DUBYA'S WING MEN (in case you missed it, he volunteered for Vietnam)

February 19, 2004, 8:55 a.m.
Dubya’s Wing Men
The lessons of Vietnam were different for Bush and Kerry.

Why are the president's supporters so defensive whenever the President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard comes up? Does the fact that John Kerry fought in Vietnam, and George Bush didn't, make Kerry a better wartime leader?

Some of the hyper-libs are saying that Bush's service in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron was the equivalent of draft dodging. They're also saying — and the too willing media are buying — the idea that Senator Kerry's combat experience would have to make him a better wartime president than Bush. Both points are false. The real issue is what did each of them learn in the Vietnam days, and how those lessons shape their present-day thinking.

First, let's dispense with the idea that Bush was some sort of chicken hawk, hiding in the National Guard while others risked their lives. According to four of the pilots who flew with him, then-Lieutenant George W. Bush was a better-than-average pilot who did a dangerous job very well.

If all you know about flying fighters was learned watching Tom Cruise in Top Gun, you can be forgiven for thinking it's nothing but reckless fun, hard drinking, and a steady stream of beautiful girls. (That's only what the jet jocks want you to believe). The reality is that it's a hazardous business that will kill you — long before any enemy gets the chance to — if you aren't up to the job. My college roommate, retired Air Force Colonel Ed Atkins, flew fighters for 20 years. Ed told me, "Anybody who thinks that flying fighters is not exhausting physically, demanding intellectually, and tough emotionally just has no clue about the complexity of air combat." He added, "I've flown check rides as everything from a second lieutenant to a colonel. The [flight examiner] doesn't give a damn if your dad was George H.W. Bush, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jesus or Moses. The only question is, 'can you hack the mission?'" And it's harder to do in some aircraft than others. Dubya had the right stuff.

Retired Col. Bill Campenni was one of President Bush's squadron mates. The Texas ANG had the F-102, and probably wished it didn't. According to Campenni, "The F-102 was underpowered and, unlike modern fighters, had a split front view through the canopy. It literally had a bar down the center, so you'd have one eye on each side of the bar. It also had a built in altimeter error of up to 500 feet, which made it interesting when you were at 500 feet out over the ocean at night." Flying and training in the '102 was a dangerous job that required a lot of smarts and flying skill.

Bob Harmon is another of Bush's former squadron mates. At the time, Harmon was an instructor pilot. He remembers Bush as a "young, affable guy" and an above-average pilot, very good for his level of experience. "We flew together two or three times a month." It was dangerous duty. Harmon said that a couple of pilots were killed in F-102 accidents while Bush was there.

The first American jet fighters to be deployed to Vietnam were F-102s of the 509th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. When Lt. Bush signed up for fighters and joined the 111th FIS, he stood ready to deploy to Vietnam, as did every other Air National Guard pilot. In fact, he tried to volunteer for Vietnam.

Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the inexperience didn't prevent Bush — along with Bradley — from going to their squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called "Palace Alert." "There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to Vietnam. Joe Glavin, another member of Dubya's squadron said, "There were always a core of the guys who were the "in guys" and [Bush] was in the middle of it...George's difference was that we all knew that his daddy was rich and that he was smarter than the rest of us." Smarter? "I don't understand where [people saying Dubya is a dummy] comes from." Glavin explained that because their squadron was an active duty squadron, they always had two aircraft — armed and fueled — standing on the taxiway on what is called "plus five" alert. From the time the horn blows, until the time the aircraft was wheels-up on takeoff had to be five minutes or less.

Glavin said, "When we had to sit alerts, there were two pilots, and two crew chiefs that sat out in the alert barn. George was like everybody else, except while George was over in a corner reading somebody's autobiography, the rest of us were watching Hee Haw."

Glavin remembers Bush as a pilot who had learned good judgment, not a Hollywood hot dog. He told me of one night when the two were on alert and were scrambled to run a practice intercept over the Gulf of Mexico. Bush went out long and high, and turned back at supersonic speed. Glavin also went supersonic and then his radio failed. At that point, the two F-102s were approaching each other at a combined speed of about 1,800 miles an hour. At 20 miles — about 45 seconds before the paths would cross — Bush broke off the intercept. "We went to debrief with the controller and the controller said to George, why'd you break off the intercept? George said something to the effect of '[here] we're coming at each other at 1,800 miles an hour and he doesn't have a radio and you expect me to just sit there?' He said, 'we're not doin' that.'"

When you fly fighters with any squadron, you're literally betting your life on your pals' flying skills, just as they are betting it all on yours. Bush's old squadron-mates have the same confidence in him now they had when they flew with him. Bradley said, "I've always thought he was an intelligent, likeable, level-headed person." According to Glavin, "George was a smart man, an excellent pilot, and I'd fly with him again tomorrow, and I will vote for him in November." Which is about as high as praise gets among the jet jocks.

The media — by focusing only on Kerry's Vietnam service and Bush's lack of combat time — is blowing a smokescreen to cover a far more important issue than who served where and when. In the 2004 election, we're not choosing someone to pick up a gun and go at the enemy himself. We're choosing someone who can lead the nation in time of war.

Kerry is a puzzle: once a warrior, now distrustful of his nation's power and position in the world. He had a soda-straw-wide view of a war that Americans still don't agree should have been fought. He came back from it to condemn the war and those who fought it even though some were still being beaten and tortured in North Vietnamese prison camps. He abandoned them for the company of Hanoi Jane to propel himself into politics. Cong. Sam Johnson, who was held prisoner by the North Vietnamese for seven years, was asked about the picture of Kerry sitting near Jane Fonda at an antiwar demonstration. He told the Washington Times, "Seeing this picture of Kerry with her at antiwar demonstrations in the United States just makes me want to throw up." There is no such revulsion of George Bush among the best of judges: the Vietnam-era military, and those who now go in harm's way.

The distrust and doubt Kerry learned in Vietnam now colors everything he sees. When John Kerry looks at terrorism he sees a threat we can deal with without going to war. In the Middle East he sees only a Vietnam-like quagmire. Kerry doesn't believe America can win this war, and lacks the confidence in America to lead it through the conflict.

President Bush is no combat hero, but he served bravely and well in the Vietnam era. His service gave him confidence in his nation and its motives that John Kerry lacks. What Bush has and Kerry doesn't is the critical difference in character between a president who can lead a nation through a war, and one who cannot.

Vietnam-era deployment

Though essentially useless in the small-war role, F-102s were indeed deployed to South Vietnam. Aircraft from the 590th Fighter Interceptor Squadron were transferred to Tan Son Nhut AFB near Saigon in March 1962 to provide air defense against the unlikely event that North Vietnamese aircraft would attack the South. F-102As continued to be based there and in Thailand throughout much of the war. F-102As also stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in South Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969.
A few missions were flown over North Vietnam, but the Southeast Asia-stationed F-102As are not thought to have actually engaged in air-to-air combat. However, Joe Baugher cites an F-102A of the 509th FIS being lost to an air-to-air missile fired by a MiG-21 while flying a CAP over Route Package IV on February 3, 1968. Two F-102As were lost to AAA or small-arms fire, four were destroyed on the ground by the Viet Cong, and eight were lost in operational accidents.

The F-102A even flew some close-support missions over South Vietnam, even though the aircraft was totally unsuited for this role. These operations started in 1965 at Tan Son Nhut. Operating under the code-name "Project Stovepipe," the F-102s used their heat sinking Falcon missiles to lock onto heat sources over the Ho Chi Minh trail at night, often Viet Cong campfires. They would even fire their radar-guided missiles if their radars managed to lock onto something.

The F-102s soon switched to a day role, firing unguided FFAR rockets using the optical sight; 618 day sorties were flown, the last one at the end of 1965. One F-102A was downed by ground fire during one of these rocket attacks. There were some later missions flown, especially in emergencies when the 102's were the fastest response available in South Vietnam. Some TF-102A two-seaters were also used on occasion in Vietnam as forward air controllers.

[Based on material in the USAF Museum website and on Joe Baugher's homepage.]

Sounds like the AF was trying to make some use of the asset they had. Not perfect but better then nothing. All kinds of material that wasn't exactly designed for a small war in the jungle had to be pressed into service. I bet the Marines had a few examples of that too.

Look, Bush joined the Texas ANG. So he wasn't Eisenhower, it was an HONORABLE way to serve. It's not HIS fault the Texas ANG got stuck with a dog. F-4's weren't going to the guard for another decade or two. He did more then the average bear in the guard too, flying in the military in any capacity is challenging and dangerous. He was probably in more danger then many a clerk or cook who did a full tour in Vietnam, where their major danger was picking up a dose of the clap.

Kerry and Bush both served. BUT Kerry, clearly did more harm to US interests AFTER his service then his 4 months in Vietnam could possibly have helped, unless he was Admiral Nelson.

His Senate record is one of voting to deprive US forces of the very weapons that make them so effective. His attacks on intelligence helped to blind us and leave us vulnerable to the Islamo facists. If his Intelligence bill had passed it would be even worse.

Absolutely fascinating. I had no idea that the Air Force used the F-102 for anything at all in Vietnam, much less hundreds of sorties! I lived just southwest of Danang for extended periods circa 1966-67 and saw a lot of unlikely aircraft used in unlikely roles, but I never saw a single F-102. Talk about pounding a delta-winged peg into a round hole! It gives an aura of desperation to the whole affair, doesn't it?

Clearly, I owe a salute to the 102 drivers that tried hard to do something with a totally unsuitable bird!

The problem I've got is that George, among many hundreds of thousands of others of our young men, picked a course other than to serve in our war. War is a miserable thing, but occasionally necessary and when a country calls, its young men (and lately young women) should answer. Those of us that did go and endured what we did, did it while many of our country stayed home and enjoyed life (and sometimes enjoyed the young ladies we left behind - there was a strong uptick in "Dear John letters" throughout that war.) Yes, the war was different for nearly everybody that went and some billets, maybe most billets, weren't the infantry (and God help you if you were a grunt in Vietnam: I never met one that hadn't been wounded at least once). Yet you could die and die quickly anywhere you were. The VC made a point of being everywhere and striking anywhere. I used to watch the 122mm rockets light up one horizon and arc across the sky to hit the airfield or the ammo dump or the fuel farm on the other horizon in Danang. You are wrong about the cooks and the drivers and the clerks in Vietnam. Lots of them were killed (a friend of mine was a clerk in a convoy between Danang and Phu Bai that was hit by a battalion-sized ambush. He led a small part of the counterattack and was shot through the midsection and nearly died.) The key thing is that all of knew that they could be killed and they were there with us anyway.

You know what we ran into when we came back, so I won't elaborate (the icing on the cake was blowhard Kerry - a sailor on a riverine craft - telling the world that we were atrocity-committing murdering rapists. Like he spent any time in the bush with the grunts and had any way of knowing how well we did. Thanks a whole lot John!) but I can't help but believe that if every able-bodied American man had volunteered, Vietnam would be free today and we would be prouder of ourselves as a nation. Maybe the Cold War would have ended even earlier and many other confrontations could have been avoided. Nobody could've driven a wedge between the fighting men and their country, not the pro-communist Left, not the weasels that hid out in other countries, not Hanoi Jane nor the hostile press. We could've been one solid entity to confront the enemy's "National Liberation War" and a force to be reckoned with.

But it didn't work out that way - the rich and the privileged and the sneaky opted out and left the job to "other people's kids".

We really didn't need F-102 drivers in Texas. We needed to have George over there with us - I'd have been a lot prouder of him if we HAD been a cook in Bien Hoa. He would have one of us.

Thanks for your reply and your research. Geez...I can't imagine using an F-102 for close air support. That would take a combination of desperation and guts!

I think you're right about the danger aspect regarding Bush's flying. There are many ways to kill yourself in the military, but flying fighters, especially the century series aircraft, is a quick and efficient way to do it.

Seriously, you can't be stupid and survive the Darwin cleansing of the gene pool that is part and parcel with flying fighters. Flying an F-102 may not have been as demanding as landing on a carrier at night in bad weather, but it's still impressive.

Right. Now add being a jet jockey with radar-guided AAA, SA-2s, a 2 million enemy troops directly under you, firing upward and just waiting to play with you when you eject.

I return to my core objection to the original article that started this thread; flying a jet is impressive but not to be compared with the pure, distilled guts it took to fly that jet where we actually needed it in Vietnam. George and his coterie need to focus on his record as a President and his plan for our future, not on his avoidance of a war that involved all of the good young men of our generation.

Let's not even talk about "I had better things to do" Cheney: people that avoid serving their country during a war with such elan should never hold any government office at all. It's a "guts test" and he failed.

I'm not aware that the Bush camp is pushing his time in the Guard. The only group that is bringing Bush's service record (as well as Cheney's lack of one) up are the Kerry camp, the DNC and the rest of the Democrat mob commonly known as "the media". You seem to be able to respect only one level of military service: actual combat. Same for courage. From reading your posts, nothing less that actual bullets flying at you is courageous enough. Anything "less" seems to be unworthy of your time. Is true of your vote as well?

The point of this thread, to me at least, seems to be to refute the notion that Bush wasn't AWOL, and not that his level of service meets with your approval. You can belittle him if you like with your "my service was tougher than his" attitude, but from where I sit it just makes you look jaded. I thank you for your service to our country and I'm sorry you didn't get the respect you deserved when you came back home, but I hope that you can some day get over it.

It seems to me that Bush puts himself on the line each and every day with the political decisions he makes. He doesn't stick his finger in the air to see if he has the right opinion and then do a poll to see what tie to wear like the last guy, a draft dodging molly coddled bed wetter, philanderer.

The whole point of the article that forms the core of this post is that GWB's service in the Texas National Guard is equivalent to service in combat in Vietnam. It wasn't and isn't now.

Whether you are aware of it or not, our country split into two halves nearly 40 years ago - those that served in that war and those that didn't. Those that didn't went on with their lives without a ripple - no sacrifice, no losses, no discomfort. School kids focused on football games and fraternities and beer. Young men went out and started making a living. The sun shone and the birds sang for them.

On the other side of the world, the other young men sweated and bled and did without. A constant river of wounded flowed through the hospital networks, hundreds of thousands whose lives were permanently changed, invisible to the rest of this country. The dead came home in aluminum cans for furtive and usually perfunctory ceremonies to be buried and mourned by their families.

See any disparity here? Any difference in levels of patriotism and commitment?

Is George Bush a better President than the slime that preceded him? Of course. But do I equate his service during the Vietnam War with the guys that took their chances for their country? No. Never.

As far as "getting over it" goes - should I? Those names on that wall in Washington were good people - better than almost all of those that so energetically want to lead us. They were friends of mine.

"With all due respect for a Marine"

One of my favorite opening sentences...usually denotes anything but respect...

"Bush didn't raise the issue of service"

Probably not, but the article that started this thread certainly did and it's aimed at establishing some equivalence with George's TANG flying record to combat, with the gentle whiff that he had actually volunteered for Vietnam. You and I both know that is being done to support GWB.

Bottom line: combat is combat. If you're a pilot, it includes the normal dangers of military flight and adds somebody actively trying to kill you. Way more impressive than just flying a year or so in Texas, if you follow my drift. We had a war on and whether one was a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine, I salute your valor, honor and patriotism. If you failed to sign on for our country's war and hung back - I don't admire you as much...it's not calculus, OK?

I admire the medevac pilots that flew to us no matter what to get the wounded out.

Do you also admire people like my cousin who joined the Navy to avoid the draft? Would it help to know that he became a corpsman in the Navy? Would it help to know that he had no idea that all of the Marines fighting in Viet Nam relied on Navy corpsmen? Would it help to know that when he did find out, he served in Viet Nam for two weeks shy of six months when he was severely wounded by a mine himself while coming to the aid of an injured Marine?

Many end up in unexpected places, even during wars. There were plenty of good men during that era who served in Korea, Germany, etc. prepared to fight off the Russians, but were never ordered to Viet Nam.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.