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.

[Michael.SF.]

DOH!

I forgot that we had all that available to us then!

[WorkingClassFilth]

I believe I have read that crippled bombers were landed on Iwo before the battle was even over.

[kas2591]

Although I question his analysis of the necessity of the operation, he makes a very telling point in the last paragraph; our society is not prepared for the realities of modern war.

One thing that is not stated in Boot's article is that there was a tactical change in Japanese defensive doctrine starting with Saipan; defense in depth rather than defending the beachhead as at Tarawa.

[Semper Paratus]

Next some idiot will question the cost to having NATO since the Soviets never did invade Western Europe.

[Protagoras]

Part of your post is unintentionally correct.

IMO, Roosevelt was certainly in the running for worst President.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

After the B-29 came into the war, almost all the islands near Japan could've been skipped, I suppose.

[rcocean]

An interesting point. Why blame MacArthur? We invaded the Phillipines because FDR, Stimson, Marshall and King wanted to. MacArthur was just in charge of SWPA.

[skeeter]

The venture was not remotely "cost effective" in terms of American casualties vs. military benefit.

Okinawa served essentially the same purpose.

I can see us needing one or the other, but not both.

[Coop]

Both the columnist and the author seem to take exception to the fact that Iwo Jima had to be taken.

I did not read the columnist's entire article, but only the two excerpts quickly provided at the beginning of the thread. I found the columnist to either be ignorant of some rather basic facts or intentionally glossing over those facts to promote an agenda. I did read the Cpl's entire article, which was taken from Capt. Burrell's study.

[Michael.SF.]

For instance, the Japanese should have attacked oil storage facilities at Pearl Harbor

How?

It is my understanding that the vast quantities of fuel at Pearl are primarily stored in huge underground caverns, far below the ground.

[Fiddlstix]

It is a fact that without Iwo Jima, they could not properly conduct air raids over Japan. They needed the runway on that island.

Bingo!

[rhc2000]

Flyboys is the next book I'm going to read, but I'm just finishing up Flags of Our Fathers, by James Bradley. Its about the fight for Iwo Jima and the author's father was one of the flagraisers. Great read.

[Coop]

This demands that we accept all aircraft that used the strip as lost, if Iwo was in Japanese hands, and all aircrew as KIA. A stretch. What is not a stretch is that the US faced the assault on Okinawa less three highly trained and competent Marine divisions which were rendered unusable after suffering 23.000 killed and wounded on Iwo.

I agree that the 25-30K "lives saved" statistic is overlooking other islands, naval search-and-rescue, etc. But I also think it's a stretch that three divisions were rendered "unusable" - although your point at the degradation suffered is well taken.

[Coop]

I believe I have read that crippled bombers were landed on Iwo before the battle was even over.

Yes, I don't know the numbers, but indeed recall that point.

[RushCrush]

I may have to pick that up as soon as I'm done with FlyBoys.

[Coop]

One thing that is not stated in Boot's article is that there was a tactical change in Japanese defensive doctrine starting with Saipan; defense in depth rather than defending the beachhead as at Tarawa.

Another point not mentioned on this thread yet is the Japanese commander made the tactical decision to allow the Marines to establish beachheads with relatively little resistance (which our forces did not anticipate). Then, once the "easy" landing resulted in a massing of our forces on the beachheads, the enemy opened up on the overcrowded landing areas. (This is based on recollection from readings many years ago.)

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

As long as the cowards in Washington DC allow a traitor
to serve in the US Senate we will see more of this stuff.

The left has learned they can get away with anything.

Distribute these url's in e-mail, Vet boards, Conservative boards, etc.

EXPOSE HANOI KERRY!

MUST SEE WEBSITE!!!!

http://www.kerrystreason.com/index.html

Full details on these url's!

http://tonkin.spymac.net/hanoikerry1.html

There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.

http://stophanoikerry.150m.com

[SengirV]

He had not yet even learned to drive...

Some would contend that he still doesn't know how to drive, given his body count.

[Airborne1986]

"The truly unnecessary attack was the Phillipines, which advanced absolutely no strategic purpose, rather it allowed MacAuthur to claim a public relations victory by redeeming his pledge to return."

While it is not a strategic mission, I think we were duty bound to invade the Philipines to liberate U.S. POW's being held there since 1942 and to liberate Phillipinos, who were citizens of a U.S. territory and were actively resisting the Japanese.

[gridlock]

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.

Well, this is just flat-out wrong. Iwo Jima was 650 miles from Tokyo, which makes a 1,300 mile round trip. Other targets in Japan were even closer.

The operational range of the P-51D was 2080 miles, meaning combat patrols over Japan were well within range. The p-38 had an even longer range of 3000 miles. Iwo Jima could well have been used to provide fighter support for bombing missions over Japan.