|
Post by montrose on Aug 28, 2016 6:56:00 GMT -6
My post was interpreted differently than I intended.
My point was that video and audio recordings helped us figure out exactly what happened, and revealed a story very different than the original narrative.
Both Roberts and Chapman were left behind, alive, in complex circumstances. The rest of the battle was to get back in there, and recover the bodies, make sure they was no chance of survival. A lot of this battle was to recover folks the leaders believed to be dead, and eventually knew to be dead. (A platform came in that could read heat signatures, and Roberts body was known KIA after it arrived). I have no issues with the performance of the operators on the ground.
As far as planning,...I personally know several people involved, and would prefer to not open that can of worms. Infiltrating an recon team on top of an objective violates every principle of planning in special operations. It was known that there were human made bunkers and antiair positions on the objective. It was known that humans were in that area, though numbers varied by day. They had weapons, but so did most adult males in that region. The plan was supposed to be an infil far enough away where enemy would not hear the infil aircraft. The decision to land on the objective was the team leader's recommendation, but it had to be approved by his first and second level superiors in his chain of command. The true responsibility is on that second line supervisor, who led the FOB. He should have been fired. He certainly should have been held accountable for his gross incompetence.
Landing on top of the objective is a direct action thing, not a special reconnaissance thing. If you land on top, you bring in the force to kill them all.
Now look at Chapman. Wounded and knocked out, he wakes up by himself in enemy territory. He did no head down the ridge towards the emergency extraction point, he moved uphill towards the objective. Roberts was missing and not known to be dead at that time., so that may have been why.
The normal requirement for a Medal of Honor is two surviving eyewitnesses. This case is unique, there are none. Even the Talibs didn't survive this day. What we have is video recorded by 2 sources, a drone and a SOF AC-130. What moved this from an Air Force Cross to MoH is the rediscovery of the 2nd video. I say rediscovery, because I saw both videos over ten years ago. And we can talk pixel crap, but you can see Chapman move to that bunker in the original footage.
The media will eventually use Freedom of Information Act to release these videos to the general public.
Bottom Line: My point is to praise the heroics of SGT Chapman, not to damn other participants in a hard fight.
Shifting gears: Imagine if we had a predator at LBH. We would know beyond doubt who is a hero and who is a zero. I believe such evidence would mostly please Gerry in his analysis of our friend Thompson. And destroy Custer, Girard, and Golden.
But I can't use alternate history, or a "reimaging" of events to evaluate, that is historical fiction, not history. Bernard Cornwell is excellent of this approach, Philbrick and Donahue to a lesser degree. None of them are historians.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 28, 2016 7:26:25 GMT -6
Col William
Shifting gears: Imagine if we had a predator at LBH. We would know beyond doubt who is a hero and who is a zero Only if Custer had the use of one also. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 28, 2016 9:31:08 GMT -6
Just to let you all know, I am within a hair's breadth of deleting my membership from the LBHA's boards. I can take a lot, including criticism, but when the lies and categorizations begin to come out, I draw the line.
If it doesn't cease, I shall be contacting the LBHA's board members to make sure they cease.
I have been a member here, on and off, for eleven years now, probably longer than anyone with the possible exception of Steve and the definite exception of Tom-crzhrs. I turned 76 at the end of July and have so many projects in the works, including two, and possibly three, new books, as well as a book review, and now even a lecture looming. It is becoming increasingly difficult to remain active, and while I will never delete my membership here, my posts will be less and less frequent, and for that I must apologize.
I think I have contributed a fair amount here and have shared virtually everything I could over these years. I really do cherish the friendships I have made here, especially those of you I have met. I would dearly like to meet more of you-- Mississippi Dave... Beth... Will... Carl... Robb... that damned Irishman, what's-his-name... and I would love to see Dan Sheehan again... maybe some day.
Besides... I really do miss my friend, Dark Cloud.
Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 28, 2016 14:19:39 GMT -6
Wild guess, something flaky going on the other board. You need to stop reading over there.
Good luck on your future projects.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Aug 28, 2016 15:13:03 GMT -6
Montrose I am glad the heroics of SGT Chapman are being recognized regardless of his branch of service. I look forward to more of your posts revealing a little behind the scenes of SOF. I realize these professionals' operations are not for public disclosure but hope that the military properly honors those who merit such awards.
Fred St Patrick is never going to master any of the intricacies of the Little Big Horn and its participants by accepting Hollywood's interpretation of this seminal American event. His hero worship of the moderator is understandable when he has no desire of actually studying the battle and only grasps the CliffNotes version. Why in the world do you expect any sanity in a St. Elizabeths Hospital type of environment? Have you decided to emulate Diogenes? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 28, 2016 16:35:51 GMT -6
You're too sensitive for your own good Fred. You and the late lamented were a class act ; your expertise ,DC's elequence . The board could not survive a second hit of such magnatude, We need a champion . Never apologise, never explain, never resign.
You know where the Marines got their watch word from ? From the Wild Geese....Semper e ubique Fidelis. Why do I mention that ? I don't know other than to leave you with something gallant. Keep the faith Richard
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 28, 2016 20:47:43 GMT -6
Always prefared the knight opening ; more in keeping with the cavalry spirit don't you think? Best Wishes Richard
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 29, 2016 9:01:12 GMT -6
You're too sensitive for your own good Fred. You and the late lamented were a class act ; your expertise ,DC's elequence . The board could not survive a second hit of such magnatude, We need a champion . Never apologise, never explain, never resign. You know where the Marines got their watch word from ? From the Wild Geese....Semper e ubique Fidelis. Why do I mention that ? I don't know other than to leave you with something gallant. Keep the faith Richard Why is it that you Celts have such an affect on me? It must be the Prussian in me. Between you, Ian, Andrews, Elmore, and that damn duo of Bender and Tubman... well... Thanks. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Aug 29, 2016 9:31:05 GMT -6
Fred, Fred, Fred,......
You participate on the crazy board more than here, to the sufferance of your life expectancy.
Fred bought into an argument from Rini that the quantity of citations from Philbrook and Donovan proves their point of views, not the quality of those citations. It has been pointed out by hundreds of historians that Philbrook and Donahue are frauds. Their citations have no relevance to their theories.
Philbrook and Donahue are to history what Bernie Madoff is to finance.
I have served as a second reader on grad school theses for 19 years. Fred asked me to review a few chapters of what became Strategy. IAs part of my review, I checked every single citation he used, and ensured it supported the theory in the text. I had to pay for access to some sources, so I could see for myself.
Applying this same approach to P/D boggles my mind. I found 48 false citations in the first 50 I checked.
It is not that the citations are fake, they do not support the point made in the text. With respect to Philbrook, they flat out contradict him.
Fred, you actively participate in the liar board, and then get offended when folks lie. You enable that board, where your help assists the theories of that board.
SO I am clear: Quantity of false citations does not enhance theories or hypothesis that are emotional, counterfactual, and are disproved by overwhelming evidence.
Nicht wahr?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 29, 2016 11:34:30 GMT -6
NO, Fred . . . you cannot abandon us . . . not in these times of uncertainty, especially regarding the LBH, plus your objective, non-agenda philosophy . . . unless, of course you are going after that "other" board.
While I am not as frequent a poster as in the past I do check in every now and then and throw in an opinion or two.
I guess I'm running out of steam regarding the LBH, it seems we have gone over everything numerous times and can't quite figure out exacty what happened. Then Fred comes along with his research, field work and constant digging to help us through all the debris, nonsense and illogical and/or agenda driven posts.
Fred is needed here more than ever, even just an occasion post.
Losing DC was a blow and we can't sustain another one!
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 29, 2016 12:26:15 GMT -6
Sometimes a "like thumbs up" is inadquate so just a line of support.Those two posts above are good. Hurrah
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 29, 2016 15:19:45 GMT -6
You guys are going to be the death of me.
Will... please change your post: I think you mean DONOVAN, not Donahue.
And Will, if you think I am posting more there, that will change. You have my word on it.
As for the rest, you are all correct. I got an extremely nice e-mail from Ian this morning. You guys have all changed my perspective on things... and I thank you all.
Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 29, 2016 16:10:42 GMT -6
Fred, I am talking out of school here. You obviously don't like answering your phone after you make your nonsense posts. I received a call from Steve within 15 mins. of your post asking what the deal was. He had already called you, as had I. I had just come in from 90 degree heat and read your post. Steve did some home work and figured it out.
I am not going to beg you to stay, although I hope you do, but damn it answer your f-ing phone.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by shan on Aug 30, 2016 6:19:05 GMT -6
Fred.
I see from a quick look at the board this morning that this is arriving a little late, nevertheless, I'd like to echo what Crzhr said, because I'm in much the same position of, for I too rarely post these days for the same sort of reasons.
I can't remember when it was I joined, but it must be around 1998 --2003? Something like that, so I too have seen the arguments go round and round, before stuttering and stalling, only to pick up again and proceed to throw out the same old theories before the cycle stutters to a halt again. Nevertheless, I've hung on in there, not, I like to say, , as a lurker,{ I hate that term,} but as someone who desperately hopes that someone: anyone, will resolve the matter and thus release me from this terrible burden that's been niggling away at my mind for what feels like a lifetime: in other words, that dammed need to know what the hell! exactly happened that day.
And then, as others have already said, someone like Fred comes along and throws some light on the situation. Now I have to admit that I've had my difficulties with some of the things he has to say. But then Fred's a facts man,{ that's a compliment by the way Fred,} the type of person whose quite prepared to sit down and wade through mountains of evidence in order to find some pattern, that he can then pass onto the rest of us. Me myself, don't have that kind of mind, preferring instead to search around for the type of evidence one finds in the Indian artworks they made concerning the event. I would argue that one gets a better picture of what happened from their point of view amongst the drawings, than one does from the oral evidence, which as we know, has been contaminated both by bad translation and simple misunderstanding.
But that's another issue altogether, one that will only get in the way of what I want to say, which is not you to hang on in there Fred, your work is needed, and I for one have found it a great help in peering through the dust and gun smoke, as I suspect, have numerous others. Oh, and while I'm at it, I'd like to put in a plea that you that don't abandon the other Board either. Look, I share the general opinion that apart from the daily two horse race that has become the nor ~~ Blaque-- Blaque where are you? It's become the victim of ~~ oh, I won't go on, but you know what I mean. Enough said.
Best wishes Shan
|
|
|
Post by shan on Aug 30, 2016 6:25:38 GMT -6
Couple of mistakes there I'm afraid, but look I'm quite happy to blame the computer for such things and not my good self. Thus, the sentence that read, "which is not you to hang on in there Fred, your work is needed," should have read, " hang on in there Fred, your contribution is needed." Plain and simple, so why didn't the computer understand that?
Shan
|
|