LTC Anthony Herbert

[jmm99]

is one generated by Herbert defenders - and fueled (unintentionally) by Ken adding one phrase too many (underlined below):

And I did see Herbert's interplay with another Major named Reifsnyder at Green Ramp -- it was not the way Herbert told it in the book.

BTW: The first part is not hearsay, but present recollection of what an eyewitness saw - which may be 100% or 0% accurate, or in between. The second part is hearsay - what someone today says they read in the past. As I tell my witnesses, have the document in hand before saying what it says - avoids impeachment and other issues.

Now, to most rational people (including myself), what Herbert said or did not say in his book would be no big deal. However, to Herbert defenders, any attack on Herbert's credibility is rank heresy and must be rigorously attacked. That is because of the nature of the Herbert case.

A 2006 LA Times article ("A Tortured Past") discusses the case. I'm not endorsing the impartiality of the article, which is here.

The records in the Army's file amount to about 9,000 pages according to the article. The article does link to four original documents, which should be read (recalling that you only have 8996 pages to go in order to have the complete picture):

• 1973 memo from the Army Criminal Investigations Division commander to Army Chief of Staff Creighton W. Abrams Jr. - here

• 1970 directive from Army Chief of Staff Gen. William C. Westmoreland - here

• Excerpt of investigation report on one of Herbert's allegations - here

• Excerpt of the 1971 investigation report on the 172d Military Intelligence Detachment - here

Obviously the Herbert case (involving allegations of torture, war crimes, etc.) fits into current events - and has become another arrow in some quivers (e.g., some "progressive" webpages).

The judicial decisions went against Herbert - he got nothing. The courts did not hold that Herbert was or was not a liar; and they did not hold that 60 Minutes was or was not a liar. They did hold that there was sufficient credibility in 60 Minutes' sources to require a finding that there was an "absence of malice" in what 60 Minutes said of Herbert.

Thus, this statement by Ken accurately sums up what the courts, in effect, held:

I've heard pro and con on his 173d time so I suspect the truth is, as usual, somewhere in between.

Nuff said by me - my purpose is to explain the controversy - not resolve it.

PS: This case is now part of the complex surrounding "torture issues", including appointment of Mr. Panatta - as to which, my initial thought was .... WT..F.... We shall see on that one.

Went back and noticed that the link to the 1986 merits opinion in Herbert was broken. Here is another link to that opinion, which is here.

[Culpeper]

Absence of malice. I love that term but can never figure out quite what that means. I think it is a term used mainly in journalism. An ethics thing, "all though what I'm writing about is accurate, is it true?" Military bureaucracy has a long history of portraying an accurate yet untrue image of individuals. Example, Harry 'Breaker' Morant . In the case of Herbert, I get the impression that a highly decorated soldier ended his career by reporting atrocities.

There is a lot to be discussed in that last sentence. Take away the man's personal shortcomings and hearsay and what do we have? Another case like the one where the commander of a Japanese submarine that sank a USN cruiser was a witness for the prosecution against the commander of the USN cruiser for allegedly being responsible for getting his own ship sunk and causing a series of embarrassing situations for the USN that resulted in additional loss of life and limb. The irony being did the Japanese commander have absence of malice after the war was over and trail began. Lives are ruined because life isn't fair and that's a fact. If Herbert's story was not only accurate but as well true than he will go to his grave with a clear conscious. That is all that matters. I believe.

[Limburglar]

I want to thank all you old ####ers! My Dad is my hero (MACV 65-66). Your Grand-kids may not know about your service, but you're still appreciated.

Sincerely,
David
173rd Airborne Brigade
Iraq 2003-2004

[Sgt PJ]

I was in Alpha Company,2nd Battalion,173rd Airborne from Oct-68 to Nov-69 as the company/brigade RTO and had the privilage of meeting Col Herbert a few times when he came out to the field to talk to my Company Commander Cpt Forepaugh .I was highly impressed with him and his no BS do what we have to do to win attitude,He made the company commanders do alot of things they weren't used to doing, Like having the CP's ( command post ) people pull ambush everynight.He told us we work and move when the enemy is working/moving and that's usually at night.His MO was Ambush,Ambush,Ambush.And to put out the maximun Ambush sites out every night. So we would Ambush all night and try to get some rest during the day when we weren't doing other daytime operations and thats why we ( 2nd Batt ) had the highest body count in the brigade. Plus he cared about his men.When we would do search and destroy missions he wouldn't just fly around over us in his C&C ship watching. He would land and get out and walk through the village with us to see how we were doing.Always willing to get involved an lead by example.I always thought of him as the "Patton" of the Vietnam War.He was a soldiers soldier, a Great Man and i would follow him anywhere.And would love to meet him again.

[runner3344]

I read Soldier while in High School and to this day have 2 copies. One hardback and a paperback signed by LTC Herbert. He was one of the inspirations that convinced me to join the military. I became a Infantry Airborne NCO and still serve to this day. While in high school in 1988 I met a civillian who was working at Ft. Benning. During a shoot the bull session one evening the talk revolved around Military books to read. I mentioned Soldier and the man told me he knew LTC Herbert, having served as a NCO in his BN. He stated that LTC Herbert was the one of the best Officers the Army had back then. He stated that LTC Herbert was the poster for the Squared away Ranger officer and that the men very much respected him. He also said that soldiers wanted to be in his BN due to atmosphere that LTC Herbert projected. This guy couldnt say enough good things about him. It is to bad we dont have many Officers of that caliber and with the integrity displayed by men such as Herbert and Hackworth. We could sure use them. They understood that the Army(Infantry) has but one function. To win our wars. Not to be a cultural experiment to see if women can be infantrymen. Do you think for one minute they would have stood by and not spoken up? I dont.

[Bob's World]

I enjoyed Herbert's book as well. Then, in the Q-Course I served with a warrant officer candidate who had been a LRRP in the 173rd while Herbert was there and shared another perspective. Never met the man myself. Some men naturally draw admirers and distractors in equal number I guess.

For what it's worth though, body counts may well have been the measure of a BN CDR in Vietnam, but they were no path to victory. I don't read great war stories much anymore, and spend a lot more time thinking about why these great warriors were deployed in the first place, and how we might have better set them up for success.

[Bill Moore]

I read his book in High School, so that was a few decades ago, but I do recall it inspiring me at the time, but I recall his negative comments about Special Forces and how Rangers were superior. Not really having much of a clue of what SF did, I just accepted his comments at face value at the time. After joining the service and especially since joining SF I ran into a lot of good officers who had the LTC Herbert philisophy. I learned to put it in perspective over time. LTC Herbert was a great warrior and a great leader who inspired his soldiers to conduct effective combat operations in Korea and Vietnam. On the other hand he didn't seem to understand or perhaps more accurately see the Army's role in waging Special Warfare where the focus was more on achieving political and psychological objectives. The body count may be relevant to achieving those goals, but I never got the since that he saw it that way.

In summary I think he was one our greatest warriors and a good leader, but different leadership styles are appropriate for different situations. He we were fighting the communist hordes charging south from North Korea I would like to serve under him. If our focus was a civil action program to help pacify a region then his leadership style may be more disruptive than helpful.