Following is an article by David Hackworth on a variety of political issues. This article is included on Special Operations.Com not because of the article itself, as Special Operations.Com is a non-political website, but rather for the response that follows the article. The response, written by Don Martin, conveys an important message to all Vietnam veterans, that they did not lose the War. Hackworth's article, in fact, can be skipped in favor of reading only the response if you are so inclined. Just scroll down to where it says "The Response" - Tom Hunter
TWO-STRIPERS AS CHIEFS
by DAVID H. HACKWORTH,
11 January 2000
Last week, Al Gore said he'd require any appointee to the U.S. armed forces
Joint Chiefs of Staff to agree in advance to allow homosexuals to serve openly
in our military.
When asked about Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, here's how he
responded: "I would insist before appointing anybody to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff that the individual support my policy. And, yes, I would make that a
requirement."
After enduring the next 48 hours of heavy incoming fire, the vice president
stumbled out of his bunker and told millions of Americans they'd misheard. He
weasel-worded that he "did not mean to imply that there should ever be any kind
of inquiry into the personal political opinions of the officers."
Millions of Americans "misheard"? I don't think so.
Clearly, Gore lied. But what's new? He lied about his combat service in Vietnam
when he said he'd been there and done that grunt stuff, lied about plowing the
back 40 on his daddy's tobacco farm and now is lying about what your ears
transmitted to our brains.
Sure, most politicians lie. But to lie so blatantly about an issue so critical
to our security and then have the chutzpah to say we got it wrong is even more
insulting than usual.
My take is that, like President Lyndon Johnson, Gore has issues with the brass.
I reckon what we witnessed on television was the real Gore caught dead in the
center of a subconscious slip. He's on record when he was a soldier in Vietnam
for calling his officers "fascists" and driving his buddies nuts over how much
he hated the Army.
Granted the Army drill must've been hard for a Harvard graduate -- an enlisted
man who'd led a privileged life of servants and private schools. The son of a
rich and powerful senator wouldn't exactly be thrilled with an outfit that made
him get up at o'dark hundred, stand in line in the rain, eat out of a mess kit
and shout "How high, sir?" when told to jump.
Things got better once Gore got to Vietnam. There his basic weapon was a
Remington typewriter, and the headquarters' snack bar was light-years away from
the trenches where the daily fighting and dying occurred. He was special: the
only enlisted man in Vietnam with his own bodyguard.
Gore's senator daddy also got his son's 12-month tour cut to five by leaning on
a political general. The unconnected, of course, served a minimum of 12 months
unless they went out Purple Heart early on a stretcher or in a body bag.
So it's easy to see why he wants generals and admirals who'll
go-along-to-get-along, advisers to expedite his political agenda and help scoop
up the homosexual vote -- while finishing off our armed forces.
But it's critical that the service chiefs and the chairman of the JC of S be
their own men, not presidential lap dogs. They must be selected because they're
the best in the armed forces to win wars, not because they'll be the president's
personal yes men.
The chiefs were just so politicized and manipulated by LBJ during the Vietnam
War. And as a result of LBJ's anti-brass paranoia, his lies to the public and
the service chiefs' dereliction of duty, we lost our first war and have a black
monument in Washington D.C. inscribed with the names of 58,000 sacrificial
lambs.
There's already been too much compromise and not enough standing tall by the
chiefs and the rest of our brass hats. In the last seven years, not one serving
senior officer has challenged the Clinton-Gore agenda -- pushing political
correctness and committing our forces on wrongheaded missions -- that's led to
the near destruction of our military.
If Gore becomes the prez, I bet a six-pack not one serving admiral and general
will sell his or her soul for a chief's job if it means going along with Gore's
open-homosexuality-in-the-ranks scenario. There'll be an avalanche of
resignations instead. And then a bunch of very liberal corporals will be brought
in to take over the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Finally, the Clinton-Gore demolition
job on the armed forces will be complete!
It just might be expedient to learn Chinese.
-----------------
THE RESPONSE
Dear Friends:
Ref: first article, paragraph 13, I believe, in which "Hack" (he did write this
didn't he?) talks about our (the USA) having lost its first war (in Vietnam).
I STRONGLY DISAGREE. We (the USA, especially the armed forces of the USA, and I
was there in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) DID NOT LOSE THE WAR.
We won every major battle. We won most of the minor battles (if there is such a
thing, and I doubt there is to the individual soldier being shot at).
We did not lose the war. THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH VIETNAM lost the war two years
after our politicians in Washington, D. C. called us home and pulled us out of
Vietnam.
The Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) lost the war despite having a much
larger population, better natural resources, being better trained (or having the
opportunity to be better trained, at least), being better equipped, and after
having our help from between 12 to 14 years, including the sacrifice of 58,000
lives and probably ten times that many wounded, including myself.
Why? Because the North Vietnamese were "True Believers," in their cause, willing
to fight to the death, to the last man, woman and child, for decades, for a
hundred years if necessary. The South Vietnamese seemingly were not so inclined.
Many years ago, while in a "Bootstrap" college program shortly after my return
from Southeast Asia, a wise young college professor required our class to read a
book entitled "The True Believer," or Believers plural, (??) by Eric Hoffer. If
you have not read the book, it is highly recommended. Mr. Hoffer, a former dock
worker, longshoreman, self-taught philosopher, an immigrant to the USA (Chicago
?), as I recall, spelled out via historical example and future predictions who
the winners and losers were / will be. Summing it up, it's not the folks with
the most guns, bullets, natural resources, or money. It's the folks who are true
believers in their cause or causes and who will sacrifice anything to make them
happen who win in politics, war, or in any other arena.
Why do combat veterans of the United States continue to talk about the war we
lost in Vietnam?
Frankly speaking from this old helicopter pilot, platoon leader, company
commander, paratrooper, infantryman (with enlisted, warrant and commissioned
service . . . 24 years, plus 18 on the retired list) - BULLSHIT!!! We did not
lose that war, and we damn' sure did not lose the war during the time I was
there, which included TET '68 and a lot of other major battles and many, many
"hot" excursions "across the fence" with the Green Berets! (God bless 'em.)
Thanks for listening. If you are a Vietnam Vet, you are a Winner, and thanks,
and Welcome Home! De Oppresso Liber, Airborne, Above the Best.
Sincerely,
Don L. Martin, USA (retired)
Crocodile Six
Feeling like a winner, still
Member, SOA, SFA, VFW, VHPA