A SUNDOWNER'S ADVENTURE

The carrier aircraft swept in from the Tonkin Gulf, seeking targets of opportunity along the Indochina coast.  There was no aerial opposition but the defenders had plenty of antiaircraft guns on ships, shore, and especially on airfields.

The date was January 12, 1945.  Seventy years ago this month.

Admiral William F. Halsey’s Third Fleet was built around Task Force 38 with 12 fast carriers and 75 accompanying battleships, cruisers, and destroyers.  “The Bull” sought big game—two Japanese battleships partly converted to carriers, but his intelligence proved wrong.  Ise and Hyuga were laid up at Singapore, 800 miles away.

Launching 60 miles off Cam Ranh Bay—well known to a later generation of aviators—the Hellcats, Corsairs, Helldivers and Avengers scourged the area.  The 1,500 sorties sank about 45 Japanese or Vichy French-controlled vessels and bombed or strafed 30 others while burning about 100 aircraft on the ground or at their moorings.

It was a triumph: probably no Allied warships had steamed in the South China Sea since 1942.  But as always there was a price: 23 carrier planes were lost including an F6F-5 Hellcat off the second carrier Hornet (CV-12).

Lieutenant (jg) Blake Moranville was a 21-year-old Nebraskan flying with Fighter Squadron 11, led by Lt. Cdr. Gene Fairfax.  Blake was called “Rabbit” in the Sundowners because of his name’s similarity to Baseball Hall of Famer Walter “Rabbit” Maranville.  With six victories, Blake was one of the Navy’s youngest aces but his luck ran out that afternoon while strafing Tan Son Nhut Airport.  A 20mm shell hole drained his Pratt & Whitney engine of oil, forcing him into a controlled landing.  He splashed down in a rice paddy 75 miles southwest of Saigon.

Blake climbed out of his airplane, standing in the muck, uncertain where to go.  His friends made a last pass overhead, assuring he was alright, then set course for Hornet.  Blake was keeper of the Sundowners’ mascot, a Boston bull terrier named Gunner, who sulked in the VF-11 ready room, keenly missing his master.

Eventually Blake linked up with some Vietnamese who took him to a village overnight.  The next morning a Vichy civilian official—a count--took the American to the French army in Saigon.  Because Vichy France was allied with Japan, Blake Moranville was a prisoner of war.

At the Maison Centrale Blake joined a Hancock Hellcat pilot, a Marine Corsair pilot off the Essex, and a TBM Avenger bomber crew from the light carrier San Jacinto.  The six fliers were well treated by the French, who knew how the war was going and had no wish to incur their wrath.

Members of the anti-Vichy community were allowed to visit the Americans in prison, delivering extra food, reading material, tobacco, liquor, and even a radio.  Based on date of rank, Blake was senior officer and said there would be no escape attempt—the war clearly was in the Allies’ favor.

However, the prison warden did not want to be caught harboring Americans from the Japanese, who had begun searching Saigon.  Therefore, he arranged for Blake and company to be trucked 700 miles north to a Foreign Legion camp near Hanoi.  Once there, presumably the naval fliers would be in much safer hands.  But their living condition deteriorated with poor food and accommodations.  Many became ill.  Then things got worse.

In early March the Japanese turned on the Vichy forces, justly fearing that the French might change sides.  A nearby French garrison was wiped out as the Japanese began eliminating potential resistance.  With no other option, the Legionnaires released the Americans, provided rifles and ammunition, and invited them to join a 280-mile slog across the mountains to the Laotian border.  Blake’s group accepted, joining 200 Legionnaires as new allies.

For 13 days the group trekked toward a remote outpost called Dien Bien Phu.  One night they were ambushed en route, and the Yanks only survived thanks to a quick-thinking German veteran of La Legion.  On March 22 perhaps 50 survivors straggled into the outpost, tired, sick, and hungry.

The six naval airmen settled down to wait.  The Army Air Force in Kunming, China, knew of their presence but weather clamped down, preventing an evacuation.  All the while the relentless Japanese came closer.  As Blake recalled, “It was really frustrating.  We could hear the C-47 overhead some days but it couldn’t get in for a landing.”

Finally, on the sixth day, March 28, the ceiling lifted enough for the Douglas transport to land on the rough airstrip.  The 250-mile flight due north proved a godsend to the trapped Americans.  About two days later the Japanese took Dien Bien Phu.

Back in Guide Rock, Nebraska, Gunner the mascot was gleefully reunited with Blake.  But Blake’s father, a veterinarian, had taken excellent care of the terrier, and as Blake later laughed, “By then he was my dad’s dog.”

Summarizing his Indochina adventure, Blake said, “I wouldn’t take a million dollars for the experience but you couldn’t pay me that much to do it again!”

In a remarkable coincidence, one of Blake’s sons, Mark, was born on 12 January 1950 and followed in his dad's wake, spending 29 years in the Navy.

Blake retired as a lieutenant commander in 1964 and earned two post-graduate degrees.  He became dean of students at Oregon College of Education in Monmouth near Salem, where I met him in the 1970s. 

It was a privilege to know Blake and Mary, as we kept touch until Blake died of cancer in 2000, age 77.  I’ve received honorary memberships in three Navy squadrons, but there’s a special place in my heart and memory for Blake Moranville, Gene Fairfax, Charlie Stimpson, Jim Swope and the other WW II members of the historic Sundowners.

THE NON WAR AGAINST NON MUSLIMS

During the Christmas season (no generic “holidays” here) it may be helpful to reflect upon this year’s events in Iraq and Syria, both part of Biblical geography.

This year the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, aka ISIL or just IS) made substantial territorial gains, continuing to attract thousands of foreign volunteers, and often drubbing the U.S. sponsored Iraqi army.  That despite an unopposed Allied air campaign throughout the operating area.

Conventional airpower wisdom holds that the desert is Airpower Country because there's no place to hide. The RAF did rawther well with its little known 1920s-30s Air Control scheme in Iraq but that was mainly against tribal banditti rather than organized military forces.  ISIS is very much an organized military force, and reminds me of the Waffen SS: ideologically fanatic AND professionally competent.

The reason that airpower has had so little effect is, in a word, targeting.  Basically it’s a repeat of the largely failed (and likely illegal, not that it matters) Libya op. NATO (and eventually the U.S.) had total air supremacy but it made little difference on the ground, at least partly because of concern about civilian casualties.  Today we're largely limited to plinking specific targets such as vehicles, bulldozers, and artillery tubes. It may help but it will not and cannot decide the issue.

For airpower to be truly effective, it needs an area target--a massed troop concentration. ISIS is far too smart for that, and seems to get along fine.

Frequent drone and fighter-bomber strikes have prompted U.S. government spokesmen—uniformed and otherwise—to assure us that ISIS’ ability to coordinate and control actions has been diminished.  Not that it’s obvious, but that’s the claim.  It comes from the same people who said “If you like your health plan, you can keep it.”

A bit of historic background:

This month marks the 70th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge.  In December 1944 Germany was on the strategic ropes, reeling from six months of defeats on the Western Front while the Soviets steamrolled from the East.  Some famous and semi-famous star wearers believed that Nazi Germany was on the verge of collapse.

Then on the morning of the 16th, Panzers clanked out of the mist in Belgium’s Ardennes Forest—the same “impassable” area where Panzers had clanked in the Blitzkrieg four and a half years before.  The Allies were taken by surprise, having no indication of the massive attack from any intelligence sources.

The reason?

The Germans avoided electronic communication.  They planned, coordinated, and launched the biggest surprise of the European war by phone, teletype, and paper--all secure methods.  Yet Hitler launched some 300,000 men and 600+ armored vehicles against the thinly-held American line. It took five weeks and more than 90,000 Allied casualties to stop the attack.  It was the costliest battle that the U.S. fought in the Second World War, with nearly 20,000 known dead.

That was 1944-45.  Does anybody seriously contend that ISIS is incapable of similar procedures today, on a far smaller scale?

Nor is that all.

For a chilling dose of reality, look up Dabiq, ISIS' online magazine. Slick, sophisticated, better written and edited than many American publications.  We've never seen anything comparable--a nuanced, multi-tiered, fully integrated military/PR effort, and absolutely ruthless.  Even when Dabiq runs a photoshopped pic of the black flag over the Vatican, the Church talks of "stopping" ISIS rather than destroying it.

And meanwhile, the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces assured us, "ISIS is not Islamic."

We the People naively (some say stupidly) bought into the political rhetoric after 9-11.  Dubya Bush said, “They hate us for our freedom.”  Batguano.  Radical Islamists are not remotely interested in freedom.  They hate us for existing, and they have a plan to correct that situation, starting with Israel.

At that time every politician within reach of a microphone bleated about “cowardly suicide bombers.”  Good lord!  I’ve probably interviewed a few hundred veterans of the Pacific Theater in WW II, including men whose ships were sunk or burned nearly to destruction by suicide air attack.  None of them—not one—ever mentioned “cowardly kamikaze pilots.”  The very notion removes anyone who utters the phrase from consideration as a serious commentator.

Like Imperial Japan’s kamikazes, ISIS—and every other militaristic Islamic force—cannot be convinced or dissuaded by logic or reason.  Both are examples of committed, courageous, intelligent zealots, absolutely convinced of the rightness of their cause.  They deserve our unstinting respect, because when we denigrate them with stock phrases, we open ourselves to greater peril.

The thing that Mainstreet USA needs to grasp is that despite all the PC hype about The Religion of Peace, there are millions of Muslims who oppose ISIS and al Qaeda.  Muslims have killed vastly more Muslims than they have killed Christians, Jews, or others.  And if the global Caliphate ever is achieved, that will merely be the penultimate step in the process, leading to The Final Battle between Suuni and Shia.

Until then, if Western Civilization wants a reality check, look at one of ISIS’ favored methods of execution.  It’s familiar to anyone who ever stepped into a Christian church.

It’s called crucifixion.

What else does anyone need to know?

UNARMED AND DANGEROUS

Most of us have seen news stories about potential victims killing “unarmed teens,” implying that shooting an unarmed assailant cannot be justified.  But that’s just plain wrong.  “Unarmed” does not mean “not dangerous,” and it does not mean that lethal force is never justified. 

In recent years young urban predators have gained national attention for “The Knockout Game.”  The object of the Game is a one-punch knockout—or at least knockdown—of an unwitting “player.”  Multiple deaths have resulted from The Knockout Game and other one-punch assaults.  Here’s a brief sampling:

Las Vegas, July 2011.  A former football coach was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after a single punch to a 46-year-old tourist.  The visitor from Utah died when his head struck the floor.

St. Cloud, Minnesota, September 2012.  The 20-year-old victim, accompanying two women late at night, was attacked by an 18-year-old driver who exited his vehicle for unknown reasons.  The assailant delivered one blow, knocking the escort to the ground where he landed on his head.  He died the next day.

During 2013 at least three people were killed in deliberate Knockout Game attacks: a 78-year-old woman in New York; a 32-year-old woman in Washington; and a 46-year-old man in New Jersey.

Lakeland, Florida, May 2014.  A 43-year-old man was engaged in a gas-station argument with a hothead who punched the man in the face, knocking him down.  The victim struck his head on the pavement and died two weeks later.

Two soccer referees were killed by single blows just this year.  In Salt Lake in April a 17-year-old player punched a 46-year-old referee in the face; he died comatose.  Three months later a 44-year-old Michigan referee was struck one time by a 36-year-old player who disagreed with the ref’s call.  The victim died without regaining consciousness. 

Around the nation other victims were murdered or crippled in Knockout Game and similar attacks.  A Syracuse, New York, incident involved a failed one-hit knockout so the predators stomped the man to death.  Another was found with his head jammed through a metal fence, his neck broken.

Frequently the juvenile assailants are given light sentences owing to their youth.  The two who beat the New Yorker to death received 18 months and may serve less.

The problem is not limited to the U.S.

Northern Territory, Australia, December 2010.  A 39-year-old off-duty policeman was harassed by a pub patron on New Year’s eve, resulting in a scuffle.  The patron struck the policeman once in a fatal “king hit.”

Northern Territory reported two other lethal one-punch incidents that summer.  But according to news reports, some Western Australia juries did not believe that a single punch could be lethal, and ruled some deaths “accidental.”  The territory then passed a law addressing “unlawful assault causing death.”

The phrase “causing death” is important.  Frequently—perhaps usually—the victim dies not from the direct effect of the fist but from striking his head on a hard surface.

In February 2012 a national frenzy embroiled Florida neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.  His shooting of Trayvon Martin focused attention on “unarmed” attackers.  The 17-year-old Martin had no weapon when he smashed Zimmerman in the face with his fists, then pounded Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk.

In August 2014 another racially-charged incident occurred in Missouri when policeman Darren Wilson fatally shot teenager Michael Brown.  The grand jury stated that Brown—a 290-pound 18-year-old who had just committed a strong-arm robbery—struck Wilson at least twice in the head and tried to seize his pistol.  Subsequently Wilson said that he feared for his life as the assailant charged him, resulting in Brown’s death.

None of the foregoing are isolated incidents.  According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2012, 682 people were killed by assailants using hands and/or feet.  The figure was even higher in 2011, with 726 “unarmed” killers.

So: what is “unarmed” and how are potential victims to respond to physical assault?

In most of the cases noted above, the victims were in their twenties to forties.  Thus, they were not aged or frail such as the 78-year-old New York woman.  In short, anyone in decent health can be killed or crippled by one blow from an “unarmed” assailant, including teen attackers.

In other cases, an assailant “only” armed with a knife has killed or injured people armed with firearms.  The first instance I knew of occurred in my home county in Oregon in 1976.  A policeman was confronted with a knife-wielding youth who inflicted a fatal wound.  The officer’s last words to a partner, “I couldn’t shoot him.  He was just a kid.”

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-105(14) defines deadly physical force as “force that is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.”  It says nothing about weapons or the age of the attacker.  It only says “capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.”  Case studies show that “unarmed teens” are entirely “capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.

Despite media and cultural antipathy against lethal responses to “unarmed” attackers, the pattern is crystal clear: the empty-handed assailant bearing down upon an intended victim is fully capable of killing or crippling that person.  The situation is especially of concern to older people who are far less able to defend themselves mano a mano.  It’s a concern that we Baby Boomers increasingly will have to face.

The pacifist crowd follows a predictable script: if you must have a weapon, use a non-lethal method.  But a taser is a one-shot weapon: what do you do against two attackers, let alone a pack?  Mace or pepper spray is only useful at arm’s length, when effective at all.  Police training demonstrates that often it fails to deter an assailant, and again—how do you handle multiple attackers?

Recently I was recalling what most of us learned in kindergarten:

1.   Be nice.

2.   Don’t hit.

3.   Share the toys.

We nice folks follow those rules, but when others do not, the solution is clear: carry a sidearm you have learned to use safely and well.  Do not hesitate because the predator attacking you is “unarmed” or is “just a kid.”  Check your laws and base your decision on whether you face substantial risk of death or injury.  If you believe not, then don’t shoot.  If you reasonably believe you are at risk, then you might shoot to stop the threat. 

The life you save may be your own.