day of the Race is Mexico's answer to our ''manifest destiny.''

During the ''conquista,'' Spain tried to impose on Mexico a common western language, religion, and culture, and to the degree it was successful. It was also anti-American. We should remember that the Spaniards were building the great cathedral at the Zocolo in Mexico City a hundred years before George Washington took control of the Continental Army at Cambridge, Massachusetts. Here are two different world views, sharing the same continent.

In his article, Clash of Civilizations?, Samuel P. Huntington reminds us that cultural differences may cause future wars, and that these wars will be along cultural ''fault lines.'' The U. S.--Mexican border is one of those fault lines. Huntington writes, ''Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. ...The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.''

In regard to Mexico, Huntington writes, ''During the past decade, Mexico has assumed a position somewhat similar to that of Turkey. Just as Turkey abandoned its historic opposition to Europe and attempted to join Europe, Mexico has stopped defining itself by its opposition to the United States and is instead attempting to imitate the United States.'' However, unlike Canada, Mexico has a large, nonwestern, indigenous population that has not yet been integrated into modernity. This native population also carries an unconscious weight of resentment towards the Spanish conquest, which it now mistakenly displaces onto the U. S.

Mexico's indigenous population is one of the contemporary strains in that society. Sub-Comandante Marcos and the uprising in Chiapas of indigenous people is a prediction of what is to come in Mexico if that strain cannot be relieved. The Mexican elites have decided, therefore, to reduce this strain by sending north as many poor and jobless Mexicans as they can. Instead of solving their own problems, which might entail a reduction of their status, the ruling Mexican elites have decided to keep the fiesta going and let the U. S. handle the cleanup.

A top adviser to past Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari described to Huntington all the changes the Salinas government was making. When the advisor finished, Huntington remarked: ''That's most impressive. It seems to me that basically you want to change Mexico from a Latin American country into a North American country.'' He looked at me with surprise and exclaimed: ''Exactly! That's precisely what we are trying to do, but of course we could never say so publicly.'' What also could not be said publicly is that Mexico wants to reclaim its ''lost'' territory. It will use economics and illegal immigrants to do this.

Many Mexican elites believe that to become a modern nation, Mexico has to restructure its economy and regain the territory it lost during the first Mexican war. For over a century, Mexican nationalists have used the myths and symbols of a lost but glorious indigenous past to motivate its plans for expansion. D. H. Lawrence wrote about this myth building in his novel, The Plumed Serpent.

Nowadays, the Mexican elites realize they do not need an army when they have NAFTA and illegal immigrants to do the job just as well. The Mexican elites have devised a foreign policy to achieve these objectives. This policy uses the poorer elements in Mexican society as foot soldiers. By moving poor and jobless Mexicans north, Mexico can make the U. S. absorb the cost of welfare and at the same time re-colonize large segments of so-called lost, Mexican territory.

Lets look at aspects of Mexican foreign policy to see how its aggressive actions towards the U. S. may be understood. Writing in The Miami Herald, for Sunday, January 12, 2003, Andres Oppenheimer openly wonders if Mexico's former Economy Minister and now new Foreign Minister, Luis Ernesto Derbez, ''may weaken what has been one of (President) Fox's most important accomplishments: bringing Mexico's foreign policy out of the dark ages of knee-jerk nationalism and pointless anti-Americanism.'' In fact, Derbez's job will be to say one thing and do another. Nationalism and anti-Americanism remain a part of Mexico's foreign policy, it's just not called that anymore.

Prior to Derbez's statements, Mexico's previous Foreign Minister and former Marxist, Jorge Castañeda said that nationalism and anti-Americanism made sense in the 19th and 20th centuries but are not viable in a globalized world, in which countries depend more on exchanges of goods, services, and people than at any time in recent history.

Mexico's traditional anti-Americanism '''creates a brutal national schizophrenia,''' said Castañeda. He further noted that 90 percent of Mexico's trade is with the United States. Yet, integrating the Mexican economy with the U. S. economy may be viewed more sinisterly. This economic integration can be also just one aspect of a Mexican foreign policy designed to get back territory.

Internationally, Mexico is a non-permanent member of the Security Council. It's hostile intentions towards the U. S. were made clear when it opposed any unilateral action against Iraq without a mandate from the Security Council. This stance on Iraq further angered many to the north.

If another 9/11 attack did occur in the U. S. and it did not damage Mexico's interests, Mexico would remain indifferent. Mexico may even unintentionally aid terrorists by encouraging illegal immigration to the U. S. Furthermore, Mexico has never broken off relations with communist Cuba and gives it considerable development aid. In spite of American policy toward Cuba, Mexican President Fox visited the island in February, 2002.

The first war between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. On Monday, May 11, President Polk presented his war message to Congress, and on Wednesday, May 13, over the opposition of the Abolitionists, the U. S. Congress voted to declare war on Mexico. Fighting ended when U. S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847. The peace treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on Feb. 2, 1848, ending the war.

Ironically, the Confederate hero Jefferson Davis emerges as a figure from that war who may help us predict our future foreign policy towards Mexico. Davis distinguished himself fighting for the U. S., especially at the battle of Monterrey. You have to wonder if Davis ever imagined his world would be turned upside down when 15 years later he would become President of the Confederate States of America. Will our world also be turned upside down years from now because of NAFTA, illegal immigration, and drugs from Mexico?

As a Nationalist, Davis could see the importance of Texas to the expanding union. The Abolitionists argued that the move to the Rio Grande was an aggressive act by President Polk to start a war with Mexico in order to add new slave territory to the United States. The Nationalists and Davis carried the day and the war was successfully waged.

Yet, years later Davis could not convert to the Abolitionist cause. He sided with the southern confederacy against the north. The War Between the States settled that issue, and Jefferson Davis ended up a federal prisoner held for trial on a charge of treason. In light of this history, one has to wonder if the liberals in the U. S. today, who favor NAFTA and open immigration will still stay with that position 15 years from now when Texas, New Mexico, California, and Wyoming secede from the U. S. and become part of Mexico.

The war with Mexico is considered by some historians to be the most costly by casualty count in American military history. Despite the objections of the Abolitionists, the Mexican war received enthusiastic support from all sections of the United States. The war was fought almost entirely by volunteers.

So, too, a future war with Mexico will be opposed by the liberals, but will receive support from America's white, working class, and many African-Americans. If past indications of Mexico's bloody history are to be projected to a new Mexican war, we can expect high casualties on both sides. Many northern U. S. cities like Chicago with large Mexican barrios as fifth columnists, may also suffer destruction.

In order to put oil on the troubled waters of current Mexican--U. S. relations, the two countries have been trying to downplay differences. This may look good on a diplomatic level, but has not altered Mexico's aggressive policies towards the U. S. in the least. While talking, illegal immigration continues, cocaine flows across the border into the U.S., the Mexican government remains corrupt, and the Mexican elites still rely on the U. S. to solve the social and economic problems of Mexico.

President Fox was the first foreign leader to be received by President Bush after his inauguration. Likewise, President Bush's first trip abroad was to Mexico in February 2001. George Kourous writes about these visits. He says, ''The White House has scheduled Bush's first official state dinner to crown the visit and is dressing up the event with pomp, circumstance, and recycled rhetoric about the new era of U. S.--Mexico relations. 'The fact (that) this is the first state dinner ought to send signals about our unique relationship,' Bush then told reporters.''

Just what those signals are, remain to be seen. Writing in Chronwatch.com, Fernando Oaxaca says, ''Before the California Recall exercise ended, El Universal, a more moderate Mexico paper than La Jornada, reported that Foreign Secretary Derbez had announced a new '''security doctrine''' for Mexico. It clashed with what Washington had expected would be a dependable partnership with Mexico and other nations in the war on terror. Never using the word ''terrorism,'' Derbez said that the concept of ''one for all and all for one'' was an ''outdated, World War II concept!''

Foreign Secretary Derbez went on to add, ''No state can impose on another its own security agenda, nor the order of its priorities. Security should be understood as a reality for each country--not as hemispheric, because there is no military, strategic, or ideological enemy outside the region which is attacking it as a whole.'' Clearly, Mexico is not troubled by threats to the United States on the terrorist front.

On the economic front, Mexico's President Fox took office praising the benefits of expanded U. S.--Mexico trade. He promised to create 1.4 million new jobs. Instead, an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 jobs have been lost, mostly as a result of an economic slowdown in the United States. This slowdown is not good for Mexican imports to the U. S. The slowdown also creates less of a need for low-paid, illegal immigrant workers. Still, there has been no letup in the migration northwards.

If the ''reconquista'' continues unchecked for the next twenty years, the U. S. will be a fundamentally different society than it is today. There will be more poverty and low-wage jobs in our cities. We will be a dual language society, with more and more Spanish and less and less English spoken. The price for this social transformation will be paid mostly by the U. S. white, working class, and African Americans.

About 820,000 people migrate to the Untied States every year. Eventually, there will be a movement of population away from the socially divided and increasingly Latino north American cities to states like Montana, Oregon, and Kentucky. Joel Kotkin has already documented the beginning of this population shift in his 1996 Washington Post article, ''White Flight to the Fringes.'' Add to the Latino immigration the high rates of other foreign immigrants and it is understandable why many white Americans will abandon our cities. The U. S. Census Bureau projects that by the middle of this century, whites will constitute just over half of the U. S. population. By 2060, whites will be a minority. Then, the ''reconquista'' will be complete.

The liberal plan for North America imagines a peaceful blending of cultures accomplished by shared economic goals. Based on a past war and present Mexican foreign policy, it is hard to see how this plan can work. Nor can we imagine how uncontrolled and illegal Mexican immigration to the U. S. is in the interest of African-Americans or the white working class in America. Just as past Abolitionist policy concerning Texas was mistaken, so the present liberal policy of uncontrolled immigration to the U. S. is also mistaken. Perhaps only another successful war with Mexico will show that to be the case.

Today, Mexico is more of an enemy than an ally of the U. S. Its foreign policy is as belligerent as any of our other past enemies. An invasion of drugs and immigrants are some of the many reasons why the United States may fight yet another war against Mexico. All the conditions for that war are present. If you talk to some Americans living near the border, then you will hear the war has already started.


Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the ethnic cleansing at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.

Copyright © 2003 ChronWatch. All rights reserved.
Questions? Contact us today!
http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4754
http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4754

~~~~~
This
is...
Gunny G's Marines
GLOBE and ANCHOR Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
~~~~~

"LORD, WHERE DO WE GET SUCH MEN?"

"Lord, Where Do We get such Men?"
"General Paul X. Kelley, 28th Commandant of the Marine Corps, wondered aloud after presenting LCpl Jeffery Lee Nashton, a survivor, with a special gift at Maryland's Bethesda Naval Hospital, 15 Nov. 1983, while Nashton's wife, Laurie, looked on.
Gen Kelly previously had visited with LCpl Nashton in the intensive care ward at Frankfort, Germany, 25 Oct. The general said he observed Nashton "with more tubes going in and out of his body than I have ever seen. When he heard me say who I was, he grabbed my coat, went up to the collar and counted the stars. He squeezed my hand, and then wrote, "Semper Fi."

In Bethesda, Gen Kelly presented Nashton with his four stars, the Marine Corps emblem and the words "Semper Fi" inscribed on a plaque. Gen Kelley later said, "When I left the hospital, I realized I had met a great human being, and I took off those stars because at the time I felt they belonged more to him than to me."
~~~~~
Ref:
Leatherneck, Oct 2003
~~~~~~

This is...
Gunny G's Marines
GLOBE and ANCHOR Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72

THE GOSPEL LESSON...

Note:
The following "mystery" article, which was e-mailed and posted to various messageboards around the Internet these last few weeks, has been determined to have been published in the October, 2003 Marine Corps Gazette.
-DickG

TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE SONS

Eli Takesian, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret)


The Gospel Lesson

In early November of each year, a religious service is conducted in Washington National Cathedral honoring the United States Marine Corps.

As the Chaplain of the Marine Corps, it was my task to prepare the order of worship for 1983. Several weeks prior to the service, General Paul Xavier Kelley, the 28th Commandant of the Marine Corps, agreed to read the Gospel lesson. After looking over my recommendations, he called me and said, "Eli, I like your choices, but for this, my first year as Commandant, I would like to read the passage in which Jesus tells his disciples about the Good Shepherd. That particular teaching never fails to inspire and challenge me."

It was an appropriate choice for this Commandant, with whom I had served in Vietnam, where I first observed his charismatic qualities and, above all, his faithful shepherding of troops.

In 1970, weeks before our initial meeting, I learned of his reputation. When my outfit, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, was notified that Colonel P. X. Kelley was to become our regimental commander, it prompted glowing comments from a gunnery sergeant:

"He'll do a bang-up job! P. X. and I served
together in 1966, when he was honcho of
2nd Battalion, 4th Marines. He took us
through some tough campaigns. A fearless
leader! And hell-on-wheels in combat!
There was nothing he wouldn't do for us
… and nothing we wouldn't do for him!
On field operations, P. X. never carried a
weapon when he walked the perimeter at
night. He'd stop at every foxhole and talk
with his Marines, especially the young ones.
Whenever they'd remind him that he didn't
have a weapon, his answer was always the
same: 'As long as you're here protecting me,
why do I need a weapon?' He touched our
lives, and gave us the confidence we needed."

The words of John C. Maxwell come to mind: "A leader knows the way … goes the way… shows the way."

On the day Colonel Kelley took command of the 1st Marines, I became his regimental chaplain. The gunny's prophetic words were manifested time and again, for in so many ways, grand and simple, P. X. Kelley cared for his troops -- his flock -- earning their profound admiration and respect.

I remember one significant occasion, when he put his career on the line in a courageous and justifiable defense of one of his subordinates. Unfortunately, confidentiality prohibits my divulging details of the incident.

During his tenure with the 1st Marines, the last ground combat organization to leave Vietnam, Colonel Kelley was affectionately known as "The Good Humor Man From the Sky." Whenever he flew out to visit regimental units operating in the field, he was armed with containers of ice cream, cases of Coke, and hot chow.

23 October 1983

Any Marine on active duty on Sunday, 23 October 1983, can remember exactly where they were upon hearing of the terrorist attack at Beirut International Airport, which took the lives of 241 soldiers, sailors and Marines. I was on an official visit to the Marine Corps Base, 29 Palms, California.

Returning to Washington the following day, I learned that President Reagan had asked the Commandant to fly to the Marine unit in Beirut as his personal representative. General Kelley and Sergeant Major Robert Cleary, the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, had already departed. Otherwise, I would have gone with them.

My first opportunity to meet with the Commandant took place a few days later, after he had returned from Beirut. It was at the Pentagon helicopter pad. We shared an embrace and with tears in his eyes he said, "Eli, I have just lost 241 sons." Minutes later, he and his party, including me, departed for the U. S. Air Force Base in Dover, Delaware, to greet and honor the first planeload of our fallen comrades.

At Dover, in a cold and drafty aircraft hangar, the Commandant addressed grieving families that had so suddenly lost loved ones. He underscored the quality, vitality and importance of these superb troops whose lives were unexpectedly taken by terrorists; and then, looking down the line of flag-draped caskets, he asked, "Lord, where do we get such men?" During moments that were emotionally wrenching, draining, and spiritually consoling, General Kelley met with members of each family and, together, they shared their mutual, heartfelt grief.

On the return trip to Washington, the Commandant informed his party that he had requested the Secretary of Defense to convene a commission to investigate circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack, and that Secretary Weinberger had consented. A panel was soon established and became known as the Long Commission.

The next week was one that would test to an extraordinary degree the leadership, loyalty, emotions, endurance and values of the Commandant, who had assumed the office only four months before the terrorist attack. His frustrations were particularly obvious when, during four days of grueling testimony before Congress, not one member of either body asked him if he knew the identity of the terrorists who had planned and executed the attack. In his closing remarks before four congressional committees, the Commandant said:

"I would hope that the Congress would use
this incident of cruel and premeditated mass
murder to help us determine ways to tell
nations that they cannot export and support
terrorists who kill innocent Americans with
impunity. The perpetrators and supporters
of this challenge to the rights of free men
everywhere must be identified and punished.
I will have little sleep until this happens."

Moreover, he shared with me an off-camera meeting with two senior members of the House of Representatives. When they suggested that the two Marine commanders in Beirut be court-martialed as soon as possible, "to get this all behind us," his refusal was adamant. Appalled, General Kelley informed them that, as a United States Marine, he had taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which includes the right to due process. His concluding remarks to the astonished members were, "Not only no … but hell no!"

The Commandant and I met frequently during that long ordeal, most often in private. I shall always remember one particular morning when, speaking with his usual candor, he said:

"Eli, I've spent many years of my Marine
Corps career here in Washington, and
have a lot of respect and admiration for
politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Several of them have given me invaluable
advice and counsel on how the Marine
Corps should deal with this, the worst
tragedy in its entire peacetime history.
However, some others have jumped the
gun and are looking for a quick and easy
way out.

"One suggestion, which I find particularly
offensive, is that I should become less
visible and let responsibility roll down hill.
I've always lived by the principle that
authority and ultimate responsibility are
inseparable. The law gives me the authority
of the Commandant and, therefore, I have
certain inherent responsibilities. First and
foremost, to obviate any suspicion of a
cover-up, I have, as you know, requested
an independent investigation to determine
the facts.

"Another suggestion I strenuously reject
is that we should sweep as much dirt as we
can under the rug. Eli, five words stuck in
my mind that night last June when I
became keeper of the Marine Corps Color:
courage … devotion … compassion …
honesty … and integrity. If I learned
nothing else from the Augustinian
Fathers at Villanova, those last two words
made an indelible impression, for without
honesty and integrity, the others are
meaningless."

On another occasion, General Kelley addressed the matter of sweeping dirt under the rug. I vividly recall his words:

"Marines would never expect, or want,
their Commandant to lie to them … or to
lie for them. Therefore, I will not lie to my
Marines … to the President of the United
States … to Congress … or to the American
people!"

By refusing to take an easy way out, or to protect himself, or to victimize others by seeking scapegoats, the 28th Commandant remained steadfast and faithful in caring for the Corps of Marines.

Washington National Cathedral

This brings me to 6 November 1983. The worship service in Washington National Cathedral that Sunday afternoon honored all Marines, past and present, focusing primarily on our casualties in Beirut.

At the appropriate moment, the Commandant of the Marine Corps walked with dignity to the lectern and recited the moving words of Jesus, as recorded in the tenth chapter of Saint John's Gospel, beginning at the eleventh verse … ironically, the same reading he had chosen several weeks before, excerpts of which are printed here:

"He who enters by the door is the shepherd
of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens;
the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his
own sheep by name and leads them out.
When he has brought out all his own, he
goes before them, and the sheep follow
him, for they know his voice. A stranger
they will not follow, but they will flee from
him, for they do not know the voice of
strangers. I am the good shepherd. The
good shepherd lays down his life for the
sheep. He who is a hireling and not a
shepherd, whose own the sheep are not,
sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep
and flees … He flees because he is a
hireling and cares nothing for the sheep.
I am the good shepherd; I know my own
and my own know me …"


Gunny G's GLOBE and ANCHOR Weblog
by R. W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
Gunny G's...
Marines G&A Sites & Forums!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/gunny.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE EAGLE and THE WOLF...by General Charles C. Krulak

NewsMax.com
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/8/2/95625

Remarks for: The Lighthouse Project '99, Central High School, North Carolina
Gen. Charles C. Krulak
January 29, 1999

I am honored to be here today before such a prestigious audience. Before the leadership of tomorrow; the leaders that will advance our Nation into the 21st Century. I cannot help but be excited when I think of what lies before you - the adventure and excitement - and oh, how I envy you!

You will be the ones to take us to new heights and new accomplishments. You will be making the breakthrough discoveries and finding solutions to the problems that previous generations, to include my own, simply could not solve. And it will be you who will have to stand up to the new challenges that will arise tomorrow . . . and there will be challenges . . . there always are.

How will you prepare yourself for this exciting yet challenging future? How will you make yourself ready, so that you may be found worthy of the mantle of leadership that will surely be placed upon your shoulders? Perhaps the best way for me to illustrate these concepts is to relate to you some examples from my experience in Vietnam.

It was 0600, the third of June, 1966. I was in command of "G" Company, Second Battalion, First Marine Regiment. I was a First Lieutenant at the time, and had been given this command because the previous commander had been killed about one week earlier.

My Company had been given a simple mission that began with a helicopter assault. We would land in a series of dried-up rice paddies about 6 football fields in length, and three football fields in width. These paddies were surrounded by jungle-covered mountains, with a dry stream bed running along one side. We were supposed to land, put on our packs, and do what all Marines do: find the largest mountain, and climb to the top. There we would put ourselves in a defensive perimeter to act as the blocking force for an offensive sweep conducted by two battalions.

The helicopters landed, unloaded my company of Marines, and had just started to leave when the world exploded. Automatic weapons, mortar fire, artillery - it was hell on earth. Fortunately, a good portion of my Company had managed to move into the dry stream bed where they were protected from most of the fire.

However, one platoon had landed too far west to move immediately to the cover of the stream bed. As they tried to move in that direction, the fire on them became so heavy they had no alternative but to hit the deck. One particular squad found itself directly in the line of fire of a North Vietnamese 12.7mm heavy machine gun. In a matter of seconds, two Marines were killed and three were seriously wounded.

As I watched what was happening from my position in the stream bed, I knew that it was just a matter of time before that machine gun would systematically "take out" that whole platoon-squad by squad. If I didn't act immediately, they would be lost in just a matter of minutes. I made a call to the commander of the first platoon, directing him to move up the stream bed so he could attack across the flank of the gun position - not having to assault it directly from the front. At the same time, I directed another platoon to provide suppressive fire that might diminish the volume of fire coming from the machine gun position.

All this was happening in the midst of smoke, multiple explosions, heavy small arms fire, and people yelling to be heard over the din of battle. Suddenly, my radio operator grabbed me by the sleeve and pointed toward the middle of the rice paddy where a black Marine, a Lance Corporal by the name of Grable, had gotten to his feet, placed his M-14 rifle on his hip, and charged the machine gun-firing as fast as he could possibly fire!

He ran about 40 meters directly toward the machine gun and then cut to the side, much like a running back might do during a football game. Sure enough, the machine gun, which had been delivering heavy fire on his squad, picked up off of the squad and began firing at Grable.

Seeing the fire shift away from them, the squad moved immediately to the cover of a small rice paddy dike-thick ground, about a foot high separating each paddy from the other. Both they, and the other two squads were able to drag their casualties and gear to the position of safety behind this dike.

Grable didn't look back. He didn't see what happened. He kept on fighting. He dodged back and forth across these paddies, firing continuously. He would run out of ammunition, reload on the run, and continue forward, dodging back and forth as he ran. BAM! Suddenly he was picked up like a dishrag and thrown backward-hit by at least one round.

The rest of the platoon charged. My radio operator grabbed me again, but saying nothing, he just pointed to the middle of the rice paddy. That young Marine, Lance Corporal Grable, had gotten to his feet. As he stood, he didn't put the rifle to his hip; he locked the weapon into his shoulder, took steady aim-good sight picture, good sight alignment, and walked straight down the line of fire into that machine gun.

About four minutes later, my command group and the rest of the unit finally arrived at the now-silent machine gun position. There were nine dead enemy soldiers around the gun . . . Lance Corporal Grable was draped over the gun itself. As only Marines can do, these battle-hardened young men tenderly picked up Grable and laid him on the ground. When they opened his "flak jacket", he had five massive wounds from that machine gun. FIVE . . .

About seven months later, I traveled back to Headquarters Marine Corps in Washington and watched the Commandant of the Marine Corps present Lance Corporal Grable's widow with the nation's second highest decoration for valor-the Navy Cross. In this woman's arms was the baby boy that Grable had only seen in a Polaroid picture.

Grable displayed great physical courage. Somewhere in his character was another kind of courage as well-moral courage-the courage to do the right thing. When he had the chance to do something else, he chose to do the right thing. His squad was in mortal danger. He had a choice to make, and he did what was right, at the cost of his life. Let me remind you, this was 1966. Grable was a black Marine from Tennessee, who couldn't even buy a hamburger at the McDonald's in his own hometown.

So, what of your character? Who are you? No, not the physical and superficial image, but who are you really? What do you stand for? What is the essence of your character? Where is your moral compass pointing? Which course do you follow?

Every day we have to make decisions. It is through this decision making process that we show those around us the quality of our character. The majority of the decisions we have to make are "no brainers." Deciding what we are going to have for breakfast is not going to test your character, judgment maybe, but not character.

The true test of character comes when the stakes are high, when the chips are down, when your gut starts to turn, when the sweat starts to form on your brow, when you know the decision you are about to make may not be popular, but it MUST be made. That is when your true character is exposed. The associations you keep, the peers you choose, the mentors you seek, the organizations you affiliate with, all help to define your character. But, in the end, you will be judged as an individual, not as part of a group.

Success in life, like in combat, has always demanded a depth of character. Those who can reach deep inside themselves-and draw upon an inner strength, fortified by strong values, always carry the day against those of lesser character. Moral cowards never win in war; moral cowards never win in life. They might believe that they are winning a few battles here and there, but their victories are never sweet, they never stand the test of time and they never serve to inspire others. In fact, each and every one of a moral coward's "supposed victories" ultimately leads them to failure.

Those who have the courage to face up to ethical challenges in their daily lives will find that same courage can be drawn upon in times of great stress, in times of great controversy, in the never ending battle between good and evil.

All around our society you see immoral behavior; lying, cheating, stealing, drug use and alcohol abuse, prejudice, and a lack of respect for human dignity and the law. In the not-too-distant future, each of you are going to be confronted with situations where you will have to deal straight-up with these issues. The question is, what will you do when that happens? What action will you take? You will know what you should do, the issue is, will you DO what you know is right? It takes moral courage to hold your ideals above yourself. It is the DEFINING aspect of your character.

So, when the test of your character, of your moral courage comes, regardless of the noise and confusion around you, there will be a moment of inner silence in which you must decide what to do. Your character will be defined by your decision . . . and it is yours and yours alone to make.

When that moment of silence comes and you are wrestling with your decision, consider this poem:

THE EAGLE AND THE WOLF

There is a great battle that rages inside me.
One side is a soaring eagle
Everything the eagle stands for is good and true and beautiful.
It soars above the clouds.
Even though it dips down into the valleys, it lays its eggs on mountain tops.
The other side of me is a howling wolf.
And that raging, howling wolf represents the worst that is in me.
He eats upon my downfalls and justifies himself by his presence in the pack.
Who wins this great battle?
The one I feed.
The one I feed.

I challenge you all to feed the eagle. Remember, your Nation depends upon it.

God bless you all and Semper Fidelis.


Gunny G's GLOBE and ANCHOR Weblog
by R. W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
Gunny G's...
Marines G&A Sites & Forums!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/gunny.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

COLONEL RIPLEY REMEMBERS...

NOTE:
This article was found among my e-mail files, dated 11 July 2001.
-DickG
~~~~~

Col Ripley Remembers...

All of this discussion on the Navajo Code Talkers brings to mind an incident I think you would enjoy hearing about. We don't need much reminding of the close bond we Marines have with this particular WWII group, but this will cement it even more, and I dare say you will not have heard of a similar story.

Several years ago my Vietnam battalion, 3/3, a very tight group consisting of some legendary Marines we've all heard of, had its reunion here in Washington. We had met here before but decided to come back because one of our members agreed to be the honored guest and speaker for the banquet; a former Company Commander, now CMC, named Krulak.

All of the usual events were planned; a visit to the Vietnam Memorial (where, remarkably, the Park Service permitted us to have a Battalion formation with wreath-laying, etc. -- a first), the Friday night parade, a visit to the Museum here and other Marine Corps related events. I organized a separate, special event as the reunion coordinator. This was a personalized, Marine Corps oriented tour of the Arlington National Cemetery with our own private trams and exclusive access to off route locations the general public doesn't see.

Its a pity that more people don't do this, as I have done for over 30yrs for private groups. It is one of the most beautiful, moving, poignant and proud events you can imagine; impossible to describe. One of our purposes was to see and decorate the graves of the former 3/3 CO's all of us had at one time or another served under, and we are very well represented there.

Joe Muir, the first battalion commander KIA in Vietnam; Josh Dorsey, later to become the Senior Marine Advisor during my year as an advisor; Jim Marsh, a great Marine by anyone's standards; and Dutch Schultz, for whom all of the previous superlatives can be said. None of these Marines need embellishment or introduction, and they are all there in Arlington.

We were enroute to Jim Marsh's gravesite when we passed two quite senior men in Navajo dress walking slowly on this very hot summer day. They waved politely and I stopped the tram to offer assistance. They wanted to know the location of Ira Hayes grave. We would be going there at our next stop after paying respects to Jim Marsh, but they preferred to walk. We carried on to Col Jim's grave site (the columbarium) and spent some time there as most of us had either served with him or knew him. Leaving this site we proceeded to Ira Hayes grave which was central between Dutch Schultz and Josh Dorsey.

On arriving there we saw the two men we had passed earlier. Although they were tired from the long walk in the hot sun, it was easy for my party of 200 plus Marines to see that something had happened, just looking into the faces of these old warriors. They had created an air of dignity and reverence that was thicker than armor. At first we would not disembark from the trams and go up the short hill to the grave because it was obvious that we were intruding on something solemn, something of great meaning. They had decorated the grave with stones, feathers and what looked like beads, painted sticks, etc. Seeing us there they motioned us forward and we reluctantly, slowly approached; surrounding them and the grave. What happened next is hard to describe.

These men spoke English, somewhat imperfectly, but their meaning was clear. They knew we were Marines and were pleased that we would join them, for "it gives great honor to our brother Ira". Already my eyes were getting that familiar sting and I wasn't alone. Then for the next 10--20 minutes they went through a prayer ritual that was so beautiful, so moving and poignant that we stood there transfixed, speechless. They picked up rocks from the headstone where they had placed them and gestured toward the sky, and then other artifacts as well. They swept their arms slowly around and over the grave while softly, respectfully incanting their prayers and singing; all in their own language. The meaning, however, came through profoundly to all of us. By this time we --all of us-- were sobbing openly, and then the real surprise came.

They began to look directly at us and ever so often we would hear "semper fidelis" or "Marines", and one one occasion "they look after Ira". We were all to pieces, and not the least bit ashamed. Indeed, we were damned honored that they would include us.

Like most of us I have attended more than my share of funerals, in and out of uniform, and each have been meaningful, dignified and memorable. But nothing in my entire life was like this, and all of us said so. We returned to our tram and carried on with the tour, but we were emotional basket cases. It took me weeks to recover, and the memory of that quiet, dignified moment on a lovely Arlington hillside will never leave me.

We belong to a proud Corps. I have often said that pride is the high octane fuel of the Marine Corps. If you can't be proud, you can't be a Marine. I thought about that as I stood there with those humble, respectful warriors, tears running down my cheeks, my shirt and damn near to my shoes. Most Americans have no idea of the meaning of pride; the kind of pride that comes not from what you do, or who you are, but because you belong to something so much greater than the individual himself -- our Corps. And it is this Corps that produced such men as Ira Hayes, and the two lonely warriors that came all the way from Arizona at no small expense just to pay homage to their fallen brother. God bless these wonderful Marines. They gave us Vietnam vets a dose of pride that will last a lifetime.

Semper Fi, Rip

John W. Ripley Col. J.W. Ripley USMC (ret.) Director History & Museums Division United States Marine Corps (202) 433-3838

*****

Gunny G's GLOBE and ANCHOR Weblog
by R. W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
Gunny G's...
Marines G&A Sites & Forums!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/gunny.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THOMAS JEFFERSON and THE REVOLUTION...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gunny G's GLOBE and ANCHOR Weblog
by R. W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
Gunny G's...
Marines G&A Sites & Forums!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/gunny.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This information provided by The Federal Observer,
http://www.federalobserver.com

Thomas Jefferson's Revolution
By SARTRE

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” - Thomas Jefferson

No doubt you will recognize the popular wisdom of Thomas Jefferson regarding Liberty, but are you familiar with what he said in a letter to John Adams, late in his life? "To attain all this (universal republicanism), however, rivers of blood must yet flow, and years of desolation pass over; yet the object is worth rivers of blood, and years of desolation." - September 4, 1823

The history of the American Revolution is usually portrayed as a struggle for independence. The hidden story is that the brief experiment with a Republic, was crushed before it ever had a chance to succeed. Autonomy from the Crown, didn’t guarantee Liberty for citizens. When Jefferson penned the decisive essential declaration, “he drew heavily on the doctrines concerning the general principles of liberty and the rights of man which Locke set forth in his work; Of Civil Government. In particular, in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson copied Locke's words, "Life, liberty and property" which were subsequently changed to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ”. While property has a very narrow meaning in modern society; back then, it intended a profound significance and limiting factor on government.

The desolation that Jefferson referenced, is a recognition of a prevailing annihilation that natural man has towards a state of rule. The STATE is government administered by coercion. Inborn rights are intrinsic within one’s nature. Independence of Englishmen from England, was a reluctant alternative for many colonists. When the revolution was won, the war for the entente began. The Federalist Papers are viewed by most Americans as constitutive arguments to justify a new constitution. The erroneous case that the Articles of Confederation failed, is a study in the road to surrender.

Few truly understand the nature of the 1776 Revolution. Concealed from memory is that Jefferson did not attend the convention nor was he a contributor to the U.S Constitution, primarily drafted and guided to ratification (who’s legality is still suspect) by James Madison. In private writings to Jefferson, Madison tips his hand and admits a shortcoming to the new constitution - Congress was not given a negative (veto) over state laws.

From James Madison Explains the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson, we get the rational of Madison.

“It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war than the administration of a regular Government.

Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which, instead of operating on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation.

This ground-work being laid, the great objects which presented themselves were:
1. To unite a proper energy in the Executive, and a proper stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential characters of Republican Government.

2. To draw a line of demarkation which would give to the General Government every power requisite for general purposes, and leave to the States every power which might be most beneficially administered by them.

3. To provide for the different interests of different parts of the Union.

4. To adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small States. Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it. Adding to these considerations the natural diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle.”

Devastation of Sovereign States was a stated goal in the formation of this new union. The Bill of Rights, especially the ninth and ten amendments, were mere window dressing to sooth the normal and healthy suspicions of sane citizens. Tyranny is the standard rule for rulers, and constitutional provisions intended to consolidate control, is not a formula for independence.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Jefferson’s sympathy for the French Revolution marked a shape contrast with the Alexander Hamilton faction of the Federalists. The wisdom within a non interventionist foreign policy of a John Adams, in the tradition of George Washington, did not fit the despotic vision of Hamilton. The irony is that during a Jefferson administration a naval flotilla was sent to subdue Barbary pirates and the Louisiana Territory was acquired. Such examples fostered a strong centralized government. However, Jefferson did slash Army and Navy expenditures, cut the federal budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey so unpopular in the West, yet reduced the national debt by a third. When Hamilton bargained with Jefferson for the trade-off that allowed for the central government to assume the revolutionary war debt, the fate of the independent States was ceded on the slippery slope of federal seduction.

The liberty of each individual is diminished proportionately with every increase in the range, scope and power of government. The promise of the American Revolution was the ability to limit government, so it could be controlled. Today there is a disconnect from that reality. Rational society knew that repression was the inevitable result from the concentration of civic functions under the auspices of expanding government. The men at Concord Bridge, understood this fact of nature. Now, that insight is lost to most and represents basic evidence for the mastery of the U.S. Constitution as a delusional substitute for genuine individual liberty.

The property of the citizen has become a claim of the federal government. The Sovereign States that Madison resented, have become feudal fiefdoms of an imperial empire. The happiness which is one of those “certain unalienable Rights”, has been lost and replaced with a personal isolation in search of individual dignity and social justice. The masses have been transformed into Hamiltonian Federalists, as the principles of Jefferson are ignored, forgotten and betrayed.

Jefferson’s passion for a restrained central government was a core principle foreseen as a primary reason for separation from England. His concept of an independent and self reliant society was abandoned with the rush to regiment a flawed national identity. The pivotal question is why bondage is accepted with such ease, and so few are willing to be true to the revolution and risk - Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor. Heed well, the tradition and sagacity of the “Man from Monticello”. "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." -Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

Where are you when circumstance demands that a new revolution is justified to save the purpose of the original nation?

About the Author:
Federal Observer contributor, Sartre is the pen name of a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy, and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. We invite you to visit his website at: Breaking All The Rules.

http://www.federalobserver.com/print.php?aid=6472
http://www.federalobserver.com/print.php?aid=6472

SENATOR MANSFIELD: HE TOLD THEM SO

The New York Times In America
October 12, 2003
'Senator Mansfield': He Told Them So
By JOHN ALOYSIUS FARRELL
SENATOR MANSFIELD
The Extraordinary Life of a Great American Statesman and Diplomat.
By Don Oberdorfer.
Illustrated. 593 pp. Washington: Smithsonian Books. $32.95.

There are parts of this fine new biography of Senator Mike Mansfield, as he pleads with Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson not to plunge America into war in Southeast Asia, that could break your heart. Mansfield served with the Marines in China in 1922, then worked his way from the copper mines of Montana to become a college instructor, a congressman and the Senate's acknowledged expert on Asia. He never varied in the advice he gave about Indochina: the United States had no compelling national interest to defend there, and it would lose any war it chose to fight. Had he been able to persuade his two old friends, there might be no need for that black granite gash and its 58,000 names on the Mall in Washington.

''We cannot hope to substitute armed power for the kind of political and economic social changes that offer the best resistance to Communism,'' Mansfield, then majority leader, wrote his friend President Kennedy about Vietnam in 1961. ''If the necessary reforms have not been forthcoming over the past seven years to stop Communist subversion and rebellion, then I do not see how American combat troops can do it today.'' A year later, he warned that the United States was in danger of being drawn ''inexorably'' into the doomed role and bloody fate of the French colonial armies in Southeast Asia: ''To ignore that reality will . . . be immensely costly in terms of American lives.'' Kennedy's face grew red with anger. ''This is not what my advisers are telling me,'' he said.

Nor did Mansfield relent after Johnson, an ally of many years, replaced Kennedy in office. ''The Communists are, obviously, not going to be faced down. It now appears that they are not going to be stung down. That leaves only the possibility of mowing them down and that is going to take a lot of time and a great many lives,'' he warned after the Pentagon reported that an American destroyer was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and Johnson responded with bombing raids.

Toward the end of his 98 years, after capping a distinguished Senate career by serving two presidents as ambassador to Japan, Mansfield's voice still broke when he spoke of Vietnam. Like Oscar Schindler weeping for Jews he could not save, he found shame and tears in his failure to stop the killing. ''It still haunts me,'' he told Don Oberdorfer, a former Washington Post reporter who teaches international relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. Though fond of his taciturn subject, in ''Senator Mansfield'' he doesn't duck the brutal question: Shouldn't the senator have gone public with his doubts, perhaps stepped down as Democratic leader in protest? Mansfield thought it better to preserve President Johnson's confidence, to ensure that the president got at least one expert and dissenting view. ''I could have been more vigorous, I could have adopted another kind of procedure,'' Mansfield concedes in an interview. ''But just don't know what it was.'' This is a thorough biography of a public man who served longer as majority leader than any other. It's perhaps a disservice to dwell so on Vietnam. Yet Oberdorfer recognizes Mansfield's role in the war as a core of the story. It is a timely topic.

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States -- Mansfield lived to see them; he died a month later -- were no Tonkin Gulf incidents. There is little doubt that our national interest is now at stake: Ho Chi Minh didn't have hopes of acquiring pirated nuclear weapons or vials of smallpox, and could have been deterred if he had. Though the North Vietnamese fought with what we saw then as irrational commitment, Al Qaeda makes them look downright reasonable.

That said, it's instructive to weigh Mansfield's cleareyed prescriptions of how, and where, and in what proportion, the United States should best apply its military and economic power as it goes up against another guerrilla foe. Mansfield warned Kennedy that the United States was overreliant on military might, while shortchanging diplomacy and efforts to bring about social and economic reform.

''The Vietnamese problem since 1955 has been a compound in which one part has been military and several nonmilitary,'' he told Kennedy in 1961. ''Yet the remedy which has been applied to this problem has been a compound in which several parts have been military and only one part nonmilitary.'' In this season when another American intervention has etched a new place name -- Iraq -- on the gravestones at Arlington, it's a warning to which, this time, we should pay better attention.

John Aloysius Farrell, the Washington bureau chief of The Denver Post, is the author of ''Tip O'Neill and the Democratic Century.''


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
~~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's Marines
GLOBE and ANCHOR Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
~~~~~~~~

CIVILIAN MARINES?

ALMAR 005/03
««-----------------------------------------------------»»
Date signed: 01/22/2003 ALMAR Number: 005/03



R 220845Z JAN 03

FM CMC WASHINGTON DC(n)

TO ML ALMAR(n)

ALMAR

BT

UNCLAS

ALMAR 005/03

MSGID/GENADMIN/CMC WASHINGTON DC MPO-37//

SUBJ/MARINE CORPS CIVILIAN SERVICE PINS//

RMKS/1. OUR CIVILIAN MARINES ARE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF

THE MARINE CORPS TEAM. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE EXPRESS OUR

APPRECIATION FREQUENTLY TO CIVILIAN MARINES FOR THEIR SUPPORT

AND FAITHFUL SERVICE TO CORPS AND COUNTRY. ACCORDINGLY, I

HAVE AUTHORIZED THE CREATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A MARINE CORPS

CIVILIAN SERVICE PIN. THIS PIN WILL IDENTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES AS

CIVILIAN MARINES AND SERVE AS A VISIBLE EXPRESSION OF

APPRECIATION FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND SACRIFICE FOR THE MARINE CORPS.

2. IT IS MY INTENTION THAT THE CIVILIAN MARINE SERVICE PIN

BE GIVEN TO EACH CIVILIAN MARINE FROM ENTRY LEVEL TO SENIOR

EXECUTIVE SERVICE. THE PINS ARE NOW AVAILABLE AND DISTRIBUTION

CAN BE ARRANGED THROUGH THE LOCAL HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE

BEGINNING IN FEBRUARY 2003. THE PIN WILL BE ISSUED TO NEW

EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY COMPLETE THEIR NEW EMPLOYEE ORIENTATION OR

TO CURRENT EMPLOYEES UPON CERTIFICATION OF THEIR YEARS OF SERVICE

TO THE MARINE CORPS.

3. THE MARINE CORPS CIVILIAN SERVICE PIN IS TO BE WORN BY ALL

CIVILIAN MARINES WITH HONOR AND IN THE KNOWLEDGE THE MARINE CORPS

IS A BETTER ORGANIZATION BECAUSE OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS AND

DEDICATION. CONGRATULATIONS AND MANY THANKS TO ALL CIVILIAN

MARINES FOR A JOB WELL DONE.

4. SEMPER FIDELIS, M. W. HAGEE, GENERAL, COMMANDANT OF THE

MARINE CORPS.//
~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's Marines
GLOBE and ANCHOR Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
~~~~~~~

GUNNY G IN A NUTSHELL! ... --by Dick Gaines

GUNNY G IN A NUTSHELL!
My sites/forums will reflect my attitude on numerous topics Marine; but here, in a nutshell are a few of my feelings on various topics, you will get the idea of what I think, say, and do--might save ya all some time...

My direction is Old Corps--you will not find a whole lotta stuff on my sites regarding the Corps after the early '60s--or even RVN, for that matter.

OLD CORPS VS. THE NEW CORPS!
Most, even most of the oldtimers, will say that the old corps was great, but quickly explain that the new corps is just as good. But, I read an article lately where a Marine general actually said that the Marines of the new Corps are better. But, in general, most will fall back on an old remark by Chesty Puller (often quoted, you know the one I mean) old corps, new corps, there's just one Marine Corps! Paraphrased, words to that effect.

I think, that when General Puller made that remark back in the early '50s it was very true. Since then, however, many things have occurred. America itself is not the same America that many of us older Marines came from; consequently, the Marine Corps of today, of course, draws its manpower (or personpower as it is probably termed today) from today's present American society, therefore, it cannot possibly be the same or equal to that which it was back in pre-WW II days, or even thru the ...maybe, early '60s. Granted today's "Marines" are generally bigger, stronger, better educated (educated that is, meaning a piece of paper/cerification), more intelligent (depends how you define intelligence, maybe; degrees, more years in an institution, etc.) All this, aside from technical developments since the old days. And so, I, personally, think that Old Corps and new cannot be compared.

I liked the old enlisted rank structure prior to 1959--we got along fine back then w/o super-sergeants (pay grades E-8/E-9), and I considered then, and now, the new E-1/E-9 thing to be a humbug--it wasn't Marine Corps--it was a DOD thing the Corps had no choice in it.

I don't OohRah! See my OohRah Origin/History site for more on that.

I do not constantly ooze and drivel this stuff about the Marine Brotherhood--yes, to be sure there is a brotherhood among Marines, and this should be reserved for mostly serious and solemn occasions. Also noted up front on my Introductory Gunny G site.

Uniforms? The new short sleeve shirts and trench coats are fine. But, for the most part, the old service hat (campaign hat) was great for all hands, not just the present prima donnas who are entrusted to wear it today. The old heringbone (HBT) dungarees were fine w/unbloused trousers and boondockers.

And, no, I do not worship the onetime S/Sgt Lee Ermey, whom I consider, for the most part, to be a throwback to the old image of the ignorant pre--WW II sergeant of Hollywood films--I have seen a couple of his films that were pretty good, however, the ridiculous character he has developed for TV, and his carnival-like websites for suckers, are less than acceptable for the thinking Marine!

THE TITLE "GLOBE and ANCHOR"?
Regarding my chosen title for some of my webpages/sites, many have asked why I don't just indicate, eagle, globe and anchor, rather than Globe and Anchor, implying that I have erred. No error, it reads as I intended. Apparently unknown to most Marines of today, there was a time in the Corps when Marines referred to their emblem (emblem not an "ega"--but that's yet another story) as simply the Globe and Anchor, and there are still some old timers and writers around who will still use that term.

There are many writings available, most of them older writings, but some more recent, where you will find this. One of the best examples of this, perhaps, may be--and there are many more--a quote in the recent book by Colonel Jon T. Hoffman, USMCR, Chesty. It reads as follows:

"Colonel Robert D. Heinl, the premier historian of the Old Corps and a former subordinate of Puller, believed that Chesty was one of the greatest raconteurs that ever wore the Globe and Anchor."
(Random House, 2001, Preface, page xi)

This was a common expression even in this old boot's first days in the Corps of the early 1950s. I find the term similar to the term used by the Royal Marines for their emblem, known as the Globe and Laurel.

Matter of fact, I do not recall the emblem being specifically referred to as an eagle, globe and anchor until the late 50s or early 1960s, on TV recruiting promotions, ads, etc.

To be sure, the popular term has now become eagle, globe and anchor, and the majority considers anything they are not used to, to be incorrect. As for this Marine, as always, I'll fall in w/the old salts!

There's more--this should be sufficient right now for my little spiel here. There's more on my sites, if you can bear it--or save yourself the trouble and don't go at all--your choice.

Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/gunny.html



Gunny G's GLOBE and ANCHOR Weblog
by R. W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
Gunny G's...
Marines G&A Sites & Forums!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/gunny.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ALLEGED COVER-UP BY LBJ OF 1967 ISRAEL ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY...

Oct 22, 2003
Former Chief Navy Counsel Alleges Cover-Up by LBJ of 1967 Israeli Attack on U.S. Ship
By Jennifer C. Kerr
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Boston was senior legal counsel to the Navy's original 1967 review of the attack. He said in the sworn statement that he stayed silent for years because he's a military man, and "when orders come ... I follow them."

He said he felt compelled to "share the truth" following the publication of a recent book, "The Liberty Incident," which concluded the attack was unintentional.

The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast on June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty at what became known as the outbreak of the Israeli-Egyptian Six-Day War.

In addition to the 34 Americans killed, more than 170 were wounded.

Israel has long maintained that the attack was a case of mistaken identity, an explanation that the Johnson administration did not formally challenge. Israel claimed its forces thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel and apologized to the United States.

After the attack, a Navy court of inquiry concluded there was insufficient information to make a judgment about why Israel attacked the ship, stopping short of assigning blame or determining whether it was an accident.

It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said Ret. Adm. Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.

"Why would our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.

Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate.

Israeli Embassy spokesman Mark Regev disputed any notion that Israel knowingly went after American sailors.

"I can say unequivocally that the Liberty tragedy was a terrible accident, that the Israeli pilots involved believed they were attacking an enemy ship," Regev said. "This was in the middle of a war. This is something that we are not proud of."

Calls to the Navy seeking comment were not immediately returned.

In Boston's statement, he does not say why Johnson would have ordered a cover-up. Attempts were made to reach Boston at his home in Coronado, Calif., but he did not return calls seeking comment.

Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war.

---

On the Net:

USS Liberty Memorial Web site: http://www.ussliberty.org

AP-ES-10-22-03 1943EDT

This story can be found at: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAWBCL04MD.html

# Go Back To The Story

~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's Marines
GLOBE and ANCHOR Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
~~~~~

MEDALGATE... -by David Hackworth

Medalgate
By David H. Hackworth



Recently in Iraq, an Army two-star general put himself in for the Silver Star, a gallantry award, for just being there, and for the Combat Infantryman Badge, an award designed for infantry grunts far below the rank of this division commander.



During the war, members of an Air Force bomber crew were all awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for lobbing a smart bomb from 30,000 feet onto a house where Saddam was rumored to be breaking bread – even though Saddam’s still out there somewhere sucking desert air. In 1944, the only way a bomber crew might have gotten the DFC would have been if it had wobbled back from Berlin on one wing and a prayer after a dozen-plus missions of wall-to-wall flak.



Here’s another “Believe It or Not”: When the Scuds were thumping down on Kuwait, a Navy two-star admiral and six of his flunkies were awarded the Bronze Star after a missile struck 10 miles away.



Not that these abuses of the awards system are anything new. The U.S. military’s awards program – designed to recognize both our combat heroes’ valor and the meritorious deeds by those hard-working supporters who bring up the rear – has never been exactly fair.



In the past, Joe and Jill have often gone unrecognized because there was no one left at the end of the battle to bear witness, or the paperwork got lost or wasn’t written persuasively enough, or some eager-beaver officer in the chain of command stole their glory.



I know of two Medals of Honor – one in Korea and the other with a Navy unit in Vietnam – that shamefully went to still-living former officers when in fact their above-and-beyond deeds “witnessed” by sycophants were actually performed by grunts.



In the latter days of the Korean War and in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm and Somalia, such abuses of military honors increased with each battle. In Vietnam, a dog was awarded the Bronze Star, and in Grenada, more medals were awarded than there were soldiers on that tiny island. In Desert Storm, Army infantry battalions that never saw a shot fired were awarded the coveted CIB.



Now warriors in Iraq are reporting that COs there are using a quota system for awards.



Sgt. Bill Casey, whose unit saw heavy combat in Iraq, says: “Our awards were not given out on heroism. They were based entirely upon rank and duty position. If you were a company commander, you got a Silver Star. If you were a platoon leader or platoon sergeant, you got a Bronze Star. If you did a good job at a level below that, you might get a Bronze Star. If you were a PFC (private first class), you probably didn’t get a medal for valor. Every award was entirely based upon rank and duty position – rather than whether that person stood tall and continued to return fire or whether that person continued to bring the fight to the enemy or flat-out ran away when the bullets started flying.”



These stats tell the story:



* The U.S. Air Force has approved more than 50,000 medals for operations in the Middle East.



* The U.S. Army, trying to catch up with the folks in blue who flew through all that imaginary Iraqi flak, has issued medals as though they were Cracker Jack prizes. So far they’ve pinned on tens of thousands of awards, from the coveted Distinguished Service Cross to the CIB. More than 5,000 Bronze Stars alone have been awarded. One-half the members of a 700-strong aviation squadron at Fort Stewart, Ga., were recently presented Bronze Stars and Commendation medals.



But as of Sept. 22, 2003, the U.S. Marine Corps has approved only 56 Meritorious Bronze Stars – 46 to officers, 10 to enlisted – and 15 Bronze Stars for valor – 11 to officers and four to enlisted – for their 70,000 fighters who kicked more than a little butt during the war in Iraq.



Kudos to our gallant Marine Corps for not following the quota system and to its top brass for refusing to play the Pentagon’s public-relations medal-giveaway game.



But any way you count ‘em, deserving grunts aren’t being appropriately recognized by a sick, out-of-control system that desperately needs overhauling.



The address of David Hackworth's home page is Hackworth.com. Sign in for the free weekly Defending America column at his Web site. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts.”
© 2003 David H. Hackworth.

Gunny G's GLOBE and ANCHOR Weblog
by R. W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
Gunny G's...
Marines G&A Sites & Forums!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/gunny.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE STOPPING POWER MYTH, by Mr. Bruce L. Jones

5 November 2003

MILINET: The Stopping Power Myth

By: Mr. Bruce L. Jones

Inland Empire Mensa
copyright - 1994 & 1997

I am about to commit ballistic heresy. I suppose this admission
shouldn't be taken lightly, but feeling my steadily advancing years I am
too old to begin being a hypocrite at this stage of the game. I should
mention that some people I know consider me sane the majority of the
time, but the jury is still out.

I have been reading material written by very earnest people (grandaddy
was named Earnest) for at least thirty years arguing the relative merits
of one size pistol cartridge over another. The argument seems to center
around whether or not someone's favorite caliber will put an end to the
violent and sometimes maniacal attack of one of society's more
disenchanting creatures.

The theory de jure in today's glossier periodicals was developed by a
very sincere man named Evan Marshall who possibly has a pathological
need to help old ladies cross the street. I am not sure where he
acquired this pathogen but keep a firm grip on granny. Because of this
tendency, I feel certain that Mr. Marshall is one sterling fellow. I
would probably feel proud to call him a friend. Also, to his credit, he
comes very close to disavowing any belief in his own theory, stating in
his first book (which he would be happy to sell you) that the most
important component of stopping power is shot placement; but we'll get
to that later.

In his second book, Mr. Marshall - I am told - elaborates on the first
book to a large degree. I have yet to read it. I read the first through
an inter-library loan. The charge for an ILL then was only a quarter. In
their constant search to provide better service, my library has since
hiked the price for an ILL to three bucks. When my curiosity to read
book two of the same stuff contained in book one reaches a three buck
threshold, I'll get it on ILL, too. Until then I am blissfully content
to remain ignorant of the majority of it's contents.

Later on, we will get to a phenomenon of ballistics that no one else
considers; else referring to me. If you are a bright and inquisitive
kind of person, you will then want to find ways to run out and test the
information for yourself. For those somewhat less inquisitive, I'll give
you a method to use that you can do "for free". We will also include
some science of the absurd.

Sabers drawn, we enter the fray. There are two problems I have with
Marshall's basics. 1) His theory. 2) His data. Having said that, let us
elaborate.

Mr. Marshall arbitrarily chose to include data in his findings from
incidents wherein there was only a single fired round solidly striking
the torso. What? How's that? Gee, this - of course - leaves out all
other data. The problem here is that this excludes the majority of the
available information. The kind of data missed in this method is - e.g.
- the first shot fired, the second and subsequent shots fired, if any;
and the reasons for multiple shots being fired. I am not sure if there
are more tidbits being left out, but it seemed to me the first two
considerations should be: "how many shots were fired" and "why were they
fired". The total effect of all of this missing data is not fully
appreciated.

Now, it may be considered academic to exclude first shot misses (I don't
think so) but multiple pops should definitely be counted because the
first shot failed to accomplish the goal, as we will demonstrate. This
omission tends to make some products look better than they actually are.
In some circles this could be said to be deliberately misleading.
Everyone who wishes to be misled about the efficiency of their last
resort personal life saving device, raise your hand. What, none? I
didn't think so.

To take a close look at what I am talking about, lets look at some
make-believe data and some easy to crunch numbers. Lets say that data
collected for the .32 caliber had shown, under Marshall's method, 200
incidents where someone was solidly hit in the torso. Of those, 100 of
the people were hit only once. These were counted, the remainder
excluded (left 100 running amuck, I suppose). Thus, 100 single hits of
200 opportunities occurred and in 50 of those single shots the bad guy
surrendered. This equates to a 50 percent probability of a one-shot
stop. "Probability" is a word I am not crazy about were my life to be at
stake, but we'll get to that later, too.

Well, let's say that the 100 incidents were excluded from the data above
because they were multiple hits to the torso. Let's say, further, that
of those, 75 of the follow-up shots were fired because the first one
didn't phase the attacker (the other twenty-five were just double-tap
advocates). I call this a "failure to stop". This data should be
included. Why, you might ask (if you don't ask the article kinda stops
here)?

Well, if this data is included with the rest then the actual stops are
really 50 out of 175, not 50 of 100. This lowers the "probability" a
considerable degree; to less than 29 percent. By following his method,
Mr. Marshall inadvertently made poor performance appear much better. If
one did not know better, one might wonder if Mr. Marshall owned stock in
Seecamp. If he ever reads this I hope he knows I'm just kidding.

Of course, the better a cartridge performed, the less this particular
phenomena affected their respective data. But, the data are still
skewed. The best calibers still come out on top as the best performers,
but where is the "real data" in the noise? The problem with this last
statement is: it is true. The effect, however, is that it still leaves
in question just where this phantom line of separation lies between the
poor performers who have been accidentally made to look good and the
truly good performers that would actually enhance the probability of a stop.

For a minute, let's stop and consider the term "probability of a stop"
as used in Marshall's context. Few people understand "probability" in
it's actual sense. A reasonable person would look at the above data and,
if he carried a .32, would say, "Well, if the stop probability is 50%,
I'll just shoot him twice and it will be 100%." Wrong. That's "real
world math" not "math-math". With the rules for probabilities
(math-math) you can never get to 100 percent. Huh? What was that? I'll
splain.

If the .32 shows a 50 percent probability of a one-shot stop (sure it
does), then the first shot should stop half of the bad guys, half of the
time. The second shot should stop half of the rest of those that didn't
fall the first time; this makes only 75 percent! The third shot should
stop 50 percent of whoever's still standing hefting the total up to
grand 87.5 percent. And so-on and so-on. Using this method, we need
about four rounds from the .32 right off the top to approach what
Marshall states is the probability for a single round from a .357
magnum. Thus, reality is much more dismal that the bare numbers make it
seem. This becomes immediately worse if one starts with the more abysmal
29 percent rating developed from the multiple hit data.

Now for some fun.

All of this notwithstanding I have another major problem when
considering the data from Marshall's book. Put in the simplest terms,
the data base has no way of correlating the extent - or even if - the
skill of the individual shooter plays in the equation. Considering that
shot placement is the single most important factor in accomplishing a
ballistically inspired stop, the relative skill of the shooters must be
considered if one uses actual "street" data. If you do not, it would
tend to invalidate all of the data. I'll show how.

An example of what I am talking about can be demonstrated with some more
fictional data.

Lets suppose that we create two teams of shooters that will be exposed
to the need for expressing lethal force with a handgun.

The first team, let's call them Team 1, is comprised of 5 ft. tall, 100
lb., 80 year old great-grandpa's with no firearms training other than
basic instruction in how to fire the weapon. We assume that they can see
well enough to acquire the rear sight and have enough physical strength
to eventually pull the trigger with one or more fingers. We are not
entirely sure, they have never fired the weapon. They are armed with the
new H&K Mk. 23 Mod. 0 .45ACP SOCOM semi-automatic pistols loaded with
hardball ammo and carried in their bathrobe pockets. They carry Bugs
Bunny flashlights that their great-grand-kids left during their last
visit. To turn them on (no, the flashlights!), you have to push the
switch forward and bang the side of the lens bezel simultaneously.

The second team, let's call them Team 2, is made up of tall, well
muscled, young female clones of Gina Davis' character in "The Long Kiss
Goodnight". You know, your basic spy/ para-military types with 20-20
vision, each of whom can bench-press a Buick and are completely
impervious to pain. They are all highly practiced and trained;
experienced veteran combat shooters. They are armed with .22LR S&W Model
63 revolvers with the standard 4 -inch barrels and Aim Point Red Dots.
These are loaded with Stinger hollowpoints and carried in tactical
holsters strapped over skin-tight stretch-pants. They shun upper-body
tactical armor with hard panel inserts in favor of Versace t-shirts and
helmets with night and thermal sights built-in.

Now we send both teams onto the street in any of America's more blighted
urban centers on a typical weekend with instructions to secure their
respective areas. Naturally, they both have an unlimited supply of
ammunition and batteries.

Team 1 is involved in 40 incidents. They were able to actually discharge
their weapons in 27 of them. A remarkable 22 actually hit their targets.
Of these, 20 were torso hits; primarily love-handle perforations. They
experienced a total of 5 one-shot stops, all fired in their team's
classic stance; eyes closed with the weak side index finger in the
weak-side ear and the index and middle finger of the strong hand on the
trigger. Range averaged about 40 yards. A total of 27 rounds of
ammunition was expended.

Team 2, on the other hand, also had 40 incidents - in the first hour.
Each was a one- shot stop to the brain-case of the perpetrators. In each
instance the range was approximately 2 yards and firing was from the
isosceles stance. Having frightened off all other inhabitants in their
area they spent the remainder of the weekend target practicing on urban
self-propelled high-mobility targets (rats, dogs and cats). Team 2
expended a total of 3000 rounds of ammunition.

By the above example we can see that what everyone already knows is
proven beyond a doubt. The lowly .45 ACP is only a 25 percent one-shot
stopper and the amazingly effective .22 LR is a 100 percent one-shot
stopper!

Now, I don't know about you, but if Team 2 does that good with .22
caliber revolvers, then I'm gonna run right out and buy a Ruger auto
pistol with a politically correct 10 round capacity so that I can be
perfectly protected against at least 10 bad-guys, right? And the H&K,
forget that. Who would want such an abysmal performer?

The examples provided by the experiences of teams one and two serve to
illustrate the importance of the skill, training and physical
capabilities of the shooter in the stopping power debate. These are
perhaps the most important factors of all.

At this point I ask myself, "Is there anything left out". Well, some
other fine folks like to ponder the effects of mass versus energy. I
think the eventual outcome is probably similar to the stopping power
index Marshall developed. I do know that one factor is observed and
seldom measured. For lack of a better term, I like to think of it as a
"radial pressure wave". This radial pressure wave is a very real
phenomenon that is characterized by a "wave" or cyclic series of
pressure that is radially dispersed from the point of ballistic impact,
perpendicular to the path of projectile trajectory. I first thought of
it hunting feral hogs.

I happened upon a particularly corpulent porker one day and placed a
solid hit with a large magnum caliber projectile just behind his front
shoulder. I also noticed that, almost immediately, a cloud of dust flew
off his back, as if he had given a mighty shudder. I don't think he
shuddered though as he just looked at me through his one-side eye as if
to say, "Huh?". He was unimpressed. He turned to look at me, then fell
over dead. I wondered about the dust cloud though, and sort of mentally
filed it away. Some years later, it would resurface in an unexpected way.

Fast forward to the Viet Nam war. Near the end of the war ( having
served my time) I was working - at the time - in an Army Depot helping
to assess battle damage of equipment that returned from the zone. There
I stood one fine afternoon surveying the side of a shelter (for
non-military types this is a camper-like box used in military trucks to
house all manner of portable facilities). There was a large impact hole
through-and-through the side. I was observing the entry side. The hole
was probably the result of a dud artillery shell that passed through
without exploding. It was large enough to stick my hand through,
probably made by about a 75mm. What caught my attention was the damage
caused by the impact. There was, for sure, the hole. But what was
different was that the entire aluminum skin was rippled and many of the
rivets that held it to the frame around the edges were popped loose. I
immediately thought the damage caused by some time of ripple effect
radiating from the center of impact.

When the skin was finally peeled back from the side of the shelter, some
of the interior ribs also had partial ripples and buckles radiating
outward from the center of impact. The damage was much more than what
would have been expected from just the material being displaced from the
path of the projectile. I began to ponder other examples I had seen of
this and I remembered my hog years before. Now I see the effects of this
pressure wave in almost every ballistic impact I examine (some materials
are so resilient it isn't observed). It is also three dimensional. It
travels forward along with the projectile. It is coincident with the
sound wave, but is more. The addenda is that pressure is increased
proportionately to the velocity and mass of the projectile. The
frequency of the pressure wave also fluctuates with changes in velocity
and mass. The frequency of the pressure wave is also altered by the
specific gravity of the object being struck. Material of differing
densities resonate at differing frequencies in response to the pressure
effect.

All of the ballistic test media used by modern researchers shows the
effects of this pressure. Water, wet newsprint, phone books, sacks of
flour, melons and the standby ballistic gelatin all reveal it. The
observable after-effect is now called the "crush cavity", either
temporary or permanent. The crush-cavity is only the after effect.
Radial Pressure Wave is the cause. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure it out. If one looks at the crush cavity in ballistic gelatin
what you are observing is the physical evidence left behind by the
pressure wave traveling through the material.

If you want to ponder the effect and waste a little time here's what you do:

Gather up two sacks of pebbles. One sack should contain pebbles of
approximately a quarter inch in diameter. The other sack should contain
pebbles of about three-quarters of an inch in diameter. Don't be too
picky, size doesn't matter all that much. Retire to your favorite
swimming hole with appropriate refreshments and make yourself
comfortable. Drop one small pebble into the test media (the water) and
observe the ripples that evenly radiate outward from the center of
impact of your projectile (the pebble). This is the pressure wave.

Now repeat this procedure with one large pebble. Notice that the
resultant wave has a different appearance, or "signature" than the waves
created by the first pebble. Repeat this procedure, alternating between
large and small pebbles. Observe that with the different size pebbles
the height and distance between the little waves that they cause is
different with each, yet consistent among like-size pebbles. This is the
observable frequency of the pressure wave.

Now vary the experiment. Launch more pebbles downward, still alternating
size, but increase the introductory velocity by increasing the launch
momentum (throw them harder). As you do so, you will notice that the
frequency signature of the pressure waves change in a dramatic and
noticeable manner. They become higher and closer together. The pressure
waves also move through the test media with a noticeably greater
velocity between frequency spikes.

If you have chosen your refreshments carefully, after a while you will
be able to accurately predict the effect of the introduced projectiles
on the test media and the frequency of the pressure wave that will
result by varying the size of the projectile and the launch velocity.

Now, most people would be satisfied at this point. But, if you want to
pretend to be a scientist you can conjure up ways to test this
phenomenon even further. First, begin by varying the specific gravity of
the test media. Gradually increase the density. When the media becomes
dense enough to stand without support, stand it on it's side and place
pressure sensors all around it and feed the data they obtain into a
computer. The main problem with this is that the media will eventually
become too dense for you to penetrate by just throwing the pebbles by
hand. You may want to devise some kind of pyrotechnic-like method for
launching the pebbles so that they will penetrate the test media. In
fact, you may eventually want to switch from pebbles to something else.
Perhaps small, metallic pellet-like objects.

What might be gained from this? Well, if enough experimenting is done,
you may eventually discover that an optimal destructive pressure wave
exists for any given test media that induces some kind of sympathetic
resonance with only a certain mass and velocity of projectile. Or not. I
might conduct the research myself someday if I can find a benefactor to
fund it. Imagine, I could discover the perfect mass and velocity of
projectile that would create a pressure wave that would be 100%
effective in stopping an attacker. Or, I could find a hand gun I can
shoot well and practice, practice, practice.

--------------
end

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines
Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
~~~~~~~~~~

VETERANS HISTORY PROJECT

TJC home to war veterans' project

By Shalina Ramirez - Progress News Writer

They write of yearnings to be reunited with the loves they left behind.

They speak of a sense of community developed between strangers, joined together under some of the most harsh conditions to support a common cause.

And they relive the memories of experiences taken place on foreign soil.

Tomorrow, Americans across the country will once again band together to honor them for their dedication and willingness to risk life and limb.

They are the Veterans of War.

"I was wounded almost immediately," said Jacksonville resident and World War II veteran Hugh Neeld.

It was May, 1945, and the war in the Pacific was drawing to a close.

Neeld, then 16, had dropped out of high school and joined the Navy.

"All the young fellows at that age were anxious to get in," he said. "We all wanted to be a part of something important, and of course we were."

Neeld was assigned sea duty and shipped out immediately aboard the U.S.S. Indra, a small auxiliary repair ship, which was en route across the Pacific to join a fleet off the coast of Okinawa.

"The morning of May 11, there was a kamikaze attack," he said in a written statement. "I was frantically passing clips of shells to Bobby [Bowman, a crewman from Beaumont, TX] when something hit my helmet with enough force to knock me off my feet. My ears were ringing. I couldn't focus my eyes.

"Blood on my life jacket told me I'd been hit. From what seemed a great distance, I could hear people screaming for a Medic. Then I passed out.'

The carrier Bunker Hill, the ship which the U.S.S. Indra was closest too, had been hit by two kamikazes and a piece of shrapnel from the explosion had gotten inside his helmet, Neeld said.

"I had a bad scalp laceration," he said. "Bobby got hit too, but his injury, like mine, was minor."

Both men were taken by a small boat to the hospital ship, Hope, anchored outside the battle zone, Neeld said.

"I spent most of the time on board a ship in a hospital," he said. "Then that fall, they dropped the atom bomb and the war was over."

Never Forgetting

Neeld's experience is just one of dozens of war stories recently collected and video taped by Tyler Junior College to be contributed to a national archive maintained by the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress.

The archive, known as the Veterans History Project, was created in October 2000 as a means of chronicling the stories and memories of America's war veterans before the opportunity passes.

"There are 19 million war veterans living in the United States today, but every day we lose 1,700 of them," the project's Web site stated.

The Veterans History Project records experiences from World War I, World War II, and the Korean, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf wars. It includes all participants in those wars - men and women, civilian and military.

The project also documents the contributions of civilian volunteers, support staff, and war industry workers as well as the experiences of military personnel from all ranks and all branches of service, including the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, U.S. Coast Guard and Merchant Marine.

Currently, more than 800 VHP partners across the country, including TJC, are helping to recorded stories and memories of war veterans.

TJC, through it's Seniors College division of its School of Continuing Studies, announced its plans to participate in the national effort last spring, but wanted to focused squarely on veterans.

"There are many veteran throughout East Texas and their storied and life experiences are a treasure we must not let slip away," Bobbye Rucker, TJC Seniors college coordinator, said in a released statement.

The college's interviews began Sept. 8 and concluded Oct. 10.

Neeld was among the more than 100 area veterans to visit the college.

"I think it's, number one, was a great idea," he said. "I was proud to participate in it."

Interviewees who participated in the TJC project will also be honored during a, "Tribute to Veterans," ceremony scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Wise Auditorium on the college campus, located on Mahon Avenue.

"The public is invited to join us as we recognize veterans who have served in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam war and Desert Storm," Rucker said. "We appreciate the service of the veterans, and we are grateful that so many of them have shared their memories with us and recorded them for the history project."

Neeld said he is looking forward to the ceremony and meeting other veterans who too part in the project.

"We're looking forward to a good turnout," he said. "Of course, it will be nice to be recognized."

Fred Peters, TJC's director of marketing and public information, said the video taped interviews will be submitted to the Library of Congress following the ceremony.

"The stories of these men and women are incredible," Rucker said. "This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for memories to be open to the world and for posterity."

Those wanting more about the Veterans History Project can visit HERE!!!!!. To read or listen to submitted stories or experiences, visit HERE!!!!!.

Shalina Ramirez may be reached via email to citybeat@jacksonvilleprogress.com.

Copyright © 2003 Jacksonville Daily Progress
~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~