Canales News Briefs

August 6, 2004

"...In battle, a leader's most awesome responsibility

is that his orders frequently mean the difference

between living and dying. I have ordered soldiers

to fight more times than I care to think about and

seen too many good men die.

Adm. Boorda's suicide has once again reminded

me of the possible grave consequences of our

actions.

I pursued the story because for a soldier or sailor

there's no greater disgrace than wearing unearned

valor awards. Combat ribbons--awards for which so

many brave warriors have bled--are the ultimate

status symbol to warriors. They bring a special

recognition and respect.

And with military leaders, from corporal to four-star

rank, there's a larger issue: integrity. The very

bedrock of any military organization is honor,

doing the hard right over the easy wrong and

standing tall in everything that's done.

Midshipmen at Annapolis, cadets at West Point,

the Air Force Academy, all the ROTC's and other

officer-producing schools in the land are taught

the code, ' I will not lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate

anyone who does.'

These sacred rules don't only apply to cadets,

NCO's or junior grade officers, but to every leader

who wears the uniform, from cadet to general,

midshipmen to admiral.

In recent years, there's been an epidemic of

violations of these rules, many by senior officers.

These offenses range from lying under oath to

stealing to misusing government property...

So I chased the story because I believe the feet of

the top brass must be held to the fire just as well

as those of the youngsters. They especially must

set an honorable example, and integrity is not

negotiable. It's the price an officer or NCO pays...

During the Vietnam War, generals and admirals did

not act with virtue. They lied and deceived about the

course of the war, not only to the President and

Congress, but to the American people. As a result,

a generation of young Americans was doomed.

Adm. Boorda was a caring leader who genuinely

looked after his sailors. But by wearing false

awards, he lived a lie. He was not true to himself...

-Col. David Hackworth (USA-Ret),

in an article titled "Death Before

Dishonor", which commented

on the suicide of Admiral Mike

Boorda, 21 May 1996

"...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...

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 heroe's

valor and the meritorious deeds by those hard-

working supporters who bring up the rear-- has

never been exactly fair..."

-Col. David Hackworth (USA-Ret),

in an article entitled "Medalgate",

on the continuing problem of

"awards inflation" in some of the

military services, 30 September 2003

"...Now a number of war veterans have picked the

campaign-stumping season to question the first

Purple Heart that Democratic presidential candidate

John Kerry received during his four months as a

small-boat skipper-- where one day out on

Vietnam's rivers and canals was a lifetime, and

four months had to have been an eternity.

That Purple Heart was one of three awarded to

Kerry. (He also won Silver and Bronze stars.).

His critics--who incidentally never served on his

swift boat--are saying his particular wound wasn't

serious enough to warrant the award.

But Pentagon regulation governing the Purple Heart

reads: ' A wound which necessitates treatment by

a medical officer and which is received in action

with an enemy.'

So--minor or major--a wound is a wound.

Does that fact cheapen the value of the medal?

During the ongoing conflict in Iraq, several U.S.

military grunts have complained to me that while

their bravery has gone generally unrecognized,

the awards system has been unfairly tipped in

favor of officers. In fact, I've written about an

Army general who put himself in for a Silver Star

for merely being in Iraq. And an Air Force bomber

crew received the Distinguished Flying Cross for

dropping a bomb from 30,000 feet onto a home

where Saddam Hussein was believed to be

hiding...

The awards system has always been fraught with

abuse, but for anyone who has ever served in

combat, the difference between earning a Purple

Heart and death is, indeed, very slim.

Former Navy Doctor Louis Letson clearly recalls

treating Kerry and removing a small piece of

metal from his arm with forceps, bandaging that

wound and returning him to duty. And when Kerry

was hit, he was certainly engaged with the enemy

and in harm's way...

Reports say Kerry was an aloof, gung-ho,

super-ambitious, young stud whose eye was

already on the White House and whose role

model was Navy war hero Jack Kennedy. Like

a lot of soldiers and sailors who valiantly

served in Vietnam, he was eager to come home,

but probably just as eager to scoop up the

golden gongs that came his way. It's also worth

noting that medals for officers were especially

prized as magic steppingstones that could

help propel the recipients onward and upward...

But I do think that Kerry's Purple Heart wouldn't

be considered problematic if he weren't a

presidential candidate. The grousers, to a man,

seem to be simply passing on secondhand

bilge that they ought to stow in their sea bags

and lay off.

The Purple Heart deserves less petty quantifying

and more respect.

No one should play politics with any warrior's

wounds..."

-Col. David Hackworth (USA-Ret),

in an article entitled " The

Meaning of a Purple Heart",

15 June 2004

"...According to Kerry's Silver Star citation, Kerry was

in command of a three-boat mission on the Dong

Cung River. As the boats approached the target

area, they came under intense enemy fire. Kerry

ordered his boat to attack and all boats opened

fire. He then beached directly in front of the enemy

ambushers. In the battle that followed, the crews

captured enemy weapons. His boat then moved

farther up the river to suppress more enemy fire.

A rocket exploded near Kerry's boat, and he ordered

to charge the enemy. Kerry beached his boat 10

feet from the rocket position and led a landing

party ashore to pursue the enemy.

Kerry's citation reads: ' The extraordinary daring and

personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a

numerically superior force in the face of intense

fire were responsible for the highly successful

mission.'

Here's what (John) O'Neill and the Swiftees say:

'...According to Kerry's crewman Michael Madeiros,

Kerry had an agreement with him to turn the boat

in and onto the beach if fired upon. Each of the

three boats involved in the operation was

involved in the agreement.' O'Neill writes that one

crewman even recalls a discussion of probable

medals.

Doug Reese, a pro-Kerry Army veteran, recounted

what happened that day to O'Neill:

'...Far from being alone, the boats were loaded

with many soldiers commanded by Reese and

two other advisors. When fired at, Reese's

boat--not Kerry's-- was the first to beach in

the ambush zone. Then Reese and other troops

and advisors (Not Kerry) disembarked, killing

a number of Viet Cong and capturing a number

of weapons. None of the participants from

Reese's boat received Silver Stars.'

O'Neill continues: ' Kerry's boat moved slightly

downstream and was struck by a rocket-

propelled grenade...A young Viet Cong in a

loincloth popped out of a hole, clutching a

grenade launcher, which may or may not have

been loaded...Tom Belodeau, a forward gunner,

shot the Viet Cong with an M-60 machine gun

in the leg as he fled...Kerry and Medeiros (who

had many troops in their boat) took off, perhaps

with others, and followed the young Viet Cong

and shot him in the back, behind a lean to.'

O'Neill concludes ' Whether Kerry's dispatching

of a fleeing, wounded, armed or unarmed

teenage enemy was in accordance with the

customs of war, it is very clear that many

Vietnam veterans and most Swiftees do not

consider this action to be the stuff of which

medals of any kind are awarded; nor would it

even be a good story if told in the cold

details of reality. There is no indication that Kerry

ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and

fleeing when dispatched. Likewise, the citation

simply ignores the presence of the soldiers and

advisors who actually ' captured the enemy

weapons' and routed the Viet Cong...[and] that

Kerry attacked a 'numerically superior force in the

face of intense fire' is simply false. There was

little or no fire after Kerry followed the plan...

The lone, wounded, fleeing young Viet Cong

in a loincloth was hardly a force superior to the

heavily armed Swift Boat and its crew and the

soldiers carried aboard..."

-Drudge Report article covering

certain, including eyewitness,

accounts of a battle for which

John Kerry was awarded the

Silver Star, 5 August 2004

To All,

While it seems that the issue of wounds in a combat zone, and any Purple Hearts associated with them, are best left for discussion by veterans that have "been there and done that", it would seem of more than passing interest to the voters to find out whether the Junior Senator from Massachusetts has somehow laid claim to the glory which more properly may belong to others. Surely Col. Hackworth could agree with that, given his previously punctilious position on the matter.

In other news:

Who's Next Update:

Carl Limbacher and the staff at Newsmax.com are reporting on testimony to Congress by Chief U. S. Weapons Inspector Duelfer.

According to the U.K. Guardian (yes, that UK Guardian) was the first to report Duelfer's testimony to Congress in March of 2004 that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons development program in place up until the invasion of March of 2003.

Also, with the capture of the al-Tuwaitha nuclear facility by Coalition troops it was discovered that Saddam had some 500 tons of uranium yellow cake, similar to the material that was previously discounted as a matter of interest to Saddam by former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Newsmax reports that some 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium was removed by the U.S. Department of Energy from the al Tuwaitha facility for storage in the United States. Independent sources quoted by Newsmax indicate that 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium is enough to produce at least one nuclear warhead.

Also being reported is a series of contacts between Iraq and North Korea to address Saddam's desire to have a credible IRBM threat. Duelfer also testified that Iraq was in negotiations with the North Korean government to obtain a ballistic missile with a range of some 1300 kilometers (780 miles), one which could cover a large number of targets in the region.

Given this recent disclosure, and Richard Clarke's previously "unshakeable" belief from as far back as 1998 that Saddam had VX nerve agent (as noted in the 9/11 Commission Report- That is why the Clinton Administration launched cruise missiles at the Sudanese aspirin factory), the case for war based at least upon an Iraqi pursuit of nuclear weapons is a little bit more tenable. Given the chance to construct centrifuges and other enrichment equipment from "dual use" sources in Europe and Asia, Saddam was in possession of enough material to have been of enough concern to the region's other leaders as well as that of the U.S. (Either that, or President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abd Allah of Jordan were just trying to pare back some of the "competition" in the region, if what they told General Franks prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom has any weight).

In any case, the Newsmax story is also important in that it describes as to how Saddam was using some of the money from the Oil-For-Food scandal. He was using it to more than double military expenditures right under the noses of the UN inspectors during the 1996 to 2003 time period.

In other words, going to war in Iraq was the only way to pre-empt an Iraqi re-armament, much as what should have been done to pre-empt German re-armament under the Versailles Treaty by the European powers of the early 20th Century. Sanctions did not work because of the baksheesh that Saddam was able to spread around the international community, and the Europeans had continued to refuse to develop the force projection capabilities that should go with their global responsibilities as an economic superpower.

Given that the Democrat Presidential nominee has decided to make the President's handling of the war on terrorism, including the Iraqi invasion, the Schwerpunkt of Campaign 2004, it would seem that such little details as the actuality of an Iraqi Manhattan Project are of relevance in the current debate. But if further little "surprises" pop up, it may just be that Kerry will only be left with his smile (such as it is) and his birthday suit to campaign with. Stay tuned.

Story may be found at:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

SFVMC-NRA