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
mespo et al,
I think I get the point that FFN is attempting to make and it is a very sad one at that. Here is my take, she thinks that we shouldn’t have been there. I could not agree more. That the person that was there should have gone AWOL, Deserted and/or taken a CO status at the time it was an involuntary enlistment, if memory serves me correctly.
Because the smart ones that joined went to either the Air Force or Navy usually didn’t see much action, unless stationed in a semi combat zone in the unwar. The others were taken in as grunts in either the Army or Marines and what a hell they went through in this unwar.
Back to my take, because they shouldn’t have been there they deserved to get what was coming to them, regardless if they did not have a choice as to whether they should have been there or not. This is the part I think that they cannot comprehend. The only choice this person had was which branch he was going to join before he was drafted and told which base to report.
Just because he died the way he did in saving others, she is stating that he is not deserving or his family is not deserving of Medal.
I suppose if we hadn’t tactfully engaged in war preparation prior to our (questionable) entry into WWII, as all of the newest ships built were on maneuvers in the North Pacific, we’d all be sticking our right hands in the air, with the 4 fingers as straight as they could go and the thumb folded to the middle of the palm and shouting as loud as we could Sig Heil Der Fuhrer is the Greatest. Pardon me my German is stale, I-Tie I cannot do and I know very little Japanese.
It appears that she suffers from a moral dementia and Nam or the lives of those that died meant nothing to her as she can sit in her fairy tell world and judge everyone but not want to be judged. Sig Heil my Fuhrer…. I am pleased to say in sarcasm only. I learned this from Buddha…….lol….
FFN:
“What do you suppose he thought he was going to be doing there? Playing bingo?”
************
You have a unique view of both moral and legal recrimination. Most folks accept that a person acting under duress of imprisonment is not committing a voluntary act. Thus if one commits an act that is criminal, but lacks the requisite mens rea because his will is overborne, he is not legally culpable nor, in my view, morally culpable.
BIL,
“My problem is that you insist on making someone culpable for an action over which they no control and were under a compulsion that carried death as a consequence for disobeying.”
You’ve got things exactly backwards. Following his orders lead to his death. If he would have followed my advice and refused to participate in America’s act of aggression, he might have ended up in jail, but wouldn’t have been killed in Laos.
“Not everyone who aids a criminal conspiracy is an aider and abettor. Only those who do so willingly and knowingly.”
And, as I’ve said, he did have this knowledge. I really don’t know how you can continue to argue that, seeing America was engaged in an all-out war in Indochina and going to Indochina as an American member of the armed forces, Etchberger had no idea what he was getting into. What do you suppose he thought he was going to be doing there? Playing bingo?
Quintas:
“Arma Virumque Cano”
*********************
“Musa, mihi causas memora….”
“I think heroism and courage know no external context but exist internally in the person.”
Bingo!
I think heroism and courage know no external context but exist internally in the person. The context serves merely as the canvass for the artistry. It is not shameful or unpatriotic to acknowledge the heroism inplicit in the kamaikaze, who, misgudedly gave his life for his country. That virtue may sometimes blunder into the service of vice does not taint the soul of the virtuous (who acts bravely, though, to our eyes, mistakenly) nor exonerate the deceiver.
Will Rogers comment that “he would rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the man who sold it” shows that naïveté does not equate morally to cunning. The former retaining the virtue but not the prudence; the latter possessing the prudence but none of the virtue.
FFN,
My problem is that you insist on making someone culpable for an action over which they no control and were under a compulsion that carried death as a consequence for disobeying.
For someone complaining about the deaths of others, you’re certainly willing to send someone to theirs for your point of view. Not everyone who aids a criminal conspiracy is an aider and abettor. Only those who do so willingly and knowingly.
You are assuming based on your attributing mens rea and knowledge to parties that may have neither.
Anonymously Yours,
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. But if you are arguing that the CIA should be dismantled, I agree. I can’t think of a single good thing they have done, but many of their evil deeds have influenced world events for the worse.
James M,
“No. We are a nation of laws, the highest of the which is the Constitution. Constitutional protections cannot be ignored simply because we are “at war”. However, you create a false equivalency between the individual and the nation. Soldiers do operate under a separate set of laws while at war (most blatantly, they can kill people).”
You are attributing to me the exact views that I am arguing against. I am arguing *for* enforcement of the law. The most relevant here would be international law — the crime of aggression, the most grave and serious crime.
It is strange that you regard the opportunity to kill others as a “protection.” Who is that protecting, exactly?
“What exactly do you think a crime is? What are the required elements of the crime you think those soldiers committed?”
It is fascinating that you have such an inability to comprehend that acting as a party to killing millions of people might be a crime.
Then the CIA should be going out of business….They are the best infiltrator of any government you have ever had….do you really know who your co-worker is? How about your neighbor? What about owners of the newspapers? How about your local credit reporting agency….it is cheaper to find out who your service members own money to so that they won’t be susceptible to potential bribery….that is the quickest way to get a deployable person undeployable… owe a lot of money…do how do you think they figure than one out?
The answer, of course, to the above dilemma as to “I was only following orders” is that we are a nation of laws, not of men.
Thus, any order given for an invasion, incursion, intervention,
subvention, infiltration, overthrow, removal, rendition,bombing,
napalming, or obliteration of any country, people or government
is illegal in the absence of a formal Declaration of War by the
Congress of the United States of America, as provided for in the
Constitution, Article One, Section Eight.
If we are not a nation of laws, let us say so, close dowm the
District of Columbia, and allow all those government employees
to return home and apply their talents in the local economy.
Arma Virumque Cano
This, of course, does not mean prosecuting every single soldier for his crimes in Indochina.
You just jumped from the macro-level premise that America was at fault in Vietnam and victimized three countries, to the conclusion “all American soldiers committed crimes in Vietnam”.
What exactly do you think a crime is? What are the required elements of the crime you think those soldiers committed?
You seem to have a strong visceral belief that “America was not only wrong but criminal” and simply project that onto all soldiers without any critical thought.
I don’t think there’s really any common ground to be had, if that’s the case, so I think I’m done responding on this thread.
FFN,
So, since the assumption (a just war grants the state extraordinary powers) is unjustified, we also must reject what you are saying follows from this assumption (the soldiers can not be held accountable for actions that are not permitted during peace time).
No. We are a nation of laws, the highest of the which is the Constitution. Constitutional protections cannot be ignored simply because we are “at war”. However, you create a false equivalency between the individual and the nation. Soldiers do operate under a separate set of laws while at war (most blatantly, they can kill people).
Mike,
“The anti-war movement failed precisely because of the type of mindset you have ably exhibited in this discussion.”
I take precisely the opposite view: the anti-war movement failed to prevent future wars like Iraq and Afghanistan precisely because there was a reluctance to have an honest look at what America and Americans did in the Vietnam war.
If one looks at how Vietnam is discussed now, the history of what happened is starkly different from reality. For instance, there’s a inkling that Vietnam was some crime that the Vietnamese inflicted on us (Deer Hunter, anyone?). Of course, what actually happened was quite the opposite — America supported the French recolonization of Indochina, and when that failed we installed our own repressive government (Diem), undertook immediately to undermine the Geneva Accords and other international agreements, sent the Air Force to bomb South Vietnam, continued escalating our troop levels, expanded the war to Laos, Cambodia and North Vietnam, killing millions of people and virtually destroying three countries, leaving behind a legacy of destruction which persists to this day. This was not a “mistake,” it was not a “blunder,” and it was certainly not necessary or unavoidable. Looking in the mirror and admitting the depraved and criminal nature of our Vietnam adventure is a tough exercise that we have not yet collectively endured as a nation. But as long as we don’t, our imperialist tendencies will continue and many more people around the world will suffer because of it.
This, of course, does not mean prosecuting every single soldier for his crimes in Indochina. Not only would that be infeasible for logistical reasons, but under some “truth or reconciliation” contexts (or similar arrangements) many are exempted from punishment because so much of society was participating in the horror. And, as everyone on this thread agrees, some Americans bear more responsibility for the war than others. Naturally, Westmoreland, McNamara, Kissinger, Nixon, etc. have more to answer to than a drafted soldier.
An apropos quote from A.J. Muste: “The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?”
“However, the Nuremburg trials and the dictum that “only following orders” was no excuse has always struck a false chord to me.”
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be sympathetic to these soldiers’ plight or (as stated above) that some bear more responsibility than others.
Actually, what actually happened at the Nuremberg trials is an illustrative example of how America refused to come to terms with its own transgressions:
“Criminal acts were to be treated as crimes only if the defeated enemy, but not the victors, had engaged in them… The conclusion [is] that Nuremberg is to be understood as the judgment of the victors, rather than as the achievement of a new level of international morality.” — The Rule of Force in International Affairs, by Noam Chomsky (appearing in For Reasons of State, p.214)
I highly recommend picking up this book if you’re interested in these issues.
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.
I won’t belabor the points made by BIL about that quote, but wanted to point out another key difference that makes the analogy inappropriate: kamikaze pilots (and suicide bombers today) give up their lives for ideology and only “save” people through a nebulous benefit to the war effort. Heroes risk their lives to try to directly save specific people.
“Again with the assumptions.”
“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.”
I already stated above my objection to his participation in the operation was not because it was clandestine but because it was part of an aggressive war. My objection would be no different if he participated in a widely disclosed operation.
Like I said above, even if he participated in the most insignificant way in an aggressive war, he still participated. I am making no assumptions (aside from that he did participate in at least an insignificant way, an assumption I think is valid).
I don’t see why my other characterization that you object to (his “willingness”) could even be questioned. Are you saying that he was coerced into being there? He was clearly there of his own free will. There’s an obvious alternative to agreeing to participate in the operation: refuse to go.
“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.”
That doesn’t seem like flawed logic, rather an obvious conclusion.
A flaw might be what you are doing: believing that less guilt (a grunt bears less responsibility than Cheney) is no guilt at all.
====================
Your objections seem to fall into four main categories:
1) What do you expect him to do he would have been severely punished for not following orders!
Again, this is the “just following orders” objection. How severely he would have been punished for not following orders is beside the point.
2) He would have had only a marginal effect on the war if he refused, so how can you put any blame on him?
What effect he would have had is beside the point. The relevant moral dilemma for *him* is if *he* wanted to be a party to the crime of aggressive war.
And, as you’ve stated, we don’t know exactly how many Vietnamese / Laotians (if any) he actually killed, so we don’t know who or what his refusal to participate would have spared.
3) He didn’t know what he was doing because his superiors didn’t tell him.
Whether he did or did not know about the exact specifics of what he was to be doing (or whether he knew he was in Laos as opposed to Vietnam) is beside the point. The information that he had already presented him with a stark moral decision: are you going to be a cog in the machine of an aggressive war, or aren’t you?
4) Assuming a state of war… assuming a military justice system… etc.
This is perhaps the most troubling for me, since normally you and the rest are so good about resisting this type of logical pigeonhole in other contexts. It’s the situation that a US leader, like Cheney or Rice, usually sets up for us: “When you’re in a state of war… then X, Y and Z are justified. Since we are in a state of war, we need those powers and should not be held accountable for what we do with them, even if they are criminal in a peacetime context. After all, we are at war.”
This assumption needs to be questioned: WHY are we in a state of war? Is this state of war necessary? Could it have been avoided?
In the case of Vietnam / Laos / Cambodia, I think we all recognize that what is called the “Vietnam War” was a criminal act of aggression meant to perpetuate American empire. It could have been avoided — it was totally unnecessary and unjustifiable in terms of any humanitarian or “defense” argument.
So, since the assumption (a just war grants the state extraordinary powers) is unjustified, we also must reject what you are saying follows from this assumption (the soldiers can not be held accountable for actions that are not permitted during peace time).
HenMan,
Thank your for filling the history of Smedley-Butler, who was truly a man whose story should be understood and honored.
Unfortunately his authoritative narrative has been buried in the service of the propaganda that goes under the name of “history.”
FFN,
I usally find much to agree with in what you say. However, in this instance I think you are needlessly belaboring a point, that bears merit, but suffers from the same de-humanization that those who ordered these crimes rationalize away. LBJ, Nixon, Kissinger, et. al. were murderers who justified their behavior in the service of realpolitick, when in fact it was much more about proving their “manhood.”
I played a small role in the Movemnt to oppose this murder in the service of ego. The anti-war movement failed precisely because of the type of mindset you have ably exhibited in this discussion. The country was coming around to understanding the wrongness of Viet Nam, when some of my compadres started blaming the troops as if their actions were the equivalent of the powerful murderers that perpetuated this war. Since many Americans had their children, kin or friends drafted into this insanity and were thus in harm’s way, the peace movement lost momentum due to its own unwillingness to make needed distinctions.
I faced being drafted and two physicals saved me only because I had enormously high blood pressure. I wouldn’t have gone to Canada and I couldn’t get CO status. I could have wound up in Viet Nam with a rifle in my hand and to be honest about it I would have tried to kill the VC before they killed me. Who knows that in a moment of zeal, lost in the fear and shit of battle I too might have done something heroic.
It is too easy in the glow of hindsight to judge people with little control over their fates. The real murderers in Viet Nam managed to live out their lives in comfort and even some glory. To me there is nothing wrong with recognizing the actions of some pawns in the game, who acted with self sacrifice.
By all means shout your righteous anger where it belongs, but try to empathise with those who were powerless cannon fodder.
As to your Nazi analogy, let me say this. As a proud and committed Jew the Shoah remains constant in my mind. I will never visit Germany or buy a German product. However, the Nuremburg trials and the dictum that “only following orders” was no excuse has always struck a false chord to me. If you were a young person with a family and were faced with the choice of your/their destruction, or following orders, it is facile to believe that you would have always done the right thing. Blame, approbrium and punishment should be meted out to those responsible for the crimes, since many of their perpertrating minions had little choice between obeying or dying. It is easy to postulate our own heroism when we are not put into the situation of where it is tested.
Well I was “Beck” free so depending on your definition of wild…any sowing oats….
You are ever so correct…the teacher lady has caught me again…I refuse to do detention…how about some licks….(I got my fair share or maybe someones elses as well)
AY–
“If memory serves me correctly a widow of one of the Southern Soldiers died about 2005. She received his pension until his death.”
Are you sure about that year–2005? Did you mean she received his pension until her death? She wouldn’t have been a widow until her husband died.
Did you have wild Saturday night???
😉