Ghosts of the 7th Cavalry

[clansman]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but I watched a documentary with the above title last night. It was the story of a retired US army major who is now 83 years old and served with the 7th in WW11, Korea and Vietnam. He was, in fact, quite critical of the 7ths record in these wars, particularly in Korea. There was one instance where the 7th fired on a column of Korean refugees, killing more than 400, mostly women and children. The "incident", of course, was hushed up by the military who afterwards said that it was a general order to shoot at refugees because North Korean soldiers often hid amonst them. Research of army records since has failed to turn up any such order. He has also been adopted by the Sicangu Lakota and was instrumental in trying to get the CMHs from Wounded Knee rescinded, which of course has been refused.
Despite the criticism he added that the soldiers he fought with from the 7th Cavalry were second to none.

[biggordie]

Any place we can read it is the right place, clansman. I recall seeing part of a documentary about, or which mentioned, that "incident" in Korea. I seem to remember a bridge being involved, although to be truthful [which I sometimes am] I rather think I was channel-surfing and happened to pass that one when it was discussing the event. I dwelt there for only a couple of minutes. Had I heard a Seventh Cavalry [the Seventh of the First] mention, I might have tarried longer. Seems to me that there was a mention of an investigation being undertaken at this late date.

Gordie

[BrokenSword]

Not all wars are won or lost on the battlefield, especially so in more recent years. A separate battlefield of equal, or even perhaps greater importance is waged in the headlines of news outlets. Spin warriors, who massage the facts (some call it propaganda) to win, or to keep, public opinion on their side feed eager and often lazy, news reporters materials for print. The more sensational the better in most of their minds. The public at large is easily lead through its ignorance of the realities of war and by way of the moral preening of its politicians.

So, since it should come as no surprise to anyone that bad things happen in all conflicts, it should be no surprise that most military organizations will attempt to ‘manage’ the news in some way. From simple explanation all the way up the scale to an out and out cover-up, if you will, are methods borne of necessity. Good or bad occurrences will be bent in the facts to conform to whatever agenda serves the cause of one side or the other.

There are, in fact, orders that are unwritten, or ‘off the books’ as we say in the USA. Leaving behind the severely wounded falls into this category. Anyone who is even minimally aware, and truly unbiased in outlook knows what has happened to allied and coalition soldiers who have fallen into the hands of the present day Muslim extremists. The use of human shields shouldn’t be a surprise either. It was likewise true with the Viet Cong, and the same in Lawrence’s Arab Rebellion as well for soldiers captured by Indian tribes in those wars in America. We have discussed this conundrum as it applied to the survivors on Reno Hill. Look through the records all you want, but you won’t find any such orders. That does not mean that they were not there, or misunderstood, or even that they were wrong and completely unacceptable at those times. It also doesn’t mean that those wounded comrades, in a helpless condition, didn’t expect you to follow ‘orders’ if that obligation fell to you.

I can understand the sense of shock that occurs among those who have been left free to morally judge from the safety of distance or involvement, but the notions of chivalry left the field of conflict many, many decades ago. The popular entertainment media (including most news outlets) keep the illusion alive, to an extent and depending on which spin on it suits their particular, and usually, personal agendas.

This is simply the world according to me, and should not be seen as directed at any particular poster’s comments. Maybe.

Michael

[clansman]

Gordie.
Not a bridge but a sewage pipe that the refugees tried to hide in.

brokensword.
I am not criticising anyone. I know as well as the next man how difficult combat situations can be. I have been in a few myself. What struck me was that this account and others were not narrated by some obscure historian but by a former 7th soldier who was there. A man who was proud of his regiment who chose to reveal the darker side. As far as "any particular posters' comments", they are not my comments. I am merely repeating what the programme said.

[BrokenSword]

Clansman,

No problem. I am aware of some of your experiences and background, and certainly did not have you in mind with any comments I posted.

I really know nothing of the particular incident under (apparently) investigation, and which was brought up. Neither do I know anything about the Major mentioned, or the story he tells. In the broad scheme of things it does not sound unique within any war‘s occurrences.

It’s more that I so often see examples of those who are caught in the middle, trying their best while dealing with the worst (Reno comes to mind) and who are unfairly made poster child, if you will, by one side or another to achieve some other purpose, which, in itself, betrays a dishonesty equal to any screw-up or so-called cover-up.

Michael

P.S. I might add, that I'm defending no one, nor am I condeming anyone as regards this particular story.

[Dark Cloud]

No Gun Ri is relevant to the tales emerging from the LBH. This is the Wiki, read it all through and see how many times the tale changes, how both sides of the argument lied.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri

Mr. Daily came within a hair's breath of becoming an authority on the matter, and a published author - perhaps described as a historian - to boot. Doesn't everyone look good? So good.

[clansman]

brokensword.
Thanks for that. I too am not passing judgement on anyone. I am well aware that every army has its darker moments, Culloden springs to mind in my own country, I was just relating what I saw.

[Diane Merkel]

Thanks for the link, DC. The U.S. Army Inspector General report of 2001 summary concluded:

Neither the documentary evidence nor the U.S. veterans’ statements reviewed by the U.S. Review Team support a hypothesis of deliberate killing of Korean civilians. What befell civilians in the vicinity of Nogeun-ri in late July 1950 was a tragic and deeply regrettable accompaniment to a war forced upon unprepared U.S. and ROK forces.

The man in the documentary would not be the first to turn on his former colleagues for (check one) ego, publicity, money, celebrity, power, etc., etc. Some people will sell their souls for one or all of those. I'll resist naming a couple of examples from the wonderful world of politics.

I hope the documentary was old and the 2001 investigation was the one referenced. I'd hate to have the whole thing dredged up again. Of course, most people in the USA probably don't know we ever fought in Korea. . . .

[biggordie]

You're probably right about it being an older doc - I hardly watched it long enough to get any more than a general idea of what it was about.

Gordie

[clansman]

Diane

You're right, of course. No one wants it dredged up again. As I said, every army has been involved in similiar incidents. I can't remember the guys' name, just that he was nicknamed "Scuzzy". He seemed genuine but what do we know? He was certainly well received at 7th reunions. I just thought that my post would be of some interest to students of the 7th.

[BrokenSword]

Clansman,

There was absolutely nothing wrong with your posting of the story. I certainly don’t, and doubt anyone else either, thought that you were trying to make some political statement by ‘dredging it up’ again. History is nothing but dredging it all up again. Don’t feel as though anyone is trying to put you on the defensive, or that you even need to defend or explain why you brought it up. It’s good that you did. I learned of something I didn’t know of before, and for that I’m grateful to you.

M

[Dark Cloud]

Don't read it looking for quotes that support preconceptions, and read it all the way through. The Army DID have such a policy, according to the Ambassador at the time in a letter he wrote then to the State Department, which was the recently revealed item that brought this forward again. And the Army, just like with Tillman, lied through its teeth. It didn't need to.

Like Reno's 'abandonment of the wounded', it sounds god awful and un-American and all that, but the reality was there was no way to distinguish North Korean infiltrators/insurgents (certainly present) from actual refugees, and the Army dumped it on the guys on the ground, who probably made rational choices interleavened with reactions incited by fear and complete ignorance of Korean language, people, and motivation. It must have been terrifying. In short, it sounds like what happens in every damned war, and that should cover it.

What made it bad was the Army, apparently concerned with 'honor' (by which was meant the careers of a some when Korea complained) and underneath that, politics involving the sort that establishes budgets, lied and tried to BLAME their own soldiers for a policy that came from their top. A few 'bad eggs' type of presentation, rather than telling the truth. In the cold light of history it's a perfectly understandable decision they made.

But it sucked quite badly, when the incident was publicly revealed, to tell the old versions of the young kids fighting for their nation that because they followed orders based upon a policy of the Army and government that they're just offal and murderers, a disgrace to their unit, peers, and country. THAT is despicable.

Korea probably, like ourselves with our war dead, just wanted closure, an apology, and the dignity of truth, interspersed with politicians trying to use it for gain. Much like the USS Liberty incident. We lost thousands in their defense, and they know bad things happen, like friendly fire. You cannot retroactively apply variants of civil law to a war zone. You could, however, hold accountable those trying to blame others for actions they promoted and certainly allowed just because it's now embarrassing.