Iwo Jima - A stupid Mistake?

LA TImes ^ | March 10, 2005 | Max Boot

[rcocean]

Our awe at the bravery of the Marines and their Japanese adversaries should not cause us to overlook the stupidity that forced them into this unnecessary meat grinder. Selective memories of World War II, which record only inspiring deeds and block out all waste and folly, create an impossible standard of perfection against which to judge contemporary conflicts.

[DocH]

Sorry, I shouldn't have said Ted Kennedy was "the fat, drunk, murdering bastard."

I SHOULD have said, the fat, drunk, murdering, LIBERAL bastard.

[montag813]

I don't see why Max Boot can't revisit flaws in miltary planning from the battle of Iwo Jima.

I have long been very critical of Eisenhower's ultra-cautious approach in the Battle of the Bulge, and the thousands of men who died needlessly because of it. Had Germany finished their heavy water experiments and dropped nuclear devices on our troop concentrations and air bases, and we had lost Europe, history would not have been so kind to Eisenhower.

Had we won Vietnam the "Tet offensive" would have been rightly seen as a great victory for our side, which it indeed was (before it was undermined by weak opinion at home). That is an opposite example.

There is NOTHING sacred about the decisions of men in history. Not McArthur, Nimitz, not Eisenhower, not anyone. So we should allow valid criticism of past conflicts and battles. Max Boot has a fine history as editiorial writer for the WSJ. He deserves more respect than many here have been giving him.

[Twinkie]

Hitler and the whole Axis debacle sorely and gravely underestimated the Allied forces that would sorely, gravely and ultimately grind them into dust and consign them to the ash heap of history.

[Badray]

I got to the site, but couldn't find the article. I look again when I have more time.

[rcocean]

Quote from the article: "The rationales for taking the island were shaky at the time and utterly specious in hindsight. The original impetus came from the U.S. Army Air Forces, which wanted a base from which fighters could escort B-29 Superfortress bombers on missions over Japan. But Iwo Jima was so far away from most Japanese targets — a 1,500-mile round trip — that even the newest fighter, the P-51D Mustang, lacked sufficient range and navigational equipment for that purpose. In any case, Japanese air defenses were so weak that B-29s didn't need any escort; they were able to reduce Japanese cities to ashes on their own."

An example of why this article is terrible. P-51's DID escort B-29 to Japan. The B-29's DID need fighter escort on Daylight missions. Here is an extract from USAAF records:

HQ AAF (Twentieth Air Force):

TUESDAY, 26 JUNE 1945

510 B-29s and 148 P-51s fly 9 missions against aircraft factories, light-metals industries and arsenals in S Honshu and Shikoku; 6 B-29s and 1 P-51 are lost.

FRIDAY, 6 JULY 1945

110 Iwo Jima-based P-51s attack airfields in the Tokyo area (Kumagaya, Yamagata, and Chiba); they claim 1-0-0 aircraft in the air and 6-25 on the ground; 1 P-51 is lost.

[Al Gator]

You are correct.

All wars are the stage were "old" tactics meet new technology.

The reason for the high body count in the Civil war was that the old style of lining up and advancing on the enemy position in formation ran smack into the way high-tech of rifling.

Until that point, smooth bore muskets fired in volley were only 20% effective. An acceptable loss.

Rifling in the barrels improved volley fire to somewhere around 80%. Clearly unacceptable.

The trouble was, those in command were not able to immediately understand what was happening in front of them.

Same thing happened in Iwo. Same thing happened on the Russian front.

ETC....

[Coop]

poor planning CAN be criticized.

Yes, it can. It can especially be criticized very poorly.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

BTW, the experience of Iwo Jima may have been a factor in deciding to use the bomb. The fanatical resistance of the Japanese convinced U.S. leaders that invading the home islands would be an indescribably ghastly undertaking. Truman and other civilian and military leaders were reluctant to use the bomb. It had been developed out of fear that the Nazis were pursuing it. Iwo and the Kamikazes convinced them it was lesser evil. (Truman had drafted a letter telling Churchill that he decided to use the atomic bomb on Tokyo, a letter which in the event, he never had to send.)

The alternative to Hiroshima was Iwo Jima on much more massive scale.

[Coop]

Ollie North does not have two brain cells to rub together.

Based on the intellectual value of your post, I'd say Ollie North wouldn't even have to be awake to make you look especially stupid.

[Coop]

Max Boot has a fine history as editiorial writer for the WSJ. He deserves more respect than many here have been giving him.

Well, the fact that he either inadvertently or intentionally misled readers on the bombardment of Iwo Jima led to the shallow level of respect I gave him.

[bert]

I accept Iwo as necessary, but in hindsight consider Palau the mistake.

[bandleader]

I have always had serious reservations about Tarawa,but Iwo Jima provided a"safety net"for air-crews whose planes were damaged bombing Japan from The Marianas.The figure is something like 20,000 that(if we had not taken Iwo Jima)would have been forced to ditch at sea.

[bandleader]

If WWII taught us anything,it taught us that naval gunfire has it's limitations!

[Seydlitz]

Based on the intellectual value of your post, I'd say Ollie North wouldn't even have to be awake to make you look especially stupid.

You have brilliantly punctured every aspect of my argument with your scintillating wit! Naturally, you have also displayed the courtesy of a true Freeper.

Of course, it was only my stupidity that got me through Princeton and Michigan Law. Now, I'm using my single brain cell to earn my Ph.D. in military history, where I did a review of Burrell's article only a few months ago. If only I could tie my shoe laces! However, if you want to get into the specifics of Burrell's work (which is not without some serious flaws), I'd be glad to.

If the mindless blather of Ollie on television isn't enough to cause you pain, read "Shadow Warrior" by Felix Rodriguez. Rodriguez, a profoundly anti-Communist Cuban emigre, spent twenty years in the CIA's paramilitary section, operating mostly in Central America and Africa. He did some work with Ollie in the 80s, and paints a pretty damning picture. Perhaps I should not believe a long-serving CIA field operative over a glory-seeking publicity hound. Yet, somehow, I can't help but find Rodriguez's observations to be quite consistent with the very public Ollie (tm) (patent pending) and his massive ego.

Ollie deserves credit for his military service, but military service does not immunize one from criticism. We all remember a nice pedophile by the name of Scott Ritter.

Stupidly Yours,

Seydlitz

[Coop]

You dare to lecture me on courtesy, Your Arrogance? After your profound Princeton- and Wolverine-based wisdom leads you to declare that Ollie North is brain dead?

And then you express surprise that I didn't waste any more of my time countering your oh-so-comprehensive argument (or did you use the Ivy League Cliff Notes method?).

Let me see if I can be a little more helpful for you, Biff. I would take Oliver North's intellect over yours any day of the week.

[Coop]

I wanted to introduce you to our Ivy League attorney, soon-to-be-military-history-Professor, and protocol consultant. I thought you might want to pay proper homage. ROTFL!

[Iwo Jima]

I resemble that remark.

[VadeRetro]

If Ted Kennedy had been in the Senate in 1945 (hard to believe, but he wasn't), he would have been hollering about the incompetence of the Roosevelt administration, which produced many times more casualties in five weeks than U.S. forces have suffered in Iraq in the last two years.

He would have hollered about the staggering US death toll from D-Day as well, except Roosevelt would never have put up with his shenanigans.

[Seydlitz]

My apologies for any lectures on protocol. It is not my place to do so. That should be left to the conscience of the individual Freeper.

Likewise, please pardon my arrogance for not embracing the title of "stupid" more wholeheartedly.

That said, Ollie's vanity and foolishness caused a major crisis in US foreign policy and almost destroyed the Reagan administration. Why, as conservatives, should we admire him for anything other than his military service?

[Coop]

please pardon my arrogance for not embracing the title of "stupid" more wholeheartedly.

Quit whining. You started with the insults; expect 'em back.