Monday, February 28, 2005
The Gates
Central Park's The Gates, which I found to be somewhat less-than-inspiring, will slowly begin to be dismantled today.
According to Campbell Robertson in THE NEW YORK TIMES:
"Art is long, and life is short, and city contracts are even shorter. The dismantling of the 7,500 gates was to start first thing today, and, [artist] Jeanne-Claude said, in keeping with her and [the other artist] Christo's agreement with the city, it all has to be gone by March 15. That schedule is fine with her. February was the only month the project would work, she said, when the trees are leafless and row upon row of color can be seen in every direction."
While strolling through Central Park, last week, I came upon a Gates-admiring 20-something-year-old woman, who in her best pretentious tone described the exhibit to her friend as "transitory."
A nearby New York cop then chuckled, "Yeah, it's transitory all right. They'll soon be transitioning those things right outta here."
And not too soon for my taste.
Don't get me wrong, I have a tremendous love of - and appreciation for - art. But at a distance, The Gates reminded me of orange construction-site markers. Up close, they reminded me of... well... great big orange construction-site markers made of fabric.
Maybe I just don't get it... or perhaps it's hard for a "Gamecock" to appreciate anything orange.
Oh well, I suppose I was fortunate to experience The Gates in the snow.
Meanwhile, another catastrophic insurgent attack has taken place in Iraq's notorious Triangle of Death, south of Baghdad. This time in the town of Al Hillah where a suicide car bomber blew himself up, killing at least 106 bystanders and wounding another 133 (the earliest numbers we have), most of whom were Iraqi police and national guard recruits.
According to Campbell Robertson in THE NEW YORK TIMES:
"Art is long, and life is short, and city contracts are even shorter. The dismantling of the 7,500 gates was to start first thing today, and, [artist] Jeanne-Claude said, in keeping with her and [the other artist] Christo's agreement with the city, it all has to be gone by March 15. That schedule is fine with her. February was the only month the project would work, she said, when the trees are leafless and row upon row of color can be seen in every direction."
While strolling through Central Park, last week, I came upon a Gates-admiring 20-something-year-old woman, who in her best pretentious tone described the exhibit to her friend as "transitory."
A nearby New York cop then chuckled, "Yeah, it's transitory all right. They'll soon be transitioning those things right outta here."
And not too soon for my taste.
Don't get me wrong, I have a tremendous love of - and appreciation for - art. But at a distance, The Gates reminded me of orange construction-site markers. Up close, they reminded me of... well... great big orange construction-site markers made of fabric.
Maybe I just don't get it... or perhaps it's hard for a "Gamecock" to appreciate anything orange.
Oh well, I suppose I was fortunate to experience The Gates in the snow.
Meanwhile, another catastrophic insurgent attack has taken place in Iraq's notorious Triangle of Death, south of Baghdad. This time in the town of Al Hillah where a suicide car bomber blew himself up, killing at least 106 bystanders and wounding another 133 (the earliest numbers we have), most of whom were Iraqi police and national guard recruits.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Back to work!
Just got back from New York where on Thursday I met with - among others - my agent Jimmy Vines, and lunched with Penguin Books editor Paul Dinas and Kensington editor Gary Goldstein at Do Wha, a wonderful little Korean restaurant in Greenwich Village near Paul's office. (Oh, and congrats to Gary who was to be inducted into the Friars Club, that evening).
Later... attended a marvelous, snowy evening soiree at the Manhattan home of Bill and Pat Buckley where there were lots of headlining NATIONAL REVIEW and NRO editors - including my boss, Kathryn Jean Lopez.
Also, stopped by to see my dear friend Brett Harvey and her lovely assistant, Zeleika Raboy, at the Times Square offices of the American Society of Journalists & Authors, toured The Gates in Central Park (which I could actually see from my 26th-floor tower room at The Wellington), and hit a few other art exhibits and many of the touristy destinations I hadn't managed to cover in previous visits to the City (e.g. The Carnegie Deli - on the recommendations of Columbians Erika Swerling and Temple Ligon - where the corned beef sandwiches are bigger than your head.). It was all great fun. Much more later.
In the meantime, it's back to work (and responding to five-zillion email messages)... so posting here may be limited.
Ciao,
WTSjr
SUNDAY MORNING: Temple characteristically emails, "Officially,... I [Temple] am the 'distinguished food critic from central South Carolina.'"
Later... attended a marvelous, snowy evening soiree at the Manhattan home of Bill and Pat Buckley where there were lots of headlining NATIONAL REVIEW and NRO editors - including my boss, Kathryn Jean Lopez.
Also, stopped by to see my dear friend Brett Harvey and her lovely assistant, Zeleika Raboy, at the Times Square offices of the American Society of Journalists & Authors, toured The Gates in Central Park (which I could actually see from my 26th-floor tower room at The Wellington), and hit a few other art exhibits and many of the touristy destinations I hadn't managed to cover in previous visits to the City (e.g. The Carnegie Deli - on the recommendations of Columbians Erika Swerling and Temple Ligon - where the corned beef sandwiches are bigger than your head.). It was all great fun. Much more later.
In the meantime, it's back to work (and responding to five-zillion email messages)... so posting here may be limited.
Ciao,
WTSjr
SUNDAY MORNING: Temple characteristically emails, "Officially,... I [Temple] am the 'distinguished food critic from central South Carolina.'"
Monday, February 21, 2005
"naming ships"
Just received another great e-letter and an anecdotal history lesson from my friend, Capt. Lou Colbus (U.S. Navy, retired). The letter is in response to a question I posed about procedures for the naming of ships in the wake (no pun intended) of the commissioning of USS JIMMY CARTER (SSN 23), the Navy's newest Seawolf-class attack submarine.
Lou's letter follows:
In my day, it was easy: Battleships were states; cruisers were cities; destroyers were heroes; carriers were battles; LSTs were counties; patrol craft were county seats; minesweepers were words indicating character traits; submarines were fish; etc.;etc.; etc. (Hymie Rickover is credited with changing subs names from fish to congressional leaders for his reasoning that fish don't vote.)
Today there is no such order.
There is a group/department/council in the Pentagon that accepts nominations for ships' names and obtains approval from the Secretary of the Navy.
I would have to imagine that living namesakes are consulted and it is such an honor that it is probably pro forma when President George H.W. Bush was consulted...as well as Hymie Rickover...
My boss in the 1950s was RADM Edward Clarke Stephan who was our congressional liaison before we headed for Trinidad to inaugurate and commission COMSOLANT - Commander South Atlantic Force.
Admiral Stephan told me that as the Navy's Congressional Liaison Officer, it was his duty to escort "Uncle" Carl Vinson to the Navy's Fleet Review in 1957 - I was Admiral Stephan's Aide and Flag Lieutenant from '58 to '60 - which commemorated the Great White Fleet's sailing from Norfolk...
Both of these gentlemen were truly humble and low key. The admiral drove his Studebaker Golden Hawk from DC to Norfolk with "Uncle" Carl riding shotgun. It was in June, I believe, and the Studebaker was not air-conditioned; they left early in the morning, attended all the festivities, and drove back that evening.
As "Uncle" Carl got out of the Golden Hawk, he asked the admiral how often the Navy conducted these commemorations. Admiral Stephan answered that it occurred every 50 or 100 years.
"Uncle" Carl said that that seemed like an appropriate time-frame.
Now, why did I write all the above? Because I am thinking of USS CARL VINSON which was the first ship to be named for a living namesake - I believe.
Anyway, when I was in the shipbuilding programs in the late '60s and late '80s, I sat in meetings where names for new ships (DD-963s/FFG-7s/LHD-1s) were suggested by the Navy staffs/programs and submitted to the Secretary of the Navy.
I can give you actual departments and procedures if you need same.
By the way, clubs and interested, devoted groups may submit suggested names for ships to honor their hero/leader with the use of political clout and perseverance.
Take it on a slow bell,
Lou
MY NOTE: An interesting little piece on "naming ships" also can be found at globalsecurity.org.
Lou's letter follows:
In my day, it was easy: Battleships were states; cruisers were cities; destroyers were heroes; carriers were battles; LSTs were counties; patrol craft were county seats; minesweepers were words indicating character traits; submarines were fish; etc.;etc.; etc. (Hymie Rickover is credited with changing subs names from fish to congressional leaders for his reasoning that fish don't vote.)
Today there is no such order.
There is a group/department/council in the Pentagon that accepts nominations for ships' names and obtains approval from the Secretary of the Navy.
I would have to imagine that living namesakes are consulted and it is such an honor that it is probably pro forma when President George H.W. Bush was consulted...as well as Hymie Rickover...
My boss in the 1950s was RADM Edward Clarke Stephan who was our congressional liaison before we headed for Trinidad to inaugurate and commission COMSOLANT - Commander South Atlantic Force.
Admiral Stephan told me that as the Navy's Congressional Liaison Officer, it was his duty to escort "Uncle" Carl Vinson to the Navy's Fleet Review in 1957 - I was Admiral Stephan's Aide and Flag Lieutenant from '58 to '60 - which commemorated the Great White Fleet's sailing from Norfolk...
Both of these gentlemen were truly humble and low key. The admiral drove his Studebaker Golden Hawk from DC to Norfolk with "Uncle" Carl riding shotgun. It was in June, I believe, and the Studebaker was not air-conditioned; they left early in the morning, attended all the festivities, and drove back that evening.
As "Uncle" Carl got out of the Golden Hawk, he asked the admiral how often the Navy conducted these commemorations. Admiral Stephan answered that it occurred every 50 or 100 years.
"Uncle" Carl said that that seemed like an appropriate time-frame.
Now, why did I write all the above? Because I am thinking of USS CARL VINSON which was the first ship to be named for a living namesake - I believe.
Anyway, when I was in the shipbuilding programs in the late '60s and late '80s, I sat in meetings where names for new ships (DD-963s/FFG-7s/LHD-1s) were suggested by the Navy staffs/programs and submitted to the Secretary of the Navy.
I can give you actual departments and procedures if you need same.
By the way, clubs and interested, devoted groups may submit suggested names for ships to honor their hero/leader with the use of political clout and perseverance.
Take it on a slow bell,
Lou
MY NOTE: An interesting little piece on "naming ships" also can be found at globalsecurity.org.
Hunter S. Thompson commits suicide
Author and "gonzo" journalist Hunter S. Thompson kills himself... just like Hemingway, with a gunshot to the head.
Tragic story here and here.
Tragic story here and here.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
U.S. intelligence czar not a new idea
Based on what I’m reading in the newspapers, hearing on radio call-in shows, and gleaning from the flood of email messages received over the past week; many Americans believe the naming of Ambassador John Negroponte to the post of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden as deputy DNI is a brand new idea... or at least was conceived after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
As we all know, the DNI is responsible for overseeing the 15-member U.S. Intelligence Community. It’s a responsibility formerly held by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (Director of Central Intelligence or DCI). But the idea of establishing the post of DNI - a so-called intelligence czar - is over three decades old.
So how about brief history lesson on the evolution of the intel czar idea?
THE SCHLESINGER REPORT
An independent, non-CIA overseer for the intelligence community (IC) was first proposed in 1971 by then-Deputy Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget James R. Schlesinger, who would become CIA director in 1973.
In December 1970, the idea began to germinate when President Nixon directed Schlesinger to examine how the organizational structure of the IC should be changed to bring about greater efficiency and effectiveness, short of legislation. The result was the 1971 “Schlesinger Report” (officially, A Review of the Intelligence Community), a 47-page critique of the IC, complete with recommendations for a basic reform of management that proposed the establishment of a DNI.
The report suggested that though there had been a marked increase in the size and expense of the IC over the years, there had also been an “apparent inability to achieve a commensurate improvement in the scope and overall quality of intelligence products.” Schlesinger noted that in many cases the IC was “unproductively” duplicating intelligence collection efforts, and that there was a failure at the planning level to coordinate the allocation of resources. He also cited the failure of policymakers to specify their needs to the producers of finished intelligence.
The report pointed to what Schlesinger saw as a lack of substantive, centralized leadership within the IC that could “consider the relationship between cost and output from a national perspective.” Schlesinger argued that this had resulted in a fragmented intelligence effort.
Schlesinger proposed the creation of a DNI position, thus freeing-up the DCI who would be responsible for reducing intelligence costs and increasing intelligence production and improving the quality of analysis.
Of course, the proposal was not successful.
CLARK CLIFFORD'S "DGI"
In 1976, the post of a Director of General Intelligence (DGI) was proposed by former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. Slightly different than a DNI, Clifford’s DGI would have served both as the President's chief adviser on all intelligence matters and as a principal point of contact for the Congressional intelligence committees.
ADMIRAL TURNER'S PROPOSAL
Then in 1985, CIA director Stansfield Turner proposed the creation of a DNI. According to Turner, “the two jobs, head of the CIA and head of the Intelligence Community, conflict. One person cannot do justice to both and fulfill the DCI's responsibilities to the President, the Congress, and the public as well.”
THE BOREN-McCURDY INITIATIVE
The idea was proposed again in 1992 as part of The Boren-McCurdy Initiative.
The initiative - launched by Senator David Boren, the chairman of The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Congressman Dave McCurdy, the chairman of The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - consisted of two separate bills (proposed by both lawmakers) that differed slightly, but were similar in overall content. Had the initiative passed, the DNI would have had the authority to program and reprogram intelligence funds and direct their expenditure throughout the IC. The DNI would also have been responsible for tasking intelligence organizations and temporarily transferring personnel from one agency to another as new requirements dictated.
Of course, the idea of establishing a DNI post has been on the front burner in a variety of circles since September 11, 2001. And we now have a DNI and a deputy DNI.
For more information, see my ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
"...an excellent reference source...engaging...practical...a useful addition to reference collections for all libraries."
--- American Reference Books Annual
"Smith's resource contains little known facts that will delight and entertain...tight, well-organized information presented in an easy-to-read format. Smith has compiled an exhaustive resource of CIA trivia that will answer some of the most obscure questions."
--- Florida Times-Union
"Engagingly written, the book is eminently readable and informative, not to mention fun to browse. It should draw the casual reader and researcher alike as a useful and convenient source of background information. As befitting a good reference title, little known facts will delight the curious...belongs in all libraries with strong current affairs collections."
--- Reference Reviews
As we all know, the DNI is responsible for overseeing the 15-member U.S. Intelligence Community. It’s a responsibility formerly held by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (Director of Central Intelligence or DCI). But the idea of establishing the post of DNI - a so-called intelligence czar - is over three decades old.
So how about brief history lesson on the evolution of the intel czar idea?
THE SCHLESINGER REPORT
An independent, non-CIA overseer for the intelligence community (IC) was first proposed in 1971 by then-Deputy Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget James R. Schlesinger, who would become CIA director in 1973.
In December 1970, the idea began to germinate when President Nixon directed Schlesinger to examine how the organizational structure of the IC should be changed to bring about greater efficiency and effectiveness, short of legislation. The result was the 1971 “Schlesinger Report” (officially, A Review of the Intelligence Community), a 47-page critique of the IC, complete with recommendations for a basic reform of management that proposed the establishment of a DNI.
The report suggested that though there had been a marked increase in the size and expense of the IC over the years, there had also been an “apparent inability to achieve a commensurate improvement in the scope and overall quality of intelligence products.” Schlesinger noted that in many cases the IC was “unproductively” duplicating intelligence collection efforts, and that there was a failure at the planning level to coordinate the allocation of resources. He also cited the failure of policymakers to specify their needs to the producers of finished intelligence.
The report pointed to what Schlesinger saw as a lack of substantive, centralized leadership within the IC that could “consider the relationship between cost and output from a national perspective.” Schlesinger argued that this had resulted in a fragmented intelligence effort.
Schlesinger proposed the creation of a DNI position, thus freeing-up the DCI who would be responsible for reducing intelligence costs and increasing intelligence production and improving the quality of analysis.
Of course, the proposal was not successful.
CLARK CLIFFORD'S "DGI"
In 1976, the post of a Director of General Intelligence (DGI) was proposed by former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. Slightly different than a DNI, Clifford’s DGI would have served both as the President's chief adviser on all intelligence matters and as a principal point of contact for the Congressional intelligence committees.
ADMIRAL TURNER'S PROPOSAL
Then in 1985, CIA director Stansfield Turner proposed the creation of a DNI. According to Turner, “the two jobs, head of the CIA and head of the Intelligence Community, conflict. One person cannot do justice to both and fulfill the DCI's responsibilities to the President, the Congress, and the public as well.”
THE BOREN-McCURDY INITIATIVE
The idea was proposed again in 1992 as part of The Boren-McCurdy Initiative.
The initiative - launched by Senator David Boren, the chairman of The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Congressman Dave McCurdy, the chairman of The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - consisted of two separate bills (proposed by both lawmakers) that differed slightly, but were similar in overall content. Had the initiative passed, the DNI would have had the authority to program and reprogram intelligence funds and direct their expenditure throughout the IC. The DNI would also have been responsible for tasking intelligence organizations and temporarily transferring personnel from one agency to another as new requirements dictated.
Of course, the idea of establishing a DNI post has been on the front burner in a variety of circles since September 11, 2001. And we now have a DNI and a deputy DNI.
For more information, see my ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
"...an excellent reference source...engaging...practical...a useful addition to reference collections for all libraries."
--- American Reference Books Annual
"Smith's resource contains little known facts that will delight and entertain...tight, well-organized information presented in an easy-to-read format. Smith has compiled an exhaustive resource of CIA trivia that will answer some of the most obscure questions."
--- Florida Times-Union
"Engagingly written, the book is eminently readable and informative, not to mention fun to browse. It should draw the casual reader and researcher alike as a useful and convenient source of background information. As befitting a good reference title, little known facts will delight the curious...belongs in all libraries with strong current affairs collections."
--- Reference Reviews
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Bloody Iwo!
"throwing human flesh against reinforced concrete"
Sixty years ago today, U.S. Navy landing craft loaded with thousands of U.S. Marines began churning toward a tiny, eight-square-mile chunk of volcanic rock jutting out the Pacific Ocean. The island, Iwo Jima, was about to become the scene of a month long battle between U.S. forces and Iwo's Japanese defenders. It was a battle that some historians have since described as “throwing human flesh against reinforced concrete.” It would define the modern Marine Corps. President Franklin D. Roosevelt would gasp in horror upon learning of the American casualties (7,000 Americans were killed, another 26,000 wounded). And Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal would say to General Holland M. Smith, “The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next 500 years.”
Following is an excerpt from the chapter on Iwo Jima in my book, Decisive 20th-Century American Battles:
... Hand-picked by Emperor Hirohito to command Japanese forces on Iwo Jima was Lt. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, a 53-year-old Samurai warrior and a former Imperial Cavalry chief. Sworn to defend his island fortress to the death, Kuribayashi had posted his “Courageous Battle Vows” at every bunker and gun emplacement. The vows ordered each man to kill ten of the enemy before dying. “Each man should think of his defense position as his graveyard,” wrote Kuribayashi. “Fight until the last and inflict much damage to the enemy.”
Kuribayashi knew the invaders were coming and that the defenders would be outnumbered. But he wanted his men to be heartened by their sense of duty to their families, their homes, and their emperor. He appealed to his men to force their assailants to come to them and pay for every inch of ground with blood, regardless of their own imminent deaths. There was to be no surrender. The reasoning - though incomprehensible by Western standards - was simple: Iwo Jima was Japanese soil, and no foreign military force had stepped foot on Japanese soil in 5,000 years. That was about to change.
On February 16, the American Fifth Fleet under the command of Admiral Raymond Ames Spruance steamed into the area around the island. Many of the fleet’s ships were carrying members of the V Marine Amphibious Corps - consisting of the 4th and 5th Marine Divisions (with the 3rd Marine Division in reserve) - under the command of Major General Harry “the Dutchman” Schmidt, the senior shore commander. Schmidt’s division commanders - also major generals - were Keller E. “the Great Stone Face” Rockey of the 5th, Clifton Bledsoe Cates of the 4th, and Graves B. “the Big E” Erskine of the 3rd.
The overall “Expeditionary Troops” commander was Lt. General Holland M. “Howlin’ Mad” Smith, a hard-bitten Alabaman who had won the French Croix de Guerre for his actions at Belleau Wood during World War I. Smith was nick-named “Howlin’ Mad” because of his unforgiving approach to failure on the part of subordinates. He had, in fact, fired two subordinate U.S. Army Generals for lack of aggressiveness. Smith was also diabetic and, at 62, the oldest three-star in any of the services. But President Franklin Roosevelt arranged for Smith to be ranking Marine commander in the Pacific. Back home, the American newspapers were often critical of Smith, accusing the General of needlessly wasting lives. But Smith knew how to fight, his Marines adored him, and that was enough for FDR.
Prior to the landings, Iwo Jima was subjected to the longest sustained aerial bombardment of the Pacific war. It wasn’t as much as the Marines wanted or needed, but it was enough to turn the already eerie-looking atoll into something akin to a “lunar landscape.”
With the exception of it’s defending garrison, no one lived on Iwo Jima. Yet on the morning of February 19, it became one of the most densely populated places on Earth. It would also become the place with the lowest life expectancy.
Just before 2:00 a.m., Naval gunfire opened up on Iwo, pounding the island for one hour. The shelling stopped momentarily as over 100 bombers dove on the smoking atoll to deliver their preparatory payload. When the aircraft had finished their attack, the ships’ big guns again opened up. Surprisingly, neither the air bombardment nor the Naval gunfire had much of an effect on the island’s deeply burrowed underground fortresses or its 21,000 armed inhabitants. A fact that would prove costly to the leathernecks tasked with taking Iwo.
Offshore, Marines sweating it out in the holds of troop transport ships made final preparations: They checked their equipment, cleaned weapons, wrote required letters home, and nervously ate the traditional pre-invasion breakfast of steak and eggs.
At 8:30 a.m., the order was issued to begin ferrying the Marines ashore. Just after 9:00 a.m., the first waves were scrambling out of the landing craft and onto the island’s southeastern beaches. Initial opposition was minor. To the men hitting the beach, it seemed as if the preparatory fires had been effective. The immediate problem was terrain. Much of the ground was nothing more than rock, volcanic ash, and deep black sand: Difficult for infantry to move through - the Marines were sinking in up to their ankles - and often impassable for amphibious tractors, tanks, and other vehicles.
Deeply entrenched in a 16-mile labyrinth of tunnels and reinforced caves, Kuribayashi’s men waited. In previous battles, the Japanese had resorted to terrifying Banzai charges, suicidal attacks led by sword-wielding officers. But such “bamboo spear tactics” proved too costly. There were some suicidal Japanese counterattacks on Iwo Jima. But Kuribayashi's primary strategy was a defense-in-depth: Fortifying an area, then garrisoning each connected position point-to-point.
Once ashore, the Marines launched two attacks along a 4,000 yard front: The 5th moved against Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima’s dominant feature; and the 4th pressed toward the island’s largest air strip, located about a half mile inland.
The patient Japanese waited for the largest possible concentration of Marines to enter their previously sighted fields of fire. Then they opened up. According to one Marine, “you could've held up a cigarette and lit it on the stuff going by.”
Kuribayashi had predicted that the massive fires and subsequent high casualties would cause the Marines to lose heart. He misjudged his enemy.
Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone, already famous as the first Marine to win the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II, single-handedly wiped out an enemy blockhouse then charged up the beach. Having recently returned from a stateside war bond tour where he was kissed by Hollywood starlets, he now found himself under fire and looking for a position where he could place a machine gun. Basilone turned to his men and urged them forward. At that instant, an enemy shell exploded killing Basilone and four other Marines.
“They waited until we got on the beach, then they unloaded on us,” said Corporal Robert W. Hughes, a Marine who landed in the second wave and was later carried off the island with two shattered legs. “The dead and wounded were everywhere. We were all scared, but we had a job to do and we did it.”
By early evening, Mt. Suribachi had been isolated from the rest of the island, and the Marines had reached the edge of the air strip which was quickly captured. But the price was high. The Americans suffered some 2,500 casualties on the first day.
Pilots and war correspondents flying above the battle reported “surprise” at what appeared to them to be thousands of Marines on one side of the island fighting against a solid wall of stone. It wasn’t an inaccurate description. Without cover, the Americans were exposed to constant fire and counterattack. Fighting yard by yard, were it not for the tenacity of the individual Marine, Iwo Jima might have proven to be impregnable.
The fighting was merciless: Marines were having to clear caves, tunnels, and blockhouses. Believing they had destroyed one position, the Marines would move to the next only to discover the previous position suddenly burst to life again behind them. In such close quarters, the combat was almost primal, often becoming hand-to-hand. Many Marines were hacked to death, one man losing both arms at the shoulder to a Samurai sword. ...
ORDER DECISIVE 20TH-CENTURY AMERICAN BATTLES TO READ THIS STORY IN ITS ENTIRETY. Also, for an account of one of the battle's most incredible warriors, read the story of Marine Lt. Jack Lummus - a 29-year-old New York Giants defensive lineman who was killed on Iwo - in Gridiron Heroes at NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE.
Semper Fi,
WTSjr