(Yawn)So I suggest major instead of getting picky with me over the available intel why not question how the charade was able to continue after the camp emptied on 14 July up until the actual raid on 21 November.
I get picky over the available intel because your line of argument through this whole thread has been plain, flat-out, terrible - just terrible. First you started to impugn Adm. Moorer's character by hanging on to a quote that he had been presented with information that the prisoners had definitely been moved. Then when the weakness of that argument was called into question, when it was made apparent to you that the single source of information from the Hanoi informant was just one piece of the puzzle, it seems you went rummaging through the internet and came up with another nugget to support your railings.
And now you seem to be retreating on the conviction of your argument. First it seemed that you were advancing the position that Adm. Moorer lacked moral courage and was therefore a moral coward, and then in your latest posts, you state that he made a bad call. Which is it? If anything, your most cogent thought in this whole discussion is that if the DIA IMINT had been properly interpreted, the raid would have never gotten off the ground. Well shut the front door! Maybe, at the end of the day, DIA is really the agency to lay the blame on.
Bad calls happen in conflict, and no amount of pillows anyone tries to wrap around our warriors can prevent them, but a moral coward?
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in this forum who would disagree that there are perils to groupthink and hive mind planning, but what we are dealing with now in this sub-thread is the issue of whether there was absolute confirmation that the prisoners were moved, and that the planners knew this but proceeded to recommend a go to civilian leadership nonetheless. You have failed, in my opinion, to do that, but you have certainly nipped and barked as is often your modus operandi. You don't help your argument when you do that...ever.
You've paraded a single quote from a single book (attributable to Train) , and I think jmm99 has already torn your argument apart again. If you are going to rail against something, and certainly against a figure of history, you really ought to read more. If you had bothered to browse Perilous Options, you might have realized that there were indications that activity had picked up between 3 and 13 November, according to the writer's line of discussion about the DIA IMINT analysis. Even Bennett, who briefed Moorer on the "two stacks of evidence", had doubts as time wore on but seemed to decline a distinct opinion because there was a lack of more concrete evidence. I'd nod my head with you if you were making the statement that the compartmentalization of information and groupthink was the most significant lesson to be learned from Son Tay. Where you are losing any audience is when you drift off into attacks against Moorer and essentially call him an imbecile (yes, my impression and not your words) and less decisive than a 15-year old.
Which is it, because you appear to be all over the map. Was he indecisive, a careerist and morally corrupt, or not intelligent enough to be CJCS? The body of evidence, personal recollections given years after the event, and other data tell different people different things. I do not discount Train's quote about the 12-hour information (and I doubt any other folks posting to this thread discount it), but it is still the recollection of a single individual years after the event, and it is from a separate book at that. Those recollections have to be taken into consideration with the larger body of information, and frankly, you could be accused of selectively ignoring data that is counter to your view.
I presume that if you followed your own advice, you wouldn't have anything to say.Mike, you find and post documents which inform on the subject then go and spoil it by selectively quoting and mixing in your own unsubstantiated conclusions. Just let the facts speak for themselves.
I am reminded of why I tried to stay out of threads where you post. You came in with a very clear mindset, started swirling around and breaking the shop's china when others offered a contrarian point of view (which is fine, by the way), and at the end of things we haven't actually gotten anywhere.
And bristling at Surferbeetle's comments took it to a whole new level. Really?
What this thread definitely highlights is the immutable fact that although we have the freedom to comment on history, we would be wise to be cautious and not let hindsight hamper our analysis of decision-making during volatile times.
Bookmarks