Jeremy Hinzman - Deserter Not Refugee

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by wotan, Mar 24, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I just read on the web that Jeremy Hinzman, the US soldier that sought refugee status in Canada, has been denied asylum. He, his wife and young son are still a long way from being deported, but he has lost round one and hopefully will lose every round to come. More can be found at:

    Corp, think you can arrange a "Welcome Home" party when we finally punt him?
  2. What a dope! I bet he doesn't get sent back to the States for years yet.

    And I want to see what the Army does to him when they get him back. Dig a deep hole and bury him, I say.
  3. I agree with with Corporal this man is a "dope". Everyone knows the way to get out of going to war is to join the Air National Guard, train as a jet pilot and then never turn up! I have a mate called George who did that, now runs a great business. I was sub-contracted to his firm for a few months last year looking after his gas station in ....?
  4. When this coward finally returns to the US, I hope he gets locked away for life
  5. :roll:
  6. Ft Bragg can't wait to get their hands on Hinzman. If convicted he will get a couple years in prison and then he can go live anywhere that will take him.
  7. Doc Why Spanish for red?............ Mouthpiece of the 5 yr plan maestro? G.W Bush has played so far a better game than Bill 'I lie outrageously' Clinton.
  8. Bill was a lily livered goat blower but GWB is as mad as a bag of wasps. For world stability, I would prefer the former colony known as 'the new world' to 'know their limits'. Current incumbent is to world peace what Caligula was to a baby sitting crèche. Even I'm concerned to his sanity and who he is going to 'Force Project' next. A major game of spin the feckin bottle.

    Bills ulterior motive was to shag as many interns as possible, cant see a problem with that; Bubbas is a little more clouded. Well not really, look who will gain most from his world game of Monopoly. The population of the US? Or his and his crony’s bank balances?

    I actually like the general populous of the US (despite what corpse and ctauch think). What grieves me is how they allow a jellyhead like Bush to brain wash them into a mindset of false patriotism and convince them that what the US Forces are doing is right. Sort of pushes the initial argument and reasons for starting the second Crusade to one side. I.e. the Sept 11th issue and the lack of leadership prior to that.

    Back to the issue in hand. How many more Hinzmans will we and the US see? How many of the US population will become weary of the 'Serve your country' mantra when they will find that raised taxes, more body bags and less freedom due to Bush policies abroad affects their day to day life? I believe it is the policies of this Govn and not the will of the mad Mullah that will dictate how your average American goes about his daily business.

    As a serious question, at what stage during the Vietnam Conflict did the US population turn against the Govn? (Old and clichéd comparison, I know but it may have some relevance).
  9. Can you spell C-O-W-A-R-D !!!!
  10. Most historians agree the turning point for popular support in the Vietnam War was the Tet Offensive of 1968. Up until that time, Westmoreland and Co were touting we were "winning" the war and the VC/NVA had little fight left in them.

    When the Tet Offensive kicked off and the US Embassy was seen, on national TV, being taken over, et al, it swayed popular support for the war in the other direction.

    After the Tet Offensive, troop withdrawals began, heavy bombing campaigns slowed, and when Nixon was voted into office, of course Vietnamization of the war.
  11. I would respectfully submit that Vietnam was different in two ways:

    First, two-thirds of the personnel that served in Vietnam were volunteers. The Vietnam Veterans of America and the DoD agreed on this figure several years ago. This is significant because it the first US war where volunteers carried most of the load, not draftees.

    Second, the USA won well over 95% of every single tactical engagement from squad all the way up division level. At battalion level and above, the USA won 100% of every engagement. The Tet Offensive completely destroyed the Viet Cong insurgent movement. After that, the regular North Vietnamese Army bore the brunt of the fighting until 1972. It took the NVA three years to reconstitute enough to re-invade South Vietnam and complete their conquest.

    Yet we lost the strategic war primarliy through a well thought out "hearts and minds" campaign by the communists. We decimated the VC and NVA at every turn, and yet our Soldier still thought they were losing; as did our civilians back home.

    Now, take a look at OIF and OEF: Off hand I'd say we're winning about 98% of the engagements with an all-volunteer force. More significantly, these troops are racking MORE combat time than their fathers and mothers in Vietnam 30 years ago. There are US troops in the middle east starting their fourth combat rotation.

    What I see as the key difference is the hearts and mind campaign waged by the USA and the enemy. The enemy's propaganda machine keeps stumbling and push more middle-easterners into our 'camp'. The latest mistake was a prominent Saudi Arabian (bin Laden) endorsing a Jordanian (al Zarqawi) to go forth and kill Iraqis. Didn't play well at all in Iraq.

    Most US Citizens are behind our troops 100%. We've learned that the troops are the last to have any influence on policy. So what I see is a dichotomy: A United States for the troops' sake, and a divisive country arguing the merits of our presence. I think we can all agree that our presence is being felt and it is having a positive impact. Every NCO or Officer I talked to returning from Iraq says the same thing: the only people who don't want us there are die-hard Baathists, and foreigners bent on killing anyone who doesn't support a radical Islam.
  12. Thanks for the sensible post Tracy (girls name!)

    Stats regarding Nam are all well and good but the proof of the pudding regardless is that 'we' didn’t stop the massing commies from pushing us out. Won or lost? Simple.

    I believe it was not only the lack of backbone of the US Govn at the time but more over, the over whelming support from the country in question. Hearts and minds from the pyjama wearers as opposed to Zippo containment and GI promises from the West. Worlds apart and differing philosophies as to what the populous wants. Not everyone wants a Coke machine on every corner and a baying submissiveness to the US. American involvement and technical superiority should have squared the issue quickly but as we know, it didn’t. The question is Why? Lets fast forward 30 years, are the same issues and questions being brought up today in Iraq? If you search through my more sensible posts on here (non NAAFI posts!), I tend to ask the same questions. Mainly Iraq v Vietnam, lessons learnt? It aint a dig at the US per sa, although it may appear to be. But as you will understand, due to our current Govn policy, I have a vested interest in not wanting this current situation becoming a Nam II. (On the surface, it is the easiest comparison though).

    American Democracy or the ME style of non dictatoship rule? Or, the average Yank may not agree to how a Muslim/Arab wishes to be ruled but it is never the less quite different. Whats the understanding of that State side?
  13. We lost, no doubt about it. IMHO, for the reason cited above: Hearts and Minds. Another domestic mistake was President Johnson thinking he could wage a war against "communist aggression" while at the same time championing civil rights. COMINTERN loved because it played right into their hands.

    The backbone was there, but there 'brain' was not fully engaged. Where we lost the campaign in a big way was back in 1954 when the French lost at Dien Bien Phu. Ho Chi Minh made direct overtures to the Truman administration to normalize relations and invite the US into Indochina. Truman said no because we don't deal with commies; and France was an ally from WW2. Fat lot of good that did us.

    Tough one there. I think, in very broad terms, most Americans want to see a democracy of some sort installed. The primary reason, IMHO, is that is what we are most familiar with democratic forms of government. We can relate to it better than others.

    I think another reason is the track record of democracies versus other types of government. In recent times, I think we can say democracy in its myriad forms has done more to improve the quality of life than others.
  14. I'm afraid I've got to disagree with a few of your interpretations, Tracy-Paul.

    The question is, how many combat soldiers were volunteers? Many voluntarily enlisted in order to avoid being drafting into combat jobs - thus choosing to make the best of an unwinnable situation. Vietnam was a kind of transitionary war between GEN 2 and GEN 4, in that well over 3/4 of servicemen were in little or no danger. So, you made the best of the situation and maneuvered yourself into a position where you were least likely to face combat. My father-in-law can attest to this :).

    Two words: Ia Drang. That destroys the 100% record. Furthermore, US analysts' concept of victory was based on their ideas, not the realities of the battlefield. For example, rifle counts were used to measure kills.
    These counts were furthermore prone to exaggeration. Pride is a huge issue in any military - and more so with the US'.
    Vietnam wasn't a war over territory. Therefore, when the US military fights for and then holds some place like Hamburger Hill, they are actually being manipulated by an enemy that has no need for permanent strategic positions south of the border. It was a guerilla war.
    Another example. The Vietnamese weren't stupid: when they charged a position, they'd hit the dirt on receiving fire - just because he's gone down doesn't mean he's hit. Why were so few bodies ever recovered after "banzai" charges?

    In summary: Just because the enemy ain't there anymore doesn't mean you won.

    Completely agree. They tried it conventionally and failed miserably. But then came Cronkite, as you said...
    This leads me back to the last point - most of the war wasn't fought conventionally and using conventional war yard sticks to measure a guerilla war's progress obscures the actual situation and outcome.

    See above, Tet was the exception. Read Phantom Soldier by H. John Poole for more tactical-level evaluations. The late 90's saw a resurgence in revionist history arguing "We won the battles but lost the war"; it would be worth mentioning that this is reaching its peak just as the US is seeing a massive resurgence in militarism. This echoes British attempts at revising WWI analyses of Hague, etc.

    I feel sorry for their wives and seriously, do these guys always have to do 12-month tours or do they now get something more humane (heck, if the Navy can do it with swapping crews...)?

    An Iraqi mob storming the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad over a Jordanian suicide bomber was massive news - a shame that the media didn't pay enough attention to it (ever so surprisingly).

    Rant. Late. Gonna regret this in the morning. Bed.

    PS: Here's a funny one.
  15. What the percentage was volunteers within the combat arms, I have no idea.

    It's quite true we used the wrong measuring stick to gauge our effectiveness with conventional forces. Still, in my opinion, Ia Drang was a success for the US. Unfortunately, it was success for the NVA also. They learned some valuable lessons on how to fight against the US. In a force-on-force confrontation, the US carried the day. It wasn't until later we started asking silly questions like "What the H*ll are we doing here?" It took 50K+ dead and 30 years, but we started fighting smarter.