Had to reprint this entire story since I could not link it to Department of Defense website called earlybird where it was published and most of you are not permitted access. The fact that I could not even find the story on another site via a Google search lends credence to the author as well.
This guy is the real deal. Years ago when I met LTG Hal Moore and Joe Galloway during an Officer Professional Development session that my unit sponsored, we heard nothing but praise about this pilot, MAJ Bruce Crandall during the Ia Drang Campaign. He has waited a long time to get this and true to his selflessness even withdrew his name from consideration a number of years back because he was concerned that his wingman would not receive his Medal of Honor. My hat is off to this Gentleman and I salute him.
Wall Street Journal March 1, 2007 Pg. 12
Wonder Land
The Real American Idol
By Daniel Henninger
Amid the mad jumble that makes the news in our time, the White House on Monday held a ceremony for a Medal of Honor recipient. His name is Bruce Crandall. Mr. Crandall is 74 now, and earned his medal as a major, flying a Huey helicopter in 1965 in the Vietnam War.
The Medal of Honor is conferred only for bravery in combat. It is a military medal, and it is still generally regarded as the highest public tribute this nation can bestow. It is also very rare.
Still, the Medal of Honor does not occupy the place in the nation's cultural life that it once did. This has much to do with the ambivalent place of the military in our angry politics.
In the House debate just ended on a "non-binding" resolution to thwart the sending of more troops to Iraq, its most noted element was the Democratic formulation to "support the troops" but oppose the war. We will hear more of this when the members of the Senate debate their own symbolic resolution.
In last November's congressional election, the Democrats picked several military veterans as candidates to mitigate the notion, a burden since Vietnam, that an endemic hostility toward things military runs through the party's veins. Those Democratic veterans won. Notwithstanding the bitter divide over Iraq, the presence of these veterans in Congress should be a good thing, if one thinks that the oft-publicized "divide" between the professional military and American civilians is not in this country's interest. It surely cannot be in the country's interest if over time more Americans come to regard the life of U.S. soldiers at war and in combat as an abstraction -- as say, mainly Oscar nominees or as newspaper photographs of scenes of utter loss at arms.
Two men have received the Medal of Honor for service in Iraq: Army Sgt. First Class Paul R. Smith, who died defending some 100 fellow soldiers, allowing their withdrawal; and Marine Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, who died after he dove atop a live grenade to protect his squad. (Cpl. Dunham's act was the subject of a 2004 Wall Street Journal story by reporter Michael M. Phillips and later a book, "The Gift of Valor.")
Bruce Crandall's Medal of Honor, at an emotional remove of 42 years, offers a chance to ponder just where the military stands now in the nation's life. The particulars of Lt. Col. Crandall's act of heroism, and what others said of it at the awarding of the medal on Monday, offers we civilians a chance to understand not merely the risks of combat but what animates those who embrace those risks.
Mr. Crandall, then a major, commanded a company with the 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, carrying soldiers to a landing zone, called X-ray, in the la Drang Valley. An assault from the North Vietnamese army erupted, as described at the White House ceremony Monday. Three soldiers on Maj. Crandall's helicopter were killed. He kept it on the ground while four wounded were taken aboard. Back at base, he asked for a volunteer to return with him to X-ray. Capt. Ed Freeman came forward. Through smoke and bullets, they flew in and out 14 times, spent 14 hours in the air and used three helicopters. They evacuated 70 wounded. The battalion survived.
A Medal of Honor requires eyewitness accounts, and an officer there attested, "Maj. Crandall's actions were without question the most valorous I've observed of any helicopter pilot in Vietnam."
Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, spoke at the ceremony of what he called "the warrior ethos." Look at his words and consider whether they still stand today, or whether as a matter of the nation's broader ethos of commonly accepted beliefs, they are under challenge. Gen. Schoomaker said: "The words of the warrior ethos that we have today -- I will always place the mission first; I will never accept defeat; I will never quit; and I will never leave a fallen comrade -- were made real that day in the la Drang Valley."
At issue today is the question: Is that ethos worth it, worth the inevitable sacrifice? And not only in Iraq but in whatever may lie beyond Iraq?
The secretary of the Army, Francis Harvey, went on in this vein: "The courage and fortitude of America's soldiers in combat exemplified by these individuals is, without question, the highest level of human behavior. It demonstrates the basic goodness of mankind as well as the inherent kindness and patriotism of American soldiers."
An American soldier in combat demonstrates "the basic goodness of mankind"? And the highest level of human behavior? This was not thought to be true at the moment Maj. Crandall was flying those choppers in Vietnam. Nor is it now.
To embrace the thoughts of Gen. Schoomaker and of Secretary Harvey is to risk being accused of defending notions of American triumphalism and an overly strong martial spirit thought inappropriate to the realities of a multilateral world. This is a debate worth having. But we are not having it. We are hiding from it.
In a less doubtful culture, Maj. Crandall's magnificent medal would have been on every front page, if only a photograph. It was on no one's front page Tuesday. The New York Times, the culture's lodestar, had a photograph on its front page of President Bush addressing governors about an insurance plan. Maj. Crandall's Medal of Honor was on page 15, in a round-up, three lines from the bottom. Other big-city dailies also ran it in their news summaries; some -- the Washington Post, USA Today -- ran full accounts inside.
Most school children once knew the names of the nation's heroes in war -- Ethan Allen, John Paul Jones, Stephen Decatur, the Swamp Fox Francis Marion, Ulysses S. Grant, Clara Barton, Billy Mitchell, Alvin York, Lee Ann Hester. Lee Ann who? She's the first woman to win a Silver Star for direct combat with the enemy. Did it in a trench in Iraq. Her story should be in schools, but it won't be.
All nations celebrate personal icons, and ours now tend to be doers of good. That's fine. But if we suppress the martial feats of a Bruce Crandall, we distance ourselves further from our military. And in time, we will change. At some risk.
An excerpt from John D. Herren's, Colonel United States Army (Ret.) nomination letter written on behalf of Major Crandall:
“I will always be in awe of Major Bruce Crandall for his extraordinary bravery and brilliant flying skill under the most difficult wartime conditions. Flying continuously into a hot LZ to support a US battalion surrounded by elements of three North Vietnamese regiments. By risking his own life in leading these hazardous flights, Major Crandall provided exceptional leadership to the rest of his company which continued throughout the three day ordeal.”
Selflessness, bravery, and skill. MAJ Bruce Crandall is a true American Idol
Posts: 3621 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02
No doubt that is one very brave man, but what is the writer of the first piece getting at...
quote:
"The words of the warrior ethos that we have today -- I will always place the mission first; I will never accept defeat; I will never quit; and I will never leave a fallen comrade -- were made real that day in the la Drang Valley."
At issue today is the question: Is that ethos worth it, worth the inevitable sacrifice? And not only in Iraq but in whatever may lie beyond Iraq?
That isn't the question at issue. The question is about how the invasion of Iraq was launched for no good reason (although it has served to enrich many civilians and corporations).
'The question' is surely how that undoubtedly admirable ethos has been abused by the evil or stupid men at the top of the chain of command. It's exactly the question posed by "The Charge of the Light Brigade", or the comment about British WWI troops calling them 'lions led by donkeys'.
In fact "is that ethos worth it" doesn't even make sense as a question. Is that ethos worth what? Obviosuly it's worth keeping.
It sounds, maybe, like the writer balked at asking the real question, has the invasion of Iraq been worth it? Worth the hundreds of thousands dead, the billions of dollars wasted, the ill-will and damage to the US's standing, the boost to terrorists' recruitment?
It's not about quitting Iraq. There's no clear idea of what 'victory' would be for the US in Iraq, let alone how to achieve it. The US is bound to quit. The idea that more wasted lives will somehow validate the wasted lives to date is strange - just a useful rhetorical trick employed by politicians, maybe. The army should never have been sent to Iraq. It needs to leave - sometime. Any 'dishonour' arising from that should be on the heads of Bush & Co.
I completely agree that retired Lt. Colonel Bruce Crandall is a hero. So to is the aircraft commander of the other helicopter involved, Capt. Ed Freeman who volunteered to fly wing with Crandall on these missions.
And please don't forget the other crewmembers involved, the copilots, aircraftt gunners and crew chiefs who took the same ride as did these pilots. They are unnamed but every bit as brave.
I got it. Armies are full of incredibly brave people, who would lay down their lives for each other. Bruce Crandall is one such.
What I didn't get is why the WSJ journalist dragged Iraq into it, and what he meant by, 'At issue today is the question: Is that ethos worth it, worth the inevitable sacrifice? And not only in Iraq but in whatever may lie beyond Iraq?'
What do you think that means?
He surely isn't asking whether the ethos is worth keeping or honouring - obviously it is. The ethos necessarily involves sacrifice, or the willingness to sacrifice oneself for comrades, so to ask whether it is worth the sacrifice makes no sense. The ethos has been built on sacrifice, and sacrifice is an integral part of it.
It sounds to me, although I'm not sure, that he's trying (and failing) to make some point about it being necessary to keep sending soldiers to Iraq - about Bush's fiasco being 'worth it'. But it certainly isn't. Iraq was invaded for no good reason, and the only people to benefit have been terrorist recruiters and select corporations. (Saying that Hussein's overthrow is a benefit is ridiculous - you don't need to invade a country, getting countless thousands killed, to overthrow a government.)
Or is the journalist trying to ask whether or not it's worth the sacrifice (in Iraq) in order to further or maintain the ethos? That makes little sense either. Soldiers might be prepared to die, but it isn't actually one of their objectives, I'm sure.
If you get the thinking behind 'At issue today is the question: Is that ethos worth it, worth the inevitable sacrifice? And not only in Iraq but in whatever may lie beyond Iraq?', please explain it to me.
Compare the piece Dwight links to with the WSJ article. The Jacksonville Daily News has a moving tribute to a hero. There's no political point-scoring about Iraq, and no invention of 'straw man' objectors to the good side of the army ethos. The WSJ piece could have been like that, if not for the clumsy addition of some superficial journalese on Iraq.
Journalists are expert communicators; when they wrote something that doesn't make sense, it's usually becuase there's a problem with the thinking - maybe misconception or deceitfulness - not the language.
"Is the ethos worth the inevitable sacrifice" does not make sense. It's like asking "is the game worth the rules". Take away the rules, and it isn't the game any more. Take away the sacrifice and it isn't that ethos.
This is weak too -
To embrace the thoughts of Gen. Schoomaker and of Secretary Harvey is to risk being accused of defending notions of American triumphalism and an overly strong martial spirit thought inappropriate to the realities of a multilateral world.
- the writer is setting up a straw man. Why would anyone seriously object to the honourable sentiments expressed? If you're going to have an army, you'd better have one with a proper martial spirit, or not bother. What people are objecting to is an unecessary, illegal and ill-planned war (ill-planned in the larger - political and strategic sense, by Bush & Co, that is). Those are the accusations that are being made. The US army has, on the whole, aquitted itself well in Iraq. Bush & Co are being accused of starting a war they didn't have to, compounding their mistake by making a mess of it - that's the debate some want to avoid.
On second thoughts, it could be that the WSJ writer put together a tribute to an old war hero (a story not on the front pages of the newspapers for the usual reasons important stories get neglected - most likely because some celebrity shaved her legs or something, and not ignored as part of a conspiracy to avoid debate) as in the Jacksonville piece. The writer was maybe then told to work in some pro-Bush jingoism, and cobbled together that fine-sounding rhetoric, which falls apart on closer examination, in the few minutes available before the deadline.
If that's not the case, please could someone explain what 'At issue today is the question: Is that ethos worth it, worth the inevitable sacrifice? And not only in Iraq but in whatever may lie beyond Iraq?' means?
The British army is leaving Iraq, but no one is saying that its 'ethos' is under attack. The invasion of Iraq was a colossal blunder by the people in charge. The WSJ article is political spin - trying, it seems, to imply objectors to that invasion are questioning the underlying ethos of the US army. What nonsense. Objectors to the invasion of Iraq are objecting to the invasion of Iraq - if anything, to the abuse of the ethos of the army by the sleazy incompetents in the Whitehouse.
If you're going to have an army, obviously it must have a martial ethos. It'd be crazy to say an army is too warlike. It's chicken-hawk leaders who throw armies into wars they don't have to fight that are too warlike. A huge part of the true martial ethos is surely knowing when it's not necessary to fight.
It has always been the soldier's lot to be under-appreciated; read Kipling from the nineteenth century for example. It has also always been the soldier's lot to, at times, perform admirable individual deeds in horribly wrong wars or actions started by the stupidity or corruption of politicians and other superiors.
I'm not brushing anything aside - I'm asking what you guys think 'At issue today is the question: Is that ethos worth it, worth the inevitable sacrifice? And not only in Iraq but in whatever may lie beyond Iraq? means.
If you google "Bruce Crandall" "medal of honor", you'll get 59,700 hits. The first couple of pages include CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo News, USA today, The Boston Globe...
I guess no one is going to have a shot at explaining what 'At issue today is the question: Is that ethos worth it, worth the inevitable sacrifice? And not only in Iraq but in whatever may lie beyond Iraq? means. Probably because it's meaningless - just empty rhetoric, like the whining about imagined assaults on the military ethos.
Just about everyone (except maybe air-head celebrities) could claim that their story does not get a fair amount of coverage in the media. That Crandall wasn't on the front pages does not necessarily mean that the military ethos is being questioned.
Maybe we could look, instead, at where real damage is being done to the military ethos. I don't mean starting an unecessary war, or neglecting and mistreating the returning wounded. Possibly that's always happened, and the miltary ethos seems to have survived so far.
There are three assaults on the military ethos that seem to be peculiar to the current US administration.
The first is the huge increase in the use of mercenaries. I guess US soldiers have gotten used to the vice-president's old company profiteering from cooking and cleaning for them - but what about when private businesses (such as Blackwater, run by a right-wing Christian nut) step in to make money on the fighting too? Mercenaries make up the second largest army in Iraq; ill-equipped (the five mercenaries so brutally murdered in in Falluja hadn't even been given a map - four widows are currently suing the company) and outside chains of command or legal oversight. Isn't that a major dent in the military ethos?
Then there's the administration's gung-ho approval of torture, and dismissal of the Geneva Convention (including stomach turning weasel-worded evasions like 'enhanced interrogation'). Where does torturing people - previously acknowledged by the US army as useless in obtaining reliable information anyway - fit into the 'warrior ethos'? What service is the administration doing its troops by tearing up what rules there are on how prisoners should be treated?
Finally there is the PR-man's ban on filming or photographing the coffins of the returning fallen. (Harper - Canada's "Bush Lite" PM tried this, too.) Was that ever done previously? Is it part of the military ethos?
I see that Crandall was a true hero. That there is an important military ethos which he represents. That people in the army might feel he's not being recognised enough by the media (but people in any walk of life have similar complaints about the media).
I think also that the WSJ article wrongly and irritatingly tries to make some connection between Crandall's story and a need to pursue Bush's catastrophe in Iraq, and sabre-rattling over Iran.
Not only is KwII not right, but I'm surprised that anyone could read that entire article in the Wall Street Journal, without being able to detect the obvious slant. Uncalled-for bias, in support of the administration's repeated attempt to translate (distort) support for the individual soldier into support for a stupid, bungled, and unnecessary war. Newnickname doesn't get it, in the same way that I, and most of the citizens of this country don't get it. Thousands of dead, tens of thousands maimed, and scores of surviving heroes does not transform a dismal fiasco into a justifiable search for non-existent weapons and manufactured threats.
Surely, you can do better than that! Yeah, right! Bumper stickers and sound bite responses aren't terribly persuasive. Tu Quo-Que isn't appropriate to grown-up discussion, IMHO.
Frank I am not a bumper sticker or magnetic sign kind of guy, and sound bites disgust me too.
I try to bring up obvious slants from time to time here but the liberals around here pick them apart. I am not a liberal, nor am I a conservative. I find points by both sides on the money sometimes, and I also find many from both sides to be complete garbage.
Is this article slanted? Obviously it is but the “point” to me is honoring a man who went far and above and showed courage, skill and bravery and not picking apart the article to find the faults that fits my agenda. The point to me IMHO was to simply honor the man and leave it at that.
If you remember Frank I have said before I was flat out against invading Iraq long before it even happened. Even while both sides of Congress were sitting around the campfire holding hands and singing songs I was adamant about it. Iraq posed no threat to my country and had never attacked us. Even if they had the now known to be fictitious WMD’s so what? They lacked the mechanisms to deliver them here on American soil. If they want to kill each other fine, so be it.
Having been there and having known several people from the region I knew in my heart this war would drag on, and on, and on and that the American people would not have the stomach for it. It sincerely sickens me to the core that they (The Congress and American people) wanted this war and backed the president. (Initially anyway) Most all thought that this war would be over in a year or two but now that it is dragging on and on they want no part of it anymore. I hate to say “I told you so” but I did.
The moment the boots hit the sandbox I got off my soap box against this war and backed those serving, and I remain firm in my convictions. Those service men and women don’t have the luxury of choosing where they go to fight or protect freedom. They were sent by the president who had the backing of the Congress and American people. A big mistake, but they should have thought of what would happen before they backed such action. I don’t want to nor will I get into the “faulty intelligence” argument again as at this point it really serves no purpose. It is easy to point fingers after the fact.
I don’t attend church anymore, but I do have my Sunday morning rituals. I get up before dawn and go to a large Veteran’s Hospital around here. I put a smile on my face and help out where and how I can. Seeing all the wounded and maimed “kids” there makes me angry beyond words and turns my stomach, but I smile and have made friends with many of them. We get into some pretty in depth conversations. I save my anger for when I am alone and can deal with it in my own way.
Posts: 3621 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Is the point that the Democrats wish to withdraw funding and , in all ways possible, make the continuance of the war in Iraq impractical ? And in so doing they are endangering soldiers there? If that's the point it may be debatable but it's a point
Or is it that they show great disrespect for the bravery and the work of soldiers, the ethos of the military, by impeding the military or by seeking now to get the troops out? If it's that then it's a puzzling point.
In some campaigns there comes a time when one side or the other, or both,reach the conclusion that further action will not produce any good results. Then they withdraw. History gives us many examples. Iraq now may prove to be one: the British have evidently decided that this is so in the area where they operated. In the past (the C19, not now ) we did the same in Afghanistan. How does this action show any disrespect for the military ? How does deciding that the war is no longer worth conducting attack the ethos of the military? It's a fact that soldiers have to live with: they do their duty, follow all commands, but their leaders decide that men have been killed and shall be killed without any benefit to their country.Soldiers have to live (and die) with their commanders' and political leaders' changing opinion and, sometimes, their commanders' and leaders' mistaken actions and decisions.
In no case does this reflect upom the bravery of the men who died.A man may die bravely and in vain. He may die bravely when fighting for the enemy. In both cases he is a hero, whatever the reason for his being in the conflict and however right or wrong the thinking or beliefs of his leaders.As such he merits respect.
