We
are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual
conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring
it together on one page for you.
Bush
and Uncommon Valor by
Colonel John H. Wambough, Jr., USAF (Retired)
28 February 2004
A
former combat fighter pilot explains how the Democrats' witch
hunt against Bush's record in the military denigrates service
in the National Guard. Bush could have been assigned anywhere,
including combat, and it was common for supervisors to release
pilots early if they had alternative careers or college education
to pursue.
George Bush and
I were fighter pilots. Lt. Bush flew F - 102s in the Air National
Guard (ANG) – 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS);
I flew F-105s in combat - 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS).
Both our flying assignments were inherently dangerous –
Lt. Bush’s because of the high performance nature of the
fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required
to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather
(night and day) intercept missions.
Senator John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee’s
Mr. Terry McAuliffe and the anti-war (weak on National Security)
left-wing of the Democrat Party have relentlessly attacked the
service of Lt. Bush and by inference other pilots and service
members in the ANG and Reserve forces as cowards and shirkers
of responsibility for not being in Vietnam. Their flippant slandering
of our Guard and Reserve forces in an effort to discredit President
Bush and win an election is beyond the pale. They have no decency
left.
Lt. Bush’s opportunity to fly jets and serve his country
came through the Air National Guard when he was 22 years old.
Just like Lt. Bush, my goal as a young man was to fly high performance
jet fighter aircraft – both of us realized our dream.
I might have been just a dumb fighter pilot but I don’t
remember looking ahead (and I’m sure Lt. Bush didn’t
either) to what missions we could be assigned -- peacetime or
wartime. All we wanted to do as young men was to fly these magnificent
flying machines (jets) and enjoy the opportunity to serve our
country. (Contributing to the Air National Guard’s Air
Defense mission, Lt. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102
-- the world's first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor
aircraft; he served his country protecting the United States).
Neither Lt. Bush nor I had control over mission assignment,
where we would be deployed or how the service would task the
units we were assigned. Lt. Bush would have gladly gone to Vietnam
or anywhere else his unit was deployed - but the reality was
that young Lt. Bush had no say as to how his unit would be utilized
to support our country’s National Security interests.
I guess you could say such decisions were above our pay grade.
Lt. Bush’s mission, as a squadron fighter interceptor
pilot, was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to
the United States; for example, Soviet Nuclear Bombers. Remember,
we were still in the Cold War in the 1970’s with Air Defense
a high priority mission. Today our Air Defense forces protect
us against aircraft with terrorists onboard.
I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter
jets is highly dangerous. People don’t strap fighter jets
to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future.
While in F-105 training at McConnell AFB in early 1968, we lost
five aircraft in six weeks (one aircraft crashed in air-to-air
combat training; one aircraft crashed on the air-to-ground gunnery
range; one crashed on take off; one crashed on final approach
at a nearby airfield and one crashed coming back from a cross-country
mission). My nephew was killed while flying a Marine Corp EA-6B
Prowler during a low level state-side training mission. I was
in a flight where an F-105 pilot was killed while we were training
on an air-ground gunnery range. Also, I’ve been in F -105
and F-111 operational units where a number of pilots were killed
while training for their war time mission. We got really good
at flying "Missing Man Formations" and doing memorial
services for our fallen comrades and their families. I can assure
you that Lt. Bush was continuously exposed to similar dangers
during all weather scrambles and during training exercises as
evidenced by the F-102 pilots killed in his unit.
Cowards (or people who lack courage) don’t take on the
risks that Lt Bush did in flying Fighter Interceptor Aircraft.
Flying jets in wing formation in the weather and carrying explosive
ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons
(including Lt. Bush) did what their country asked them to do.
They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November
1970, the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col.
Jerry B. Killian, called Mr. Bush, then 24, "a dynamic
outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top-notch
fighter interceptor pilot". "Lt. Bush's skills far
exceed his contemporaries," Colonel Killian wrote: "He
is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.
Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary
traits and an impeccable military bearing."
As a Fighter Squadron Commander in the Air Force (F –
111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United
Kingdom) and having been in fighter squadrons during my career
in the Air Force, all I can say is that the young people who
make up these squadrons (like Lt. Bush) are the cream of the
crop, top performers, talented, courageous and willing to take
on any mission challenge presented to them, anytime, anyplace
and anywhere. Everyone in a unit realizes that they serve to
protect the National Security Interests of the United States
and that they can be mobilized – with short notice –
to deploy anywhere in the world.
During the Vietnam conflict, military pilot training was greatly
expanded to accommodate the increased need for pilots. Thousands
of pilots were trained during this conflict – to support
mission and pilot rotation requirements. F-105, F 4 fighter
pilots and the pilots of other combat aircraft were routinely
rotated out of the combat theatre after completing their 100
combat missions. That meant that other pilots needed to be trained
to take their place. As the Vietnam conflict began to phase
down around 1971, there was a surplus of hundreds of pilots
in the US Military, for which there were relatively few flying
jobs. Thus, the active duty force as well as ANG and Reserve
forces could be very accommodative to those that wanted to pursue
alternative career paths (such as Lt. Bush going to Harvard
Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions
(early releases) helped alleviate the challenges facing the
services of a pilot surplus. Also, commanders were lenient in
allowing individuals to fulfill their service obligations in
ways not involving flying duty. Such arrangements were coordinated
at the unit level.
Just as Lt. Bush’s supervisor released him from the ANG
to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months
early (when I was Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group)
so he could participate in the pilot hiring cycle of Delta Airlines.
I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment
but chose not to – since letting him go early created
no hardship to our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot (who had served
his country well) an immediate opportunity for a future career.
I point this fact out so that the public knows that Commanders
have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration
the needs of the Unit and the needs of an individual ready to
make a career transition out of the service. Having been a Squadron
Commander, I can tell you this – we know the status of
our assigned personnel all the time – everyone is accounted
for. We reported the status of all our squadron personnel daily
to a higher level in our organization. Likewise, Lt. Bush’s
Squadron Commander of 30 plus years ago (Lt. Col. Killian –
now deceased), would have known where Lt. Bush was or, at least,
how to contact him should that have been necessary. The bottom
line: Lt. Bush’s documented Air National Guard service
exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and
Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge.
As Lt. Bush completed his flying assignment in April 1972, F-102s
were being phased out of the Air National Guard. What we know
is that he served honorably; he flew fighter jets; he embraced
the inherent high risk of flying an F -102; he served our country;
he met his Air National Guard requirements and he received an
Honorable Discharge. The attacks on Lt. Bush are designed to
diminish Lt. Bush’s service to our country in the eyes
of our citizens and soldiers some thirty years after Lt. Bush
received an Honorable Discharge. This is truly reprehensible
and driven by political adversaries like Senator Kerry, Mr.
Terry McAuliffe and their left-wing media surrogates. (Go to
cspan.org for the White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan
on 02/10/04 - the impetus for me to write this letter).
There is a much bigger story to be told then anything related
to Lt. Bush’s honorable service to our country. It is
the story of a fringe element of the Democrat Party (as represented
by Senator Kerry from Massachusetts and Mr. Terry McAuliffe
of the DNC) that will stoop to any depth to obtain political
power to include: attacking the motives of our service members
(ANG and Reserve); it is a fringe element that is willing to
undermine the confidence of our fighting forces in their Commander
in Chief in the midst of our global war on terrorism; it is
a fringe element that places political power higher on their
priority list than U.S. National Security; otherwise, they wouldn’t
be denigrating and diminishing ANG and Reserve Service in an
effort to undermine the credibility of the Commander in Chief
of our Armed Forces.
Political
leadership should be looking ahead not behind. But since we
are looking 30 years behind I will make several comments: (1)
I served with true heroes although none of the guys I served
with ever felt of themselves as heroes – they just put
their butts on the line every day whether flying in operational,
combat or training units; (2) Lt. Bush put his butt on the line
every time he scrambled on an Air Defense mission. He is a true
hero that our soldiers and citizens should be rightfully proud
of and (3) the service of our Guard and Reserve soldiers should
never be denigrated or diminished for political purposes or
to win an election -- as is being done by Senator Kerry and
Mr. Terry McAuliffe.
Like many veterans of Vietnam, I returned to a country that
was, for the most part, unappreciative of the service rendered
by our fighting forces. It is sad that this attack on our Commander
in Chief results in reopening the feelings and wounds of bygone
years and brings back thoughts of many comrades in arms that
never returned to United States – having given their lives
for their country.
Although it is fair to recognize Senator Kerry’s four
month war record and medals, it is what he did after leaving
the military that deserves the greatest scrutiny. He became
a turn coat by misrepresenting to the American public what our
soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. As part of the anti-war
movement with Jane Fonda, he maligned, mocked and discredited
our soldiers while they were still engaged in battle. He lied
about what our soldiers were doing in combat. He defamed our
brave fighting men. The ultimate insult our citizens could inflict
on the Armed Forces of the United States would be to vote into
office (as Commander in Chief) the person who betrayed his comrades
in arms while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield
and in air combat.
Further, military people understand that Senator Kerry has voted
against the major weapon systems needed by the military to carry
out their mission. Additionally, he has voted against CIA funding
of human intelligence needed to preclude attacks on our country
(such as 9/11) and protect our citizens and soldiers overseas.
Senator Kerry voted for the war in IRAQ and then voted against
funding the war after our troops were placed in harms way.
As we all know, since 9/11, our country has been at war with
International Terrorism. Instead of supporting our national
leadership (in taking the battle to our terrorist enemies),
a cabal of power hungry politicians, supported by the left-wing
media elites and their vitriolic followers, have done everything
they could to undermine our war on terror, our troops and the
Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.
Today we look with pride at our service people who risk their
lives everyday for us. I’m grateful that we now have a
population that, for the most part, appreciates our Armed Forces
and their efforts to defend us. We need to fully support our
soldiers and their Commander in Chief. Our country’s success
in fighting the war on terror depends on our (1) supporting
those that are on the front line protecting us and (2) standing
by the Commander in Chief that is taking the battle to the enemy.
We have not been
attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we have a President
and an Administration that have been proactive in going after
the National Security threats to United States. Just think about
how our National Security would "likely" have been
handled by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Senator
Kerry. We would "likely" still be debating what to
do in United Nations; Afghanistan would "likely" still
be under control of the Taliban; IRAQ would still be under the
control of Saddam Hussein and cities in United States would
have come under attack on multiple occasions as terrorist organizations
were further emboldened by our meek responses. We would "likely"
be negotiating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations
to preclude further attacks on our cities.
The question
everyone needs to ask themselves before voting in November is:
who do you trust to handle our National Security? I trust President
Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell,
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Dr.
Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
Who do you trust?
