McCain's POW first person account

[Tunnelcat]

I'm going to post this on the top level for anyone who wants to read McCain's account of his POW experience. McCain didn't write this article, it was transcribed from McCain's audio tapes by the article's author and proof read and OKed by McCain for the final result. This is a VERY long read, but I think it's an important window into McCain's frame of mind then and now and to get some history on the man. Sorry for the long link in advance.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/200 ... l?PageNr=1

[Tunnelcat]

I think that this passage says volumes about McCain's stance on war. He even chastised a fellow pilot who refused to bomb Hanoi. Essentially civilian facilities were the target of the bombing campaign that was called "Rolling Thunder" and he's out calling the guy a coward for not wanting to bomb civilians. Here's an excerpt:

Finally came the day I'll never forget--the eighteenth of December, 1972. The whole place exploded when the Christmas bombing ordered by President Nixon began. They hit Hanoi right off the bat. . .

We knew at that time that unless something very forceful was done that we were never going to get out of there. We had sat there for 3-1/2 years with no bombing going on--November of '68 to May of '72. We were fully aware that the only way that we were ever going to get out was for our Government to turn the screws on Hanoi.

So we were very happy. We were cheering and hollering. The "gooks" didn't like that at all, but we didn't give a damn about that. It was obvious to us that negotiation was not going to settle the problem. The only reason why the North Vietnamese began negotiating in October, 1972, was because they could read the polls as well as you and I can, and they knew that Nixon was going to have an overwhelming victory in his re-election bid. So they wanted to negotiate a cease-fire before the elections.

"I Admire President Nixon's Courage"

I admire President Nixon's courage. There may be criticism of him in certain areas--Watergate, for example. But he had to take the most unpopular decisions that I could imagine--the mining, the blockade, the bombing. I know it was very, very difficult for him to do that, but that was the thing that ended the war. . .

I have heard there was one B-52 pilot who refused to fly the missions during the Christmas bombing. You always run into that kind. When the going gets tough, they find out their conscience is bothering them. I want to say this to anybody in the military: If you don't know what your country is doing, find out. And if you find you don't like what your country is doing, get out before the chips are down. . . These men should bear some censure so that in future wars there won't be a precedent for conduct that hurts this country. . .

Then he praises the bombing for ending the war... Well, not quite. Here's some more reading on McCain's history with some good tidbits, but I'm afraid it's a leftie source, take from it what you want.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss ... _forrestal

[Lothar]

You've Dowdified and misrepresented his argument. I urge you to reread pages 15-16 of the article, and this time, try to actually understand them instead of just looking for ways to make McCain look bad.

To go back to the December bombing: Initially, the North Vietnamese had a hell of a lot of SAM's on hand. I soon saw a lessening in the SAM activities, meaning they may have used them up. Also, the B-52 bombings, which were mainly right around Hanoi in the first few days, spread out away from the city because, I think, they destroyed all the military targets around Hanoi.

So what's this about "refusing to bomb civilians"? Oh, right, factories building munitions technically qualify as "civilian". Via Chicago Boyz we find this book excerpt, which describes the bombing of Hanoi.

Let me fix your later quote by reinserting what you . . . 'ed out.

I have heard there was one B-52 pilot who refused to fly the missions during the Christmas bombing. You always run into that kind. When the going gets tough, they find out their conscience is bothering them. I want to say this to anybody in the military: If you don't know what your country is doing, find out. And if you find you don't like what your country is doing, get out before the chips are down.

Once you become a prisoner of war [editorial note: this is an entirely new topic], then you do not have the right to dissent, because what you do will be harming your country. You are no longer speaking as an individual, you are speaking as a member of the armed forces of the United States, and you owe loyalty to the Commander in Chief, not to your own conscience. Some of my fellow prisoners sang a different tune, but they were a very small minority. I ask myself if they should be prosecuted, and I don't find that easy to answer. It might destroy the very fine image the great majority of us have brought back from that hellhole. Remember, a handful of turncoats after the Korean War made a great majority of Americans think that most of the POW's in conflict were traitors.

If these men are tried, it should not be because they took an antiwar stance, but because they collaborated with the Vietnamese to an extent, and that was harmful to the other American POW's. And there is this to consider: America will have other wars to fight until the Communists give up their doctrine of violent overthrow of our way of life. These men should bear some censure so that in future wars there won't be a precedent for conduct that hurts this country.

The first section, he's basically saying... dude joins the military, dude has no problem bombing stuff, dude is asked to go bomb a target where he risks being shot, dude gets a conscience attack... riiiiiiiight. We all know people like this. If you don't want to be involved in something you know your military is doing, don't wait until you're called on to do it; get out beforehand! Do like my dad and file as a conscientious objector; don't go all the way to Vietnam, fly around bombing stuff, and then chicken out about a raid on military targets in a heavily defended area.

The sentence you tacked on to the end is actually on a completely different subject: that of the POW's who collaborated with North Vietnam's propaganda efforts. His argument is not against their anti-war stance per se; it's that they harm other POW's by collaborating, and they set a precedent for future enemies to make similar propaganda efforts. The counterargument he gives is that making a spectacle of them makes people think more POW's were traitors than the tiny minority that actually were. So in a tough decision, he concludes that more good than harm would come of prosecuting POW collaborators to some extent.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Right on, Lothar.

I find the above quote to be evidence of extremely good character and sound judgment. I absolutely agree. I also think the remark about \"when the going gets tough\" is very insightful.

[Foil]

... dude joins the military, dude has no problem bombing stuff, dude is asked to go bomb a target where he risks being shot, dude gets a conscience attack... riiiiiiiight.
If you don't want to be involved in something you know your military is doing, don't wait until you're called on to do it; get out beforehand! Do like my dad and file as a conscientious objector; don't go all the way to Vietnam, fly around bombing stuff, and then chicken out about a raid on military targets in a heavily defended area.

I agree that if someone is opposed to war and/or the actions they could be asked to take, they shouldn't join (e.g. I would file as a conscientious objector if I was drafted).

But what about those who joined up and were sent over there before they realized what was really going on? It's not too hard to imagine a naive teenager just out of high school joining up, only to realize too late what it is he's being asked to do. You can't tell that soldier he should have "gotten out beforehand"; it's too late, he either goes against his conscience and follows orders, or gets court-martialled for disobeying.

[Lothar]

I agree that if someone is opposed to war and/or the actions they could be asked to take, they shouldn't join (e.g. I would file as a conscientious objector if I was drafted).

But what about those who joined up and were sent over there before they realized what was really going on?

I have some sympathy for those who joined up and got over there without realizing what was actually going on. If that's truly the case, I expect that the first time they're asked to do something unacceptable, or immediately after the first time they realize they've done something like that, they should be asking for a reassignment and/or discharge (or even decide they're willing to face court martial.)

But I seriously doubt a B-52 pilot (not some recently-drafted grunt) made it all the way to the bombing of military targets around Hanoi without understanding what was going on. I seriously doubt a pilot whose training would've involved a discussion of nuking Russia would suddenly find bombing rail yards unacceptable. I think McCain's assessment was very likely right -- this guy didn't have a conscience attack about how wrong it was to bomb the railways that were shipping military supplies to the front, he just chickened out because he didn't want to get shot. It's certainly POSSIBLE that someone actually did have a conscience attack at that very moment, but it sounds questionable, and I don't blame McCain for getting upset about it.

It's like when the Descent pilot just happens to get hand cramps just moments after slowboy and warpig join the other CTF team. Once in a while they really did just get hand cramps, but most of the time we all roll our eyes at the explanation.

[Tunnelcat]

So Lothar, why did McCain even mention this B-52 pilot in the first place? What was his point? It doesn't seem to have any bearing with his POW experience, other than to show his condescending attitude toward someone who may have refused a direct order to bomb civilians. Too bad this 'pilot' can't come forward to explain things.

Like the book says, B-52's were used for carpet bombing. How in the world can they say that only a single city block was destroyed? Sounds like a stretch to me and the writer even says as much in the book (\"Most of the bombs stayed in that block\". There was some residual damage, which is to be expected when you use an inaccurate weapon like a bomb.\"). He even admitted it was a terror campaign! Our military can put out propaganda as well as the enemy. So in their infinite wisdom, they used a sledgehammer to kill fly.

When images of civilians being maimed by shrapnel, burned by napalm or white phosphorous were seen by the general public at home on TV, that's when the tide turned against the Vietnam War. Hmmm, a polarizing war that shouldn't have even been started in the first place that resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of innocents. We don't even have the draft today, which I'm sure would be very popular right now.

[Lothar]

So Lothar, why did McCain even mention this B-52 pilot in the first place? What was his point?

His point was that he and the other POWs considered the bombing of Hanoi's military-relevant targets to be absolutely critical to the war, and to their eventual release, and he has a serious problem with someone who'll go all the way through all that training and preparation and then CHICKEN OUT at the last minute, while pretending it was his "conscience" rather than his backbone that was the problem. (McCain may be wrong there, but I'd give him very high odds of being right. Every soldier and every gamer has seen it.)

Like the book says, B-52's were used for carpet bombing.

B-52's didn't have laser-guided munitions back then. They dropped lots of gravity-guided ("dumb") explosives on an area, kinda like artillery. They weren't leveling whole cities, but rather, specific areas (rail yards, etc.) Look at the aerial photographs of Hanoi after this particular bombing run, and compare to photos of any city that was carpet-bombed in WWII. They may have used the terminology "carpet-bombing" to describe what was done, but it wasn't the same thing as was done in WWII.

Yes, there was residual damage; it's what happens when you don't have laser-guided munitions, and even sometimes when you do. And yes, it was meant to "terrorize" the North Vietnamese into surrendering; that's what was done in every war in history. (Don't make the mistake of thinking the word "terror" implies "attacking civilians", as it is used in modern terms; think "shock and awe" instead.) And yes, there were propaganda images shown in the US that turned opinion against the war.

None of what you said gives me any reason to doubt McCain's statements...

[Ford Prefect]

Fred Reed has an interesting take on McCain being a POW
http://fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

With PTSD, or whatever you want to call it, the anger is the giveaway. These vets carry a load of subterranean fury that you don’t want to look at. As they would say, I ★■◆● you not one pound. I know a lot of these guys. A buddy of mine—two tours in bad places, killed a whole lot of people up close-- now has no tolerance for frustration,. He's ready to spread your teeth over a wide radius if you even seem to think about getting in his face. Admirable? No. But don’t make the experiment.

Sounds like McCain. His explosiveness is notorious.

Fred is an ex-marine who collected his Purple Heart in Viet Nam. He's also a columnist not a medical expert so it is an interesting read but not to be taken as a medical diagnosis.

[Tunnelcat]

Lothar, I'm not doubting McCain's statements. What I was trying to do was maybe shed some light on is his attitude toward war after his POW experience.

Ford's above information is part of that. McCain most likely may be suffering some form of PTSD, judging from his horrifying experience in the Hanoi prison camp. Who wouldn't after going through all that torture and mind games. He may be bitter that the U.S. was never victorious in the Vietnam War and is still carrying that baggage around, a chip on the shoulder as it were, never mind that the war was one that the U.S. should have never been involved in from the start. He's been keeping most of his intentions and thoughts to himself. As a bomber pilot, he's never had to personally kill another human being in close combat, so how does that qualify him to hate war as he states so often? I guess that being a POW might give him that reason, but he may also harbor too much hatred from that experience as well. Wouldn't you? I sure would.

His fast and violent temper is well known to many on Capitol Hill. What worries me is if he ends up to becoming the leader of our country, does he have the calm judgment to not get us into WW III? It's good to have military knowledge in troubling times, I agree, but IF he's suffering from PTSD or even past resentment, what will his decisions be? Will he be quick to start a new war without thinking of the consequences for all of us?

[Spidey]

tc, I think your logic is bass ackwards, why would someone who has seen the most terrible horrors of war wish to subject others to the same thing? You must be assuming the worse of him. I would think the guy would avoid a war at all costs, unless it was a last resort.