Why doesn't Alex Haley deserve recognition?

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

There was similiar situation about a decade ago. During a Black History Month speech then Secretary Slater turned to the commandant (sitting behind Slater on the stage) and said the next cutter the Coast Guard got would be named for Alex Haley. This did not go through the naming board or anywhere else. In turn, the commandant had to get to work to convince the Coast Guard that Alex Haley was deserving of having a ship named for him. It was a political expedient. And no, Haley did not deserve the honor. He did nothing during his CG career to warrant it. If anyone wants to know why put a question on the history board.

Okay, I'll take a stab at it. Haley was a fraud in his post Coast Guard life. Roots was plagarized from a novel, The African. When the author sued Haley, he was forced to acknowledge his plagarism and pay Courlander $650,000 out of court.

As far as his career goes, since he was the first Chief Journalist I do believe he does deserve some recognition, but naming a Cutter after him? No way.

I obtained my information from http://p199.ezboard.com/fsociety27085frm1.showMessage?topicID=226.topic

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

There is an honor named for JOC Alex Haley, visit CIM 1650.25C to find the details.

Of course, prior to the naming of the cutter, this was said by someone at the palace ...

There is no way we can tell people how much we value Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty, and then honor someone that has recently displayed disregard for these very core values.
... referring to another incident and not Chief Haley.

Of course, when politicians are involved ... everything is thrown out the window.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Okay, I'll take a stab at it. Haley was a fraud in his post Coast Guard life. Roots was plagarized from a novel, The African. When the author sued Haley, he was forced to acknowledge his plagarism and pay Courlander $650,000 out of court.

As far as his career goes, since he was the first Chief Journalist I do believe he does deserve some recognition, but naming a Cutter after him? No way.

I obtained my information from http://p199.ezboard.com/fsociety27085frm1.showMessage?topicID=226.topic


I believe that calling him a fraud is a bit too far. I will say that his book is not a good one, but is it is an important book for creating a sense of family history not only in the Black community but others as well.

His plagerism did not extend to Courtlander alone. There was another. He was also sued by his published for taking advances and not producing the work.

Had he put his book out as fiction rather than history it would have not received the criticism it did from numerous professional geneaologists who tracked down his sources and found them to be falsely reported. In his documents uncovered at his home after his death, there were notes that even changed the name of his African ancestor to change the English meaning from "slave trader" to "warrior." There is even doubt that he decended from the tribe he claims. His brother has refused to take a DNA test as Whoopie Goldberg has done to prove her connection.

The only thing that bothered me was his treatment of the Coast Guard. Despite his actual feelings, he painted the Coast Guard as a racist organization. I published an article about his true feelings some years ago.

He also made up the part about being the JO rating being made for him. He was the first JOC but this was because he was a YN1 (public affairs) when the rating was created. Also the Coast Guard had many highly qualified journalists in Service during WWII.

The chapters plagerized in Roots were not his first gambit. He had an article iin Reader's Digest during the 1960s that was a near copy of one that appeared in the USNI Proceedings during WWII. Even the title of Roots was probably fostered by a play of the same name that the saw in New York.

I believe he was under severe pressure when he wrote the book from three sides. He did not have the historical skills to properly research the information. He had promised his publisher to produce a work of history that he could not prove and coming off his Playboy interviews and his editorship of the Malcom X book he had to speak to his audience which was primarily black. It was an era where he could not speak truthfully of how well he was treated during his career in the Coast Guard. It would have been seen as a cop out by both sides.

Since the Coast Guard has established the precedent of naming cutters for retirees who have been successful in literary files. I recommend Dennis Noble. He has written more books about the Coast Guard than anyone. How about Sloan Wilson. Great books about the WWII Coast Guard. They are fiction but are true to the bone.

The naming of cutters is an emotionally charged matter, but this one was about politics and not the man which is a shame.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Naming cutters after authors? Oh my!

It seems to me that we should be naming the new DHS cutters after Coast Guard war heroes and CGC Nathan Bruckenthal should be first. Another that comes to mind is LCDR Quentin Walsh, from WWW.USCG.Mil/History

Quentin R. Walsh
Lieutenant Commander (later Captain) Quentin R. Walsh was a member of the Logistics and Planning Section, US Naval Forces during World War II. Prior to the Normandy invasion, he planned the occupation and operation of the ports that were to be captured from the Germans. During the fighting for Cherbourg in late June 1944, Walsh and Lieutenant Frank Lauer, USNR forced the surrender of Fort du Homet, a German stronghold. The two entered the fort knowing its defenders had not yet surrendered. They told the Germans that the city had already fallen. Believing the two Americans led a large force, the Germans held their fire. After a while Walsh and Lauer convinced the occupants that the city had indeed fallen. They then accepted the surrender of 300 German troops and liberated 50 American paratroopers who had been prisoners since D-Day. Lieutenant Commander Walsh received the Navy Cross for his actions.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Naming cutters after authors? Oh my!

It seems to me that we should be naming the new DHS cutters after Coast Guard war heroes and CGC Nathan Bruckenthal should be first.

A number of years ago the thought of naming cutters for the Vietnam dead came up. Someone investigated their records and found some had NJPs and what not. This made them unacceptable because they did not live up the Core Values. The same values that did not come up until over thirty years after they died.

I would not be in favor of using the name of two of the Vietnam dead. I knew both of them and they double-loaded the mortar and killed themselves by accident. No heroism there. However, I do know some live heroes who do deserve the honor.

I'm would not vote for Bruckenthall either. It was probably poor tactics and judgement that caused his death. He did nothing heroic, nothing more than thousands of others who have been killed by IEDs.

Herbie Hernandez was killed by enemy small arms fire, but poor judegment by a CG officer put him in the situation.

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

I'm would not vote for Bruckenthall either. It was probably poor tactics and judgement that caused his death.

Being a history buff that you are... I'm just curious, but that statement sounds a lot like speculation? Did you read something that I didn't?

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

A number of years ago the thought of naming cutters for the Vietnam dead came up. Someone investigated their records and found some had NJPs and what not. This made them unacceptable because they did not live up the Core Values. The same values that did not come up until over thirty years after they died.

I would not be in favor of using the name of two of the Vietnam dead. I knew both of them and they double-loaded the mortar and killed themselves by accident. No heroism there. However, I do know some live heroes who do deserve the honor.

I'm would not vote for Bruckenthall either. It was probably poor tactics and judgement that caused his death. He did nothing heroic, nothing more than thousands of others who have been killed by IEDs.

Herbie Hernandez was killed by enemy small arms fire, but poor judegment by a CG officer put him in the situation.

Well, what about LCDR Walsh? He and a Navy man convinced a whole fort full of Germans to surrender, also liberating 50 parachutists. He should have been given the MOH.

What about Commander Hirschfield, CO of the Campbell that engaged and sank a U-Boat?

What about LT Maurice Jester of the cutter Icarus? He engaged and sank U-852.

I could name many others but you get the point.

I agree that naming a ship after someone that killed themselves by accident is wrong. I also believe that naming a ship just because of politics is wrong.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Well, what about LCDR Walsh? He and a Navy man convinced a whole fort full of Germans to surrender, also liberating 50 parachutists. He should have been given the MOH.

What about Commander Hirschfield, CO of the Campbell that engaged and sank a U-Boat?

What about LT Maurice Jester of the cutter Icarus? He engaged and sank U-852.

I could name many others but you get the point.

I agree that naming a ship after someone that killed themselves by accident is wrong. I also believe that naming a ship just because of politics is wrong.

I believe there should have been ships named for all six of the Navy Cross awardees. That should be a given. The navy did for theirs including Samuel B. Roberts who died with Douglas Munro.

I have always felt Walsh should have been awarded the MOH. His action was far and above. He not only saved the lives of 350 or so enemy troops but probably a hundred or so U. S. troops who would have had to root them out. Ironcially, had he taken them in combat he may have been awarded the MOH.

Ever wonder why there were no Navy Cross awarded to a Coast Guardsman in Vietnam? There were only three enlisted Silver Star Medals. The 17 or so of others went to officers.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'm would not vote for Bruckenthall either. It was probably poor tactics and judgement that caused his death. He did nothing heroic, nothing more than thousands of others who have been killed by IEDs.

Bill, maybe you missed the question so I'll ask again, Is there any evidence that he was killed by poor tactics and judgement? He joined the Coast Guard and served his country during a war, call that what you will, but that's heroic enough for me.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

In regards to Nathan Bruckenthall-

As a service we are probably more inclined to recognize those killed in action with grand measures (naming a ship for them) than other services simply because we don't have that many of our members killed in action (compared to other services).

If PO Bruckenthall were one of hundreds/thousands, our criteria for such measures would be much higher. But, we are a small service. It's traumatic when we lose just one. I see no problem naming a ship after PO Bruckenthall.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

[COLOR=Sienna]

Bill, maybe you missed the question so I'll ask again, Is there any evidence that he was killed by poor tactics and judgement? He joined the Coast Guard and served his country during a war, call that what you will, but that's heroic enough for me.

It may sound heroic for those who have never served in a similiar enviroment, but not for those who have.

I boarded thousand of vessels in Vietnam in day and night settings. We were required to board at least 65% of all sightings. We changed our tactics for boarding from time to time because an enemy is ever watchful for routines. The situation here was there were two dhows entering a restricted zone at the same time and the same manner.

That should have raised a flag something was different. The terrorists on the dhow had observed past boardings and I bet this one was no different from the rest. They did wait until the RHIB got along side and they touched off the explosives. The crew on the RHIB did nothing in the situation.

The navy did not change and the terrorists took advantage of it. The terrorists are doing the same thing now with helicopters in Iraq just as the Somalias did in "Blackhawk Down." The watched and learned and when tactics did not change, the opposition used that against U. S. forces. It happened in Vietnam all the time.

I a way it is arrogance not to change. Here's the way we handled water craft in restricted zones (some of them were Free Fire). The vessel would be seen entering. Under our ROE we would signal them to stop with flashing light, warning shots and such in case they had wandered into the zone by accident which was usually the case. If they did not stop after the signals we took them under fire. It was simple and after a few of the craft were shot up the folks began getting the message to stay away. This cleared the area and made it easier to identify more hostile forces.

Of course, this conflict may be more kinder and gentler. I do know there was an effort not to antagonize the Iraqis, but at some point I would err on the side of caution and protect my people. So what if you shoot up a dhow once in awhile. The government pays the family and life goes on. Heck, we killed a water buffalo in a GFS mission and we paid more for it than the Vietnamese civilian one of our cooks ran down in 1-ton truck on mail run to the airport.

Folks have forgotten that ENC Beeson and FN Herbie Hernandez were killed in small boat operations and neither were presented the Bronze Star with "V." Why not? Both were killed by AK-47 fire. In fact, none of the Vietnam Squadron One dead were presented this medal--none. Why? Were they not heroic?

I've asked before what was heroic in the action? Simply being there is not heroic. A high school friend of mine was a Marine with one week in Vietnam when he caught a round right through his head. No Bronze Star for him. The Coast Guard MIA at Normandy did not get a Bronze Star nor did those killed aboard the ships.

Are the other services giving out Bronze Stars to everyone who is killed by an IED?

Perhaps someone would like to show the government definition of heroism. It would make an interesting discussion.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

He did nothing heroic, nothing more than thousands of others who have been killed by IEDs.



Bill, The same can be said for most everyone killed in combat. It's one thing to be killed in an accident of your own making, but being killed as a result of less then stellar decisions by your leaders, does not reflect on the actions of the individual.

As for Nathan Bruckenthall, the way I see it he knowingly and voluntarily placed himself in-between a potential suicide bomber and the target he was assigned to protect. You can call it what you want, but see that as a little diferent from getting killed by an IED because you were driving to the airport. Do not get me wrong, In my mind everyone that gives their life for our country is a hero.

Should we name a Cutter after him? Don’t know. I do know we have cutters named after people that have done a lot less and not just in recent years.

Brett

[BMCS Dave Considine]

Small boat Port Security tactics have come along way since Vietnam. Our PSU's have been protecting Naval Assets in Yemen and other ports since the USS Cole. Guess how many Coast Guard Personnel have been killed - one (DC3). Not a bad record if you ask me compared to the number of hours spent inside security zones. Our boats are faster, our weapons are more accurate, and our doctrine is solid and tested. If you ask any of the PSU guys in 307 that were over in Yemen, the small boats there loved to test the PSU's using the dhoks. Like it or not the boat forces have to use "use of force'' ladder just like our boarding teams.

To take Nate Bruckenthals death and demean it as poor judgment or tactics is appalling. This occured in a war zone, just because some idiot wanted to blow himself up it is not poor judgement. They protected the asset, that was their assigned mission, and they did just that.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, The same can be said for most everyone killed in combat. It's one thing to be killed in an accident of your own making, but being killed as a result of less then stellar decisions by your leaders, does not reflect on the actions of the individual.

That is a good point, but does merely volunteering for hazardous assignments make one a hero? No, of course not. I volunteered for Vietnam, nearly everyone in the Coast Guard did. Were we all heroes? No, certainly not.

The boardings we did in Vietnam were far greater with a greater potential for incidents. The greatest difference was most of the Vietnamese on their boats were not suicidial. Then again, most of the people in the Persian Gulf are not either. The Vietnamese liked command det traps better. However, this does not mean they did not send sappers from time to time. That is why we had sapper watches on every boat while in port. Also, we lived on our WPBs all the time. We had no apartments or barracks.

As for Nathan Bruckenthall, the way I see it he knowingly and voluntarily placed himself in-between a potential suicide bomber and the target he was assigned to protect.

He volunteered, but the Coast Guard let him continue it. He was an eight-year PO3. Under the RIF he would have been gone already. He also never expected to be killed prior to boarding. They are trained to react only while on board. That may be a difference. We, in Vietnam, suspected everything and everyone. It is a healthy paranoia that did not seem to exist at that time. One way we leaned it was by others being killed. Up to that point the boardings were routine and probably some complacency had creeped into the boarding routine. Being self-assured and over confident can get you killed.

I am not saying he was killed from his own negligence. He just happened to be the one who got it. There is a Vietnamese phrase for this, sin loi, loosely translated as "tough sh_t" is as roughly comparable to the Arabic phrase "inshaalha." There is a fatalism to it just as there is in the CG's unofficial motto of "you have to go out but you don't have to come back," which is exactly what Burkenthal followed.

You can call it what you want, but see that as a little diferent from getting killed by an IED because you were driving to the airport. Do not get me wrong, In my mind everyone that gives their life for our country is a hero.

I use the local VA hospital. It is used by active duty troops because the army's medical center cannot handle them all. There are many IED wounded people and most were not going to the airport. There is no difference in being on patrol in a hummvee and a boat.

Should we name a Cutter after him? Don’t know. I do know we have cutters named after people that have done a lot less and not just in recent years.

I agree. There have been many including nearly all the secretary class names. The majority of these were political. During the 19th century it difficult for the Service to get new cutters. Usually it got one whenever a new secretary came about and he pushed to get funding for it. The cutter was usually named for him out of respect for his efforts and perhaps he would work to get another. There have been a few secretaries who deserved to have their names on cutters. These are the ones who worked to improve the service and the conditions for the officers and men. Taney is one who comes to mind.

There was even one hateful name. Northerner. It was in service following the Civil War. There has never been a cutter named Southerner.

I like live heroes over dead ones. The live ones can be long lasting personal examples. Hero status for the dead carries no personal responsiblity for the person and certainly none for the Coast Guard. It takes less effort to have dead heroes. All the Coast Guard need do is point a finger. Even the CGA claims Douglas Munro. I've never figured out why the CGA Alumni Association has not lobbied for a hero of its own. There are some likely candidates.

One of the things we learned about boarding in Vietnam was it was a team effort. If those doing the boarding did not like the situation they said so and talked it over with the CO. He understood is was their lives at stake and he respected their decisions. There was no top down order to board. This is also the difference in having the crew doing the boarding rather than a dedicated detachment. The detachment are essentially strangers to the vessel.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Small boat Port Security tactics have come along way since Vietnam. Our PSU's have been protecting Naval Assets in Yemen and other ports since the USS Cole. Guess how many Coast Guard Personnel have been killed - one (DC3). Not a bad record if you ask me compared to the number of hours spent inside security zones. Our boats are faster, our weapons are more accurate, and our doctrine is solid and tested. If you ask any of the PSU guys in 307 that were over in Yemen, the small boats there loved to test the PSU's using the dhoks. Like it or not the boat forces have to use "use of force'' ladder just like our boarding teams.

I understand this. However, the PSUs went in only after the Cole Inicident and their state of awareness was higher. What if they had been there before the incident. I have not been in Yemen, but I have been in the port in Jubouti. It was the same situation. Navy ships refueling with no security. I doubt the result would have been different if the PSU would have been there prior to the Cole Incident. They would have figured a way around you.

The ultimate cause of the Cole Incident may be laid at the feet of the Congress. It allowed the Navy' auxillary fleet to become so small it can no longer service the fleet. All refueling used to be a sea.

I know you can say the boats are faster but the 25-foot Boston Whaler don't have the legs for extended patrols. Nor do I know how you can say weapons are more accurate because they have not been tested by the Coast Guard in actual combat. There are times when steps in the ROE should be skipped. This takes experience.

To take Nate Bruckenthals death and demean it as poor judgment or tactics is appalling. This occured in a war zone, just because some idiot wanted to blow himself up it is not poor judgement. They protected the asset, that was their assigned mission, and they did just that.

No, I wrote that his death was caused by poor application of tactics and therefore poor judgement. The boardings he was doing were borne in the decade of the Iraqi Oil Embargo and, evidently, did not change with advent of more violent confrontation by a criminal element.

I do not demean enemies, especially those who have been successful in undermining your own tactics. This takes patience and learning. You consider some one on a suicide mission an "idiot." I call him a very dangerous oppoent who will require a change in tactics and routine.

I would say the failed in first protection, themselves. No one in our cultural situation should give up life for things. The oil transfer station, I've been there, could have been protected by simply blowing both dhows out of the water. Everyone would have been happer. The good guys could claim a victory and the bad guys could go to Paradise.

However, the boarding team, and local command, continued operating under the Oil Embargo rules and procedures and did not recognize the shift tactics to match action possibilities. The navy had a difficult time adopting new techniques in Vietnam. It is a wonder they did not lose more people than they did. Look up the case of PCF 4.


Never show disrespect for your enemies. As soon as you do, you're dead.

N. B. I forgot to add. The deaths and wounded personnel aboard Point Welcome in 1966 were directly attributed to a lack of policy and procedure in tactics and command.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

There is no difference in being on patrol in a hummvee and a boat.

They were not just on patrol; they had orders to intercept any vessel that posed a threat to the platform. The only reason for a vessel at that time, to be where it was, would be to cause harm to the platform.

Knowing that the only way a small craft can hurt an oil platform is to blow it up, and knowing that if caught, the enemy would not just put their hands up and say don’t shoot, and still putting yourself between them and the platform. I don’t call that a patrol.

Both the Navy Crew and the Coast Guard boarding team on that day knew the score and still did the mission.

Were they Heroes? It s all in the definition. But please do not call what they were doing a patrol.

Be Safe,

Brett

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'm sticking with everyone who serves their country in a time of war is a hero in my book. To me, anyone who dies as a result of that service retains that status throughout history. I'm also willing to look past any negative information that surfaces, and it doesn't diminish the fact that they died in the service of their country. I also like living heros more than dead ones, but the dead remain heros none the less.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

If we really look hard at any one person, there are plenty of things in our past that might preclude us from being honored posthumously.

I'm with Stu here on this.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Bill, I think we may be comparing Apples to Oranges. War is War, but, you have to admit that with the intelligence we can gather now, the tools we have at our disposal, the vehicles we have to use, this is a different war. Just look at the numbers, fewer folks are dieing in this war than any other.

Everyone one in the Service now is a volunteer. Yes?
We all had and have a mission to perform. Yes?
How well we as individuals perform these missions is very different. No two people will take the exact same action. Did he perform his mission? He chose to stop that boat no mater the cost. He had no way to know that would be "The One".

How quickly this person advanced has no bearing on what he did. Did he have any NJP's in his past? That would call into question his character, I don't think he did. Was he a good shipmate, truthful and loyal? There is significance to his death. So what if he was a five year PO3. Why should that be a reason to not name a cutter after him.

I'm sure you would find many more skeletons in Alex Haley's closet. But, if he have died at the same age, would you have? I'm not saying that we need to run right out and name the next ship after him but it at least should be considered.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

They were not just on patrol; they had orders to intercept any vessel that posed a threat to the platform. The only reason for a vessel at that time, to be where it was, would be to cause harm to the platform.

Knowing that the only way a small craft can hurt an oil platform is to blow it up, and knowing that if caught, the enemy would not just put their hands up and say don’t shoot, and still putting yourself between them and the platform. I don’t call that a patrol.

Both the Navy Crew and the Coast Guard boarding team on that day knew the score and still did the mission.

Were they Heroes? It s all in the definition. But please do not call what they were doing a patrol.

Be Safe,

Brett

Was not the navy vessel on a patrol with an embarked CG team? However, you do confirm the problem with the tactics employed. If the dhows were known to have the expressed intent to blow up the oil platfrom then taking them under fire would a wholely appropriate procedure. Trying to board them would not.

The Coast Guard did this six of the seven times a similiar situation arose in Vietnam.

Once I was aboard Point Kennedy and we put ourselves between landing craft full of Marines and the beach to protect them. We were not on routine patrol but detailed for the special operation. These things occured frequently. It was our job to draw fire. Yep, been there and knew the risks.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, I think we may be comparing Apples to Oranges. War is War, but, you have to admit that with the intelligence we can gather now, the tools we have at our disposal, the vehicles we have to use, this is a different war. Just look at the numbers, fewer folks are dieing in this war than any other.

No, war is not war. There are declared and purposeful wars then there undeclared meaningless conflicts in which people are maimed and die for little gain.

I do not believe it was his decision to stop the dhow. It was the navy commander's function as well as to stand a boarding team. We don't know if he performed his mission or not. He never boarded the dhow and boarding was the mission.

The "no matter what" reason is foolish and not practical. The navy vessel had enough fire power to stop both vessels. It appears the terrorists knew a boarding party would be sent and used that knowledge to make a statement. They knew the tactics and used them against U. S. forces.

All in all, it was a smart move on their part. They succeeded in creating the impression that any an all dhows could be possible problems which slows down boardings. There is a more cautious approach taken since then. Changing how your enemy functions is an important gain in the overall war. Don't forget the very long term is viewed by the terrorists unlike the Americans who have short attention spans. Ho Chi Minh knew this as well. This is why Tet 1968 was a political success when it was a military failure for North Vietnam.

So what if he was a five year PO3. Why should that be a reason to not name a cutter after him. Failure to advance could be viewed as a method to shirk other duties which is a violation of the Core Values.

I'm sure you would find many more skeletons in Alex Haley's closet. But, if he have died at the same age, would you have? I'm not saying that we need to run right out and name the next ship after him but it at least should be considered.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Ask yourself, will the Coast Guard give the same acclaim for the second one who dies?

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

The navy did for theirs including Samuel B. Roberts who died with Douglas Munro.

It's funny that you mention Samuel B. Roberts, there have been three ships named after him, one a destroyer escort that was sunk in the battle off Samar on 25 October 1942. I just finished reading book about this battle, Sea of Thunder by Evan Thomas. The USS Samuel B. Roberts was itself a hero in that it charged into a Japanese battle line armed with only torpedoes and 5" guns against the Japanese ships that mounted guns as small as 5" and as large as 18.1 inches. The Japanese destroyers and cruisers also mounted the Long Lance torpedoes.

There have been a few books written about this battle, two of the best are Sea of Thunder and James Hornfischer's Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors (an awesome book.)

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Ask yourself, will the Coast Guard give the same acclaim for the second one who dies?

I have no doubt in my mind that we will and should!

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Was not the navy vessel on a patrol with an embarked CG team? However, you do confirm the problem with the tactics employed. If the dhows were known to have the expressed intent to blow up the oil platfrom then taking them under fire would a wholely appropriate procedure. Trying to board them would not.

The Coast Guard did this six of the seven times a similiar situation arose in Vietnam.

Once I was aboard Point Kennedy and we put ourselves between landing craft full of Marines and the beach to protect them. We were not on routine patrol but detailed for the special operation. These things occured frequently. It was our job to draw fire. Yep, been there and knew the risks.

Their mission was to defend the oil terminal. Since you do not know the rules of engagement, I do not believe you are in any position to judge the tactics involved.

Bill, this war is not Vietnam. I have the greatest respect for you, your experience and your knowledge, but please understand what was appropriate military tactics in 67 is not necessarily appropriate now.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Steve,

I have no doubt in my mind that we will and should!

We may hope there is no second, but if there is, I too hope there will be the same level of notice. Nevertheless, Coast Guard history does not bear this out. The second one could be someone who fell off a truck in Bahrain and it would be difficult to justify the Bronze Star with 'V' for that. Besides, the Coast Guard has acknowledge on one of the Vietnam dead and he wasn't the first.

Brett,

Their mission was to defend the oil terminal. Since you do not know the rules of engagement, I do not believe you are in any position to judge the tactics involved.

Bill, this war is not Vietnam. I have the greatest respect for you, your experience and your knowledge, but please understand what was appropriate military tactics in 67 is not necessarily appropriate now.

The ROE in use at that time were pretty much the same as that used for civil law enforcement. However, in a situation where the intentions of the aggressor are plain and evident then the CO of the Firebolt (in this case) had wide latitude including any means necssary to prevent to prevent the dhows from reaching the oil terminal. I'll check them out.

Granted, this is conflict is not Vietnam but there are dozens of parallels. I have advocated a change was needed in the tactics when the AOR went from civil embargo enforcement to a conflict status. I am not so sure the changes were made.

Tactics are basic. The urban warfare of Iraq is not unlike Hue 1968. It is still house to house and in the street. I remember when we went from "search and destroy" to "search and clear." This latter from is what is going on both at sea and ashore.

Here is a good article on ROE. http://www.counterpunch.org/smith12082004.html


The point remains when your tactics and ROE begins killing your own people it is time to take a look at the procedures. Keeping your own people alive and well is one of the principle jobs of a leader in combat.

This topic is getting far afield of the original. However, it something that should be discussed. During my career, I found many who were unable to make a decision about this if placed in that situation. The Coast Guard should have more people involved in Iraq (not Bahrain or Kuwait) if nothing else to give them a taste of conflict.

[MSTCS Dennis Noble (Ret.)]

Bill,

I believe at the beginning of this discussion you implied that in Haley's time the service was not racist. Was not all of U.S. society at the time racist? By that I mean was not anyone who was African American denied many things because they were African American? I am not arguing whether Haley did something wrong or not. (Aren't you now sorry you told me about this forum?)

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill,

I believe at the beginning of this discussion you implied that in Haley's time the service was not racist. Was not all of U.S. society at the time racist? By that I mean was not anyone who was African American denied many things because they were African American? I am not arguing whether Haley did something wrong or not. (Aren't you now sorry you told me about this forum?)

No, I'm not sorry at all.

Yes, society was, and remains, racist. However, racism has expanded to all levels including where so-called minorities display racism to nearly everyone.

My point was that Haley, in Roots, found it convenient to get on the racism bandwagon during the 1970s whereas he did not in the 1940s and 1950s when it was more prevelent. His comments during WWII were conservative for the period; following those of Booker T. Washington more closely than W. E. B. Dubois (the latter quit the NAACP because he found them too conservative).

I interpert Haley's change in outlook had more to do with selling books than actual personal beliefs.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I interpert Haley's change in outlook had more to do with selling books than actual personal beliefs.

And we should interpret your remarks here as...

Thank you for your opinion on Mr. Haley, I for one will carry on and encourgae my PAs to submit an awards package for the JOC Alex Haley Journalism and Photography Awards.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

Maybe this should be a seperate thread(naming of USCGC's) but I would like to see some recognition in the naming of a new cutter from the crew of the USCGC Point Welcome c. Aug 11,1966.

LTJG David C. Brostrom (Killed during incident)
LTJG Ross Bell (passed December 2006)
BMC Richard Patterson (I dont know, but sure did show "heroism"!)

I would not mind any of them being used for a Cutter name. Dont know if it would happen due to the incident being primarily a "Friendly Fire" incident though.

I know I would personally like to see a "USCGC BELL", but anyone from that crew would be fine.

IMHO


*EDIT*- I just noticed that the article I refer to from time to time on the Point Welcom incident was written by "William R. Wells, II", any way related to you GMCM?
http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/ptwelcome/Wiley2.jpg

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

And we should interpret your remarks here as...

Thank you for your opinion on Mr. Haley, I for one will carry on and encourgae my PAs to submit an awards package for the JOC Alex Haley Journalism and Photography Awards.

I hope so as well. However, look at the whole person. I also hope they will not write fiction and call it non-fiction.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

LTJG David C. Brostrom (Killed during incident)
LTJG Ross Bell (passed December 2006)
BMC Richard Patterson (I dont know, but sure did show "heroism"!)

*EDIT*- I just noticed that the article I refer to from time to time on the Point Welcom incident was written by "William R. Wells, II", any way related to you GMCM?
http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/ptwelcome/Wiley2.jpg

SJ, I do not believe Ross Bell would agree with you on using his name. He was a great guy and certainly gave all the "heroism" credit to Chief Patterson. Pat was recently elected to the Surface Navy Association Hall of Fame. (HINT for Steve to get one of his PAs to do a story).

You also forgot EN2 Jerry Philips. He was killed on the same day.

Yes, I am very closely related to the author--skin close.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

SJ, I do not believe Ross Bell would agree with you on using his name. He was a great guy and certainly gave all the "heroism" credit to Chief Patterson. Pat was recently elected to the Surface Navy Association Hall of Fame. (HINT for Steve to get one of his PAs to do a story).

You also forgot EN2 Jerry Philips. He was killed on the same day.

Yes, I am very closely related to the author--skin close.

Yes, I did forget to add EN2 Phillips. I believe you are right about Capt Bell, I could certainly remember how highly he thought of CPO Patterson. When he told us the story he eyes lit up when he talked of Patterson. Listening and watching him tell his story will stick with me forever even after 25+ years he still became emotional when speaking of it. It really opened up my eyes as well as the rest of his crew.

Skin close eh..... ;)

I am thinking of having a couple PCPO's give me a brief on CPO Patterson and his actions during our next CCTI.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

SJ

"I am thinking of having a couple PCPO's give me a brief on CPO Patterson and his actions during our next CCTI."

With respect to Pat, perhaps others who have not come to the fore should be looked at by these folks.

Douglas Munro has also been overworked. Are you aware that with Munro and Evans' Navy Cross; there were at least five Silver Stars awarded to Coast Guardsmen during the same action?

Perhaps if more people were recognized a general overview would emerge.

[BMCS Dave Considine]

I'm sticking with everyone who serves their country in a time of war is a hero in my book. To me, anyone who dies as a result of that service retains that status throughout history. I'm also willing to look past any negative information that surfaces, and it doesn't diminish the fact that they died in the service of their country. I also like living heros more than dead ones, but the dead remain heros none the less.


Couldn't agree more. It's been awhile since I caught up on this thread, so apologize for the late post. One thing I heard on America's Most Wanted came back to me. The quote is for those Police Officers killed in the line of duty

"It's not how they died that makes them Heroes, it's how they lived their life"

Whether they "fall off a truck", or are killed during combat - it doesn't really matter. It's the "How they lived their life" part that people should remember.