On 19 Jul 2004 00:04:17 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 15 Jul 2004 20:57:04 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

He went to Congress, stood before the
US Senate and said that you and he had been guilty of war crimes. That
you had all committed atrocities. That you were rapists, baby-killers
and violators of the Geneva convention. Would he be exhibiting
"honesty to admit it"?


What if everything he said was true? Would that not be honest and
courageous?

You create a straw man. If everything he said were true, it would have
been a failure at all levels of leadership to fulfill their
obligations as officers and NCOs. If we all had committed atrocities
at all levels of command and he was the single moral voice it would be
honest and courageous. Of course, that was not the case, either in my
metaphor or in the testimony of Lt. Kerry.

No. You created teh strawman yourself with your implication that he
was speaking literally. Everyone, including yourself, knows that he
was not speaking literally.

One fervently hopes that testimony given under oath to the US Senate
is always literal. Speaking figuratively about issues, particularly
issues as important as allegations of war crimes should NEVER be done
figuratively. I take Kerry's testimony under oath as literal and I
take his statement on Face the Nation regarding his own commission of
war crimes as truth. Why would I doubt his veracity?


Abu Ghraib was reprehensible. It was clearly a failure of leadership
on site.

It was a failure of leadership from the top down. When the Secretary
of Defense re[peatedly and boldly decalres that the United States
will not honor the Geneva Conventions, when he publically scoffs
at accusations of abuse, he sends a clear message on down the line.

Once again we see the strawman. While the principle of responsibility
flowing from the top down is correct, the implication that the
President is responsible for every act of the the entire military
establishment down to the lowest enlisted individual in the field is
impossible to support. In the absence of clear written directives to
act in the manner of the Abu Ghraib guards, one must assume that the
problem was localized.

It was also an aberration. It is not and should not be
construed as representative of American behavior in combat.

Agreed. But it is an aberration that was fostered and encouraged
at the highers levels of our government.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion. There has been publication of the
legal opinion statement that suggested a level of detachment from
Geneva Convention rules, but the whole story is that the opinion did
NOT result in an acceptance of that policy.

Consider the following letter written On 4 Aug 1863, From William
Tecumseh Sherman wrote, to John Rawlins, which read in part:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism. I have endeavored to repress this
class of crime, but you know how difficult it is to fix
the guilt among the great mass of all army. In this case I
caught the man in the act. He is acquitted because his
superior officer ordered it. The superior officer is acquitted
because, I suppose, he had not set the fire with his own hands
and thus you and I and every commander must go through the war
justly chargeable with crimes at which we blush.

Sherman said "war is hell." Lee, however, said "it is good that war is
so terrible, lest we come to love it too much." Aristotle said that
"war ennobles man." Putting service above self and recognizing that
there are some principles that are worth fighting and dying for is
basic.

I agree with that but disagree that is is apropos this discussion.

Well, duh! If you introduced the Sherman letter, why should the topic
of war and the relationship of warriors be inappropriate. It isn't my
dog in this hunt, it's yours.


Now, after looking up to see what sorts of things Kerry REALLY said,
and the context in which he said them, would you not consider that
context to be much the same as General Sherman's remarks?

No, I would not. Sherman spoke of an incident and a failure of an
officer to perform.

No. I do have an advantage in that I already knew that Sherman wrote
the letter as part of the correspondence he sent with three officers
(not one) he sent back for court martial for (I think) three seperate
crimes. However I also redirect your attention to the first sentence:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism.

So, Sherman had sent the officers back for court-martial, in the same
manner that the Abu Ghraib perps have been brought under
investigation. Does that mean that Lincoln condoned war crimes?

Sherman was writing about what was happening through out his army,
not an isolated incident. Kerry did what Sherman said he wished
to do. Kerry quit and then renounced the drift into vandalism that
was overtaking the military in Vietnam.

The big difference is that Kerry quit (good choice of words) and then
accused the ENTIRE US military establishment from the top down and
including every warrior in the field of advocating and executing a
policy of war crimes.

There were other differences of course. Sherman was fighting for
the survival of the nation, and he was fighting and winning a war
that clearly could be won, and was being won, by military means.

Kerry not only occupied a lower station in the military, but he
also saw that the survival of the US was not at stake and that
the war in Vietnam could not be won by military means. The US
had prevailed almost to the greatest extent possible in every
military endeavor in Vietnam and still the end of the war was
no where in sight.

So, Kerry could occupy a "lower station in the military" but he could
view the global strategic picture and determine that the war could not
be won? How very prescient of him.

You state correctly that the US prevailed in every military endeavor
(the great Tet victory of the NVA for example was a huge military
defeat for them). And, the end of the war was in sight within two
weeks at any time that the likes of Kerry could be overcome and the
resolve to gain the victory could be mustered by the politicians.
Witness the rapid end to hostilities, the signing of the treaty and
the release of the POWs in less than 90 days following December '72.

Kerry spoke of a generic ignoring of the rules of
war, not only tolerated by leadership but condoned and even directed.
That was a lie.

I do not believe that it was a lie. Cite an example where an
allegattion of war crimes was promptly investigated without an
extensive, even illegal effort to cover-up or obstruct the
investigation.

Calley/Medina. Or, how about the Turkestan incident since this is an
aviation group?


My real issue with Kerry is his desire to have it both ways. He sought
public approval for protesting the war vigorously. That was well
within his right to do so. Now, he seeks approval for being a great
warrior. Those are mutually exclusive positions.

No they are not mutually exclusive positions. Moreover they represent
the truth of his experience. Impetuous, even egotistical (and what
politician is not?) he first believed the bull**** and lies about
the glory of war and the righteousness of the cause, and perhaps
there was at one time some truth to that. But once he saw with his
own eyes the reality of Vietnam, and had at his disposal knowledge
gained form his fellow soliders he learned differently, came home,
and tried to fix the problem he had contributed to befor.

You state elsewhere that you turned 18 in 1973. So, you didn't see
with your own eyes the "reality" that Kerry saw. I was there in '66
and I was there again in '72-'73. I continue to associate with
literally hundreds of warriors from the period--USAF/USA/USN/USMC. Not
one of them agrees with Kerry. His view of the total corruption of the
military is his alone. Kerry's "fellow soldiers" from the Winter
Soldier testimony--the 150 accusers of war crimes--have been largely
discredited. Many have been found to be outright liars, some did not
serve at all!

Are not all great warriors anti-war in their hearts.

Actually no. I'm fortunate enough to know many warriors. They are
patriots in their hearts and they take great pride in the profession
of arms.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8