best mil+aviation writers?

On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:53:31 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:


Ed, the number of personal accounts that aren't self-serving attempts to re-write history can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Otherwise, there
would be no reason to write them.

Can I assume that one of those fingers is for WTR and you've got one
left over for Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights? If you can find some
self-service there or some revisionism, I'm ready to take my hits.

I agree that Broughton in "GD" is an extreme example of a man with a chip on his shoulder, and 'methinks he doth
protest too much'. However, since we once spent a long time discussing your attitude towards Broughton's actions as opposed to, say, Fred Tracy's
private jaunt into China with you in tow, and we know we disagree, there's no point in rehashing old arguments. Actually, in "WTR" you seem to have
come moved much closer to my point of view on Tracy.

The essential difference between Broughton and Tracy is that Broughton
engaged in a cover-up and lied point-blank to his superiors when
caught. Tracy may have reached too far in our China incursion, and I
certainly didn't like being endangered unnecessarily for that purpose,
but he didn't falsify or prevaricate.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:53:31 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:


Ed, the number of personal accounts that aren't self-serving attempts to re-write history can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Otherwise, there
would be no reason to write them.

Can I assume that one of those fingers is for WTR and you've got one
left over for Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights? If you can find some
self-service there or some revisionism, I'm ready to take my hits.

My point was that ANY personal account, no matter how big an attempt is made to be objective, will by its nature be somewhat self-serving. Virtually
everyone sees themselves through a favorable filter. As for revisionism, don't your accounts conflict with and therefore potentially revise other
accounts, official or otherwise? 'Revisionism' is the whole point of 'history' -- if you've got nothing new to add to the existing accounts (which may
cause those accounts to be revised), then why bother?

I agree that Broughton in "GD" is an extreme example of a man with a chip on his shoulder, and 'methinks he doth
protest too much'. However, since we once spent a long time discussing your attitude towards Broughton's actions as opposed to, say, Fred Tracy's
private jaunt into China with you in tow, and we know we disagree, there's no point in rehashing old arguments. Actually, in "WTR" you seem to have
come moved much closer to my point of view on Tracy.

The essential difference between Broughton and Tracy is that Broughton
engaged in a cover-up and lied point-blank to his superiors when
caught. Tracy may have reached too far in our China incursion, and I
certainly didn't like being endangered unnecessarily for that purpose,
but he didn't falsify or prevaricate.

Because he didn't get caught. None of you volunteered the information that Tracy knowingly threw the RoE out the window, even though every single one of
you knew that what you were doing was wrong. Not to mention he violated an international border for no better reason than he wanted to get another MiG -
he apparently didn't care whose MiG, nor the potential harm his actions might cause to the U.S. (would have been interesting if any of you guys had been
shot down and captured) - he was on a purely personal junket to add another Mig to his bag, which couldn't possibly be worth the potential harm, and which
had absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing the mission you guys were sent to do. I call that reprehensible behavior, and if anyone deserved being
court-martialled and cashiered, it was Tracy. Unless you have changed your mind, and now believe that it's okay for the military in a democracy to make
policy rather than carry out the policy of the civilian government?

Guy

On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:23:28 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:


My point was that ANY personal account, no matter how big an attempt is made to be objective, will by its nature be somewhat self-serving. Virtually
everyone sees themselves through a favorable filter. As for revisionism, don't your accounts conflict with and therefore potentially revise other
accounts, official or otherwise? 'Revisionism' is the whole point of 'history' -- if you've got nothing new to add to the existing accounts (which may
cause those accounts to be revised), then why bother?

Whoa...that's an incredible stretch from "self-serving and
revisionist" to now a contention that once someone writes a history
that anyone subsequent will be revisionist. Large complex events get
observed from a number of perspectives. If I write my memoir, which is
my experience from my point of view, my squadron commander writes his,
the wing commander writes his and the SecDef writes his, are we then
necessarily in some sort of revisionism squabble? You seem to suggest
a better view of the NFL game of the week if there is only one camera
angle.

Why bother? Why answer your grandchild when they ask "what did you do
in the war, Grandpa?" (BTW, I don't have children, so that is strictly
a rhetorical artifice.)

The essential difference between Broughton and Tracy is that Broughton
engaged in a cover-up and lied point-blank to his superiors when
caught. Tracy may have reached too far in our China incursion, and I
certainly didn't like being endangered unnecessarily for that purpose,
but he didn't falsify or prevaricate.

Because he didn't get caught. None of you volunteered the information that Tracy knowingly threw the RoE out the window, even though every single one of
you knew that what you were doing was wrong. Not to mention he violated an international border for no better reason than he wanted to get another MiG -
he apparently didn't care whose MiG, nor the potential harm his actions might cause to the U.S. (would have been interesting if any of you guys had been
shot down and captured) - he was on a purely personal junket to add another Mig to his bag, which couldn't possibly be worth the potential harm, and which
had absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing the mission you guys were sent to do. I call that reprehensible behavior, and if anyone deserved being
court-martialled and cashiered, it was Tracy. Unless you have changed your mind, and now believe that it's okay for the military in a democracy to make
policy rather than carry out the policy of the civilian government?

There's a huge stretch between "policy-making" and tactical maneuver.
To court-martial and "cashier" someone who has a thirst for the battle
is a sure route to a politically correct, but undeniably defeated
military. The difference between Tracy and Broughton is that in one
instance, a specific act was proscribed and briefed in detail. When
his troops acted in violation and were discovered, he destroyed
evidence, lied to his superiors, violated his oath of office and
failed to do his duty. In the other, no ordinance was expended, no
injuries were inflicted or sustained, no lies were told and the
incursion quite arguably could have been little other than a
navigational error in an area far from supporting nav aids and with
plenty of room for flexibility.

It was a privilege to fly with Fred Tracy, to fly in Fred Tracy's
squadron and to know him as an officer and a leader. Fred Tracy never
lost a wingman in combat during that tour (and neither did I), and our
squadron suffered remarkably low losses in a period in which other
units flying the same mission were decimated.

That is neither self-serving nor revisionist. It's simply the truth.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:23:28 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

My point was that ANY personal account, no matter how big an attempt is made to be objective, will by its nature be somewhat self-serving. Virtually
everyone sees themselves through a favorable filter. As for revisionism, don't your accounts conflict with and therefore potentially revise other
accounts, official or otherwise? 'Revisionism' is the whole point of 'history' -- if you've got nothing new to add to the existing accounts (which may
cause those accounts to be revised), then why bother?

Whoa...that's an incredible stretch from "self-serving and
revisionist" to now a contention that once someone writes a history
that anyone subsequent will be revisionist. Large complex events get
observed from a number of perspectives. If I write my memoir, which is
my experience from my point of view, my squadron commander writes his,
the wing commander writes his and the SecDef writes his, are we then
necessarily in some sort of revisionism squabble? You seem to suggest
a better view of the NFL game of the week if there is only one camera
angle.

Not at all. I'm simply saying that accounts are bound to conflict, depending on the perspective of the individual. there is usually an 'official' version, or
at least a generally accepted version, which is subject to revision when new information becomes available. Often such info radically changes our perspective
on events; sometimes, an individual looks at the data in a new way, and can demonstrate (or at least argue) that the Emperor has no clothes, contradicting the
accepted version. To take an extreme example, consider the effect of the declassification of ULTRA on the accepted versions of World War II; Don't you
consider the major re-analysis of events brought on by that to have revised much of the history that had previously been the accepted version? ISTM that you
view revisionism as a pejorative term for those who seek to grind ar particular axe; I consider it the normal course of historical research.

Why bother? Why answer your grandchild when they ask "what did you do
in the war, Grandpa?" (BTW, I don't have children, so that is strictly
a rhetorical artifice.)

See above.


The essential difference between Broughton and Tracy is that Broughton
engaged in a cover-up and lied point-blank to his superiors when
caught. Tracy may have reached too far in our China incursion, and I
certainly didn't like being endangered unnecessarily for that purpose,
but he didn't falsify or prevaricate.

Because he didn't get caught. None of you volunteered the information that Tracy knowingly threw the RoE out the window, even though every single one of
you knew that what you were doing was wrong. Not to mention he violated an international border for no better reason than he wanted to get another MiG -
he apparently didn't care whose MiG, nor the potential harm his actions might cause to the U.S. (would have been interesting if any of you guys had been
shot down and captured) - he was on a purely personal junket to add another Mig to his bag, which couldn't possibly be worth the potential harm, and which
had absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing the mission you guys were sent to do. I call that reprehensible behavior, and if anyone deserved being
court-martialled and cashiered, it was Tracy. Unless you have changed your mind, and now believe that it's okay for the military in a democracy to make
policy rather than carry out the policy of the civilian government?

There's a huge stretch between "policy-making" and tactical maneuver.

"Tactical maneuver" is maybe violating the buffer zone a bit to avoid the SAMs and flak, while going downtown to drop bombs on his assigned target. Tracy
wasn't doing anything of the sort.


To court-martial and "cashier" someone who has a thirst for the battle
is a sure route to a politically correct, but undeniably defeated
military. The difference between Tracy and Broughton is that in one
instance, a specific act was proscribed and briefed in detail. When
his troops acted in violation and were discovered, he destroyed
evidence,

Yes.

lied to his superiors,

No, he didn't. He didn't volunteer information, nor did he answer the question they meant to ask when he knew they really meant to ask another. When they
finally asked the right question, he answered it truthfully.

violated his oath of office

Tracy didn't?! He deliberately violated the RoE and invaded the airspace of another country which we weren't at war with, not to accomplish his mission, but
for purely personal ego gratification. And he dragged three other pilots along with him, and risked them too.

and
failed to do his duty.

Just as every single one of you did in not reporting Tracy's deliberate border violation. As did all the people at Abu Ghraib who failed to report the abuse.
Broughton, at least, was trying to protect some of his own pilots from an error they'd made in the heat of the moment while doing their duty (i.e., prosecuting
their assigned mission). He could have turned them in, refusing to become complicit in their apparently unintentional error. Instead, he tried to protect his
men, even at the risk of his own career, when he could easily have stood aside and thrown them to the wolves. Of course, it's entirely possible that there was
an element of self-interest here; even if he'd followed the book and busted them, it could be that some of the stink would have rubbed off on him (not to
mention Bob Scott) and affected his chances for promotion.

None of that applies with Tracy. His violation of the RoE and the border was neither unintentional, nor an error, nor did it have anything to do with his
assigned mission. In addition, he knowingly involved his subordinate officers in his own insubordinate behavior, which definitely would have adverse
consequences on their careers if it had ever come out other than from one of them at the time. Is this an accurate summary of the situation?

While I think that both men were wrong, I know which of the two's actions I consider more reprehensible.

In the other, no ordinance was expended, no
injuries were inflicted or sustained,

Fortunately for you guys, or you would have had to lie through your teeth to explain the ordnance, and the survivors would have been figuratively hung, drawn
and quartered by your superiors if any of you had been shot down in China.

no lies were told and the
incursion quite arguably could have been little other than a
navigational error in an area far from supporting nav aids and with
plenty of room for flexibility.

Oh, bull****, Ed! You told me (and your account in WTR agrees) that you knew perfectly well where you were, as did Tracy and the other members of your flight;
when you asked him, he said he'd gone there deliberately hunting for MiGs. He made the rest of you complicit in his disobeyment of orders for purely personal
reasons. By not turning him in you and all the other pilots in the flight failed to do _your_ duty, and condoned his illegal act. Every one of you knew
perfectly well that you'd be up to your necks in **** if you told the truth as to where you'd been, let alone why you'd been there, so none of you volunteered
the truth in your debrief, and lied instead. Is that a correct statement of the facts?

It was a privilege to fly with Fred Tracy, to fly in Fred Tracy's
squadron and to know him as an officer and a leader. Fred Tracy never
lost a wingman in combat during that tour (and neither did I), and our
squadron suffered remarkably low losses in a period in which other
units flying the same mission were decimated.

That is neither self-serving nor revisionist. It's simply the truth.

Sure. None of that changes any of the above facts. AFAIR Broughton didn't lose a wingman either (although he could have to flak or AAA), and I have yet to
hear from anyone who flew with him that didn't respect him as an officer and a leader. Obviously, my knowledge is hardly exhaustive; I lack personal knowledge
of the man nor have I talked with anyone directly who did so, but the accounts I've read by Hoblit and Wilson among others seem to respect him as both man,
officer and leader. We both agree that he's got a chip on his shoulder. Next time you see him, why don't you ask Tom Wilson (or anyone else who flew with him
in that period) for his opinion on Broughton direct?

Guy