Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Richard Etchberger has finally received the recognition that he deserved back in 1968. Etchberger will receive the Medal of Honor posthumously for his saving the lives of his comrades in a battle in Laos — at the loss of his own life. The problem is that his heroism occurred in a place where our government stated publicly that there were no combat troops. To cover that lie, Etchberger’s bravery had to be buried with the truth.
While the military wanted Etchberger honored at the time, President Lyndon Johnson refused to reveal that the United States had lied to the public and international community (even though Laos itself was aware of our troops).
Etchberger was part of a secret U.S. Air Force radar base used to guide bombers that was located just 120 miles from Hanoi in North Vietnam.
In March of 1968, over 3000 North Vietnamese troops attacked the site, called Lima Site 85, that was defended by fewer than a couple dozen U.S. airmen and about a thousand Laotian soldiers.
Eight Americans were killed and several more wounded. Etchberger deliberately exposed himself to enemy fire “in order to place his three surviving wounded comrades in the rescue slings permitting them to be airlifted to safety.”
Legislation was need to waive the usual rule that such honors have to be awarded within two years of the subject action. Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota (Etchberger was from Bismarck) helped push for the reconsideration.
Congratulations to the Etchberger family which deserves this recognition from a grateful nation. It is no replacement for their loved one, but it finally allows a nation to honor his selfless courage.
Well done, Master Sergeant, well done.
Source: CNN
Elaine M.,
That is great.
Something I don’t understand about some folks and it perturbs me greatly, is that children must listen to their parents even if they are wrong. It is a learned response, for some it is safety others security and the loyalty.
It is my understanding that a member of the service is a person that gives up their individual freedom for the greater good of the whole. What one may consider a criminal act others may consider an act of treason or aggression.
Taking the first instance if that same child is in the military and does what they are told to do, and they do are they any less a hero because they lost? Maybe it is age or some other reason but, I think that the veterans of the Viet unwar were treated less fairly than any others doing the same act at different times. Most of these folks did not want to be there and they certainly were unwelcome when they returned home by a vast majority of Americans.
What is an interesting read is the way that Johnson after the Civil War or the Northern Aggression to the South initially treated the Southerns. Because of the “Act of Treason” they forfeited every asset that they owned. It became politically incorrect and the Southerns were eventually given back the homes and most of the assets that were taken and of course the commissions that they were assigned by President Davis.
The only one that was in a position of power who lost all of his property, was eventually appointed President of a University is Robert Edward Lee, whom I still consider one of the finest Generals that the South had to offer. It was not until Grant became president that they Southerns were given back almost everything, taken as the spoils of war. Lee’s former estate which was in Arlington we now call the National Cemetery. He was also compensated in other ways as well.
If memory serves me correctly a widow of one of the Southern Soldiers died about 2005. She received his pension until his death. Are these folks any less deserving of recognition? I think not.
Dulce et Decorum Est
by Wilfred Owen
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime…
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
“However, merely because those individuals bear a heavier burden of guilt for ordering Etchberger to assist in the bombing of Vietnam does not absolve him of responsibility for willingly participating in the crime.”
Again with the assumptions.
I reiterate, he was a soldier. His recourse and his rights to resist are limited and even more so in wartime. You give up a lot of your Constitutional rights when you join the military. Article 90 of the UCMJ provides that the punishment for willfully disobeying a lawful order of superior commissioned officer can result in dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and up to 5 years in prison. “Lawfulness” would have been an issue for the trier of fact which in this instance would be a military tribunal. In a time of war the punishment for disobeying an order can be death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct (which can include indefinite detention).
In a case where war criminals are issuing the orders and able to influence the process being superiors in the chain of command, do you really think he’d have gotten a fair hearing regarding the lawfulness of the order had he refused? They’d have invoked that old demon “the interests of national security” and at best case he’d have just been locked up. Worst case they’d have shot him.
There is also the fact that he may not have been informed of where he was being stationed until he got off the plane, putting him into the position where he could have thought it was a lawful order only to find out too late that it wasn’t (a not uncommon occurrence for actions in Laos and Cambodia during that time).
As to “tainted”? Absent proof that he committed war crimes himself and given that it was wartime, he can most certainly be held innocent of war crimes of his superiors because you are again making an assumption: that he was willingly participating in the crime (your exact words). The military and the military justice system are by their nature more coercive than civilian life.
Your argument still sounds like rationalization for your bias and fails from your assumption of “willingness” alone. Unless you are psychic, you are attributing mens rea where none may have existed. You also assume that because the nature of the operation was clandestine that ipso facto he was committing crimes in the course of following orders he was compelled to obey when his role may have been of a support nature that in itself was innocuous.
By your flawed logic, every soldier in the US military who have served in the Iraqi theater are war criminals for following the orders of Bush and Cheney – from those who’ve committed war crimes of their own like murdering civilians to the guy who works in the motor pool. The burden of guilt is proportionate to the bad acts of the individual or that’s not justice. It’s too inequitable to be justice even in a strictly hierarchical structure like the military. A fish rots from the head, but you propose a rotten head means the entire fish is tainted when the fillets may be just fine.
“This argument is tantamount to a refusal to recognize heroism in any context of conflict. That would be a bias, not a logical analysis of what comports as individual heroic behavior.”
I don’t mean to say that there categorically can be no heroic actions in battle. Rather, any so-called “heroic” act that transpires after a criminal aggression is tainted by the original sin of that criminal aggression. Once one is a party to such a crime, and one is acting in furtherance of that crime, any claims to heroism are obliterated by the rot of the context in which the “heroic” act occurs.
“If you are upset with illegal actions, these are the appropriate targets for prosecution as they did have influence over the larger situation (unlike Chief Etchberger) and they are the ones responsible for ordering the illegal action(s).”
You are correct in saying that the ones at the top of the chain of command have much greater responsibility for the aggression than the likes of Etchberger (and I am certainly upset with them — note my first post on this story). However, merely because those individuals bear a heavier burden of guilt for ordering Etchberger to assist in the bombing of Vietnam does not absolve him of responsibility for willingly participating in the crime.
“Unless you have other evidence that Etchberger committed atrocities of his own, your disparaging of his heroism is still misplaced.”
I’m guessing that Etchberger wasn’t in a clandestine base in Laos stationed in “part of a secret U.S. Air Force radar base used to guide bombers that was located just 120 miles from Hanoi in North Vietnam” just to be a “file clerk.”
But suppose he was. I think that he would bear a lesser responsibility, but (similar to my first response in this post) still a responsibility for facilitating the aggression. Just as someone who was merely tabulating Nazi gas chamber victims would bear some responsibility for the Holocaust in a lesser sense than the senior Nazi command.
CLARIFICATION:
“That would be a bias, not a logical analysis of what comports as individual heroic behavior.”
Should that be your bias, I will stipulate that without condoning it as a matter of logic or condemning it as a matter of principle, I do understand it.
FFN,
“That’s exactly my point — Americans would only react the way that everyone in this thread did to American “heroes,” not Japanese “heroes.” When’s the last time an American Medal of Honor was given to a Kamikaze pilot? I’m sure there are some in Japan who might think that a Kamikaze pilot was performing a “selfless act[] of courage to defend others” from American violence. Not that I accept that argument, of course, so I see no reason to do accept a similar one for an American, either.”
Straw man argument, an informal logical fallacy. The subject of the news story is American. This argument is tantamount to a refusal to recognize heroism in any context of conflict. That would be a bias, not a logical analysis of what comports as individual heroic behavior.
“Condoleezza Rice uses this defense to try and escape responsibility for ordering torture. Since she was under tremendous pressure after 9/11 and had to make “tough decisions”, she reasons, she was obligated to order others to torture. Do you accept her argument as valid?”
Another straw man argument couched in a false equivalence. Rice was a senior official, one of those civilians responsible for policy that results in orders, not a soldier. By extrapolation, she would be Dean Rusk or Henry Kissenger in this instance. Rice is an unindicted war criminal (along with her superiors Bush and Cheney) as is Kissenger and as was Rusk (he died in 1973). If you are upset with illegal actions, these are the appropriate targets for prosecution as they did have influence over the larger situation (unlike Chief Etchberger) and they are the ones responsible for ordering the illegal action(s). The Chief was a hero in spite of following illegal orders that came from Johnson and Rusk. More on that in a bit.
“That’s exactly my point — Americans would only react the way that everyone in this thread did to American “heroes,” not Japanese “heroes.” When’s the last time an American Medal of Honor was given to a Kamikaze pilot? I’m sure there are some in Japan who might think that a Kamikaze pilot was performing a “selfless act[] of courage to defend others” from American violence. Not that I accept that argument, of course, so I see no reason to do accept a similar one for an American, either.”
An assumption. I’m an American and I submitted that heroes can exist on all sides of a conflict to the argument as a true assertion thus belying your assumption.
“Just because the consequences of an judgment are undesirable for some parties doesn’t mean we should withhold judgment. For instance, just because someone is going to be imprisoned for life for a clear-cut case of murder does not mean that we shouldn’t judge the person, lest people think ill of him. If someone kills babies, they’re a baby-killer, and we shouldn’t shy away from calling someone that if indeed it is an accurate label. Verily, might this knowledge that one is held responsible for one’s actions act as a deterrent for being a party to crimes?”
Specious reasoning. The crime you question is the illegal action in Laos. False attribution of the prime cause and the people possessing the mens rea behind it to Etchberger is the equivalent of blaming the actions of Reinhardt Heydrich on a solider you have no other evidence against than he was under Heydrich’s chain of command. I’m all for accuracy, but punishing a brutal prison guard from Auschwitz is justice where punishing a guy who worked as a file clerk and committed no distinct war crime of his own is an injustice. Unless you have other evidence that Etchberger committed atrocities of his own, your disparaging of his heroism is still misplaced.
Wow, here we are fighting Nam again. One thing I learned from Nam … don’t blame the troops … especially if it is some civilian telling you to do so. I knew guys who found out they were in a country they weren’t supposed to be in but only after they were no longer there. Boots on the ground are not given that kind of info precisly so they can not refuse the orders.
On this one I am 100% with AY
(I’m shootin’ the Marbles, AY … just got back from a very loud and excellent Mex restaurant … the beverages have gone to my Head … found a “business center” …)
BIL,
Let me answer your arguments in reverse:
“I understand your distaste for illegal actions by the state. But you are misplacing that just anger on to people who had no control of the larger situation.”
I’m not trying to claim that Etchberger could have singlehandedly ended the war. Of course as one individual he has no control over grand strategy. However, he is responsible for the predictable consequences his actions. The local (as opposed to global) situation he _is_ responsible for, and we may appropriately judge his actions by that standard.
“Germany had heroes too believe it or not. So did the Japanese. People who gave their lives or were injured performing selfless acts of courage to defend others.”
That’s exactly my point — Americans would only react the way that everyone in this thread did to American “heroes,” not Japanese “heroes.” When’s the last time an American Medal of Honor was given to a Kamikaze pilot? I’m sure there are some in Japan who might think that a Kamikaze pilot was performing a “selfless act[] of courage to defend others” from American violence. Not that I accept that argument, of course, so I see no reason to do accept a similar one for an American, either.
“You are impugning the bad acts of those who defined the mission on to those who were tasked the mission with limited recourse. Sure, he could have disobey orders to deploy and faces court martial but who are you to make that choice for another without walking in their shoes? ”
Condoleezza Rice uses this defense to try and escape responsibility for ordering torture. Since she was under tremendous pressure after 9/11 and had to make “tough decisions”, she reasons, she was obligated to order others to torture. Do you accept her argument as valid?
“Because when you adopt that mindset you end up with situations where people who are not in control of what job they are given in the military return home to people who think it’s appropriate to spit on them and call them baby killers even they conducted themselves with both honor and courage. Individuals are war criminals just as individuals are heroes.”
Just because the consequences of an judgment are undesirable for some parties doesn’t mean we should withhold judgment. For instance, just because someone is going to be imprisoned for life for a clear-cut case of murder does not mean that we shouldn’t judge the person, lest people think ill of him. If someone kills babies, they’re a baby-killer, and we shouldn’t shy away from calling someone that if indeed it is an accurate label. Verily, might this knowledge that one is held responsible for one’s actions act as a deterrent for being a party to crimes?
“disobeyed orders to deploy and faced”
Pardon. Sloppy typing courtesy of Beck’s Dark.
FFN,
Legality of action.
Heroism of the individual.
Believe it or not, they are discrete contexts of human behavior.
The Chief didn’t make his own assignment. Had he, you might have a point. That the civilians, and ultimately it was civilians in the American system who directed the illegal action, were not heroic in any way but rather criminal I will not question. But by the same token, I won’t discredit an individual’s heroic act simply because he was a solider and compelled to follow illegal orders.
Why?
Because when you adopt that mindset you end up with situations where people who are not in control of what job they are given in the military return home to people who think it’s appropriate to spit on them and call them baby killers even they conducted themselves with both honor and courage. Individuals are war criminals just as individuals are heroes.
Heroism is an individuals act of courage in a bad situation. Nothing more, nothing less. This is one of the reasons I think the term “sports heroes” is deeply offensive. A guy scoring a touchdown or grand slam in the bottom of the ninth to win a game? They are not heroes. They are doing their job. If the QB or DH rushes into the stand to save a spectator dying from a heart attack even though it costs them professionally and personally? That’s heroic.
You are impugning the bad acts of those who defined the mission on to those who were tasked the mission with limited recourse. Sure, he could have disobey orders to deploy and faces court martial but who are you to make that choice for another without walking in their shoes?
Germany had heroes too believe it or not. So did the Japanese. People who gave their lives or were injured performing selfless acts of courage to defend others.
I understand your distaste for illegal actions by the state. But you are misplacing that just anger on to people who had no control of the larger situation.
since the u.s. wasn’t suppost to be in Laos his orders most likely stated report to Lima site 85 with no country given. he may not have known it was Laos untill he got there.
R.I.P Chief
Anonymously Yours (and anyone else that disagrees with me on this thread),
It can often be hard to think objectively about the country / people to which one has certain strong emotional attachments, and I recognize that this phenomenon often dominates discussions about the US military. So let me draw an analogy and you tell me if you think you would respond to this situation differently.
Suppose the German government (for some unknown reason) decided to suddenly honor the forgotten heroes of World War II. New evidence had emerged, which was previously kept secret from the public because of the sensitivity of the military operation, about events in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia. Apparently there was some Nazi soldier with a situation not too dissimilar to Etchberger’s. He died while selflessly trying to rescue his soldier buddies from an oncoming Czech attack. The German prime minister and parliament decide that this soldier’s family has gone too long without honor, and decided to give him the highest military decoration that Germany hands out.
Now, what would our response be to this kind of event? Would we be drowned in the peans recalling his bravery and sacrifice? Would we say, in the words of Mr. Turley, “Congratulations to the [whatever] family which deserves this recognition from a grateful nation. It is no replacement for their loved one, but it finally allows a nation to honor his selfless courage. Well done, [rank], well done.”? No! We would remark that to celebrate even the “heroic” deeds of soldiers engaged in Nazi aggression demeans the German nation.
So is Etchberger’s award any different from this situation? And if so, how? “It is ok when we do it but not when they do it” is not an acceptable answer.
FFN,
You are seriously misguided and misled in your thought process.
Anonymously Yours,
“Are you to decide what orders are lawful or not?”
No, the law does.
“What else this person died for was for the right of you and I and all of the others to disagree and still be at peace with our decisions. ”
Absolute poppycock. How did this person dying do anything for me? Did I profit off the Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos war in any way, shape or form? I didn’t benefit from people like Etchberger getting killed (in fact, if anything I suppose the average American lost out not only on the precious life of an individual, but also the tax dollars to finance him being there — a trivial cost when we are talking about life and death, I recognize). American aggression in Indochina was not in any remote sense of the word a fight for freedom (or whatever you are arguing). That is, unless you are talking about the freedom of the Vietnamese to elect their own leaders, which is what the war was all about preventing. He wasn’t in Laos for my sake — he was there for the sake of powerful American interests.
But let’s enhance your case. Suppose I did profit from the Vietnam war. In fact, let’s enhance your case to the point of caricature. Suppose for every Vietnamese person that the American military killed, I make a dollar. Would the moral thing to do be to support the war to make as much money as possible? Absolutely not.
FFN,
This is probably the last thing I will comment on to you, but I think your thinking is really fucked up.
As a soldier he had a duty to obey even what you consider an unlawful order. Should we have been there, probably not. This person died in a line of duty that was a lie to the the American Public. Simple fact, I agree with you. Are you to decide what orders are lawful or not?
This man is someone child an apparently someones father. They at least deserve some respect and acknowledgment that he died as a Hero. Not something that I think I could do in all honesty. What else this person died for was for the right of you and I and all of the others to disagree and still be at peace with our decisions.
I cannot judge what he did, or why he did it. The fact is he died doing what he thought was the right thing. Fuck the Government, Johnson and all of the people that profited off of this unwar. If you can sleep at night saying that he died anything less than a hero you are one sick puppy.
mespo,
That’s a neat phrase — thanks.
James M.:
vel tardus memor–even when remembered late
James M.,
We hear similar arguments whenever any political figure dies. The most recent politician that comes to mind is Ronald Reagan. Whenever any criticism of Reagan would be raised, the news anchors (or whoever) would remind us that Reagan was a Great Man and it would be in bad taste to criticize him. And of course there’s an interest in suppressing any intelligent discussion of Reagan’s policies — otherwise people might realize what heinous crimes he was responsible for. Now, I would never insult Etchberger and insinuate that whatever he did (even under the most pessimistic assumptions) was remotely comparable to Reagan. However, it is important to still have these discussions about the context in which these people “served their country,” to use the jingoistic phrase.
Also, “he was just following orders” is never a defense. (I know you didn’t say this, but this comes up often.)
mespo,
vel tardus memor?
I would like to personally thank Congressman Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota for putting through the legislation necessary to honor this courageous Airman, Chief Richard Etchberger. It’s a great pleasure to see a Member of Congress do the right thing and correct a long delayed honor that was caused by covering up a dishonorable government lie. I’m sure Richard Etchberger’s family will greatly appreciate Congressman Pomeroy’s efforts.