Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Home
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • April 6, 2021
  • Membership
    • Join On Line
    • Photos
  • History
  • Executive Board
  • Annual Report
  • Donate
  • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • Links

Today, February 7, 1968

2/7/2017

0 Comments

 
By Don Shepperd
​

It was 49 years ago today, but I remember it like yesterday, February 7,1968. I was a 27 year-old fighter pilot on a mission over North Vietnam. I was part of a small unit that flew two-seat F-100 jet fighter aircraft as Forward Air Controllers (FACs) over the North. Our mission was to search for heavily-camouflaged targets, Surface to Air Missile (SAM) sites, truck parks, ammunition and POL storage, convoys, etc. When we found a target, we called in bomb-laden fighters and marked the targets by firing smoke rockets. It was a dangerous mission requiring us to fly at low level constantly exposed to anti-aircraft fire and in the SAM vulnerability envelopes. Our losses were high, 28% of the pilots shot down, some twice, several POWs and KIAs, some still missing.


On this day we took off from Phu Cat Airbase before dawn, headed north and when contacting the controlling agency, were asked to fly over the Lang Vei Special Forces Camp west of Khe Sanh. Lang Vei was supposed to provide security on the western approach to Khe Sanh in northern South Vietnam. Khe Sanh was under siege by two-three division-sized forces of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) belying the fact that "there is light at the end of the tunnel." This was a little more than a week after the launch of the TET Offensive across Vietnam and every major city was under attack as well as most U.S. bases and outposts. The country was burning. Radio contact had been lost with Lang Vei.

After checking to assure no B-52 strikes were scheduled, we descended to very low level and reported, "It looks like a tornado has struck. The perimeter is breached everywhere, nothing moving, many dead bodies, and TANKS IN THE WIRE!" No one believed us when we gave our intelligence report on the radio and after landing. "There ain't no NVA tanks in South Vietnam," was the reaction - so, we showed our handheld 35mm Nikon photos - "Oh" was the reply - I am still reminded of how good were the NVA at camouflage - we were really good at locating camouflaged targets, but two-three division-sized targets and nothing stirred, no dust, no movement, no nothing, "all quiet on the western front." Khe Sanh was an amazing battle, one of many in the tragedy that was Vietnam.

As I look back from my retired vantage after almost 40 years in uniform, some things become obvious: in war what seems like a good idea at the time almost never is. Time after time, our nation seems to wander into conflicts which when viewed from a historical standpoint appear simply stupid, or at the very least, avoidable.  

The courage of our young men, and now women, to do dangerous things is never in short supply. What we seem to lack is leadership that absorbs lessons learned from mistakes made. Despite being the most powerful nation on earth with the world's most capable military, I look at our track record in wars during my lifetime: We won one (WWII), lost one (Vietnam), and tied four (Korea, where we still are 67 years later; Desert Storm; Afghanistan and Iraq - being gracious to call the last three ties). That kind of record gets an NFL coach fired.

When I travel to Washington D.C. and visit the Vietnam Wall with the names of 58,000+ young Americans including many classmates, squadron mates and friends, including my best friend, I can do little more than shake my head. I can only hope the whispers of my friends reach the Hill at night.

There are things worth fighting for, but we must understand what they are before we do. We owe it to our nation and our children.

Don Shepperd TCFR, Tucson

The above story is contained on page 215 in my book, "Bury us Upside Down - The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail" - the book was bought by Random House who saw fit to submit it for consideration for a Pulitzer (considered, not nominated). The book was on the Air Force Chief of Staff's recommended reading list for several years and has become a Vietnam air war classic. It is available on Amazon.com and here is a short podcast I put together on the book from my Tucson home:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrMELi2uFk4&t=81s
0 Comments

Book Review

11/30/2016

0 Comments

 
Twilight Warriors: The Soldiers, Spies, & Special Agents Who Are Revolutionizing the American Way of War
BY JAMES KITFIELD, Basic Books, 2016, 405 pp.

Reviewed by Robert Thompson. 

“It takes a network to defeat a network.” That observation, frequently expressed by General Stanley McChrystal as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, led to creation of an integrated network of soldiers, spies, and special agents to combat a highly networked enemy proficient in the use of technology. In his new book, Twilight Warriors, James Kitfield tells a compelling story of how they did it, what they accomplished, and what it means for the future of the global fight against terrorism.

A military trained in doctrines of maneuver warfare adapted to a new kind of enemy by developing innovative and collaborative counterterrorism measures. Special Operations Forces, conventional forces, and precision air assets worked together more seamlessly than ever before. The military was joined in the fight by intelligence and law enforcement agencies — CIA, FBI, NSA, DEA — as equal partners. Turf-conscious organizations with diverse cultures learned to cooperate. Intelligence gathering and analysis that once was an important adjunct to military operations became the primary mission of a new warfighting machine. Centralized command and decentralized execution made it fast-moving and responsive.


This densely networked counterterrorism force, developed within the Joint Special Operations Command, was part of the broader counterinsurgency strategy championed by General David Petraeus in Iraq, first as 101st Airborne Division commander and later as commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq. It was replicated in Afghanistan in 2009 when General McChrystal assumed command of all U.S. and coalition forces there. The unprecedented collaboration among military, intelligence, and law enforcement in Iraq and Afghanistan progressed rapidly and effectively on the battlefield. That it did not result in final, decisive victory was due to, according to Kitfield, corrupt governments in Baghdad and Kabul and political decisions taken in Washington. Yet Kitfield holds out hope for its continued viability as American involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts winds down and terrorist activity elsewhere intensifies.


Author James Kitfield has reported and written on defense, national security, and foreign policy for more than 20 years.*
Twilight Warriors is a journalistʼs reportage, based largely on interviews the author conducted and his earlier published articles. Far from being a dry treatise on military strategy and tactics, it is full of anecdotes and insights into the character of the large cast of military personnel and civilians who drove the network. Aspects of the story have been told elsewhere, sometimes in greater detail, but Iʼve found nothing that describes as clearly and comprehensively the new warfare that evolved from the 21st Century conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

​Warfare has never been a static enterprise. It adapts and evolves as technology and threats change. James Kitfield has drawn a lucid picture of a new American way of war, conceived in a long twilight struggle against foes in dark shadows.

_____________
​
* James Kitfield is the only three-time winner of the Gerald R. Ford Award for Distinguished Reporting on National Defense. He was the featured speaker at a Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations event in September 2016, addressing the topic “ISIS Update: Importing and Exporting Radical Islamic Terrorism.”
Robert Thompson is a retired lawyer and international business executive. He currently is president of the Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations. 


0 Comments

Welcome!

11/11/2016

0 Comments

 
Welcome to At the Waterʼs Edge, an open forum for discussion of international relations and foreign policy issues hosted by the Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations. Our goal is to present interesting, concise, and reliable information that will stimulate constructive discussion within and beyond the TCFR community.

The spirit of At the Waterʼs Edge is suggested by the forumʼs name. We encourage expression of diverse views and opinions. We also honor a long American tradition of domestic political differences stopping at the waterʼs edge in favor of a bipartisan foreign policy. Here, divergent views carry us to the waterʼs edge of greater knowledge and understanding.

Itʼs appropriate that the inaugural post on At the Waterʼs Edge is written by Dr. Thomas Volgy. Tom is Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona, specializing in international politics, democratic processes, and domestic public policy. He is a longtime TCFR member and, currently, vice president of the TCFR Executive Board.
We encourage your participation in At the Waterʼs Edge, both as an author and in comments to othersʼ posts. Our editorial guidelines can be found by clicking on the “Blog” tab on our web site.

There is a wealth of experience and perspectives among TCFR members. Let the discussion begin!
​

Robert Thompson
TCFR President
​2016-2017 


0 Comments

At the Water's Edge

11/10/2016

2 Comments

 
And the real impact of trade policy is….?
     Few can contest that this has been the wackiest Presidential election cycle in at least the last hundred years. Our collective frustrations over the trivia dominating our elections cycle is well founded. Democracy cannot function well when the public is left unexposed to meaningful debate about the pressing issues facing us.  For voters to do their job of choosing well between contenders, the least they can expect is substantive discussion about policy choices instead of tweets, denunciations, name-calling, and character attacks. As someone vitally interested in foreign policy, I had hoped that the pressing foreign policy issues of the day. This has proven to be quite naïve.

     The American public is ready for such dialogue even if the campaigns are not. It used to be said that the public would want such debate over domestic issues but not over foreign policy. This election cycle makes that piece of wisdom fall apart as well. Consider the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and past and future trade agreements in general. A decade ago, these issues would have been considered too boring for most voters. Yet both the Trump and Sanders campaigns have so completely denounced both the TPP and NAFTA, that ending these deals has become a rallying cry on both the left and the right (at least the populist right). 


     Rallying cry is one thing; having a meaningful discussion in front of the public about trade-offs, objectives, and consequences is something that is necessary for the democratic process to work well. Rather than arguing about who can make the better deal (or, to have no deal at all), we need a full blown discussion to try to answer some crucial questions if we are going to move forward as a nation in a globalized economy. 


     I have some of these questions. I don’t pretend to know the correct answers, but I would love to have had the campaigns answer them. Now that the campaign season is finally over, we still need, more than ever, to try to answer them: 
  1. From an American vantage point, what do we expect to gain from the TPP and what do we expect to lose? Is it, as some would argue that this package is to benefit some corporations and industries over the vast majority of us whose lives would get worse as more jobs dry up in the U.S.? I’ve looked at the agreement numerous times and I don’t find the job drain that the worst case scenario mongers predict. Maybe I’m wrong, but I would like to see some evidence rather than more empty slogans.  
  2. Is this a deal about trade and economics or is it primarily a political deal, designed to enhance our influence in the Asia-Pacific region? In September The Economist predicted that the entire package after implementation would, at best, add one percent to our GDP over an entire decade. Not much of an impact. On the other hand, we, and not China would write the rules about economic relationships, property rights, labor standards and environmental protection, and internet freedom for the region. Equally important, it would help underscore our leadership and alliance relationships in the region and create additional balance against continued Chinese attempts to dominate the South China Sea.
  3. If the political benefits are important to us, and if there are negative impacts on our workers, where will those impact be, and what can we do to compensate people who could be caught in these negative consequences? 
  4. Finally, can we not, with some precision, figure out the consequences of previous trade deals? It is undeniable that there has been very substantial economic harm done to a sizeable percent of American blue collar workers over the last two decades. It is also undeniable that NAFTA never quite worked the way we were told it would work: not for us, not for Mexico, and probably not for Canada. But is it NAFTA and/or Chinese accession to the WTO that caused the economic harm to our workers? Are these the principle causes of growing inequality and the destruction of the American dream for millions? Don’t we deserve that discussion and debate…not with rhetoric but armed with real information about cause and effect? Alternative explanations exist: the decline of unions and collective bargaining, the growing automation in manufacturing, the shift from a manufacturing to a service economy unattended by job retraining for those most likely to be hurt by economic transition. 
Before we move forward or backwards on trade relationships and trade policy, we deserve to know the answers to these questions. Sadly, they were not forthcoming in this election. Perhaps afterwards?

Thomas J. Volgy
Professor of Political Science
School of Government and Public Policy
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85719 USA

2 Comments

Editorial Guidelines for this Blog

11/1/2016

0 Comments

 
At the Waterʼs Edge
An Online Foreign Policy Forum
At the Waterʼs Edge is an open forum for discussion of current international relations
and foreign policy topics. At the Waterʼs Edge is hosted by the Tucson Committee on
Foreign Relations, an independent, non-partisan educational organization.
Commentary on TCFR activities, programs, and speakers is welcome in At the
Water
ʼs Edge
, in addition to more general topics.

1. Content Goal: We seek content that is interesting, concise, and reliable. We want to
    educate readers and stimulate discussion concerning issues relevant to the TCFR
    community.

2. Our Target Audience: At the Waterʼs Edge authors are writing primarily for TCFR
   members and prospective members. The membership of TCFR includes present and
   former foreign service officers and other diplomats, academics, military officers,
   international business executives, professionals, and many others who simply have
   an interest in learning more about international relations and foreign policy.

3. Content Criteria: Topics can include (i) analysis of current international relations
   issues, (ii) commentary on current international relations news, (iii) book reviews, (iv)
   biographical sketches or interviews of persons in the field of international relations
   and foreign policy, and (v) more. Promotion of products or services and other
   commercial communications are not appropriate, nor is advocacy for particular
   political candidates.

4. Submission of Posts: Material proposed for publication should be submitted to the
   TCFR Communications & Marketing Committee (the “Committee”) at
   tucsoncomforeignrelations@gmail.com. The Committee will consider proposed topics
   (this saves everyone time in case a topic is not accepted), topic outlines, or full posts.
   The Committee will review submissions promptly. The decision to accept or reject
   material for publication is within the sole discretion of the Committee. The Committee
   reserves the right to edit submissions for style and length, but if it does so the
​   edited version will be reviewed with the author before posting.

5. Style and Format: Proposed posts should be submitted electronically, in an editable
   format (Word for PCs or Pages for Mac). Posts generally should not exceed 600 words,
   although longer posts can be accepted at the discretion of the Committee. Authors
   are requested to suggest a headline; write clearly in short sentences; and use
   paragraphs, sub-headings, and bullet points for clarity and ease of reading.
   Limited use of links, photographs and other illustrative material is permitted if
   otherwise appropriate under these guidelines and conducive to an understanding of
   the subject matter of the post. Compliance with copyright laws is the responsibility of
   the author.

6. Republishing of Content: At the Waterʼs Edge will publish only original, previously
   unpublished material. Authors may republish their posts elsewhere, not sooner than
   two weeks after publication in At the Waterʼs Edge. Subsequent publication must cite
   At the Waterʼs Edge as the original publisher of the material.

7. What Else to Submit: Upon acceptance of a post for publication in At the Waterʼs
   Edge
, contributors should submit a brief (approximately 60 words) bio. A photograph
   to accompany the post is welcome but optional.

8. Comments and Discussion: Comments to At the Waterʼs Edge posts can be made
   by both TCFR members and non-members. Authors are encouraged to engage in
   dialogue with commentators. Comments must be civil and should be confined to the
   subject of the original post. TCFR reserves the right to remove inappropriate comments.
​
Thank you for your interest in At the Waterʼs Edge and the Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations. 


0 Comments
Forward>>

    TCFR Members

    A Blog by TCFR Members for the TCFR membership. We invite you to read the Welcome Letter here. The blog guidelines are available for review here.

    Archives

    February 2021
    November 2020
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2018
    November 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Home

About

Events

Membership

Contact

Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations, P.O. Box 32076, Tucson, AZ 85751
Copyright © 2019