|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
February 14th 04, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:52:25 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:47:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG. While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and maintaining operational readiness. What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to brush up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops who deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that lost *eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful about pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you feel it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were given in that conflict. I don't have beef with the Army Guard, but since it was a period that I lived through and am very familiar with, I'll point out that the Army Guard required six months of active training, followed by four years Ready Reserve service. It was a haven for folks with low lottery numbers or before the lottery with a high probability of selection such as those with expiring deferments as they graduated from college. First, if you check your facts I think you will find that the obligation was for a total of six years, active duty and RR combined. Second, that "haven" provided more personnel to Vietnam than the ANG, and a whale of a lot of AC Vietnam vets returned to serve in that "haven" as well. I think you need to relax a bit. The fact is that the great majority of ARNG units during the Vietnam war were a sanctuary for folks who didn't want to get drafted into the active duty Army. The large proportion were minimally trained back-fill units. It was official policy during the Johnson administration that Reserve and Guard units were not called up. The budgeting priority was to equip active duty forces and that meant large numbers of NG and Reserve units (all components) were under-equipped or fitted with obsolete or obsolescent equipment. There is no doubt that Guard and Reserve personnel were called up, the proportion of Army Guard and Reserve personnel that were called or were even vulnerable was exceptionally low. The Army Guard accepted people even when they had received a draft notification. I believe the other services did as well. That is true. No disagreement there. The training requirements were exceptionally low and the maintenance of accurate drill records for lower rank, unskilled members was virtually non-existant in many units. Really? And this compared to the record keeping in the ANG exactly how...? It compares to the difference between rated aircrew (remember the discussion has been about GWB's service) and basic trainee grads, most of whom didn't even complete combat arms qualification. Their units were low priority and the poorly equipped. This is not said in any sense to demean the service of the few Army Guard units that were activated and served with honor. Gee, I guess they just chose the "honorable ones" huh? The others lacking in that quality, by your description? Don't go looking between the lines or under rocks for insult. There is none intended. The sentence says that few Army Guard units got the call. It does not state or imply that those who didn't get activated were any less honorable nor does it suggest that not all that were called were honorable. And, it should be noted, that the Army Guard and Reserve units today have a much higher standard of readiness and a much more rigorous drill/training schedule including a lot of activations and NTC deployments. Yeah, and none of them got activated for Korea, Berlin, etc., either, right? What's that smell....red herring? Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. Doesn't relate to what we were talking about. By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time specialists, Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have a good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water. I simply stated that since flying ANG units were often tasked with active Air Defense Command missions, they did have lots of full-timers and lots of training opportunity. ARNG units, with poor equipment, parts of combat support units, and low priority did not have a lot of full-timers, didn't have a lot of training opportunity, and didn't maintain a high state of readiness. had operational air defense responsibilities and conducted much more frequent operations. The F-100 ANG units did a lot of SEA deployments. Ever heard of Nike Hercules? care to guess who was running most of that system at the same time you claim the ARNG was just not up to the exalted level of the ANG? Yes, I've heard of Nike Hercules. When I was growing up in Chicago, the lakefront hosted a large number of Nike Ajax installations manned by Reserve units. Where were all of these Hercules units in '66-'73? How many states had them? I'm not sure it relates to the large number of ARNG personnel that had low levels of mission tasking. But, I'm available to be convinced. An interesting editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Bob Ewegen who points out that if GWB were trying to "dodge the draft" his choice of an obligation with two years of intensive training, a clear linkage to deployed elements flying the same aircraft and a total of nearly five years of continuous service, he made a poor choice. He could more easily have done six months of basic in a ARNG unit and gone home. So now you are claiming that the amount of active duty training is related to ones level of honorable service? Gee, what about all of those *enlisted* ANG troops who went to basic and AFOS school and then went back home? We are still talking about GWB's service. Another herring on the table. Did you go to the link and read the article? It is balanced and addresses both Bush and Kerry's service. It makes some good points and suggests the issue shouldn't be "mine is bigger than yours" but what the candidates bring to the country for leadership potential. You were doing pretty good in these arguments...right up until you had to bite into the old, "Well, the ANG is of course oh-so-much more professional, and of course occupied by more dedicated and honorable men, than the ARNG" crap. Brooks I didn't say that, so don't interpret. I said that during the period of the '60s and up until the end of the war, the ARNG suffered from a lack of funding and mission in a lot of states. It was, as a matter of policy, not going to be deployed to the war. Don't seek to be offended. If I wish to do so, you won't have to dig deep to find the insults. They'll be right up top. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 
|
|
#32
February 14th 04, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#33
February 14th 04, 09:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A maintainer who only does his monthlies
and 2 weeks is nowhere near as skilled as one who does it full time. When the ANG flies aircraft during the week the part timers are not there to fix them. Just what would you do with an aircraft flown on Saturday that has a malfunction that will take 4 days to fix? That's why the full timers are there. I have seen 3 day repairs turn into 5 day repairs because they kept changing the persons doing the job. This is not an attempt to slam the Guard's maintainers, but 64 days a year is not enough to keep your skills up. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Well you can compare the rates of aircraft having mishaps and mechanicals, of the ANG and active duty, and you might be surprised. Guard F-16 mishap rates I believe are quite a bit lower than active duty. Guard pilots probably do not fly 64 days in a year too, except the full timers and "guard bums" Ron Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
|
|
#35
February 15th 04, 01:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Kevin Brooks" "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time specialists, Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have a good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water. A maintainer who only does his monthlies and 2 weeks is nowhere near as skilled as one who does it full time. When the ANG flies aircraft during the week the part timers are not there to fix them. Just what would you do with an aircraft flown on Saturday that has a malfunction that will take 4 days to fix? That's why the full timers are there. I have seen 3 day repairs turn into 5 day repairs because they kept changing the persons doing the job. And the Army Guard also has a larger contingent of FTM personnel to handle aviation maintenance. Beyond that you would have been comparing apples and oranges in terms of trying to claim that the ANG was more professional because they had more FTM personnel than the ARNG units. An infantry company of that era did not need a bevy of FTM personnel in order to maintain its level of professionalism--the one, two, or three FTM personnel it typically did have were sufficient (I say were because the advent of more advanced and heavier systems for that former leg infantry company, now mounted in the rather complex M2 Bradleys, has resulted in a greater need for FTM maintenance support in the OMS shops). This is not an attempt to slam the Guard's maintainers, but 64 days a year is not enough to keep your skills up. But when your equipment was likely limited to two or three deuce and a halfs and a few M151 jeeps, those few FTM maintainers that were available at that time, backed by the M-Day folks, were indeed sufficient. Brooks Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
|
|
#36
February 15th 04, 05:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:52:25 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:47:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG. While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and maintaining operational readiness. What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to brush up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops who deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that lost *eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful about pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you feel it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were given in that conflict. I don't have beef with the Army Guard, but since it was a period that I lived through and am very familiar with, I'll point out that the Army Guard required six months of active training, followed by four years Ready Reserve service. It was a haven for folks with low lottery numbers or before the lottery with a high probability of selection such as those with expiring deferments as they graduated from college. First, if you check your facts I think you will find that the obligation was for a total of six years, active duty and RR combined. Second, that "haven" provided more personnel to Vietnam than the ANG, and a whale of a lot of AC Vietnam vets returned to serve in that "haven" as well. I think you need to relax a bit. The fact is that the great majority of ARNG units during the Vietnam war were a sanctuary for folks who didn't want to get drafted into the active duty Army. The large proportion were minimally trained back-fill units. Your comments could just as well apply to *all* of the reserve components, not just the ARNG, so why single the ARNG out? And that "sanctuary" had its share of combat vets who returned to join the Guard, not to mention those Guardsmen who had been serving for years before Vietnam was even a blip on the radar screen (and were therefore not dodging anything). Why you do this, I can't fathom--what is your point in making such claims? And what is a "minimally trained back-fill unit"? Never heard of one myself. It was official policy during the Johnson administration that Reserve and Guard units were not called up. Until Johnson changed his mind in 68 and called up some 23K Guardsmen, another 6K USAR troops, 4K USNR Seabees, and an unknown number of USAFR personnel (from what I have found, four tac fighter groups and an airlift wing)--somewhere in the neighborhood of around 40K reservists, altogether. The budgeting priority was to equip active duty forces and that meant large numbers of NG and Reserve units (all components) were under-equipped or fitted with obsolete or obsolescent equipment. Now that part you have right, to at least some extent. But the ARNG arty units that were called up and deployed to Vietnam did have the same equipment that their AC counterparts had at the time, as did a large part of the ARNG's arty force at the time. The same can be said for the engineer units. There is no doubt that Guard and Reserve personnel were called up, the proportion of Army Guard and Reserve personnel that were called or were even vulnerable was exceptionally low. Lower than it should have been (had the JCS had their way earlier), yes. But the fact remains that thousands were called up, and a large part of those that were found themselves rather quickly located in either Vietnam or Korea (which at the time was a rather hot spot, at least for the ground troops in the northern part of the ROK where firefights with the infiltrating NK's were a not uncommon event). By all accounts the Guard units that deployed, both ANG *and* ARNG, acquited themselves quite well. The only sore point on the ARNG side was the fate of the higher level units (the mobilized infantry brigade(s)), which did indeed find themselves broken up as sources of individual replacements. Two reasons for this--the short duration of the call-up period did not allow a lot of time for higher echelon collective training (and as you did some time with the old 4th ID, you know what I am talking about--even the AC units have a problem getting in enough collective training at the BDE and higher levels; then MG Paul Funk, commanding an AC armored division out of Europe during ODS, lamented the fact that his division's brigades had virtually *no* collective training experience at that level before they set foot in Saudi Arabia). And two, the shortage of replacements in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive and resultant US counteractions. The Army Guard accepted people even when they had received a draft notification. I believe the other services did as well. That is true. No disagreement there. So what was the point of the statement? The training requirements were exceptionally low and the maintenance of accurate drill records for lower rank, unskilled members was virtually non-existant in many units. Really? And this compared to the record keeping in the ANG exactly how...? It compares to the difference between rated aircrew (remember the discussion has been about GWB's service) and basic trainee grads, most of whom didn't even complete combat arms qualification. Their units were low priority and the poorly equipped. Where do you get the idea that ARNG troops did not complete their AIT's? This is not said in any sense to demean the service of the few Army Guard units that were activated and served with honor. Gee, I guess they just chose the "honorable ones" huh? The others lacking in that quality, by your description? Don't go looking between the lines or under rocks for insult. There is none intended. The sentence says that few Army Guard units got the call. It does not state or imply that those who didn't get activated were any less honorable nor does it suggest that not all that were called were honorable. If that is the case, fine; but I wonder why you used the term "notorious" in an effort to set the ARNG aside from the ANG in the comment that caught my attention in this thread. And, it should be noted, that the Army Guard and Reserve units today have a much higher standard of readiness and a much more rigorous drill/training schedule including a lot of activations and NTC deployments. Yeah, and none of them got activated for Korea, Berlin, etc., either, right? What's that smell....red herring? Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. Doesn't relate to what we were talking about. My point was that those previous Guard units did indeed get activated for real world requirements, and did indeed perform their assigned missions, so the alleged wide gap in capabilities (versus contemporary requirements) of the ARNG then versus the ARNG now escapes me. By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time specialists, Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have a good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water. I simply stated that since flying ANG units were often tasked with active Air Defense Command missions, they did have lots of full-timers and lots of training opportunity. ARNG units, with poor equipment, parts of combat support units, and low priority did not have a lot of full-timers, didn't have a lot of training opportunity, and didn't maintain a high state of readiness. I don't think you can make such a blanket statement. Indeed, some ARNG units were better, and better equipped and supported, than others--the same is evident today (witness the FSP program that identified higher priority units for resources in favor of lower priority units). Which is why the Army and ARNG initiated the SRF program during that timeframe, to identify those selected units that were to be given additional resources such that they would be ready for immediate activation and quick deployment. So what you REALLY had was the same heirarchy of rich-to-poor that we have always had in the reserve components, ANG included (note that the ANG F-16 community has also demonstrated haves/have-nots symptoms rather recently, when some units had the latest blocks and PGM delivery capabilities while others did not; again, not a new issue, as it was not all that long ago that IIRC some ANG units were still flying the F-86 while the first F-4's were going to other units). had operational air defense responsibilities and conducted much more frequent operations. The F-100 ANG units did a lot of SEA deployments. Ever heard of Nike Hercules? care to guess who was running most of that system at the same time you claim the ARNG was just not up to the exalted level of the ANG? Yes, I've heard of Nike Hercules. When I was growing up in Chicago, the lakefront hosted a large number of Nike Ajax installations manned by Reserve units. By Guard units, actually; the USAR did not own any missile batteries in ARADCOM. Where were all of these Hercules units in '66-'73? 1964-65 saw the last ARNG Nike Ajax batteries replaced by Nike Hercules. The ARNG had operated about one-third of the Ajax force (some 50 batteries) in 1960. When the switch to the more capable (and longer ranged) Hercules was completed in 1965, the ARNG had 48 batteries standing alert, guarding 18 areas under ARADCOM control. It appears the ratio of Guard to AC battereis remained largely the same, with the ARNG controlling about one third of the Herc force; as the force drew down, the ARNG represented a growing chunk of the Herc force. The Hercs left the Guard in 1975, leaving the last four remaining batteries (AC) to serve in the Miami/Homestead AFB area until the early eighties. How many states had them? Sixteen. Interesting history of ARADCOM at http://147.71.210.21/vigilant/Default.htm (and BTW, related to an earlier thread on the 75mm Skysweeper AAA, this site confirms that the last of those weapons was retired from its CONUS defense operations in 1960). I'm not sure it relates to the large number of ARNG personnel that had low levels of mission tasking. But, I'm available to be convinced. An interesting editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Bob Ewegen who points out that if GWB were trying to "dodge the draft" his choice of an obligation with two years of intensive training, a clear linkage to deployed elements flying the same aircraft and a total of nearly five years of continuous service, he made a poor choice. He could more easily have done six months of basic in a ARNG unit and gone home. So now you are claiming that the amount of active duty training is related to ones level of honorable service? Gee, what about all of those *enlisted* ANG troops who went to basic and AFOS school and then went back home? We are still talking about GWB's service. Another herring on the table. But for some odd reason you think the way to build Bush up is by tearing the ARNG down, so you post stuff like the above, which does indeed ignore the fact that most enlisted ANG personnel *also* returned home after completing their basic and AIT (or whatever the USAF/ANG calls AIT). So the writer could just as well have said "enlisted in the ANG" as opposed to "enlisted in the ARNG", OK? Did you go to the link and read the article? It is balanced and addresses both Bush and Kerry's service. It makes some good points and suggests the issue shouldn't be "mine is bigger than yours" but what the candidates bring to the country for leadership potential. You were doing pretty good in these arguments...right up until you had to bite into the old, "Well, the ANG is of course oh-so-much more professional, and of course occupied by more dedicated and honorable men, than the ARNG" crap. Brooks I didn't say that, so don't interpret. I said that during the period of the '60s and up until the end of the war, the ARNG suffered from a lack of funding and mission in a lot of states. Lack of funding did not make them "notorious", nor did it make the ARNG a "haven" for draft dodgers (or at least not anymore than the other resercve component forces, or in some ways for that matter the USAF and USN, which as you acknowledged took their share of guys who had received notices). It was, as a matter of policy, not going to be deployed to the war. That policy being shattered by the 68 call-up. Don't seek to be offended. If I wish to do so, you won't have to dig deep to find the insults. They'll be right up top. I am not digging. I don't know if you just did not think before you typed, or what, but you have tried to delineate the ARNG from the other reserve components, with little success when one considers the points offered. It served no purpose towards the debate in question. Brooks Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8
|
|
#37
February 15th 04, 10:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:26:21 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote: The pay records indicate his whereabouts throughout his service. The relevance of my statement is that during the period from 1970 to 1975, from the start of "Vietnamization" the requirement for pilots was drastically reduced. Had GWB wanted out of his commitment, he could have had it for the asking at any time. Ed, if had done so, what would have been the result? Would he have been transferred to non-flying duty in the ANG (which is essentially what happened, by all accounts), would he have been transferred to a different Guard unit, or would he have been transferred to the inactive reserve (which, again, is essentially what happened for the last six months of his six-year requirement)? In the local cocktail party circuit, there are only three of us who served in the military: one as a draftee, one as draftee who became RA in order to go to language school, and one who went in as Enlisted Reserve--to wit, six months active duty followed by a supposed hitch in the reserves. Not one of the three of us ever attended a reserve meeting after we got out of the army, though all of us was assigned in theory to a duty station in case we were called back (at one time, I was supposed to report to the American consul in Frankfurt--yes, certainly!). all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
|
|
#38
February 15th 04, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is a matter of record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972), where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among other things, disciplinary reasons. Please recognize the ARPC is neither a correctional facility or a disciplinary barracks. If sent for discipline, there would be evidence of either court-martial proceedings or non-judicial punishment (Article 15). Neither of these have been revealed. This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of the Texas Air Guard. If Bush had turned up at Denver, they wouldn't have known what to do with him. This was in all likelihood a coven of clerks in a strip mall office building, shuffling dusty records and from time to time issuing a honorable discharge. (Mine had my name spelled wrong.) all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
|
|
#39
February 15th 04, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cub Driver" wrote in message news  It is a matter of record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972), where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among other things, disciplinary reasons. SNIP This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of the Texas Air Guard. Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things, disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody) which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army equivalent could explain. As I wrote in an earlier post, there is a discrepancy between the separation dates for GWB as between ARF/ARPC and NG Bureau, which at one time listed GWB's commitment as ending May 26, 1974; this date held reign until about October, 1973, when GWB was transferred to the inactive reserve. Date of his separation per Denver is Nov 21,1974. If Bush had turned up at Denver, they wouldn't have known what to do with him. This was in all likelihood a coven of clerks in a strip mall office building, shuffling dusty records and from time to time issuing a honorable discharge. (Mine had my name spelled wrong.) No intent to slander, just hasty typing. GWB's *assignment* to ARF is even now the subject of some discussion. Was it that, as you relate, he "was no longer available to attend" TANG meetings (but if so, was he nonetheless accepting payment for his service-time? If he were doing so, he would have been a "ghost-payroller"); or was there another reason, such as balking on his flight physical, which led to his grounding (July, '72), i.e., a sanction for not fulfilling that obligation ( his record does not suggest much activity for the last two years of his enlistment). As will be recalled, GWB began to skip drills in (approx) May, '72; did not report for his flight physical in July, '72; his *records* were transferred to ARF/ARPC in Sept/Oct '72, when he began to receive ARF points; his separation is recorded as Nov 21, '74.
|
|
#40
February 15th 04, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:07:18 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard" wrote: Snip The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a choice not an obligation. The issue is not whether anyone managed an "honorable release", but whether GWB managed to actually physically serve his complete tour, or was paid while not performing is reserve function. Can you read my lips. During two full years of training, GWB was FULL TIME active duty. During the next 18 months he pulled operational alert in the TANG. During the last six months before release, he was assigned to Montgomery at Dannelly Field which was in the process of conversion from RF-84s to RF-4Cs. His assignment there was to NON-FLYING duties (he wasn't qualified in the Phantom nor trained as a reconnaisance pilot.) The unit in transition did not have aircraft available at the time. How, then, was this situation considered "equivalent training"? As for your invitatin to read your lips: thank you but no, thank you. I am not yet prepared to accept you as being some sort of oracle. To repeat, the issue is whether GWB received pay although he failed to carry out his Reserve obvligations? Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand. Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience combat (and losses) in other aircraft types. I stand corrected to an extent, as I did not clearly enough state my meaning. The context, however, was supplied by the Colonel, who recounted the way things were with a specific NG, the TANG. I should have emphasized that factor more clearly. In any event, by the time GWB finished his type-training in the F-102, there was a greatly diminished demand for their services with active-duty squadrons, and his service does not withstand comparison to that to which modern-day units can often be subjected. You have an interesting way with words. My service "does not stand comparions to that which modern-day units can often be subjected" either. That's a meaningless requirement. How can service in the present be compared to the unknown of what service might be like in the future? Thank you. You have an interesting way with words, as well. Modern-day NG units are far more thoroughly integrated into the active forces, and in general, far better-trained than, say, TANG was, during the time under discussion. You are merely muddying the waters by mention of "meaningless requirement" (how does that follow, anyway?). As the Colonel went on to give context, TANG was rather informal in his day. There were only two aircraft types in the entire USAF that were not operated in SEA, the F-106 and the B-58. Every other aircraft in the inventory was "able to play a role in the fighting." Again, by the time GWB qualified in the F-102, that a/c type was no longer in great demand in the war zone. So, now we are demanding prescience? How does one know when starting a two year training program leading inevitably to qualification in a combat aircraft that in two years the type will no longer be in great demand in the war zone????? If you will please stick with the issues being addressed, you will easily understand. Prescience is not required now; nor was it then. (I never claimed that GWB was prescient, btw. You have no grounds for suggesting that I have done so.) For goodness' sake, let's try to keep this a civil, adult discussion and avoid gratuitous insults, etc. And let's stick to issues, OK? In any event, by the time GWB qualified in F-102s the type was no longer in great demand, as the Colonel, in his letter, did relate, because as he remembers it, the F-102 "...could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Viet Nam". Furthermore, the Colonel relates that a volunteer ANG program, PALACE ALERT, "...was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved unsiutable to the war effort..." These are hardly remarks consonant with yours. By late 1970, the USAF and USN were drawing down training requirements for aircrews significantly. Production of pilots and navs for AF was reduced from more than 5000/year to around 3000. (I was the director of Air Training Command undergrad flying training assignments at the time.) Releases from service commitments in '72-'74 were common. Was GWB released early from his service commitment? Or was he required to make up for missing about six months' time of service, instead? I have seen no indication that GWB requested early release from TANG. Read today's newspaper. I have done so. Did you read yours, with care? Or did you read it with blinders on? A 69-yr-old former TANGer claims that he passed the time with GWB during a period of time in ALA; however, his recollection of events is out of plumb with the President's own records. Pay records? Not necessarily useful, as the charge is that GWB went AWOL (or at least massively reneged on his commitment; if true, the neat pay-records demonstrate that he was a goldbrick or a ghost-payroller. The USN training program at Pensacola in late '71 had a blood-letting in which 400 trainees were released from pilot training, some of them within two weeks of graduation and receipt of their wings. Interesting but completely irrelevant to the issues uner discussion. I can see no connection between that state of affairs and the issue at hand: whether GWB actually properly fulfilled his service commitment and was legally paid for doing so, or not, that is, was GFWB a "ghost payroller" who performed no duties yet was credited therefore and still got paid to boot. The pay records indicate his whereabouts throughout his service. No, not necessarily. They indicate only whether or not and if so, when he was paid; they do not tell us whether he actually performed services in return for the money, or give any certain indication of GWB's whereabouts. The relevance of my statement is that during the period from 1970 to 1975, from the start of "Vietnamization" the requirement for pilots was drastically reduced. Had GWB wanted out of his commitment, he could have had it for the asking at any time. OK. No indication so far, that I know of, has popped up to suggest that GWB asked for an early "out" altogether from the reserves. First, note that UPT takes more than a year. Survival, operational training and unit check takes another year. During that entire time, you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy. I never questioned any of that, as it is irrelevant to the issues at hand. I am looking for answers to explain GWB's absences. The Colonel made the above perfectly clear. I join those who applaud the intrepid GWB for completing his training. However, again, that is not the issue. GWB failed to complete a required flight physical (July, 1972) after going operational on the F-102, for which he was suspended and grounded from TANG aviating (August, 1972). His records from TSNG show no actual duty after May,m 1972. (Mastrer Personnel Record, Form 712). His flight physical omission was at the time of his reassignment to Montgomery where he was not going to be on active flying duty. It is a matter of record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972), where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among other things, disciplinary reasons. Please recognize the ARPC is neither a correctional facility or a disciplinary barracks. If sent for discipline, there would be evidence of either court-martial proceedings or non-judicial punishment (Article 15). Neither of these have been revealed. Sigh. A military person may be disciplined, may he not, by punishment or corrective measures which do not comprehend either physical restraint or jailing? And so disciplined for infractions calling for neither court-martial nor Article 15 proceedings. Neither drills nor attendance were required, however. GWB accumulated only ARF points during the time in question. As far as I know, ARF duty is not counted by TANG as "official duty" with TANG. So it appears that GWB did serve faithfully for three years (approx), then less than 30 days during a fourth year, and apparently no service (ARF duties not being counted by TANG) during the last two years of his commitment. Duty is duty. You are either on duty or you are not. If the ARPC posting was a duty assignment, then the time would count with TANG. Confess now, you're really making this up aren't you? Why don't you check with TANG to learn for yourself whether ARF/ARPC credits were so counted by TANG? BTW, I have nothing to confess to you. Your tone, however, is becoming increasingly smug and offensive. Such is not called for. Duty, btw, is not always duty; the discussion in fact is about whether GWB actually fulfilled his duty at a given time, or if not, was he merely a ghost-payroller for a number of months, ranging from 12 to 18. Note also that public service and volunteerism is a prerequisite for public office. Virtually everyone seeking a career either in high level executive jobs or elective office will volunteer. GWB's service with Project PULL tells you nothing beyond that. Believe me when I tell you this, Mr. Rasimus, but with respect, you are Wrong. During the election campaign of 2000, I, for one, was impressed to learn that the son of a wealthy Texas oilman/war hero/ambassador had taken on volunteer duty in the ghetto portion of Houston. You may recall that a powerful element of that election was the question of Integrity. GWB's work with PULL at a minority youth center suggested to me something more than standard volunteerism, as his work location and the intent of the program seemed to me to indicate a willingness to give of oneself--even if maybe at some personal risk--something lacking, perhaps, in the other guy. Consequently, when rumors surfaced and suggestions were persistently made that this community service was not quite what it seemed, I became concerned. I am wrong in my statement? Reread it (or have a friend read it to you). Yes, in my opinion, you are wrong. And once again, you have needlessly resorted to pejorative and offensive language. I sincerely suggest that you try to reign yourself in. I uinderstrand that you may be emotional about GWB. However, your increasingly aggressive tone and attempts at sarcasm are unworthy of a respected military veteran and author. You agree with me in your response, until you get to the last sentence, which indicates that you place great credence in "rumor" and "suggestions were persistently made" (don't you just love the non-attibution of passive voice??) Now you are "concerned"? Now you are the rumor monger and suggester! Actually, I probably don't agree with you to any great extent. Passive voioce has nothing to do with it, Ed. I, however, am blessed with sufficient humility that I routinely qualify any statement which I believe needs qualification; I learned to do so in grammar school. I "monger" no rumors and make no suggestions. But I do read things other than internet NGs and speak with people who, somehow, don't always agree with my point of view. My concern made its way into a posting on this NG. My objective is to seek answers so that I might better inform my vote in this year's election. In 2000, it came down, for me to a matter of demonstrated integrity. I gave GWB some credit for having performed community service, in person, in a Houston ghetto youth center. As a voter, I have every reason to be "concerned" and I don't understand how cannot seem to understand that. Gimme a break. Every base I served on in 23 years of military tactical aviation had a corrections facility. That doesn't mean I was imprisoned. ARPC is primarily a PERSONNEL headquarters. It is a huge office complex. That's its job. ONE of its jobs, yes. Recall, however, that Discipline does not always encompass eithere physical restraint or custody. It can also encompass reduction in rank or loss of pay. None of this is supported by any credible evidence. I never suggested that GWB was disciplined via either lost pay or lost rank; read my post again, please. That physical was 1972. Mandatory drug testing was instituted in '74. Was that in the NGuards or in the active USAF? Use of banned substances can be revealed by flight physicals. So, when did TANG institute drug-testing? I wasn't in TANG, but the requirements for a flight phyical are the same across components. I was on flight status from July '64 through June '87. During those 23 years, I was never tested during a flight physical for banned substances. Drug testing was done separately and handled independently. The first drug testing I can recall was 1974, but it was not done in a flight physical. The annual physical is scheduled, drug testing was random and "no notice." The state of drug test discrimination at that time would make it no problem to "clean up" 72 hours before the scheduled physical making it virtually useless. You seek more to distribute innuendo and suggestion than really to seek answers. Again, with respect, Mr Rasimus, Wrong. I have not created any of the rumors or made up any of the suggestions that are extant. I have become aware of them and have posted to the newsgroup with reference to them. My motivation is that I seek answers; and as I stated in my earlier post, the President can and should refute his critics by supplying convincing explanations. I value my vote, inconsequential as it alone might be. You do not apparently sincerely seek answers because you refuse adamantly to acknowledge when you are corrected either by someone with experience or first-hand knowledge or simply with regard to the logic of your rhetoric and subscription to rumor and suggestion. I decline to accept your corrections because I do not class you with the Oracle of Delphi; your expreinces are wonderful and I am happy for you. But just as with the Colonel quoted in the message which began this thread, who wrote certain passages which were not suported in your reply, you are hardly infallible. To repeat, I do not "subscribe" to "rumor" and "suggestion". But why do I need to automatically subscribe to all your opinions as to questioins on the NG? And why do I not have the right to posit an opinion with which you do not agree? The Guard Colonel who knows what he's talking about provided you with answers. I've just provided you with answers. Will you believe any of them? The Guard Colonel, just as with you, can only provide answers within the ambit of his knowledge. Whether the answers are complete and believable is other issues. Again, I can only reiterate that Mr Bush can clear up all issues by providing a full accounting of his service at the time and by refuting the rumors about his use of cocaine. See today's newspaper for full service records. Then, since the Guard Colonel and I have both served for more than 20 years each as rated AF pilots in tactical aircraft type, the (g)ambit of our knowledge certainly covers the issue in question. Have done so. Sorry, but so far, not much light shed (hmm... released on a holiday weekend, but that's OK, I'm not paranoid ). Nonetheless, you and Colonel Campenni disagree. Try re-readinig the note which initiated this thread, quoting a letter to a newspaper editor, again. Both of you very accomplished men have served with distinction; yet despite the similarities of your backgrounds, you do not agree on the utility of the F-102 for combat operations in Viet Nam. One of you must be wrong--which? Which of you has the ambit of knowledge including the correlation of GWB's service records with his actual whereabouts? Can you explain why the account by GWB's contemporary who claims to have made shop-talk with him during the time in question does not jibe with the "official record"? Let me ask about your background and ability to credibly refute our experience. Where and when did you serve? Guard or active duty? Rated or non-rated? Type aircraft qualified? Familiarity with out of career field postings? Educational level? Political experience? Affiliations? In the first place, Ed, I am completely uniterested in "refuting" either you or your experience. I think you have perhaps inadvertently done that in your reply to my post, which quoted the Colonel's original letter. That's not what I seek. I have never served in any of the US armed forces. And I have never claimed to have done so. But then again, whether I served is not the issue, although you appear to be trying to make that the focus of the discussion, apparently in hopes of winning debating points. Again, let's try to stick to the actual topic under discussion. My education (ample), political experience (history of participation), and affiliations (personal, and private) also are irrelevant to the actual discussion. Neither my vote nor my contribution to this thread on the NG is a function of my having served or not. Furthermore, your service record is completely useless to an observer in determining whether or not GWB ditched his commitment. Nah, you won't go there will you? See above, Ed. BTW, IIRC, Newsweek, during November(?) of last year, featured an article focusing on GWB's mother, in which she expressed that she had been terribly concerned over the allegations which had been made over her son's alleged use of the banned substance. I had no role in that, certainly. So, mom says she is concerned when the media, political opponents, etc, make allegations (please look up the definition of "allegation") about drug use. My mom would be concerned as well. So would yours. What's the down side of that report? It seems normal and natural. It also doesn't indicate that there was any truth to the allegations. It has been my pleasure to have corresponded with a number of authors over the years, either via snail-mail or e-mail. In general, these contacts have been civil, mannerly and polite, even as, for example, an Australian scholar/referee was pressed for time, but nonetheless responded rationally and logically to a query I'd sent him. Would that you could be so civilized, Ed.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
