Independent Patriots for America

What If A Gathering of Eagles Fails? Magnum P.I. Answered ‘What If!’

By Ronald Winters

The 1980s television drama Magnum P.I. was, in my opinion, one of the best shows to portray the true spirit of the American Vietnam veteran, and actor Tom Selleck’s title character, the private investigator Thomas Magnum, was and still is one of my all-time favorites.

Selleck’s ability to bring a likeable reality to the small screen was unparalleled at the time, and to this day.

In one of my favorite episodes, the lead character and a small group of friends, all combat veterans of that war, save for Magnum’s employer, Higgins, the very, very proper British Sgt. Major who also had seen his share of action across the globe, went back to Vietnam on a rescue mission. In that two-part episode they faced all the demons of the past, but showed America the savage reality of the enemy we had faced and the courage of the soldiers and civilians of all nations who stood up to the communists.

After they return home to Hawaii, each character lists a host of chores undone, people and projects put on hold, and sacrifices that had been made as Vietnam again became a priority in their lives. Finally, the question is raised, “What if we hadn’t gone?”

Selleck pauses for a moment, and answers the question of the ages simply, but succinctly.

“We did.”

I have been reminded of this episode many times in recent days, as the Gathering of Eagles vigil planned for the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., on March 17 grows exponentially, and efforts to prevent the vigil take on a frantic tone. The gathering is a grassroots call for a vigil at The Wall to ensure that pro-terrorism protesters who are reenacting a 1967 March on the Pentagon that day, don’t deface the Vietnam Memorial as they did the Capitol in January.

Pundits and commentators from across the political spectrum are worrying themselves sick, or trying to appear that they are, over the correctness of the Eagles’ gathering, or the possibility that it will fail, or that the media will ignore or misportray the veterans (what else is new?), or that the vets may encounter violence from the anarchists.

Their feigned concerns range from political correctness run amok, to a very real fear that the veterans’ vigil will take on far more significance than the pro-terrorists’ march regardless of what the media reports.

Talk all you want, the vigil is going forward. Individual after individual and group after group are stepping forward and signing up. The organizers are firm that the purpose of the gathering is to stand a peaceful vigil over the wall and prevent any of the anarchists participating in the pro-terrorism march from dishonoring those whose names are listed on it.

By extension, this vigil is for all veterans and their supporters who have stood up for America and freedom.

By any common sense measure, this vigil is necessary, and long, long overdue. I believe that one of the biggest fears behind the negative commentaries is that mainstream America will finally show the pro-terrorist politicians and news media that no matter what they have done to the contrary, we still believe in our country, and are willing to stand up for it.

Some in the pro-terrorist crowd claim that the veterans’ vigil is unnecessary. A spokesman from one of the pro-terror organizations claimed recently that the anarchists who defaced the Capitol in January were but a small number of the “hundreds of thousands” who had been at the pro-terror rally on the DC mall in January.

For starters, the best estimates I have seen of the number of people in that demonstration were around 30,000, not anywhere near 100,000 or “hundreds” of thousands as the spokesman claimed. Face it, no one gives a rat’s behind what Cindy Sheehan thinks about anything, and Jane Fonda is a schizoid relic of a bygone day who can’t decide whether she is capitalist or communist.

The fact is, she is and always was an opportunist with no common sense or morals. Neither Cindy Sheehan nor any of Fonda’s multiple personalities can draw a crowd. But for a pro-terror organizer to drastically inflate the numbers who attended a previous pro-terror rally, to give the so-called ‘movement’ more importance than it rates, tells us plenty.

America may be fed up with both political parties, but it isn’t fed up on America, and certainly does not support the pro-terrorists in our midst.

As to the claims that the veterans are over-reacting to the incident at the Capitol, take a look at what the pro-terrorist march organizers are saying on their own website.

“Tens of thousands of people will be gathering at Constitution Gardens at 12 noon near the Vietnam Memorial prior to the March on the Pentagon on Saturday, March 17. …

The 58,000 U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in Vietnam and the millions of Vietnamese who were killed, died in a criminal war. The connection between Vietnam and Iraq could not be more clear. Iraq is also a criminal war of aggression. …

Some tiny pro-Bush groups who support the war in Iraq, and who normally mobilize about 25 people to hold signs when massive antiwar protests take place, are now callously trying to manipulate Vietnam veterans by spreading rumors that the March on the Pentagon will defile the Vietnam Memorial. This lie should be treated with the same contempt that people have for the other lies promoted by Bush and his followers to justify an illegal war of aggression …”

Yada, yada, yada.

Can the issue be more clear? There is no mistaking the pro-terrorists’ aims. Once again, America is a criminal enterprise, once again its veterans are war criminals, and once again groups who have no real agenda save for the downfall of democracy are using the very freedoms that veterans fought for to attack and overthrow the country that guarantees those freedoms.

As a Marine brother put it recently, the pro-terrorist march is organizing “Within spitting distance” of the Vietnam memorial. Their web site makes their intentions all too clear.

But there is a solid truth at work here that will prevail, as truth always does. This is the communication age, and mainstream America is communicating. We who were spat upon when we came home from Vietnam were not organized, we were not in large-scale contact with each other, and we did not have anywhere near as much information available to us as we do now.

This time we are organized and we are talking to each other constantly. We have seen what happens to our allies if we leave them helpless. To somehow claim that the millions of Southeast Asians who died at the hands of the communists after South Vietnam fell in 1975 did so because of America or its veterans is despicable, dishonest, unsupportable and outright false.

The millions who died were killed by the communists. The allies of the communist forces in the 60s and 70s are in many cases the same people who are supporting the terrorists today. History does repeat, and to follow this concept to its logical end ensures that millions more innocents will die at the hands of terrorists if the pro-terrorist forces prevail. This time, millions who die will be Americans on American soil.

There is no question that the vigil is necessary, and for it to succeed, it needs only to occur. Whether the vigil is attended by 50 veterans, or 500 or 5000, is not relevant. That we go, and stand shoulder to shoulder to defend our memorials and the honor and dignity of the Americans who died defending our freedoms is all that matters.

Regarding the possibility of violence, it is likely only if it is used by the pro-terrorists and their anarchist brethren. But I would caution those prone to violence to think twice before attacking a solid mass of people who are the all-time masters at improvisational combat. The media can rewrite history all it wants, but we have defeated every enemy we ever faced, regardless of how vicious the tactics they used.

We have improvised, we have adapted and we have overcome every single time. I wouldn’t recommend violence against this group, especially from people who are attempting to shield their true pro-terrorism agenda from the public by claiming to be marching for “peace.”

We will stand our vigil, peacefully, but firmly. Attacking us would be foolhardy and counter-productive on many fronts.

I realize that the hand-wringers and worry warts will continue to chew on this issue right up until March 17, and probably even afterwards. That is their nature and it won’t change.

But there is a simple and succinct answer to the question “What if we don’t go?”

“We will!”

Gathering of Eagles      

1000 Hours, March 17, 2007    

Viet Nam Memorial Wall      

Washington, D.C.  

 “A helpless sparrow can drift with the wind.  It takes an “Eagle” to fly against the storm.”  

The anti-war/anti-America groups are planning a “march to the Pentagon” on March 17, 2007…this group has intentions that defenders of freedom cannot overlook or allow to occur…there must be a challenge.  

Here’s a portion from the “anti-war” web site that causes considerable concern:  “The biggest single group of new volunteers and activists are soldiers and marines who have returned from Iraq. Their family members and other veterans are also organizing to March on the Pentagon.  The opening rally will assemble at the Vietnam Memorial (Constitution Gardens) at noon.”

The anti-war/anti-America group cannot be allowed to use the Viet Nam Memorial Wall as a back-drop to their anti-America venom and stain the hallowed ground that virtually cries out with blood at the thought of this proposed desecration….it must not happen. 

Many are encouraging a  ”Gathering of  Eagles”  (symbolic of our freedom) at the Viet Nam Memorial Wall on March 17, 2007, as a signal that a segment of  America does not agree with the “anti-war/anti-America” rally on the same day.   As noted above, the anti-war/anti-America crowd is publishing intention to use the Viet Nam Memorial as a backdrop to their rally………..this cannot happen……..it cannot go unchallenged.    

Based on the input received, here is what is suggested as a means to identify those of us attending/visiting the Viet Nam Memorial wall and other Memorials on March 17, 2007 opposing the anti-war distortions.

We want to send a different message than the “anti-war/anti-America” surrender crowd, so we should be clearly set apart from them.   

• Wear an Armband on the right arm ….any color will work, wear the color you desire, but wear an Armband…flag armbands are being prepared….will advise on this.
• On the armband each person should print something, e.g.  WWII, Korea, Nam, Iraq, spouse, widow, POW,  or other respectful phrase one wants to help us identify one another.     

We need to remember all American’s are invited to support our effort which is intended as a defender of hallowed ground and intended as a  non-violent competition between  those that would sell out America and those of us who support freedom and keeping the fight with the enemy on distant shores.    

Many of us will be wearing favorite caps, shirts, jackets, jungle fatigues, desert dress, uniforms, medals, VFW/Legion, etc. to include the Red Armband……….it will be a grand reunion, a time of new friendships, which will also, God willing, rekindle a new light of American patriotism which would filter down the mall toward the Capitol of the United States…..maybe even the main stream media (MSM)

…..obviously more detail is needed which will come as we draw nearer.

We know some of the, who, what, when, why, where, …….it’s up to each of us to supply the “how”.    

More details to follow……….. 

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret

The media has been drooling over the recent anti-Bush, anti-troop increase, “non-binding” resolution blather being thrown around in the United States Senate…and many Senators seem favorably inclined (read listing to the left) to accommodate.

The sad aspect of the Senate, as in most politicians, is their ability to say one thing but when decision time comes, they are either absent or side with the majority…the recent example of cowardice by the United States Senate was in the vote to confirm General Petraeus as Commander in Iraq…….

General Petraeus, testifying and being questioned before the Senate Armed Services Committee,  told the Senators what he was going to do,  he couldn’t do it without a troop increase, said cutting and running would lead to disaster, all the things the Senators did not want to hear.  Yet,  the General was confirmed by a 81-0 vote.  I know Senator Johnson was in the hospital, but who the gutless 18 were that could, but did not vote I don’t know. I suspect it was many of those that didn’t have the courage to vote for Petraeus or against him…but many Senators continued to spew their anti-Bush, anti-troop, American is the problem venom, while saying they support America and the troops……….that is pure, unequivocal lies and political cover tactics.

Senator Hagel lashed out at his Senate colleagues stating,  “I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected?” Mr. Hagel said, his voice booming. “If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.”

My fax to Senator Hagel and others was “If you are not a shoe salesman Senator, then introduce a “binding resolution” to cut off the funds for the Iraq war and do it now.

Your rhetoric in the safe confines of the United States Senate mean nothing unless you exercise courage of words and take action.  Either put up or shut up.

If you don’t, you are branded as a hypocrite,  a coward, and worse, a traitor.”  

I hasten to add that Hagel’s, Kennedy’s, Warner’s, and others words do mean something…they give aid, comfort, and embolden the Islamic butchers. The enemy views them as weak, America as weak, America as divided, America as toothless…our warriors in harms way are put to disadvantage by the reckless anti-war shrill while these Senators quickly add “I support our troops”…I wonder how many good old gullible Americans will swallow this crap, close their mind, go back to sleep, or at least to a snoozing stupor……

United States Senators who carry out this farcical “non-binding” debate against President Bush’s troop increase are nothing short of traitors, should be tarred and feathered and left in Washington, D.C.

Harry Riley,COL, USA, Ret

Senator Harry Reid
Senator Dick Durbin
Rep Nancy Pelosi
Rep Steny Hoyer

I am convinced the four of you are vicious, hateful individuals and hell-bent on destroying America.  The Islamic butchers are giddy over your anti-Bush, surrender language.

The President admits mistakes, we’ve all made mistakes, but I believe the four of you, and others, are teetering on grave miscalculations.

Many of us have criticized the President because we believe he has not done enough to win against the terrorists, not because we want to lose. The hateful speech and venom you spew in time of war, while troops fight for their lives and our freedom, indicates you want America to “lose” the war against the Islamic barbarians.  This is treason in my mind.

You can whine, criticize, call names, or whatever against Administration domestic policies but to attack the Commander in Chief’s war policies when all you offer is surrender can only be viewed as  ”anti-American”.  The childish, almost junk yard manner of political attack while America is at war, is aiding the enemy, a threat to our warriors on the battlefield and our nation.

Don’t tell me you are serving the best interests of America when the Islamic butchers gain encouragement, just like the North Vietnamese did from American politicians…the anti-war shrill is “aid and comfort to the enemy”, a bunch of barbaric, mindless, ruthless murderers. 

Remember 1979 American hostages in Iran; 1983 American Marines killed in Lebanon barracks;1985 TWA hijacking in Athens; 1985 Achille Lauro - Egypt; 1988 Pan Am 103 Bombing - Lockerbie; 1993 World Trade Center - New York; 1996 Khobar Towers Bombing - Saudi Arabia; 1998 Embassies bombed in Tanzania and Kenya; 2000 attack on USS Cole - Yemen; 9-11-2001 World Trade Center - New York City; all these attacks taking thousands of American lives. The nut-cases and mentality that conducted these attacks are the same murderers we are fighting today in Iraq and other places. What is it about all these attacks you don’t understand?  America is at WAR and you want to surrender.

You can elect a Democratic President in 2008, but for now President Bush is the Commander in Chief.  It appears your quest for power will go to any lengths to gain a political edge, even at the expense of blood and body parts of our troops, or even the survival of America.

You have no plan, just criticism of the other side…….you have no shame.  I was once a Democrat and feel tainted that I was ever associated with such a hate mongering, self-serving group of people…lest you think “here’s another Republican”….I’m no Republican either and will do everything in my power to defeat as many surrender, anti-America, immoral Democrats and Republicans in 2008 as possible…Independent minded Americans will speak in 2008, for now I support whatever it takes to destroy the Islamic threat.

Sleep well……troops are fighting and dying…needlessly because of political power hungry agendas and ignorance of the Islamic terror threat.

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret

America At War

Are we on the Viet Nam path Out of Iraq?

October 02, 2005
 
Fox News “War Stories” with Ollie North on 10/02/2005 focused on the indecision of American leaders during the Viet Nam war and the terrible price our pilots, and in effect, all troops paid.
 
President Johnson and Defense Secretary McNamara during the Viet Nam war (neither one knowing anything about fighting a war) demonstrated a callous disregard for the lives of our troops and welfare of our nation, by spending more time focusing on what our “cold war” enemies would think of U.S. decisions than the life threatening impact on our own troops and success of the war.
 
Fast forward forty years to the middle east conflict in Iraq.  President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld are engaged in some of the same indecision that cost us victory in the Viet Nam war. 
 
As in the Viet Nam war, the anti-war rabble is again raising it’s ugly head, having never learned “freedom is not free”, our troops in the middle east are being second guessed,  hamstrung with limitations on what can and cannot be attacked, which raises the question… where is the war in Iraq being managed.  My guess is that Washington is still calling the shots, otherwise our Generals would have insisted Syria be in the cross-hairs long ago.
 
During the Viet Nam war, Washington was making tactical decisions which nearly always put our pilots and ground troops at a disadvantage.  Rather than being bold, aggressive, and fighting on our terms to win, politicians were more concerned about what the “Russians would do”.  Great thought was given to our bombs falling on Russians assisting North Vietnamese in the north but little thought of North Vietnamese artillery located in Cambodia firing on us in South Viet Nam with impunity…we were not allowed to take action against North Vietnamese in Cambodia…U.S. politicians, in effect,  protected our enemy which resulted in American lives lost.
 
Now the same scenario is reflected in Iraq… instead of taking action on Syria and Iran for supporting the enemy in Iraq, we allow them to funnel money, weapons, and materiel into Iraq with impunity.  President Bush and others appear more concerned what France, Germany, the UN and other pip squeak nations will think.  The Iraq war is being waged with an emphasis on politics at the expense of our troops…our decision makers are hell-bent on repeating the Viet Nam mistake.
 
I view the fight in Iraq as just, honorable, necessary, and President Bush did the right thing in taking Saddam out.  However, politicians have no backbone, our troops are put in a rut, we are treading water as men and women die, while the “get out” cry becomes more shrill…in short, our superior fighting force is muzzled.
 
Syria and Iran are our enemies.  We are allowing them to kill our warriors without being held accountable.  Our troops are once again fighting with one hand while the enemy is given the advantage.  Syria and Iran should pay a heavy price for their support of the Al Qaeda butchers.

President Bush states “the war in Iraq is central to defeating terrorism”…if that’s what he believes, then why does he not fight the war accordingly?
 
If we are unwilling to take the fight to the enemy, even if it means involving another nation, it will only be a matter of time until we tuck our tail, exit Iraq, and build another wall of names.
 
Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret

January 6, 2007 — WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media. Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?

There’s a one-word answer: Iran. ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.

While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran’s quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.

In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects - requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.)

Not only did Adm. Fallon command a carrier air wing during Operation Desert Storm, he also did shore duty at a joint headquarters in Saudi Arabia. He knows the complexity and treacherousness of the Middle East first-hand. STRENGTHENING his qualifications, numer ous blue-water assignments and his duties at PACOM schooled him on the intricacies of the greater Indian Ocean - the key strategic region for the 21st-century and the one that would be affected immediately by a U.S. conflict with Iran.

The admiral also understands China’s junkie-frantic oil dependency and its consequent taste for geopolitical street-crime: During a U.S. operation against Iran, Beijing would need its fix guaranteed. While Congress obsesses on Iraq and Iraq alone, the administration’s thinking about the future. And it looks as if the White House is preparing options to mitigate a failure in Iraq and contain Iran.

Bush continues to have a much-underrated strategic vision - the administration’s consistent problems have been in the abysmal execution of its policies, not in the over-arching purpose. Now, pressed by strategic dilemmas and humiliating reverses, Bush is doing what FDR had to do in the dark, early months of 1942: He’s turning to the Navy. AS a retired Army officer, I remain proud of and loyal to my service.

I realize that the Army’s leaders are disappointed to see the CentCom slot go to an admiral in the midst of multiple ground wars. But, beyond the need for a Navy man at the helm should we have to take on Iran, there’s yet another reason for sending Fallon to his new assignment: The Army’s leadership has failed us at the strategic level. After Gen. Eric Shinseki was sidelined for insisting on a professional approach to Iraq, Army generals did plenty of fine tactical and operational work - but they never produced a strategic vision for the greater Middle East. Our Army is deployed globally, but our
generals never seem to acquire the knack of thinking beyond the threat hypnotizing them at the moment (the Marines, with their step-brother ties to the Navy, do a better job of acting locally while thinking globally).

Has Leadership Been Redefined?

Critical leadership positions in America are now filled with gutless managers

What is it going to take to get the “deciders” (AKA President Bush) attention to serious thought on Iraq and the terrorist problem? We now have “deciders” not “decision makers” which implies managers rather than leaders.
 
Senator Warner says the Iraqi government must take charge, Senator Graham says Rumsfeld and  American Generals are failing,  Senator Schumer says the Administration is off course, Senator Clinton says blah, blah, blah……but no one, I repeat no one, can apparently see the real problem in Iraq or with the terrorist problem in general.
 
This is about American leaders who just don’t get it…….nor does the media get it!….WAKE-UP.  Nearly everyone is pole vaulting over mouse manure while ignoring the problem in Iraq…It’s about Iran and Syria stupid…take a breath and see the obvious.

The root of the problem is those elements outside Iraq supporting the terrorist, radicals, criminals, etc. with arms, money, sending fighters, into Iraq….it serves little to no purpose continuing to spill American blood while running here and there putting band-aids on flare-ups in Iraq…it distresses me to see American life lost while continually allowing Iran and Syria to fuel the fighting with no accountability…they’re getting a free pass for killing our men and women…how long will America tolerate bureaucratic incompetence and pip squeak foreign leaders who shame us at the United Nations…in our own country?

Unless Syria and Iran are held accountable, the mayhem, butchery and killing situation in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestinian territory and other places will continue and Americans will lose life, blood and limbs…there is an endless supply of brain-washed, suicidal Islamic killers, thus, unless the brain is crushed that is sending them to kill us, hope for even a political settlement is whistling in the wind.
 
American leaders are betraying our troops with their unwillingness to hit Iran and Syria, where the real problem lies…it’s called gutless leaders…men and women in positions of authority without the courage to place the priorities of America before their own selfish political ambitions.
 
 
Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret
hmriley@cox.net
10-25-2006