A Noble Soldier, Not a Great Soldier

You have to remember that Westmoreland was a paratrooper, a soldier always will to act (or jump) before thinking.

All soldiers are trained to react to combat situations with battle drills for situations in which there is no time to think, just react. What does that have to do with making an assessment and developing a plan for future combat operations or developing an ongoing battle? As far as paratroopers, from my experience in the Army, I wouldn't be surprised if half the U.S. Army Officer Corps completed the Basic Airborne Course.

THere were strategies available that might have led to a different outcome in Vietnam. Barbara Tuchman describes a policy that RAND put forth in "The March of Folly" in which it was suggested that we desertify one mile all along the border and station guard towers there to prevent the enemy from smuggling weapons to the Vietcong. If the enemy massed to attack those positions, we could bring air superiority to bear and the upside of the strategy is that we would have dramatically reduced our casualties by discontinuing the policy of tromping around the jungle looking for a fight.

The war in Vietnam was poorly fought, but it didn't have to end the way it did.

By not thinking ahead, I mean an unwilling to admit that preconceived notions are irrelevant. General Westmoreland attempted to apply tactics suited to a large scale European battle to a small scale Asian war. He could not or would not understand that slower, less glamorous tactics - such as the Marines proposed - would be more effective than large multi-battalion operations such as the ones he ordered and insisted upon.

Perhaps the problem is that 1/2 and probably more of Army officers have completed the basic airborne course. Why does the Chief of Engineers need to be paratrooper? What good does it do an officer walking slowly through a village in Iraq or in Africa (which is probably the next area of conflict) to have spent a month at Ft Bragg learning how to jump from an airplane?
The fact that so many officers have earned these wings is little more than an indication of the careerism and stations of the cross mentality that pervades the US Army officer corps.
Whatever we may say about military operations in the future, one thing is certain: there will not be many if any large airborne drops as at Normandy and Market Garden. So why send these officers to this school, if the training is unnecessary?

I guess you never heard the phrase, "It's all good training." The Basic Airborne Course is taught at Fort Benning, Georgia.

The fact that so many officers have earned these wings is little more than an indication of the careerism and stations of the cross mentality that pervades the US Army officer corps.

Cadets at West Point may have earned "jump wings" during their summer training before they graduate from the United States Military Academy. Some of them proceed to enrollment in medical or law school, incurring further obligated service. What's the problem?

Whatever we may say about military operations in the future, one thing is certain: there will not be many if any large airborne drops as at Normandy and Market Garden. So why send these officers to this school, if the training is unnecessary?

I have met a physician who was wounded while parachuting into Panama with the 75th Infantry Regiment(Ranger)(Airborne). The 173rd Airborne Brigade parachuted into Kurdistan when we decided to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein by force of arms. Predicting the future is quite an "iffy" business. Airborne refresher training in airborne units was no big deal for those recently assigned to airborne units as long as they completed the basic course at Fort Benning, at least when I was in the Army.

fourdeuce82d R.I.P.

It's now 2005 and Kerry has still refused to release his 1972 Navy discharge -- the one that says "under other than honorable conditions."

But I'm sure Hillary will release it when the time is right.

Anybody who considers themselves a candidate for the Democratic nomination (Biden, Kerry, et.al.) should be very, very afraid. Hillary will not be denied.

Of course, I'm really looking forward to the coming campaign. Hillary's opponents are going to have to "go to the mattresses" if they want to remain in the game.

If you ask, "what is the problem?", I ask why?
There is no rational reason for officers not attached to units actually participating in paratroop drops as a regular tactical movement "earn" their wings, whether earned at Ft Bragg or Benning. The automatic earing of a badge for which their is no immediate need is in itself little more than pure careerism, a trait all too common in the US Army.
Now that the Cold War is over and WWII is the subject of documentaries on the History Channel its time to abandon these practices which seeped into the Army. The world is too complex to allow for reflexive and careerist habits - eg badge earning - to continue.
I agree that there may be isolated incidents of medium sized parachute drops such as the ones you mentioned, but is that any reason for such a large percentage of the officer corps to go through this training? If such drops are necessary in the future, I'm certain there will be enough qualified jumpers.

Once a servicemember completes the Basic Airborne Course at Fort Benning, that servicemember has the "P" qualifier added to their military occupational specialty. It enables personnel units to determine where personnel can be assigned or reassigned in the future.

I agree that there may be isolated incidents of medium sized parachute drops such as the ones you mentioned, but is that any reason for such a large percentage of the officer corps to go through this training? If such drops are necessary in the future, I'm certain there will be enough qualified jumpers.

After initial entry training where individual skills are acquired, units are expected to train as units, not collections of individual replacements which was what eventually happened in Vietnam. That was one of the lessons of Vietnam. While you can't get away from the need of individual replacements, the military in Iraq now prefers to rotate and replace units.

Were you ever in the military?

Going through Jump School at Benning was one of the best decisions I ever made. The training was excellent, and your self confidence grows after meeting a challenge like that.

I'm sure that I bragged about it in the past, but now I mention it a couple times a year. I use it as an ice-breaker at the first class of the year at my parish (I teach Old Testament to our 6th graders).

It seems to change the attitudes of my male students when they find out that the old man talking to them actually jumped out of airplanes!

If military efficiency requires that units be kept together why did the Army transfer almost all the Brigade and Battalion officers from units of the 1st Cavalry Division after the division returned from Iraq? If you doubt this, you can investigate it for yourself; the NY Times ran a long article about this about a month ago.
It seems to me that these experienced officers should have been kept in their jobs, especially since it appears the division or part of it might be returning to Iraq within a year or so. And when the units do return, they will be led by inexperienced officers.
Since you mention Vietnam: if the Army was so concerned with unit integrity, why did the Army split an officer's tour in two parts - six months in the field followed by six months in a staff billet?
It was said that the US Army did not have seven years experience in Vietnam, so much as one year's experience seven times. It seems we're following the same course in Iraq.
My military career was so brief and inconsequential as to be unimportant. However, it doesn't take an expert to recognize a foolish and out-of-date personnel system, a system that insists on making decisions for its own reasons and not for the needs of the country.

The higher in officer rank, the less important it is to transfer officers, especially field grade officers. It is the interaction of the enlisted personnel that enables the unit to function effectively.

If you doubt this, you can investigate it for yourself; the NY Times ran a long article about this about a month ago.

I couldn't find the Times story, but I'm not surprised because the Army is being reorganized under Rumsfeld. It's the 1st Cav's turn to reorganize, just like the 3rd Infantry Division did after its first tour or Iraq.

Army modernization shifting thousands of soldiers

Generals - perhaps, maybe, at a stretch - are somewhat interchangeable. But experienced regimental commanders are essential. And most essential are experienced battalion commanders. Anyone who has been in the service knows that the battalion commander (like the captain of a ship) is the key person.
One of the great troubles suffered by the Army in Vietnam (and especially the grunt) was the constant rotation of battalion commanders and the incessant need for a new battalion CO to "earn" a reputation in his six month tour of duty.
Rumsfeld may be the Secretary of Defense, but the reorganization of the Army was devised and completed by the Army itself. Even if a division is being reorganized - and I would say especially if a division is being reorganized - experienced officers who have the trust of the men are essential.
In a critical time, such as a reorganization, why would or should the men trust their lives to an officer they don't know and who has not been through combat with them? Just because the Army personnel system decides that officer A is competent and needs command time to be eligible for promotion? I think not!

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.