If you visit the website of the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, you'll find a description of the ship's seal, its official emblem. The description reads, in part:

The aircraft carrier, cutting a powerful swath through the sea, is positioned by
the West Coast representing President Reagan’s two terms as Governor of
California and the ship’s homeport in the Pacific Fleet. The three aircraft with
their patriotic contrails symbolize the three major military operations the
President directed during his tenure: Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada/1983);
Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya/1986); and Operation Praying Mantis
(Iran/1988). Aircraft carriers played a significant role in these operations.


They did indeed. And they played a significant role in the eighteen-month mission of the Multi-National Force in Lebanon, from September 1982 to April 1984. But although it involved thousands of our servicemembers and resulted in 268 killed in action, it apparently was not a "major military operation." Or maybe the President didn't direct it.

Or maybe it didn't happen on his watch. Here's an extract from the biography of President Reagan found on the same website:

It is difficult to recall today, but when Reagan took office, times were deeply
troubled. U.S. hostages in Iran were released for his inauguration, but under
circumstances that seemed humiliating to many Americans. In Lebanon, groups
supported by Iran began a series of hostage seizures: a journalist, a CIA
station chief, a Marine Corps officer. Early in the new presidency, a terror
bomber killed 241 Marines in Beirut and a crisis erupted on the Caribbean Island
of Grenada.

Ronald Reagan took office on January 20, 1981. The Marines in Beirut were landed there, at his orders, on September 29, 1982. I remember this fact quite well, because I was one of them. The "terror bomber" destroyed the headquarters of the Battalion Landing Team (BLT) on October 23, 1983. The Marines were withdrawn from Beirut the following February because their presence had become an embarassment to a president running for re-election. And the chronological chicanery gets worse:

In Lebanon, groups supported by Iran began a series of hostage seizures:
a journalist, (Terry Anderson, U.S. Marine Corps veteran and Associated Press correspondent, was taken hostage on March 16, 1985. This is more than a year after the Marines evacuated Lebanon, and well into President Reagan's second term. Anderson was released on December 4, 1991.)
a CIA station chief , (William Francis Buckley, CIA station chief in Beirut, was kidnapped by the Hezbollah on March 16, 198 ,after the Marines left Beirut. He died of a heart-attack while being tortured. His body was returned to the United States on December 28, 1991.)
a Marine Corps officer. (Col. Richard Higgins, USMC, was captured in Lebanon by pro-Iranian terrorists on February 17, 1988, in the last year of the Reagan presidency. He was declared dead on July 6, 1990.)


But this description was obviously written by people who remember what happened, for consumption by people who don't. The tone of the piece implies that "a series of hostage seizures" and "Marines in Beirut" were problems President Reagan inherited, when in fact he created them.

HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.
-- Ambrose Bierce

I beg to differ gunny. He inherited alot of the Arabic terrorist problems from the smiling peanut farmer. Yes he did escalate the situation, but it was time that someone did and did something from a show of strength.
I can't swallow the whole tale here that Reagan created the whole situation.
Another situation where the facts are brought out to sway other readers or to prove the point of the author. But not with the entire line of circumstances and full facts that are relevant to the story.

If I implied that Reagan created the whole situation (and re-reading this, I'm afraid I did), then that part is wrong. But what about the fact that chronology is being misrepresented, to imply that all of these things were waiting on Reagan's desk from day one? That, I think, is equally wrong.

We often complain that popular media give a false and biased picture of the truth (Oliver Stone's "JFK" is a classic example). But Stone at least has the defense of artistic license. How can an official DoD publication justify tinkering with the truth?

You know gunny you ask how an official DOD publication justify tinkering with the truth? I hate to tell you but I can site several times they have changed things to suit their purpose.
Especially in reporting aircraft material readiness and systems up times and capablities. That doesn't just mean one service. All of them have done it. The American people were bilked out of millions of dollars by the Air Force in the mid 70s when they wanted a system that the Navy had already proven could be jammed and be useless without more development costs.
We used to call it "Gun decking the figures."
I was once told by a senior (very) Naval officer that within the DOD facts and figures were automatically disbelieved at the rate 10 to 15% In other words the error rate for the figures was off that much and discounted by that rate.
How do they justify it....when you have the heavy brass on your collar and sleeve, I guess anything is possible.

If you think the DoD is bad, look at the Nazi Park Service.

I agree with you Thrust. I think in the last ten years the Park Service has lost some of its common sense. Although there are pockets of intelligence at some sites. I used to have the NSN for Common Sense in the Federal Supply system.
Of course it was little used during the last Democratic Administration. I wonder about this next one?

I think it would simply be best to leave the national parks and national military monuments in the hands of dedicated local guides and caretakers. The only time I ever went to Washington, and hopefully the last, there was more scorn for the founders from the guides than praise. In contrast, there is nothing PC about the Alamo.

I have been to the Alamo several times. I was always struck by the respect and reverance that is displayed by the visiters & staff. I also liked the quietness of the site. No screaming kids No yelling and loud talking by adults or teenagers. I think that Texas has the right Idea on historic places. They make the rules and enforce them. The same go'es at the King Ranch, San jacinto monument,Battleship Texas, Goliad & Ft.Davis. Quite a differance from some of the other site I've been to in this and other countries.

I have to agree. The caretakers I've seen at the Alamo seem to care deeply about preserving a shrine to independence. Civil War battlefield park-nazis have, in my experience, been concerned only with making sure you hear the official truth. My guess is that they just come from wherever and work part time as guides and the rest as history professors. The Alamo people are normal folks....and largely non-Anglo, which may surprise a lot of people.

quote:

The "terror bomber" destroyed the headquarters of the Battalion Landing Team (BLT) on October 23, 1983. The Marines were withdrawn from Beirut the following February because their presence had become an embarassment to a president running for re-election. And the chronological chicanery gets worse:

I think you left out something important. I asked a Marine at my VFW post this: "Have my Marines become so incompetent that they could not stop one terrorist bomber in a truck? His reply was that Reagan issued an executive order to refrain from locking and loading while on duty in Lebanon. He continued by stating that to insure that this executive order was carried out, no ammo was issued to the Marines on guard duty at that time.

Now, those who got rich due to Reagan's deregulation get drunk and toast him as the greatest President of all time. To me however any President who would put my Brothers in harms way with no ammo is nothing more than a doddering old fool guilty of mass negligent homicide.

quote:

Originally posted by Breedusmc0321:

quote:

The "terror bomber" destroyed the headquarters of the Battalion Landing Team (BLT) on October 23, 1983. The Marines were withdrawn from Beirut the following February because their presence had become an embarassment to a president running for re-election. And the chronological chicanery gets worse:

I think you left out something important. I asked a Marine at my VFW post this: "Have my Marines become so incompetent that they could not stop one terrorist bomber in a truck? His reply was that Reagan issued an executive order to refrain from locking and loading while on duty in Lebanon. He continued by stating that to insure that this executive order was carried out, no ammo was issued to the Marines on guard duty at that time.

Now, those who got rich due to Reagan's deregulation get drunk and toast him as the greatest President of all time. To me however any President who would put my Brothers in harms way with no ammo is nothing more than a doddering old fool guilty of mass negligent homicide.

Would this also include sending the national guard to New Orleans and to the border with no AMMO plus Isseuing standing order's not to interfere with the normal going's on ?

To: Gysgtsims: (and anyone else)--- I read your Post/Thread, but haven't said anything before now.

It often is natural to want to blame someone when our buddies/shipmates/co-workers get dead or maimed, and wounded.

The other night I was using the Remote Control - (an excellent invention,btw) and saw former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman speaking at the Hudson Institute ( a "Think Tank" for Navy policies/thoughts/procedures) talking about the size of the Navy.

He was talking about the problem of several things - from procurement to "Staff Positions" and "Command Positions".

There were questions from the audience and he used the Beirut/USMC barracks truck bombing as an illustration of High-up "Staff" types with fancy titles on their doors/desks who have never been in Command situations either as the skipper of a Destroyer, or a Rifle Company who are { my paraphrase: "Paper tigers" } and who are afraid of actually killing/ordering the killing of a probable enemy, and are better at cocktail parties and golf courses.... my summation of Sec. Lehman's words.

According to Sec. Lehman ( a former Naval aviator- ) The command from President Reagan to the Marines stationed around Beirut was to "Shoot first, and ask questions later!"

Sec. Lehman said that by the time the orders arrived at the desk of the Marine Battalion Commander in Lebanon they had gone through 6 levels of Bureaucrats wearing uniforms...and obviously some of the "Paper Tigers" (my words) who are getting Full Bird and Admiral pay went 180 degrees against President Reagan's orders.

This changing of the orders resulted in the lunacy of NOT having cartridges in their (The Marines) weapons while on guard duty and being told to only shoot at the tires , NOT the driver of a vehicle. { Better known as: Let's be nice to the terrorists mentality. }

Give it a listen for Sec. John Lehman mentions several things while speaking at the Hudson Institute. The link address is long, and this website doesn't like outside links anyway, so if you wish to see it -

Google: Navy Secretary John Lehman Hudson Institute. The first link that should come up is the one for the C-SPAN program. I think that anyone who is interested in Military History (recent) and Navy stuff and policies will find it interesting.