Operation Eagle Claw, Night 2 (the night that never was)

Disclaimer:  I am writing this some 41 years post-event so you will understand if I screw some of the facts up, or perhaps I remember correctly and the official histories were changed to protect the guilty.

Operation Eagle Claw was, almost from day one, understood to be a two-night operation.  There are a number of reasons for this, but mostly they all involve the limitations of speed, distance, and time of useful darkness.  At the time we didn’t have a helicopter that could cover the distance from the Southern Iranian coast to Tehran and out in a single period of darkness.  I assume the thoughts of launching from Turkey was dismissed for operational security concern or host nation relationships, and of course, the Russians were busy screwing themselves up in Afghanistan.  The need for C-130s to land and refuel the helicopters was driven by two considerations.  First, the Navy would not allow inflight refuellable helicopters without folding rotor blades to fill up the flight deck of their aircraft carriers, and equally important was Col Beckwith’s demand that his Delta Force operators not have to sit in a helicopter for a six-hour flight to the middle of the desert.

These two considerations drove the development of a forward arming (or area) and refueling point (FARP) procedure that was the whole intent of the Desert One concept of operations.  The need to carry as much JP-4 fuel as possible was the reason three of the six aircraft used in the Desert One event were EC-130s.  The EC-130E was an airborne command-and-control aircraft modified to carry a command-and-control capsule.  It was inflight refueling capable, like the MC-130E but unlike the MC-130 its basic operating weight, once the capsule was taken out, was only about 82,000 pounds so it could carry almost 16,000 pounds more gas than the MC before the aircraft reached their emergency war order limit of 175,000 pounds.

I won’t go into some of the ideas the planners went through before they came to the conclusion, we had to actually land to refuel the helicopters, but suffice it to say there were some creative attempts that would have made Wiley E. Coyote and the Acme company proud. 

If things had gone as planned, instead of as they did, we would have landed in the middle of the desert, refueled the helicopters, put the Delta Force operators onboard, loaded the CCT and Army Rangers back into the C-130s, and flew back to our staging base leaving nothing besides a few infrared landing lights and some track marks in the sand.  The helicopters would have flown to about 50 miles from Tehran and bedded down in a remote site designated Desert Two.  There they would be met by an Army legend named Major Dick Meadows who had been in country a few weeks and had secured a bunch of trucks Delta would use to drive into the city and to the embassy.

Sometime near the end of the afternoon the next day the force would load up in the trucks and transit to the Embassy.  At the designated time the hundred or so operators would breach the Embassy wall at two or three different places and swarm into the compound to the areas our intelligence believed were the holding points for the captives.  Once the guards had been neutralized (choose for yourself what that means), and the captives identified and secured Delta Force would begin an evacuation of the compound to the football (soccer) stadium across the street.  There the RH-53 helicopters would be waiting to meet them for extraction to the south.

Before the Embassy operation was even underway there were a whole lot of other things happening both at Messiah and at a remote base in Egypt where the main task force had been bedded down.  

There were a number of AC-130H gunships which would be launched to arrive over Tehran at the time of the Embassy takedown to provide any sensor or fire support necessary to minimize the impact of any responding hostile force.  These aircraft would have been refueled over Saudi Airspace to ensure they had the time to loiter to support the assault and the extraction.  They would also cover the approaches to the remote airfield that was to be the night two extraction point.

There were several (I think 3) C-141’s with full medical suites onboard that would land at a remote base south of Tehran to extract the Delta Force, the rescued hostages and any casualties which may have occurred during the operation.

Finally, there were additional MC-130s, with Combat Controllers and Army Rangers who would fly back into Iran to seize a small (and supposedly vacant) airfield where the trans load of the assault force and hostages could take place.

Once the trans loads had been completed the C-141 would head back to Europe, while the AC and MC aircraft would hit their KC-135 tankers and RTB back to either Egypt or Messiah.

We were told by intel they didn’t think the Iranian Air Force would be able to challenge us. Imagine my surprise when they did so well against the Iraqis a few years later. I assume the fleet in the Persian Gulf was prepared to provide top cover should we need it.  I don’t recall them ever being part of our task force or training, but I assume someone in the USN was ready to cover the exfil if needed.  At that time, I don’t believe we had USAF fighters anywhere near to the operation.

For me, there were several truths that came from this operation.

a. We never finalize the plan, we just run out of time to make changes.

b. Simple is better, but not nearly as glorious.

        c. Everyone wants to have a part, but if they all do, who is really in charge?

I Care About People (and Other Progressive Lies)

A while back a young progressive-liberal defended her support of BLM with the statement “I care about people.”  Suggesting those who didn’t support the BLM rioting didn’t understand and certainly didn’t care about the lives of the African-American minority.  That thought; “I care about people” has been ruminating around in my brain for a while, and I think my initial thoughts on her statement were actually correct.

Progressives don’t actually care about people; they care about causes.  Caring about people demands personal involvement, caring about causes just requires some sort of positive affirmation of the cause, some outward sign showing you are onboard with the popular movement and therefore a part of the in-crowd.  The latter is far easier than the former, as we see with the corporations who’ve made political statements regarding the changes to the voting laws of Georgia that have absolutely zero effect on the corporations themselves. These public corporations are guided by the major stockholders and the CEO’s all of whom are millionaires or greater, so they really don’t care about the poor or middle class, except as they may affect the corporations' bottom line, and they appear to be betting the woke generation will have the greater impact to their profits than the old-timers.

Let’s review the causes.

Black Lives Matter – a cause that purports to seek equal treatment of African-Americans by law enforcement.  It has chosen as its heroes several felons who’ve died while being taken into custody by police.  It routinely portrays the victims as innocents who suffered at the hands of police brutality.  The narrative is one side has no responsibility for their personal past or actions at the time of the arrest, and the other side is just one example of the systemic racism of America.  To support this narrative the organization has raised millions of dollars and the “trained Marxist” founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors has used that money for what?  As far as I know, she has increased her personal wealth, just like a capitalist[1]. I haven’t seen much work on improving the lives of the African-American community other than rioting.  In fact, a rather famous liberal-progressive, Representative Maxine Waters, has interjected herself into the trial of Raymond Floyd’s alleged killer suggesting if he isn’t convicted the people should take to the streets and riot.[2]  In no case does it seem this cause is at all interested in actually halting the criminal behaviors that lead to these confrontations in the first place, or improving the actual social conditions leading to those criminal behaviors.

A lot of politicians, and progressives are celebrating the conviction of the Minneapolis officer for the death of George Floyd, but as the saying goes; “It ain’t over til the fat lady sings.” Everyone will speculate as to why the jury ruled as they did, but the officer and his lawyer will probably appeal.  What we do know is the rioting will be kept to a minimum by this jury since the mob got the ruling they demanded. Those who support the BLM cause will say justice was served. Those who believe the police officer should have been acquitted will call it a travesty of justice.  Justice, you see, is a value statement and depends on the values of who is reporting it. 

Pro-abortion (AKA Pro-choice) – When the Supreme Court of the United States decided to legislate a new legal standard in the decision Roe vs. Wade the women of America rejoiced.  My generation saw this as a liberating new standard in keeping with the sexual revolution.  Women would no longer be required to carry to term any of the “mistakes” they may have made during their romances or experimentations.  The abuse of children would end as people who didn’t want children wouldn’t be forced to have them.  The financial and social outlooks of young women wouldn’t be damaged by having an unwanted child holding them back.  Today, we have an ongoing and seemingly never-ending fight as those who support the murder of a fetus demand the government pays for the privilege to do so.  You will note the not subtle condemnation of those who support abortion, for we have now almost 50 years of experience and it is obvious to even the most biased observer that abortion has not made the world better.  All the problems that existed before legalized abortion still exist today, in fact, it seems pretty obvious we’ve created a whole new set of issues as many of the problems have gotten far worse as we alter our moral standards regarding personal responsibility and the value of families, the role of responsible parents and education of children.

The SCOTUS said they could not tell when life began, but without a question, medical science has now made a fetus viable almost from conception and yet those who support abortion wish to ignore the reality that life begins inside the womb and not just when they want it to. Those who favor the killing of the unborn have made this a national cause, without regard to the life of the fetus.  It is clear - the only life that matters to them is a post-puberty adult.  With this argument how far away from the time we decide the lives of the handicapped shouldn’t matter either are we?  According to Planned Parenthood, African-American women (who make up 14% of the 14–44-year-old population) accounted for 38% of all abortions in 2018.  We can certainly speculate on the societal effects of destroying these many African-American lives, but this focus certainly supports the idea that abortions are racist, but then the pro-abortion crowd and the BLM groups really don’t support any argument that would weaken their political positions.

A living wage – The cry this past year is to raise the national minimum wage to $15.00, up from the current $7.25.  Just as in every other debate we hear the doom and gloom over how it will only cause prices to rise, or employees to be laid off.  Both of those seem a certainty, and those who are truly unskilled, or handicapped by some disability will suffer if the jobs are automated because they become too costly.  But despite the protestations of the conservatives, the wage will be raised.  It is inevitable.  The ripple effect will be the lowering of the economic well-being of those who make more than the minimum wage as their buying power will be diminished.  The fact that most of the voices demanding this new minimum feel themselves immune from the fiscal realities of increased government mandates do not speak well of their ability to think critically about things like cause & effect and supply & demand.

What I never hear discussed is how the government has altered the industrial basis of our society to create a condition where such a large number of people are unable to progress from an entry-level job, paying a minimum wage, into a more rewarding and productive job paying a viable wage to support the individual and his/her family.  Why is that?

It was, after all, the government who responded to the lobbyist’s push to enter into trade agreements which incentivized businesses to abandon manufacturing in the US and send their products to places like Sri Lanka, Burkina Faso, and of course China to be made by marginalized people or even slave labor. If I recall these discussions correctly the left argued that this was a great way to help those poor unfortunate countries develop into modern societies.  The fact we left those who worked in these industries to deal with the closed factories, and lack of opportunity was just a small price to pay for progress, wasn’t it.  After all, we are the richest nation on earth and so what if we create a greater dependence on the government for our daily needs.  That’s what government is for, isn’t it?

Universal Health Care – Affordable health care is a right and according to the progressive-left, it is an inalienable one at that!  The only problem I see is when the woke generation rejects the idea of a higher power than government how can you say any right is natural or inalienable?  If the rights of the people come from the people and government represents the will of the people then if the government can give and take a right it can’t be inalienable.  While I’m all for universal health care what is the minimum acceptable standard?

The supporters of universal health care believe the current standard of care must be improved, and the problem with our system is the “for-profit” profiteers who enrich themselves at the cost of the masses.  Early in the pandemic, I listened as the woke young progressive liberals lambasted the “for-profit” system for not having enough intensive care facilities to support the expected surge in demand.  As I actually researched this claim, I came to find out there was actually a negligible difference between the administration of “for-profit” hospitals and “not for profit” facilities.  The fiscal reality is that both types have to contain costs if they are to survive.  If we go to a universal care system that obligation to remain affordable simply shifts to the government, and can anyone tell me how the government system will contain costs?  There is nothing that suggests a single person in decision-making authority in the Government gives a damn about constraining cost growth.  There are two fundamental truths in government spending.  If you don’t spend everything you asked for this year you will get less next year, and you are spending other people’s money so when you negotiate a contract be generous.  If you doubt his second truth look at the union contracts teachers in Democratic-controlled states and counties have been able to negotiate.  In Chicago, for example, when the government was actually willing to send students back to school, who had the final say as to whether they would or not?  Was it the parents or the government? No, it was the union.

Now let’s compare the performance of national health care systems like Spain, England, Italy, and Germany in their response to this pandemic?  Did they respond quickly to keep the mortality rates down? Now a year later we can look at the figures and see most of the European countries are running between 1,500 to 1,950 deaths per million of their population.  How does this compare to the United States?  We are at about 1,760 deaths/million so it appears national health care hasn’t made a big difference.  How about in distribution of life-saving vaccines?  Did the national systems develop and field a vaccine quicker?  How about distribution?  Are we seeing the national systems outperform the United States?  All indications are they have not.  Of course, China would appear to be the exception, but who among us believes China is accurately reporting on the disaster they unleashed on the world?

College Debt Forgiveness – Economics majors like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Harvard College Professors like Elizabeth Warren have made a lot of noise about how student debt is weighing down the nation and how much better life would be if we taxpayers just assumed that debt and relieved the individuals from any responsibility for the choices, they made on selecting their options after High School.  This seems to be in keeping with the liberal-progressive view that personal responsibility is a cumbersome carry-over of past generations and the Government should actually be responsible for all the decisions made by its erstwhile voters.  I’ve not paid a lot of attention to how they would actually fund this other than making the billionaires pay “their fair share.” But it is safe to assume the colleges who’ve raised tuition to such astronomical levels to pay their professors half a million dollars a year to teach one course won’t be asked to dip into their endowments to help out.  I’m all for letting everyone have a free Ph.D.  The question that comes immediately to mind is how many PhDs does it take to man the counter at MacBurger Queen?

 

 

---

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/marxist-blm-leader-buys-1-4-million-home-in-ritzy-la-enclave/

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/judge-derek-chauvin-maxine-waters-mistrial-appeal/index.html

Banned by Facebook

The founder of the BLM, a self-declared "trained Marxist" has gone on a home-buying spree using funds donated to BLM by the woke social justice organizations.  This was first reported by the New York Post on April 10th, and Facebook has taken action to remove all links to the article.  Let's see if their social justice censorship picks up this post?

 New York Post, April 10, 2021

Of course, anyone who takes offense to this can certainly report me directly to the liberal media censors for their appropriate action.

What is it About All These "ISMs?"

I was reading this morning and it occurred to me we’ve created a lot of “isms.”  You know all those really cool things people like to opine on.  We have Feminism, Popularism, Nationalism, Globalism, and of course Racism.  All of these “isms” seem to be good things to have opinions on, but at the same time, none of them seem to have a universally agreed definition that applies to all members of society.  Why is that?

For example, there are “feminist” women who believe women should be equal to men, but can’t define what equality actually means.  Should men and women compete in sports whereas of today women would seem to have a disadvantage when it comes to strength and speed, or should there be similar competitions for men and women with equal prizes?  Why don’t women golfers make the same money as their male counterparts, even though revenue from their events seems to be lower than in the men’s tournaments?  

But then we have feminists who think women are superior to men and it is only through the chauvinist nature of society that women are prevented from showing that superiority.  Which feminist is right or is there no right?

The same can be said about Popularism.  Who can truly define what the legitimate popularist movement is?  On the one side, we have a minority of hardcore conservatives who believe the Trump movement was a popularist uprising.  On the other, we have a minority of hardcore radicals who believe ANTIFA and BLM represent the populist uprising.  Of course, the Democratic party, the party of hate, has long played this game on how best to divide the country to maintain its power, while the Republican Party, the party of greed, has stumbled about trying to keep up with their political opponents.  From a strictly legal perspective, I’ve got to put my money on the legitimacy of the Trump movement as being more mainstream since most Trump supporters are not destroying the towns and cities, they live in.

Is nationalism good or bad?  I was brought up thinking it was good.  I joined the military to see the world and protect the nation (actually in that order) and thought I was doing a good thing.  Now I’m told nationalism is bad and we should all agree globalism is the way to go, although it doesn’t appear to hold worldwide appeal, at least in places like China.

Finally, what is up with Racism?  We didn’t hear a great deal about how racist we all were, at least us white folks, until President Obama decided to choose sides in isolated local events was a good thing.  Now with the transmogrification of Critical Race Theory into a social justice standard it is widely accepted that only old white conservative males are racist and everyone else just wants to get along peacefully.  Although somewhere along the line the inner-city youth may have missed the memos since they seem to beat up and kill a lot of people who are not old white conservative males.

So my real question is, is the world better for discovering all these cool “isms?”