.........Articles by

William Newton Edwards wrote the following articles for The Phil Am Press since it began publication in July 2003 for The Filipino community in the San Francisco Bay Area. The articles cover stories of his life before, during and after a 30 year career in the U.S. Air Force. They also cover political views as they develop during the current presidential election year.

To Home Page

THE PHIL-AM PRESS - JULY 2005
FACTS OR OPINIONS BY BILL EDWARDS

Congressional representatives, including Senator Diane Feinstein, have frequently visited Iraq during the past year. All returned in a few days believing themselves experts on how to run the war, seemingly having acquired a vast knowledge of military operational strategy, something military experts have taken a lifetime to learn. One thing common to all congressional visitors is their realization that Iraq is a dangerous place. None, however, seem to understand that if it is so dangerous, how did they get there and back without injury? It certainly wasn't because terrorists had their best interest at heart. Military personnel took all necessary steps to protect them from harm, probably putting their own lives in jeopardy. Our representatives do not belong in war zones, but it would be impossible to prevent them from going on "fact-finding" junkets anywhere they choose, even to the world's finest vacation areas at taxpayer's expense.

Another group of people, identified as activists by television news reporters , also just returned from a visit to Iraq. According to the news report, they went there to ascertain how many civilians had been injured or killed in this war. Innocent men, women and children are casualties in all wars. History will provide the facts. Some people believe enormous numbers of innocent civilians were killed in World War II as a result of collateral damage. Some were, but most of the Germans and Japanese civilian casualties were deliberately targeted, as were British and Russian civilians by our enemies.

Activists, however, have even less legitimate business in war zones than congressional representatives. They could, and should, have been prevented from going there. They cause too much trouble for military personnel who need to devote their efforts to solving more urgent problems. In contrast, anyone who did not belong at the, "Battle of the Bulge," did not go there on "fact-finding" visits 60 years ago.

What about that notorious battle that took place near Bastogne, Belgium, beginning just before Christmas of 1944 and ending almost a month later? It was the most devastating battle of World War II when nearly 77,000 Americans were killed, wounded or missing in action. Yet we stayed the course, finally winning the costly battle. Why did we stay the course? After all, France had been liberated. Perhaps we should have surrendered on December 22, 1944, then negotiated with Hitler for peace, thereby saving the lives of thousands of American soldiers. The facts are known now, but you could have expressed only an opinion before the battle had run its course. Before-the-battle opinions and after-the-battle facts always bring questions, "Will it be, or was it, worth it?" The answer should be, "No!" Neither battles nor wars are worth the loss of one life. Yet, it is absolutely necessary to fight them sometimes. This judgement is based on my ardent life-long study of history and a lengthy military career in several wars.

Now, back to Iraq. Writers to, "Letters to the Editor," in the "San Francisco Chronicle" don't know much about objectivity. Presenting their side of an issue is the intent. One states: '....The psychological and physical trauma facing our troops will not go away by stopping brutality against Iraqis--it will go away by bringing the troops home now. Until this happens, the Iraqi people will continue fighting. They are fighting for their right to self-determination and the freedom to live without fear...'

Another writes: 'As our troops tear apart Iraqi homes, terrifying women and children and destroying their food supply, let us not forget that we invaded their country because we wanted to take control of the Middle East...'

Unlike professional news reporters, these writers are not required to write objectively. They must, however, know the difference between fact and opinion, and provide a conclusion based on the facts they present. Otherwise, like the above writers' statements, they will appear to have received their information from the same politically biased source. Lacking facts, their statements read as though they are either misguided intellectuals full of hatred for President Bush, or they deliberately distorted the situation for political expediency. Though their remarks would have been labeled traitorous during World War II, it would be amiss to offer that conclusion today. It does remind me, however, of the cliché, "We have seen the enemy and it is us." Admittedly, there are problems in Iraq that require solution.

Suicide bombing by a fanatic terrorist in the dining hall at Mosul just before Christmas of 2004 doesn't compare to the enormous numbers of military casualties suffered as a result of the Japanese kamikazes of World War II. Nonetheless, we must find an answer to this tragic loss of American life.

Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) replaced C-Rations of World War II. They are more nutritional and have been available to soldiers in forward areas for years. And dining halls have replaced mess halls of old in rear areas, but there are no rear areas in Iraq. Does that mean there should be no dining (mess) halls and American soldiers should be served MRE's for their entire tour of duty? That could solve the problem of soldiers sitting down together to eat meals at the same place and time, but no one would buy this solution. Therefore, let's consider how dining halls are now operated. For years the military entered into contracts with private companies who hire local civilians to prepare food and clean up after meals. Contrast that with the days of yore when mess halls were run by military mess sergeants who supervised military cooks who prepared the meal, and military Kitchen Police (KP) who cleaned up after meals (policing is the military term for cleaning up). Soldiers hated this duty, but were assigned these lowly jobs on a rotating basis by a duty sergeant. This took them away from their primary duty two or three days every month.

I'll never forget my KP duty on Labor Day of 1941 in the mess hall at Chanute Army Air Field, about 100 miles south of Chicago. Like others, I was pulled out of airplane mechanics school and assigned KP duty, on this day specifically to clean pots and pans--sturdy 20 to 50 gallon aluminum vessels used to cook enormous quantities of food. It was a hot day and sweat poured off my face, rolled down, soaking my fatigues. The mess sergeant--escorting a small group of visitors--stopped nearby for a few moments.

'That young man looks like he's working too hard,' a middle-aged woman said to him, pointing at me.

'Oh, he's just a KP,' the sergeant replied.

Though his remarks stung, it wasn't the reason I hated K.P. Housewives know. It's a dirty rotten job, especially pots and pans.

Contracting food service to civilian contractors is unquestionably a more efficient way of doing the job. Unfortunately, efficiency has caused a sacrifice of security. So, either we provide MRE's to the troops in Iraq for all their meals or return to the old-fashioned mess hall with military running the show, thereby sacrificing efficiency. K.P. duty for young soldiers may be frowned upon, but it is good training for future husbands. What do you think?

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL-AM PRESS - MAY 2005
RESPONSIBILITY by BILL EDWARDS

Everyone has responsibilities in this life! Whether or not we accept those responsibilities depends on how we were raised and how our character has developed. Liberal activists in San Francisco, for example, take to the streets to demonstrate against almost everything proposed by their political opposition. It isn't necessarily wrong to make their political views known publicly, but their activities are often counterproductive to accomplishing their objective. When they receive legal permission to demonstrate, they must also accept responsibility for everything that happens. Closing streets and entrances to buildings, thereby preventing workers from going to their jobs or getting home at the end of the work day is wrong. If the activists do not accept responsibility for injury or damage to property caused by their activities, they lose support of those who might otherwise agree with their point of view if it had been presented in a civil manner. And city officials who do not hold demonstrators accountable for what they do are also failing to live up to their responsibilities.

The recent election brings out a different perspective of responsibility. Liberal San Franciscans overwhelmingly voted for John Kerry, meaning it has become a one-party city. That huge majority must therefore rescognize that it has a greater responsibility to protect the well being of the meager minority. A one-party city, state or country, whether ultra-liberal or ultral-conservative, is conducive to very bad things happening. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) under leftist dictator Joseph Stalin, for example, and the Philippines under rightist President Ferdinand Marcos were one-party countries and could get upwards of 90% of the votes when they had a mind to conduct a rigged publicity-oriented election. A one-party system is bad for everyone except those in power.

On another level, recent letters to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle allege that liberal San Franciscans are more intelligent than their conservative counterparts because they are more highly educated. How liberals equate intelligence solely with education is a mystery, but they have somehow found a way in their own minds to do just that. Though no one denies the importance of education, it does not, in itself, produce intelligence. To come to a conclusion that it does is the height of intellectual arrogance.

Those "more intelligent" liberals who have chosen teaching as a profession are responsible for California being at, or near, the bottom of the list in academic achievement. Why have educators concluded that everyone must graduate from college? Vocational courses were readily available in high school during the Great Depression, and graduates qualified for work across the spectrum of every day life. Perhaps it was a product of the times, but it did provide an incentive to stay in school and be trained to accept jobs as they became available. In today's world, those who are not potential college attendees must finish a vocational school after graduating from, or dropping out of, high school in order to get a good paying job. That is not an intelliegnt approach to our academic needs.

Liberal activists blame the United States government for a lingering war in Iraq, terrorist activities--the 9/11 disaster included--and the killing of civilians in Baghdad and Kabul, but ignore murders occurring every day in Oakland, San Francisco, and all major cities across this nation. They accept no responsibility for forming neighborhood crime watches to prevent violent crimes. And they do nothing that requires parents keep children home, take them where they need go, and supervise their behavior in public. If these "intelligent" liberal activists channeled their efforts in more productive ways, the death of innocent people in this country could be drastically cut. Responsibility, however, is not an issue with them when it means accepting it.

Finally, not long ago, I attended a funeral for the 16 year old granddaughter of a friend, killed in an automobile accident. It reminded me how precious, and how delicate it is to hold onto life. It also brought back memories of the son I lost twenty five years ago while he was serving in the U.S. Air Force. I have thought about friends who gave up their lives in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, and wondered about other friends who survived those wars, but have somehow disappeared.

The most important thing I am reminded of by the sudden loss of life of these young people is media reaction to pedestrians killed by automobiles. Almost on a daily basis we read in the newspapers or hear news reports on television or radio of pedestrians killed while crossing the street. Sympathy goes to the victims, and the victims' family and friends, as it should. But do we recognize responsibility for the accident, or are we more interested in assigning blame?

Let me cite a personal experience from long ago. When I was seventeen years old, I was driving a Model A Ford on one of Los Angeles' thoroughfares. Suddenty, a teacher herded her class of elementary school children into the crosswalk to cross the street in front of me. I jammed on the brakes as hard as I could, and they were far from the best available at that time. Fortunately, I was able to stop before hitting anyone. As the sweat poured off my brow, I noticed the teacher glaring at me. She had accepted no responsibility for the safety of her students, an unusual attitude during that period of time in my life.

That thought has remained with me as I sit in my car at intersections in San Francisco waiting for pedestrians to cross the street, some legally, others illegally. Many are engaged in conversation, paying no heed to anyone or anything outside their conversational circle. Others deliberatly saunter slowly from one curb to the other, even against red lights, as though daring motorists to take their best shot. People of all ages also stroll nonchalantly across busy streets in the middle of the block, paying no attention to traffic. The fact that we don't have more pedestrians killed by automobile is testimony that drivers go out of their way to keep from running over them.

Responsibility assigned by the public, with the media's help, always belong to drivers of automobiles. Is that the way it has to be? Shouldn't the ultimate responsility for the life of pedestrians rest with the pedestrians? That doesn't mean that it is the fault of the pedestrtian if she/he gets hit by an automobile. It means everyone must be alert to traffic when crossing the street even with a green light. Nothing can interfere with paying absolute attention to making it safely across the street with no distractions, and in recognizing something may be wrong if a car is coming at them in an erratic manner. They cannot stroll, saunter or delay for anything until they are safely back on the sidewalk, then they must keep their eyes open for something amiss. In my judgment, the ultimate responsibility for their own safety belongs to the pedestrians. Accepting responsibility, however, seems not to have survived in this great country.

To Menu of Articles

_________________________________________________________________

THE PHIL AM PRESS - FEBRUARY 16, 2005 - MARCH 15, 2005
THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN by: Bill Edwards

As a member of the Peninsula Branch of the California Writers Club, I recently attended a lecture by Sayre Van Young, author of, 'London's War: A Traveler's Guide to World War II.' It was an interesting and unique slide presentation of the effects of World War II on the people and landscape of London. She flashed pictures of places of interest in and near the city of London as they appear today while telling stories of famous people such as Prime Minister Winston Churchill, author Virginia Woofe and actor Noel Coward who were associated in some way with the sites. Then she compared those pictures with photographs taken right after the sites had been damaged or destroyed by the German Lufwaffe during World War II.

Sayre Van Young began her presentation by explaining how she had taken up the task of writing this book. In 1950, when she was an elementary school student, she had visited relatives in London, learning only then that London had been the target of countless air raids by Hitler's air force which killed and wounded tens of thousands of people and destroyed much of the city. That she hadn't learned about this historical period of time in school was shocking. She admitted that she too had been aghast by such an omission in her education. Therefore, I decided to bring, 'The Battle Of Britain,' to your attention to remind you of the importance of that wartime historical event.

First, a little background information. The United States, England, France, and the countries of western Europe were ill-prepared for World War II compared to Germany. Despite his country's defeat in World War I, Adoph Hitler thumbed his nose at the provisions of the surrender agreement when he came to power in 1933. He rearmed Germany, remilitarizing the Rhineland in 1936. Then he annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938 without retribution from England or France. On September 1, 1939, Germany attacked Poland. England and France declared war, but were militarily ineffective. Poland fell in a matter of days. Germany went on to defeat Norway and Denmark, before turning west to sweep through Belgium, Luxemburg and the Netherlands, going around France's Maginot Line fortifications.

Hitler's armies swept across the low countries, trapping Anglo-French and Belgium forces at the city of Dunkirk on the North Sea. His armed forces somewhat overextended, Hitler miscalculated by ordering a rest. During the period from May 26 to May 31, 1940, allied soldiers evacuated the beaches of Dunkirk. The Germans captured 40,000 prisoners, but 338, 000 escaped to England. France fell to Germany two weeks later. England stood alone as the United States had not yet entered the war, but was providing military equipment and supplies under the lend-lease program.

Hitler started his plan to invade England by conducting an air war. With 2800 planes, half of them Messerschmitt fighters, Germany went up against England's 1200 planes, 800 of which were Spitfire and Hurricane fighters. Though Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots were in critical supply, there wasn't time to train more. The production of Spitfires was stepped up to 500 per month. The RAF would be flying over friendly ground and water, however, and pilots who had been shot down, but were physically able, could be rescued to fight again. The RAF enjoyed two advantages. First, Luftwaffe bombers, and escorting fighters, could spend only a few minutes over their targets before being required to return to home base because of low fuel. Secondly, England's new radar system, composed of 51 prewar sites, was hurriedly bolstered by constructing a second line of installations. These radar sites were instrumental in warning Spitfires and Hurricanes to take off and intecept Luftwaffe bombers and their escort fighters before reaching British targets.

The Battle of Britain began July 10, 1940, with the Luftwaffe making sporadic attacks the first few weeks. During the second week in August, they concentrated against British airfields. Royal Air Force fighters intercepting Luftwaffe bombers, were engaged by Messerschmitts. The RAF shot down four enemy planes to every one they lost. Still, the bombers that got through the airborne defenses inflicted heavy damage to English airfields and planes on the ground. The RAF losses began to outstrip increased production of new Spitfires. If the attacks against RAF airfields had continued a few more weeks, the results would have changed the outcome.

"Winston Churchill, however, ordered a bomber attack against Berlin on the night of August 25th, continuing for several nights. Though damage was marginal at best, and there was seemingly no military advantage to attacking Berlin, it was the turning point of the Battle of Britain. Hitler and Herman Goering, Chief of the Luftwaffe, retaliated against English cities. 300 bombers attacked London on September 7th, killing thousands of people and inflicting heavy damage on the city. Instead of demoralizing the population, the bombing raid had the opposite affect. The raids against cities continued, the Luftwaffe losing 56 planes to RAF fighters in one daylight mission on September 15th.

"That shift from airfields to population centers, despite fierce fighting in the skies for months to come, saved the British Isles from a German invasion--Operation Sea Lion--that had been planned for October 12, 1940. It was Hitler's first reverse of World War II. Churchill's words describing the RAF pilots who put in never-ending duty days during the Battle of Britain will be remembered as an appropriate tribute to them. 'Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.'

The English won, 'The Battle Of Britain,' because Churchill had ordered the indiscriminate bombing of the civilian populous of Berlin, hoping it would anger Hitler and cause him to retaliate against the civilian population of London, thereby saving RAF planes and facilities from annihilation. That decision caused the loss of life of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Killing innocent people is the greatest tragedy of all wars, but it sometimes becomes a military necessity in order to save the lives of even more innocent people. President Harry Truman faced that same dilemma when he ordered the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another decision that can not be reconciled by naive idealists.

"Though I am not an Anglophile, by winning the, 'Battle of Britain,' the English people earned my undying respect and admiration. Also, since World War II, they have on two occasions earned my gratitude and appreciation.

"First, the British Army Band played, 'The Star Spangled Banner,' outside Buckingham Palace after the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the high-jacked airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania as a tribute to those who had been killed. Finally, Prime Minister Tony Blair's unwavering support in continuing to conduct military operations alongside United States armed forces in Iraq is refreshing when compared to the selfish monetary aspirations of some of our allies and supposedly friendly countries who have been intimidated by terrorists' inhuman acts of barbarism.

To Menu of Articles

_________________________________________________________________

The Phil Am Press - October 15, 2004 - November 15, 2004
OPINION: ELECTION YEAR POLITICS by Bill Edwards

"In this election year, accusations are flying fast and furious. Though some are true, many are false. This essay will try to set the record straight. First, I'll cover the Republican President, then his Democratic oppenent.

"It has been well over a year since President Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln to announce the end of major combat operations in Iraq. He specifically said in a speech to the crew of the aircraft carrier, and to the world, that hostilities had not ceased and the war was not over. Though he had not forseen some of the problems that have developed since then, left wing advocates, including a partisan media, have repeatedly asserted that President Bush announced the, "the end of the war." Their statements are half truths or, if you prefer, half lies. I previously pointed out that half truths (or half lies) are impossiible to defend against, and when repeated again and again are perceived as truthful statements to the naive who acquire all their knowledge from a partisan media.

"The President is also criticized for wearing a "uniform" under his flying equipment, which included a flotation devise (Mae West) and a parachute, specifically required of all crew members and passengers when flying aboard that type of military aircraft. A business suit is inappropriate, but a flying suit was the proper attire. Like all the other equipment, it was exactly what the President should have worn. Criticism is inappropriate, and all Americans should recognize this even if they know nothing about military flying operations.

"Finally, the large banner, "Mission Accomplished" hanging behind the President as he spoke has been interpreted by the media, left-wing activists and partisan politicians to mean President Bush believed he had accomplished his mission. The media should know better, failing their responsibility to keep the public properly informed. Since they are not likely to admit failure, let me point out the meaning of that banner. "Mission Accomplished," was meant for the crew members of the USS Abraham Lincoln who were returning home after finishing their assigned operation in supporting major combat operations in Iraq. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Now for a few words about the Democratic nominee running for president. Veterans who criticize Senator Kerry for his action while serving in Vietnam should back off, including those who were in Vietnam at the same place at the same time as Lieutenant Kerry but look at the situation in a different light. Veterans who were not at the same place at the same time as Kerry should stick to Senator Kerry's avctivities after his service in the U.S. Navy was finished. And criticism of his post-military activities should not be taken by the media as criticism of his service in Vietnam.

"I must now mention some of my own experiences in order to set the stage properly. I served in Vietnam from July 1964 to July 1965 as an advisor to the South Vietnamese Army. I was Air Liaison Officer, then Director of U.S. Air Force Air Support Center for the I Corps area, headquartered in Danang. During that time, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson defeated Republican Barry Goldwater for re-election after serving out John F. Kennedy's term of office. He then committed U.S. combat forces to opertaions against the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese military. In April 1965, the U.S. Marines joined American military advisors and other Army and Air Force units stationed at Danang.

"When my tour of duty was finished, I was required to write an end-of-tour report. There were two schools of thought concerning U.S. forces engaging in combat operations. I was with the minority who believed that we should provide equipment, training and advisory service to the South Vietnamese military forces and not become engaged in actual combat as Presidenbt Johnson had ordered. Though U.S Air Forces had provided decisive air support required by the South Vietnamese Army to prevent Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army forces from cutting off the I Corps area from the southern part of South Vietnam in May 1965, I did not alter my opinion when writing my report.

"Four years later, I was assigned to the 9th Air Force Inspector General's Office. Our responsibility was to inspect all U.S. Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units east of the Mississippi River. I've told you one story about my experience at O'Hare Field, near Chicago, with an Air National Guard Refueling Squadron, but not what happened with other Air Force reserve units near universities in large cities in New England states. We were frequently ridiculed by students of these nearby universities because we were wearing military uniforms doing our job of inspecting air reserve units. Some of my associates were spit on by anti-Vietnam student activists.

"John Kerry was involved with the Jane Fonda activists after his honorable and courageous military service as a U.S. Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. He also testified before Congress as an 'expert' witness because he had served four months on a swift river boat in Vietnam. His testimony was not about things he had seen first-hand during his service, but of alleged atrocities committed by American soldiers.

"In a recent full-page ad in the Army Times, entitled: 'John Kerry & Vietnam THE WOUNDS THAT NEVER HEAL,' Dexter Lehtinen, former U.S. Army Ranger, who became a Stanford Law School graduate, Florida State Senator and United States attorney, wrote: 'In 1971, I awakened after three days of unconsciousness aboard a hospital ship off the coast of Vietnam. I could not see, my jaws were wired shut, and my left cheekbone was missing, a gaping hole in its place.

"'Later, while still in that condition at St. Albans Naval Hospital....my earliest recollections was hearing of John Kerry's testimony before Congress. I remember lying there, in disbelief, as I learned how Kerry told the world I served in an Army reminiscent of Genghis Kahns; that officers like me routinely let their men plunder villages at will; that 'war crimes' committed in Vietnam by my fellow soldiers 'were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with full awareness of officers at all levels of command.'

"'....Eighteen months later, I was discharged from the hospital, the wounds inflicted by the enemy fully healed. But more than 30 years later, the wounds inflicted by John Kerry continue to bring pain to scores of Vietnam veterans. Those wounds--the bearing of false witness against me and a generation of courageous young Americans who fought and died in Vietnam--are more serious than any wound warranting a Purple Heart. Those wounds go the the heart and soul. Those wounds never go away.'"

"Senator Kerry's activities following his discharge were those of political expediency. And he doesn't even know it was wrong! If I did what he has done, I'd be ashamed to appear in public, but then I have the character he lacks. Many veterans may forgive him, but they don't believe Kerry is capable of being Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Do you want this man
to lead our country?"

To Menu of Articles

_________________________________________________________________

THE PHIL AM PRESS SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 - OCTOBER 15, 2004
OPINION: Military Life by Bill Edwards

Life in the military service in the time of war is not all darkness as you might have been led to believe by a partisan media. Loneliness, hardship, suffering, anxiety, tragedy and death are offset by humor, joy, pride, compassion, comradeship, and miraculous survival. Countless books and movies have not justly depicted the actual conditions faced by millions of American soldiers. Popular cartoons "Willie and Joe" and "Sad Sack," published during World War II, will provide a good insight to the day-to-day situation. It would be worth the effort to look for them in local libraries. Like others before me, and those who have followed, my experiences varied from one extreme to the other. I would like to share two personal stories with you to show what I mean.

The recent publication of Laura Hillenbrand's bestselling book, "Seabiscuit," followed by the popular movie of the same name, reminded me of a tale of long ago when I was young. As a teenager in the nineteen thirties, I was well aware that Seabiscuit was the most memorable race horse of that time even though I didn't follow horseracing. It would have been impossible not to know about the magnificent legs that carried Seabiscuit from one victory to another. The memories of that legendary thoroughbred lingered in my mind.

Less than a year after Pearl Harbor, I was transferred from preflight training at Houston to advanced bombardier school near the western Texas town of Midland for the final months of training before getting my silver wings and gold bars as a second lieutenant in the United States Army Air Forces.

As usual, we were confined to base upon arrival at the Army air field, half-way between Midland and Odessa. A few weeks later--at dinner on the Friday evening before our first open post--someone had placed envelopes containing letters on the table in front of us, our names penned in a beautiful flowing feminine handwriting. Mine read:

"Hi, Bill! I visited Big Spring last week end and met some of your friends from Houston. You remember Dan Egan, Ed Homberger and George Whitney, don't you? They gave me your name so I could invite you to visit the Model Shop in Odessa on your first open post.

Sea biscuit"

I looked at my classmate, Art Guerrero, holding his letter. "This was written by a woman, but why is it signed Seabiscuit?"

"Let's go to the Model Shop tomorrow and find out," Art replied with a grin. "They probably sell officers uniforms and we've got to order now so they'll be ready by graduation."

Saturday afternoon, Art and I went to Odessa. Spotting the Model Shop, we went in the main entrance of the military clothing store. A clerk smiled, directing us to another entrance on the side street. We went out, then to the side door where several aviation cadets were entering.

"Come in and have a cold beer, boys," a well-dressed middle-aged man said.

We followed him to the bar, where he opened two bottles of Lone Star. As we drank the beer, we noticed a small group of aviation cadets around a beautiful young woman who had hiked the hem of her dress up to straighten the seams of her stockings fastened to a garter belt. Silk and nylon stockings of that day had seams running from the upper thigh down the back of the leg to the heel. And they frequently needed straightening, usually done in private. This young woman didn't follow conventional procedure. We appreciated her thoughtfulness because she had the most magnificent legs I had ever seen. Obviously, this was SEABISCUIT.

Yes, we bought officer uniforms from the Model Shop. Were they good? Absolutely! The uniform of the United States Army officer then were light gray (with a hint of pink) trousers and a deep forest green coat with brass buttons. They were called, "pinks and green," and without a doubt it was the best officer uniform ever designed.

The second tale occurred later in World War II. My brother, Johnny, and I both served in the China-BurmaIndia (CBI) Theater of Operations. He was one of Merrill's Marauders--skilled in guerrilla warfare-penetrating enemy lines in the jungles of Burma to destroy military supplies. I was a bombardier on a B-29, flying out of India and China on bombing missions against Japanese targets. Though stationed only a few hundred miles apart, we couldn't get together, but exchanged letters.

In January 1945, several weeks went by before I received a letter with Johnny's APO (Army Post Office) return address. It had been written by a nurse at the hospital in Burma where he'd been taken for treatment of injuries.
It read:

"I've been wounded, but not bad.
Your big brother, Johnny."

He was evacuated to the United States, but not before I learned what he meant by "...wounded, but not bad." A Japanese sniper's bullet had penetrated his head, entering his left eye and exiting through his right ear. He lost the sight in the left eye and the hearing in the right ear, but the bullet had miraculously gone completely through the only possible space in his brain without causing irreparable damage.

He was sent to a hospital near our home in California for recovery. Johnny eventually became an out-patient, but never completely recovered. To maintain his balance when he re-learned to walk, taps were put on his shoes to help him hear and feel what his legs were doing. He also had to sleep with extra pillows under his head and shoulders to prevent dizziness. He was, however, able to live a fairly normal life.

Johnny moved back to his place of birth in Pennsylvania, where he worked and was in and out of Veterans' hospitals the remainder of his short life. He was only fifty two years old when he died, but had married and fathered a son and two daughters. That he had even survived his battlefield wounds was a miracle in itself.

Soldiers' situations vary from good to bad. No one then, nor now, could predict what would happen from one day to the next. Operational assignments--though sometimes questionable--were carried out without hesitation.

"No One Asked Us," by Major Stan Coerr, USMCR (United States Marine Corps Reserve) concluded: "....Take it from someone who was there, and who stood to lose everything. We must, and will, stay the course. We owe it to the Iraqis, and to the world."

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS July 30, 2004 August 31, 2004
OPINION: America's Concentration Camps by Bill Edwards

The headline of an editorial published in the San Francisco Chronicle read, "Unjust detentions." The editorial did not tell the complete story behind the judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling concerning two Americans and 600 foreign enemy combatants being held at the U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The court found, "Due process demands that a citizen held ...as an enemy combatant be given meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker." That ruling applies to U.S. citizens and had nothing to do with foreigners captured on the battlefield of Afghanistan and those who have engaged in terrorist activities against the United States. The Supreme Court rulings, however, did provide that one Australian, twelve Kuwaitis and another eight foreign detainees being held also had the right to legal hearings. Even those picked up on the battlefield will receive hearings. Questions have arisen because none of the detainees were wearing military uniforms, a situation that has developed due to the nature of terrorist activities, whether fighting on a battlefield or engaged in violent operations such as the 9/11 attack.

The President of the United States is responsible to protect the lives of all Americans and may sometimes overstep his legal authority in fulfilling that responsibility. His transgression is understandable considering what is at stake. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the media to report objectively. When it is partisan in covering the news, the media does not serve the American people well and that failure to fulfill its obligation is not understandable nor acceptable. Partisanship has been far too prevalent recently and reminds me of a flagrant injustice not covered objectively more than two generations ago.

Long after World War II Americans discovered that innocent Japanese immigrants, along with citizens of Japanese ancestry even those born in this country were uprooted and confined in internment camps surrounded with barbed wire and gun emplacements. Even today, we don't call them what they actually were because it might arouse guilt feelings that we did what Hitler had done in confining German people to concentration camps for being gypsies, Communists or Jews. On the other hand, if we recognize those American camps for what they were, we might open our minds and identify those responsible for this injustice.

The blame for putting innocent people in internment camps was solely that of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He alone signed the executive order that required subordinates confine all ethnic Japanese. When the media wrote or talked about this subject, however, they avoided any condemnation of President Roosevelt. The U.S. Army, the American people and the American government, however, were all condemned. By law, the Army was required to follow the orders of its Commander In Chief. The legislature had no official say, except to offer advise to the President, and the judicial branch took no action because the matter had not been referred to them. The executive branch alone, under the administration of President Roosevelt, was the only part of the American government involved. Though the legality of his executive order was questionable, Roosevelt has never been criticized by the U.S. or the Japanese media, and the American people learned less than the truth.

Were the Japanese just being too polite in making their true feelings known? More likely there was an unwritten quid pro quo agreement. Emperor Hirohito was the only leader of the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy and Japan) who was not blamed for the aggression of his military forces. The U.S. and its allies demanded unconditional surrender, yet the ruler of the Japanese Empire, who solely appointed his military leaders, got off without a harsh word uttered against him and remained in power after the Japanese surrendered. Was this nicety exchanged for their refusal to condemn President Roosevelt in confining ethnic Japanese?

Unquestionably, he was enormously influential, but how could the media have failed so miserably in reporting the truth? For that matter, how could any president exercise such effective control over them? Perhaps the media believed its duty was to set aside objectivity in making unfavorable comments against an incumbent president during a time of war. Americans, therefore, became enamored of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and remain so to this day. Influential people who realized what was happening, were unwilling to acknowledge it openly, possibly fearing an accusation would be considered unpatriotic. Besides, he got us out of the depression, didn't he? Hitler, Mussolini, and Emperor Hirohito had as much to do with getting us out of the depression as Roosevelt because they started the War that required the expansion of the American economy to maximum war time capacity.

It took far too long to provide restitution for this injustice, but it finally came to pass. The compensation paid to ethnic Japanese Americans for destroying their businesses and confining them in internment camps was only a pittance, but it did restore their honor. This would not have happened, or a national memorial would never have opened, if so many of the young men confined in these camps had not voluntarily served in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team of the U.S. Army and wrote one of the most glorious histories in the annals of warfare!

Now that the national memorial to this bitter Japanese American experience has opened in Washington, let's hope that injustice such as this doesn't repeat itself. But it will, unless all Americans recognize Roosevelt for what he was in confining Americans of ethnic Japanese ancestry to internment camps. The media shirked its responsibilities in failing to tell the American people what President Roosevelt was doing during World War II. And it continues to fail its responsibilities when it doesn't expose the situation. It must take off its rose colored glasses and tell the whole story objectively.

A full expose of this injustice might also reveal to the American people that Filipino soldiers who fought so heroically at Bataan and Corregador are still waiting for a correction to the injustice done them by a 1946 Act of Congress, and signed into law by Roosevelt's successor, Harry Truman. The media must make up for its past irresponsibility by publicizing the Filipino soldiers' plight in not being paid a debt long overdue. It's only fair that these old men be recognized for their service in the U.S. Army and receive the same veteran's benefits that are enjoyed by all other American soldiers.

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS June 26, 2004 July 25. 2004
OPINION: How Are Things In Iraq? by Bill Edwards

Without objective reporting by the media, it's impossible to learn all we need know about the war in Iraq. Newscasters often tell us what is wrong with the way the war is being conducted or why we should not have gotten into it in the first place. When political solutions fail, war comes sooner or later. The United Nations (UN) has been successful in 90% of its endeavors, a truly remarkable achievement. The other 10% comes from failure to prevent the countless wars that have erupted around the world since its inception. In my judgment, no war can be justified, but I know it is sometimes necessary to do what we must do.

So how are things going in Iraq? Since we can't rely on the media, perhaps we should compare it to the world's most devastating conflict known as, "the good war," a devastating cruel euphemism to gold star mothers.

Pearl Harbor brought us into World War II which began September 1, 1939 when Germany, then the USSR, attacked Poland. Though initially opposed by the nations of western Europe, German forces overran one country after another, with the French surrendering in June 1940. England stood alone (until Germany attacked its USSR ally) suffering defeat after defeat with one notable exception, the Battle of Britain. But that's another story.

After the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy. Japan alone had attacked us and, though we had been providing military aid to England and the USSR under the lend/lease program, we were now allied with them.

Japan attacked our military installations in the Pacific and Asian countries immediately following Pearl Harbor. Allied military forces in Guam, Hong Kong, Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos), Wake Island and the Gilbert islands surrendered in December 1941. The Malay Peninsula fell in January, followed by Singapore, Indonesia, Burma and Thailand in February 1942. The Philippines held out until April 12, 1942 when Bataan surrendered, then Corregidor on May 4, 1942. Hundreds of thousands of our military men and women were killed, wounded, captured or missing.

The American people clenched their teeth every time they heard a news report on the radio or picked up a newspaper. They tightened their belts and went to work, crying silently inside. Yet, there wasn't a word of criticism against President Roosevelt. To do so would have been considered not just unpatriotic, but treasonable by the vast majority of American people. Contrast that with the vocal outcries of today. Our first victory finally came six to seven months after Pearl Harbor at the battles of Coral Sea and Midway. Nonetheless, patience was still required because the war lasted another three years. Casualties among both the military and civilian populous skyrocketed into the millions, but we stayed the course.

Some political activists have temporarily stopped complaining about entry into war in Iraq, shifting their criticism to the ineptness with which the war is being conducted. When our military forces deployed into Iraq, moved swiftly northward and seized Baghdad, they bypassed towns and cities en route, thereby avoiding countless casualties. This assault was counter to our World War II strategy of mopping up one town after another with both sides suffering enormous casualties.

Now let's compare atrocities. Killing German Jews (and Jews in occupied countries) by Hitler's subordinates took place on his orders. And by executive order, President Roosevelt confined Japanese/Americans (Niesi, naturalized citizens and immigrants) to internment camps surrounded by gun emplacements. Though the situations are not of the same magnitude, Hitler was universally condemned for his heinous crimes against humanity, but the revered President Roosevelt was not even taken to task for wanton violation of constitutional law until after his death. In Iraq, Sadaam Hussein ordered the killing of huge numbers of his own people many with chemical agents though not on the same scale as Hitler. Why didn't he account for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD), known to exist during his tenure in power, as demanded by the UN? We may never know if the WMD have indeed been destroyed or are still hidden, perhaps in neighboring countries.

President Bush is too far removed from the abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war at Abu Ghraib prison to have known what was happening. The American soldiers accused of the abuse were likely following orders of, or were influenced by, superior officers. Those officers also may have received orders from the next chain of command up the ladder, and perhaps even a higher command level, but not likely above brigade level. Otherwise, rumors would have spread to every soldier in Iraq. The relatively few individuals who committed the abuses contend they were not at fault for obeying orders. Hitler's aides tried that defense at the Nuremburg trials after World War II, but it was denied even though the aides faced execution if they had refused the orders. On the other hand, American soldiers can refuse illegal orders or, if threatened, follow the order, then tell immediate commanding officers or Inspectors General. No special training is required. All soldiers know this from the moment they enter military service, even if they didn't learn the difference between right and wrong from their parents.

To get down to specifics: progress has been slower than we would like in some areas, most notably the lack of security. That failure is frequently highlighted by both the media and political activists. Patience is not an American attribute, especially among the political party out of power and anti everything activists. Admittedly, we may need more troops to accomplish what had not been foreseen. If we consider a larger military force, what should we do with them and where will they come from? We could, but it would be unthinkable to lay waste to Iraq, then let survivors pick up the pieces. Closing off infiltration by terrorists from bordering countries, however, should come under consideration. Training larger numbers of Iraqi military and police more quickly to take over security is another.

We still have 70,000 military men and women stationed in Europe under NATO; 40,000 troops in Japan; and 35,000 in South Korea. Some American NATO forces are serving in Afghanistan and a few of our troops have been deployed to Iraq from Korea. We should also send our military forces from NATO and Japan to IRAQ on 90 days temporary duty assignments, rotating them as required. This would be similar to the strategy employed when we sent American NATO forces on temporary duty to engage in the Korean War.

If we are to be properly served, self righteous activists and loud mouthed politicians should come up with specific solutions to problems instead of constant unproductive criticism. We must take what they say with a grain of salt, however, because it's an election year. Perhaps we can convince the media to be more objective. Why have they lost sight of journalistic ethics to present both sides of all arguments? They cannot interview proponents on one side of an issue, then state the opposition could not be interviewed, thereby providing an implication that those who refuse are therefore wrong. Newscasters must delve completely into every story, then present both sides or neither side. Otherwise, it comes off as a biased allegation. What do you think?

To Menu of Articles

California's budget deficit, caused by passing laws that commit too much money to fund programs we can't afford, will force the legislators and the governor to take action. There is no doubt that cutting some of the programs is going to hurt someone. Unfortunately, eliminating specific legislative programs must be made by the legislators who caused the problem. They will look to their staffs and re election committees for guidance, then come up with answers. Not necessarily the answers you want to hear, but those that will further the incumbents' political ambitions.http://www.miracleofedsa.com/Articles.htm

It has been reported that Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger is proposing that the Democratic controlled legislature rescind the California Veterans Cash Benefit Program. This program provides 1700 Filipino World War II veterans with a meager $226 per month for disability benefits. Why has this group again been selected to bite the bullet? Because fewer people will be hurt than would otherwise be by cutting another program? Perhaps! Legislators might believe this is the most expedient way to handle the problem. An underlying thought, however, is that Democratic legislators may think that if a Republican governor proposes the legislation, they can blame it on him and still get your vote even if they rescind the California Veterans Cash Benefit Program. Legislatures pass laws, whether legislators or governors propose them. But, if incumbents thought for one minute you would vote them out of office for rescinding this law they wouldn't even consider the proposal.

What arguments do we have to support the view that to take such action against these veterans would return only a pittance to the State treasury; would be unjust; and perhaps unconstitutional? To get a feel for the situation, we must examine certain events as they unfolded during the last three generations.

First, what was the relationship between the Philippines and the United States before, during and after World War II? By law the Philippines was a commonwealth of the United States, coming into existence as a result of the Tydings McDuffie Bill passed by Congress and signed by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1934. This Bill granted absolute and complete independence to the Philippines by 1944 and provided for an interim commonwealth supervised by the United States with a constitution and a president elected by national vote of the Philippine people. A constitution was adopted, approved by the United States president, and ratified by a plebiscite of Filipino people in May 1935. The commonwealth was established November 15, 1935, with Manuel Quezon as president.

Secondly, on July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt signed an order nationalizing the Armed Forces of the Philippines, appointing General Douglas MacArthur as Commanding General of United States Armed Forces Far East. To be nationalized by presidential order means to be called to active duty the same as military reserve and National Guard units are called to active duty. Therefore, as a commonwealth, the Philippines and it's citizens should have been entitled to the same benefits as citizens of other United States commonwealths which includes all of our semi independent states, though only Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia and Kentucky have officially designated themselves as such.

Finally, in Washington, D.C. on Memorial Day, May 30, 2004, a memorial was dedicated to over 16,000,000 men and women who served in the military during World War II. The 56 pillars surrounding this magnificent structure, represent the 48 states, District of Columbia and seven territories of the United States at that specific time. "Philippines" is engraved on one of the pillars, as are the names of all the other states, territories and district. Hawaii and Alaska have since been voted into statehood, and the Philippines has become an independent country, though arguably independent since June 12, 1898 when it so declared itself. This date was recognized by President John F. Kennedy in 1962 and is celebrated as Philippine Independence Day. But, that's beside the point. What is pertinent is that even now, the Philippines is still officially recognized as having been a territory of the United States during World War II.

Therefore, the Rescission Act of 1946 should be considered unconstitutional. And the passing of that Act by the U.S. Congress denying Filipino veterans of World War II the same benefits provided to all other ethnic American veterans was a flagrant violation of everything that is decent and just. Politicians have repeatedly voiced their promises to correct this injustice. Like unwritten contracts, verbal agreements between constituents and political incumbents, "Aren't worth the paper they're written on." Political promises are designed specifically to get your vote. In this case, it has been going on for fifty eight years with no positive action on the legislators part to actually rescind the Rescission Act of 1946. Will politicians do anything other than make promises as long as they believe you think they have your interest at heart?

Forget about asking the legislatures to make or rescind a law to right an injustice. Politicians recognize one thing, power: Their own power, and the power of large blocks of voters. Exercising your power is the only way to get them to work for you. 1700 Filipino veterans isn't a large enough block of voters to encourage them to do anything. Even if family members and friends of these veterans are included as potential voters, it would make little difference. It would be another story, however, if all Filipino/Americans of voting age would band together on this one issue by pledging to vote against every incumbent now holding office if the California legislation that benefits the World War II veterans is rescinded. Take the same action at national level, pledging to vote against all U.S. legislative incumbents if the Rescission Act of 1946 is not rescinded. Hold legislators fully responsible for what the entire legislatures do, or does not do. For example: If the legislator of the district in which you live is a Republican, vote for his/her Democratic opponent at the next election. And if your legislator is a Democrat, vote for his/her Republican opponent at the next election. Above all, tell them now that's how you are going to vote in November. Also inform Governor Schwartzenegger of your plans. A large voting block of Filipino/Americans that takes action on one issue such as this would be reckoned with at every election thereafter.

Perhaps Filipino/Americans should take an even more drastic step. Why not sue to have the Rescission Act of 1946 overturned in court? It will take time, but some of the veterans of World War II may still be alive. Though they probably won't want to go to college under the GI Bill, these old men will be officially recognized for what they did, and be finally honored and respected for their service as soldiers in the United States Army.

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS May 16, 2004 June 15, 2004
OPINION: The 9/11 and Pearl Harbor Inquiries by Bill Edwards

The media recently published an essay about the inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center/Pentagon, highlighting similarities to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Differences should not, however, be overlooked.

The 9/11 committee members' personalities were exposed to the public on national television while the Pearl Harbor inquiry had little fanfare. National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, was repeatedly interrupted while answering questions. Such a display of outrageous rudeness did not occur during the Pearl Harbor investigation. Some people view it only as investigators upstaging the witness. 9/11 committee members have also appeared on national television talk shows, leading to the suspicion of politicizing the investigation, and/or seeking advanced publicity for the books they plan to write. The 9/11 committee's report is due in July of this year, even as the war against terrorism is still in progress, with no end in sight. The Pearl Harbor investigators had little or no media coverage. The most complete inquiry into the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, was conducted by Congress' "Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack," in 1945-1946 at the end of World War II. Since the present inquiry has been so public, let's discuss the events leading to the December 7, 1941 attack.

Like Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini, Japan had prepared for World War II long before Pearl Harbor. It took control of Manchuria in 1931.In 1937, Japanese forces invaded the main part of China, then moved into Indochina (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam). In 1940, they signed a tripartite agreement with Hitler and Mussolini. When Japan continued its offensive operations in Indochina, President Franklin Roosevelt countered by freezing Japanese assets and declaring an embargo on petroleum and other materials of war. Angered, Japanese accused the United States of sticking its nose into Asian affairs. They did, however, agreed to negotiate.

On November 17, 1941 the Japanese submitted a list of demands: 1) End financial and economic embargoes against Japan; 2) Cease all military and economic aid to China; 3) Recognize Japan's right to full access to the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia); 4) Recognize the puppet government of Manchukuo (Manchuria); 5) Acknowledge Japan's "Greater East Asia Co prosperity Sphere."

President Roosevelt met with his top level advisors on November 25, 1941. Referring to this meeting, the Secretary of War wrote in his diary: "How could the Japanese be got into a situation where they would have to fire the first shot, and without leaving ourselves too exposed?"

American negotiators countered the Japanese demands the next day: 1) Withdraw all Japanese forces from China and Indochina; 2) Agree to joint guarantee of territorial integrity of China; 3) Recognize Chiang Kai shek's Chinese Nationalist Government; 4) Sign a nonaggression pact with the Pacific powers; 5) Adhere to the rules of law and order in its relationship with other countries; 6) Withdraw from the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy.

The Secretary of the Navy sent a message to his department heads on November 27, 1941. "This document is to be considered a war warning. Negotiations with Japan looking toward stabilization in the Pacific have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days."

American negotiators followed the President's orders which left no room for compromise because Roosevelt felt it was in the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Despite Germany's attack on Poland in September of 1939 and the fall of France in June of 1940, the American people were overwhelmingly in favor of neutrality. The media, who sided with Roosevelt, could not change public opinion.

Prime Minister Tojo considered President Roosevelt's actions as acts of war and Japan's only course of action was attack. The United States had military facilities in the Philippines, Guam, Midway Island, Wake Island and Pearl Harbor. The American Pacific Fleet, which had moved to Pearl Harbor from San Diego the year before, would be expected to go to the aid of any American overseas facility under attack. Therefore, Tojo reasoned logically that if they could neutralize the effectiveness of the American Pacific Fleet for a year or two, Japan would have time to consolidated its gains and be in a position to negotiate a settlement with the United States on favorable terms.

That the attack caught the United States off guard was surprising. Army Air Corps General Billy Mitchell had prepared a report for American military staffs which proved that an air attack against Pearl Harbor was not only feasible, but could be accomplished with relative ease. Contrary to popular belief by the people, American Intelligence officers had broken the Japanese code and translated messages that provided positive signs of Japan's intent to attack our overseas military sites. Historians criticized Roosevelt for provoking the attack, but were opposed by the media's military analysts who supported the opposite view, believing Japan could have been expected to attack somewhere, but no one knew where or when.

Penetrating American defenses was not a problem to the Japanese naval task force. The attackers launched 360 planes (torpedo, bomber and fighter) from a position 230 miles north of Hawaii for the attack. The first wave struck at 7:55 A.M. It was followed by a second wave fifteen minutes later also against ships anchored in Pearl Harbor, and the naval air station on Ford Island plus Wheeler and Hickam Army air fields.

The battleship Arizona was destroyed and the Oklahoma capsized. Battleships California, Nevada and West Virginia were sunk in shallow water. Three more American battleships, three cruisers, three destroyers, and several support vessels were damaged. 188 American aircraft were destroyed, another 159 damaged. There were 3400 casualties of which 2300 were killed.

The Japanese losses were minimal, amounting to 29 planes, five midget submarines, a full size submarine and less than 55 men. Admiral Naguma canceled a scheduled third attack against fuel facilities which proved to be a serious mistake.

Of the 127 ships assigned to the American Pacific Fleet, 94 were berthed at Pearl Harbor. Why weren't aircraft carriers among them? It's as though President Roosevelt had anticipated an attack, could survive it, then regroup to take the offensive as long as we had aircraft carriers. As a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt knew of the advances of air power, being privy to the demonstration of Army planes that dropped bombs on an obsolete battleship, sinking it off the U.S eastern coast.Without questioning our government, the media reported the carriers involved in a variety of unrealistic tasks

In comparing 9/11 and Pearl Harbor we should realize: (1) Though there were similar intelligence failures in both cases, the highest American authority was aware of the lucrative military targets at Pearl Harbor as opposed to military installations in the Philippines, Guam, Midway Island or Wake Island. On the other hand, the 9/11 attacks could have been conducted against a hundred potential targets all across the United States rather than the World Trade Center, Pentagon and probably the Capitol Building. (2) The Pearl Harbor inquiry was held without the fanfare of the 9/11 inquiry. (3) The CIA was formed after World War II, but legal barriers placed on the exchange of intelligence information between it and the FBI caused major stumbling blocks. Though bureaucracy will always cause problems, it is likely to remain a part of government. The formation of the Department of Homeland Security is, however, a step in the right direction in preventing future attacks.

Therefore, it would appear there were as many, and perhaps more, pronounced differences than there were similarities between the inquiries. What do you think?

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS April 15, 2004 May 15, 2004
OPINION: Why A Constitutional Amendment? by Bill Edwards

When the mayor of San Francisco ordered his staff to issue licenses and conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, he not only violated the law of California, he opened up a can of legal worms that will haunt our courts for decades. Arrogance, by a man who considers himself above the law, will provide the mayor with the notoriety that will set the stage for his ambitious political future. The media will likely call him, "one of the Democratic party's rising young stars," and he'll be on his way. President Bush requested Congress take action to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriage in countering politically oriented announcements by Mayor Newsom in which he says he was doing it because the California law banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional. Their actions require examination if we are to fully understand the situation. We need: 1) a reminder of the burden that faced our forefathers in giving birth to the U.S. Constitution; 2) highlights of the problems that will entangle our legal system; and 3) a potential solution if we can face up to the realities.

The Constitution, which went into effect in 1789, provided the framework to establish the United States of America. Our country came into existence only with series of great compromises. After declaring independence from England July 4, 1776, then fighting the Revolutionary War, the 13 original colonies became a Confederation of the United States under the Articles of Confederation of 1781. The government of the union, formed during the Revolutionary War, lacked authority to legislate for the country in vital matters and our colonial leaders recognized if we were to survive as a country drastic revisions had to be made.

To accomplish this, a Constitutional Convention opened in 1787 in Philadelphia. Insurmountable problems surfaced immediately. The first pertained to the legislature. One plan called for a bicameral legislature with a House of Representatives elected by popular vote and a Senate elected by House members. This plan did not set well with less populated states because it would have given the more populous states control of the legislature. The second plan, supported by the less populous southern states, favored an unicameral legislature providing equal representation. This wasn't acceptable to northern states as it gave too much power to the lesser populated states. A compromise consisted of establishing a Senate with two Senators for each state and a House of Representatives in proportion to population. Our House of Represenatives is, therefore, democratic, but our Senate is not. Today, two of the most powerful Senators in Congress are from North Dakota and West Virginia, among our lesser populated states. These Senators certainly represent their constituents of North Dakota and West Virginia, but hardly the people of the United States.

Sectional economics brought another compromise that could not be overcome without the framers of the Constitution essentially selling their souls to the devil. To get the approval of less populous southern states, the northern states were required to placate them by agreeing to prohibit the federal government from levying export taxes on southern products like tobacco and cotton, and from interfering with the slave trade before the year 1808.There are those who might argue that acknowledging slavery in the constitution was in itself unconstitutional.

Article I recognized slaves not as free persons, but authorized counting them as threefifths of a person, thereby increasing southern representation in Congress. This compromise to slave states was deemed necessary to gain enough support in order to insure adoption of the Constitution. Otherwise, it was argued, the birth of the United States of America would not happen.

Adoption of the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) was promised as a compromise to those who feared a strong federal government. They were adopted in 1791, almost immediately after ratification of the Constitution itself. Over the next 214 years, there have been seventeen additional amendments.

Political rhetoric opposing President Bush's request say his proposal is the first time the Constitution will ever have been used to take away the rights of individuals. Those allegations don't hold up if they really read the Constitution. Amendment 16, ratified February 3, 1913, states, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes ...." certainly isn't a "right" I would have welcomed if I had had a say in the matter. The 18th Amendment, ratified January 16, 1919, prohibited " ....the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors ...." was not a right given to the people, but one taken away until it was repealed December 5, 1933 by Amendment 21.

Secondly, the legal problems we will face by same sex couples who were declared "spouses for life" in San Francisco ceremonies are enormous. Thirty eight states, including California, ban same sex marriage. In a few years, some of these "spouses for life" will end up in divorce court in one of those states. Property can be adjudicated as it is now between a man and woman who are involved in divorce. But how can a judgment be rendered when alimony becomes a question in same sex marriage? Many courts favor the wife, but who is the wife in a same sex marriage? The same can be said when children are an issue, only more so. They are not property.

Finally, should we agree with a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage? I don't think that's the answer. So, let's consider another approach, which will reduce legal problems. It may even get consideration by parties for banning same sex marriage, as well as those against banning. Of course we should amend the Constitution, not to ban same sex marriage, but to have it authorize legal unions between same sex couples. It must, however, encompass every aspect of that union in a completely legal contract without using the word "marriage." This supreme law, when ratified, would be universally binding in the courts of all 50 states.

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS March 16, 2004 April 15, 2004
OPINION: Politics Of Foreign Policy by Bill Edwards

In this presidential election year, a discussion of some of our foreign military assignments is appropriate in order to rebut the unwarranted statements of political candidates.

In December of 1897, under the guise of protecting American citizens, the United States intervened in Cuba's uprising against Spain. In February of 1898, the battleship USS Maine sunk in the port city of Havana as a result of an explosion, and though never proved one way or the other, sabotage was listed as the probable cause. Relations deteriorated, and in April open hostilities began between the United States and Spain. on May 1st the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay was attacked and destroyed by U.S. Naval Forces under the command of Commodore George Dewey. After its long struggle for freedom, the Philippines declared independence on June 12, 1898. Spain, however, requested a settlement with the United States on July 18, 1898. A peace treaty was signed in Paris on December 10, 1898 in which Spain relinquished control of Cuba, and ceded the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States officially ending the Spanish American War.

That action also started an American military, financial and political occupation of the Philippines that continued for 48 years, with the exception of three years during World War II. The United States had acquired a colonial empire, but this benevolent occupation as it was called by the media created both good and bad feelings among Filipinos. The good feelings were American military forces would protect them against attack; their standard of living would be improved; and democracy would serve them well. The bad feelings were those that develop naturally when freedom the Filipinos had fought to achieve went down the drain, and they were left with only promises to correct this situation as soon as they were capable of taking care of themselves. With the U.S. Naval Forces of Commodore Dewey facing them, could the Filipino leaders disagree with the American solution? "Battleship Diplomacy," had settled the matter, though insurgent uprisings continued against the colonialists.

Filipinos were perceived by the American media as needing the firm hand of a benevolent despot like Uncle Sam to force feed them into becoming a democratic society enjoyed by its citizens on the mainland. The media expressed partisan views, favoring American political leaders, in keeping the people misinformed of our role as a colonial democracy. Power of the press was overwhelming, and public opinion was molded accordingly, except for those who read between the lines. Newspapers could not, or would not, report objectively, slanting their stories in biased opinions that should never have happened in a free society. Nor should the literary and academic communities escape their just deserts. American scholars should study the writings of Jose Rizal (executed by Spain in 1896) and other intellectual Filipino authors of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century telling of their struggle for independence, then provide this newly acquired information to their students.

Another military operation that haunts the United States is called the Vietnam war. Until he defeated Republican Barry Goldwater for re election in 1964, Democrat Lyndon Johnson supported John F. Kennedy's policy of sending military equipment and supplies to the government of South Vietnam, and in providing American advisors to its military forces. Almost immediately after taking his oath of office for a second term, Johnson used the media to justify expanding the war by reporting an attack by North Vietnamese Naval Forces against U. S. Naval Forces in Tonkin Bay. Encouraged by the success of his falsehood, he then sent combat forces to Vietnam to engage the North Vietnamese forces. Military experts warned our political leaders long before Johnson made his fatal mistake. Eisenhower, for example, had said, "Do not commit American military forces to a ground war in Asia." Johnson ignored the advise and President Richard Nixon did not reverse that decision until it was too late. When Nixon finally decided to pull U.S. military forces out of Vietnam, the South Vietnamese Army was no longer the capable fighting force it had once been because the American Army had been doing the fighting for them too long.

In this election year, the Vietnam War has risen to the forefront again. It is being highlighted by the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination. No question about his courageous service in Vietnam. When released from military duty, however, he joined the Jane Fonda anti war movement which was to his political advantage at that time. He testified before Congress; ran for the House of Representatives; then was elected to the Senate. Now he is again talking about his courageous military service in Vietnam. Will he continue to flip flop back and forth to suit political ambitions? Probably, but that isn't important if you understand which way the political wind blows. Some of his remarks, however, bug me. He stated, "I've said since the day I came back from Vietnam that it was not an issue with me if somebody chose to go to Canada or go to jail or be a conscientious objector or serve in the National Guard or elsewhere."

Equating service in the National Guard or being a conscientious objector to the activities of those who fled the country or went to jail rather than be drafted is unacceptable. It condemns many men and women who have served honorably in the United States military forces. Actor Lew Ayers was a conscientious objector, but became a medic in the U.S. Army during World War II, along with others who felt the same way he did about war.

As for the National Guard, let me tell you about my experience with that organization during the Vietnam War. Several years after my tour in Vietnam, I was assigned to the Inspector Generals Office of 9th Air Force in South Carolina. It was our job to inspect all Reserve and National Guard organizations east of the Mississippi River. They were assigned duty as fighterinterceptor, tactical fighter, transport and aerial refueling, and supported the mission of the U.S. Air Force in cold war activities against the Soviet Union, as well as the Vietnam War.

On Thursday, July 18th of 1969, I led a team of inspectors to O'Hare Field in Chicago to perform a four day Administrative Inspection and Operational Readiness Inspection of an Illinois National Guard aerial refueling squadron which had been on active duty for six months the previous year. It had been assigned duty with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to refuel airborne tactical fighter planes stationed in Europe for the cold war defense of those countries.
Two and a half days into the inspection, a general officer, specifically the Chief of the National Guard Service, arrived to present a Presidential Unit Citation to the refueling squadron for outstanding performance while on active duty. The General asked me how the inspection was going. Since we were still twelve hours away from finishing the inspection, I replied, "We're progressing well." He then invited me to sit on the reviewing stand (in a hangar) for presentation of the Presidential Unit Citation.

As Chicago television station cameras rolled and newspapers reporters covered the event, the General told the National Guard Squadron, "I just spoke to the chief of the inspection team and he told me you passed your inspection."

Oh my God! I hadn't told him the squadron had passed their inspection. It wasn't over, and we couldn't make a decision one way or the other until it was. Besides, the information was classified until I notified my headquarters in South Carolina of the results. I sweated the public announcements, scheduled to be aired that evening on Chicago's television news programs. The inspection, however, was preempted by two more important stories. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landing on the moon and Ted Kennedy driving his car off a bridge, accompanied by a female companion who did not survive.

Service in the National Guard, then and now, is not the same as fleeing the country or going to jail to avoid the draft. Many men and women served in world War II, Korea and Vietnam, but never saw combat duty. That does not negate their honorable performance of duty. The remark by the leading Democratic candidate for president was unjustified and will likely come back to haunt him. Military men and women, whether regular, reserve or national guard, and their friends and relatives, will certainly let him know on election day.

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS February 15, 2004 March 15, 2004
OPINION: Is U. S. Military Near Breaking Point? By Bill Edwards

On January 12, 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article from the Washington Post, then followed the next day with an editorial. Both referred to a "scathing report" by a visiting professor to the Army War College or to the Air War College. I couldn't determine which war college was specifically involved. Nonetheless, the Army War College's Strategic Studies issued a disclaimer when it published the essay which said in part that the U.S. was engaged in an "'unnecessary' war in Iraq that has left the Army 'near the breaking point."' Despite the disclaimer that the author's views did not represent those of the Army, Pentagon, or the U.S. government, the headline over the Post's article read, "Army War College report critical of Bush foreign policy."

Have the essay author, the Post writer and the Chronicle editor all jumped to preconceived conclusions? An examination of our worldwide military situation seems appropriate to determine if their thoughts are fully justified, or if their political views have eroded their judgment in a presidential election year.

The United States has stationed military forces in foreign lands since we became an independent nation. These actions have not always been in our best interests, but it is necessary to discuss those that have seemingly become permanent.

Occupying Germany, and stationing American military forces in many other parts of Europe after World war ii was in the interest of our country when first enacted, but has been of questionable value in recent years. Europe was bankrupt as a result of the War, and the USSR posed a threat to peace. To leave western European countries at the mercy of the Soviet Union would have been unthinkable. It served the interests of the United States to have our military forces directly oppose the USSR. Stalin and his successors would otherwise have gobbled up western Europe, and World War III was inevitable. Under the protection of American military forces, and with economic aid provided by the Marshall Plan, the countries of western Europe recovered.

The USSR has disintegrated and, individually, these independent countries do not pose a threat. From a financial standpoint, the nations of Europe are capable of paying for their own defense, whatever those requirements might be. Do the countries of western Europe collectively have sufficient population, finances and raw materials to defend itself? Certainlyt Then why are 70,000 American military forces still there? Our political leaders apparently believe Europeans do not have the will to band together in a collective defensive network without being pushed, cajoled, and bribed into continuing the strong defensive alliance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). American politicians fear: 1) NATO will fall apart unless we support it with money, military forces and leadership; 2) We would be accused of isolationism, and Hitler and Mussolini rose to power between World War I and World War II for that very reason.

Japan, too, was financially strapped at the end of World War II, and the Soviet Union also threatened them, even after our occupation ended. Though it has suffered some financial setbacks in recent years, Japan has the population and financial wherewithal for its own defenses. Inaccessibility to raw materials that plagued Japan isn't the problem it was before World War II. It would now be unthinkable to impose an embargo against that country as President Roosevelt did before we entered the War. No question, it was in the interests of the United States to physically occupy Japan at the end of World War II. But does it now serve our interests? Can American military and political leaders argue that it is still necessary to keep a military force of 40,000 men and women there?

We have also stationed a military force of 35,000 in Korea since the end of that "police action." There is justification for this decision, but the argument is getting weaker. South Korea has twice the population of North Korea and a vibrant economy as compared to the economic shambles of North Korea. The South, however, is facing a million man military force in the Communist North. Has the 35,000 American forces really kept that government from launching an attack against the South as it did in 1950? The Korean Peninsula is much closer to Japan who could and should come to their aid more readily than the United States.

Lastly, though major combat operations have ceased in Iraq the war isn't over. We are there and must continue to fight against terrorist/guerrilla attacks, and we must engage in civil affairs activities to bring about a stable Iraqi government. Is our force of 130,000 enough? Unlike World War II, our men and women will be replaced by fresh troops after a year of service in that country. Many of these replacements are members of reserve and national guard units which have been called to active duty specifically for that assignment.

Almost daily, the media asks visiting experts to explain why our military forces should not pack up and leave, turning everything over to the Iraqis right away. Some of these experts provide common sense advice. Others, especially those with political ambitions, think only of their own interests. A common denominator among many is we need more troops in Iraq. I agree that we do not have all the proper job skills required, but I question increasing the number of troops. For example, civil affairs are available in the reserve and national guard units in the quantities needed, but not in the regular Army.

The Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle, by taking comments of the professor's essay out of context, tell only part of the story. Have they forgotten that media reporting must always be objective, and that includes telling the whole story?

In conclusion, I disagree that the "Army is near the breaking point." We must, however, use military forces more effectively by: 1) Restructuring them to provide for required specialties (civil affairs) in the regular Army, thus eliminating some of our dependency on reserve and national guard units; 2) Send some of our military forces (145,000) in Europe, Japan and Korea to Iraq because their service in those areas is questionable at best.

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS January 15, 2004 February 15, 2004
OPINION: Capital Punishment by Bill Edwards

When the American colonists fought for and won independence, they accepted England's laws, including capital punishment. The way in which we legally put criminals to death has changed since colonial times in the interest of executing people in a more "civilized manner." Hanging and firing squads were the most widely used until the electric chair was invented in 1890. Electrocution stayed with us until recent times, being replaced mostly by the gas chamber, and finally lethal injection, which is now the more accepted method of execution.

Hanging and electrocution, and the gas chamber have all been criticized. Not only were these methods legal forms of torturing the condemned, they offended the sensitivities of witnesses. Shooting by firing squads didn't get as much criticism, but was so bloody it too offended witnesses' sensitivities. Injecting lethal dozes of chemicals into the condemned, however, doesn't make witnesses ill. And it also satisfies their macabre desire to watch the condemned die. How long will this legal method of killing people stay with us? For that matter, how long will the death penalty remain lawful?

It has been assumed that capital punishment stopped for a time due solely to a ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court when, in fact, it ceased because of public disapproval and a reluctance of juries to convict in cases of mandatory death penalties. In 1967 public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to capital punishment, and the Supreme Court abolished it. In 1976 public opinion shifted, and the Supreme Court re-instated it.

The principal argument by advocates is, capital punishment meets society's need for retribution and justice, and it is a deterrent to capital crimes. Abolitionists disagree, stating the punishment is too harsh to serve justice, and it will not deter the committing of heinous crimes.

The scriptures of the world's major religions seem to agree with, "an eye for an eye" advocates while at the same time concurring with abolitionists that, the death penalty— no matter the circumstances— is an immoral punishment. From this dichotomy of thought we must conclude that all scriptures were written by human beings, some accepting, others rejecting capital punishment. Therefore, it isn't possible to go to religious writings to find an answer acceptable to everyone. In searching for solutions, however, we should look at the Oklahoma City bomber's (Timothy McVeigh) execution.

First, overwhelming publicity made McVeigh's execution appear to be a P. T. Barnum three ring circus. Television newscasters interviewed survivors, relatives of the victims, and McVeigh himself. Our government provided 230 reserved seats for survivors and relatives of murdered victims in the Oklahoma City bombing: the news media, friends of McVeigh, and officials to watch this main event. Closed circuit television brought the sight of "humane" 21st century legal killing methods to another 231 witnesses. Television news reporters even interviewed their own people who spoke of, "the arrogance that McVeigh showed in the courtroom was gone when he went into the death chamber." If arrogance was a crime, politicians would form a line from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast for the same punishment as the murderer of 168 innocent people.

Those who witnessed McVeigh's execution universally stated that justice had finally been served. Most of them believed it was right to execute him because he had killed their loved ones, and justice would not otherwise have been served. This argument is similar to the one McVeigh used that he was only retaliating against a government that had burned out think alike Davidians in their Waco, Texas fortress compound. And it is not any different than the one that has kept Palestinians and Israelis at each others throats for an eternity.

Little thought has been given to the effects of witnessing an execution. Will the image of a human being methodically and deliberately put to death with chemicals, one step at a time, gradually fade, then lay dormant within their minds, only to surface later as symptoms of delayed reaction syndrome. They will most assuredly blame their emotional suffering on losing their loved ones. But they must consider the emotional distress that has plagued military men throughout history may have taken hold of them in a similar manner. Killing someone or just seeing someone die, whether in war or deliberately put to death can be a distressing emotional shock. It can result in incapacitating mental disorders. No matter how often witnesses say to themselves, "Our government finally gave us justice by taking the life of that mass murderer," one thought will gnaw at their subconscious. "I gave them permission to kill that man and I am, therefore, an accessory to execution."

Does a cold blooded killer deserve the same fate as his victim? Of course he does. No one questions that it is wrong for one human to kill another. But isn't it just as wrong for governments to put humans to death? The condemned are restrained by our agents who deliberately and methodically put them to death. And we watch this barbaric procedure. or we can't bring ourselves to watch it, but do nothing and say nothing. Nor do we vow not to let it continue, because they deserved to die. Isn't this a throwback to a time long ago when getting even was accepted as the only way to right the wrong of killing another human? A way we now think of as inhumane and uncivilized? Can we as a nation—or as citizens consider—ourselves more humane and civilized than those people of the past?

Do we still have capital punishment because we can't come up with better method to carry out justice? Life in prison without parole is accepted by abolitionists, but not by advocates of capital punishment. There are, however, two alternatives that might satisfy everyone except those with minds closed so tightly new ideas cannot seep in. These method of serving justice could be used for the most heinous offenses while keeping life without parole for lesser crimes.

The first alternative would be to modify life in prison without parole to confinement at hard labor for life without parole. That sentence would include the absence of communications with the outside world, ie: letter, radio, television, computer, telephone and visitation, except under strict limitations when earned by the prisoner after lengthy confinement.

The second alternative would be to banish the condemned from civilization—all civilization, no matter how primitive—to a place so isolated that those sentenced would be required to struggle every moment they are awake in order to survive. Most would probably hold out only a few weeks, some might hang on to life for years, if that is the will of God. It must be a place from which no one can escape, and where contact with the outside world is impossible.

Where could we find such a place? Outer space is a likely choice, but the cost would be prohibitive. Antarctica comes to mind next. The Supreme Court would likely consider that as cruel and unusual punishment, the same high tribunal which ruled that the legal killing of a human being is not cruel.

The tropics should be ruled out because the climate is too pleasant. There are, however, isolated uninhabited islands near the Arctic and Antarctic Circles (those imaginary lines around the globe at 66 degrees 30 minutes north and south of the equator) that would fit the criteria for total isolation. And these would require prisoners' every waking moment be devoted to survival.

If accepted, two unwavering restrictions must be established and followed religiously. First, prisoners sentenced to banishment should be the only humans on these islands. Secondly, no one from the outside world should be able to get to them.

Why are we still allied with Russia, China, Libya, Iran, Cuba, Chile and Saudi Arabia when our closest allies have abandoned capital punishment? it is long past time when our degree of civilization should catch up with our advanced technology.

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS December 15, 2003 January 15, 2004
OPINION: How TWIN VENDETTA Was Born by Bill Edwards

In the summer of 1942, I was assigned to military duty at the Aviation Cadet Classification Center in San Antonio, Texas. It was a city of tents where we (aviation cadets) lived while waiting to be designated bombardier, navigator or pilot trainees. I was certain I would be selected for pilot training because I already had a year and a half service in the United States Army Air Forces as an airplane mechanic. That was not to be. A captain on the classification board asked me, "How are you going to see over the nose of the plane when you taxi for takeoff?" I thought it was a stupid question, but a lowly aviation cadet did not give an almighty captain his opinion. So the "exigencies of the service" demanded I be trained as a bombardier, then as a navigator to fill air crew requirements for the on coming B 29 bombers.

After getting my silver wings (bombardier at Midland, Texas and navigator at Hondo, Texas) I eventually ended up flying B 29's from air bases in India and China against Japanese targets in occupied Asian countries. Later, we moved to the Mariana Islands (Tinian, Guam and Saipan) for combat air operations against the Japanese homeland.

I submitted five applications and served nine years in the U.S. Air Force (Army Air Corps/Army Air Forces) before finally getting my wings as a fighter pilot a few months before the start of the Korean War, then flew military airplanes another twenty one years.

Military service is a learning experience, some good, some bad. I was inspired by a poem written by a nineteen year old American killed in World War II while flying a Spitfire fighter plane with the Royal Air Force. It was one of my good learning experiences.

"High Flight"
"Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
"And danced the skies on laughter silvered wings;
"Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
"Of sun split clouds and done a hundred things
"You have not dreamed of wheeled and soared and swung
"High in the sunlit silence. Hovering there,
"I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
"My eager craft through footless halls of air.
"Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
"I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
"Where never lark, or even eagle flew.
"And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
"The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
"Put out my hand, and touched the face of God."

John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

The poem, and its author, are among some of the important things that will stay with me the rest of my life. Insignificant items also remained in my mind, like how my uncle changed the date on his birth certificate so he would be under the maximum age limit for pilot training during World War II. I often wondered what I might have done had I known about changing the date on birth certificates when I graduated from high school at the age of 17 years, a few months before Germany attacked Poland to start World War II.

After retiring from the U.S. Air Force, I started writing fictional stories. Among my earliest novels was a series for young adults (teens) with the thought of what if I had changed the date on my birth certificate so I would have been old enough in 1939 to join the Royal Canadian Air Force which was then in critical need of pilots. Entitled, "The Spitfire Kid and the Desert Fox," The Spitfire Kid and the Foxy Imp," The Spitfire Kid and the Sinister Mole," and "The Spitfire Kid and the Gray Wolf," the series was nearly published by a large publishing house, but ownership changed hands, and my Spitfire Kid series was dropped.

I went on to write fictional novels for adults, working with a literary agent for about five years. Nothing ever came of that relationship except I received mountains of rejection slips from publishers. As I was working on, "The Miracle of EDSA," my first published book, and waiting for comments from literary editors who were editing my draft manuscripts, I re read the Spitfire Kid series. That reading convinced me the Foxy Imp's story was considerably more dramatic than the Spitfire Kid's story.

It was the beginning of, "Twin Vendetta." I re wrote the four young adult books into an adult novel with the Foxy Imp (Louisa Dumas) as the female protagonist and the Spitfire Kid (Frank Miller) as the male protagonist, shifting back and forth from her point of view to his point of view at appropriate times as the story unfolded. I wrote and re wrote again and again, then had the manuscript edited by a Canadian editor in Toronto before final editing by Falcon Books for publication.

"Twin Vendetta," is a fast paced tale that moves from the fall of France in World War II to military operations in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, then to clandestine intelligence activities behind enemy lines in Germany. It's the story of a young French/Irish Canadian woman's insurmountable struggle to avenge the strafing death of her twin brother by German fighter pilots. It also delves into the secret thoughts of a young German American man who takes up the call to arms in the Royal Canadian Air Force to salve guilt feelings about his Nazi father's activities.

The protagonists complement one another as a "two man" team of Spitfire fighter pilots in combat against Messerschmitt pilots supporting Allied air and ground operations. Some of the most profound fighter and fighter bomber combat of World War II is highlighted in this tale of the war effort in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. It is also the story of Louisa's bitter sweet first love and her fear of identity revelation. She is finally unmasked during treatment for near fatal wounds, then learns of Frank's secret life when they travel to Germany on a critical espionage mission.

This novel challenged my story telling ability from beginning to end. I hope I've met that challenge. You tell me: Check my web site www.twinvendetta.com for more information. It is also available at Barnes & Noble bookstores.

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS November 15 December 15. 2003
OPINION: Head Buried In Sand? by Bill Edwards

An ostrich like attitude of burying ones head in the sand regarding the Iraqi situation is more prevalent today than it was before the war began against Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. It thrives among extreme left wing activists who refuse to hear opposition arguments. It is flaunted by politicians promoting their own ambitions, and it is embedded in the minds of other poor souls who can't face reality. What I say here will not change their minds, but it may enlighten those who hate the tirades of extreme left wing and extreme right wing radicals.

As a life long student of history, and of political and military science, I could not nor could anyone have made a sound judgment about the wisdom of an attack against Iraq without being privy to top secret intelligence information. Nonetheless, speculation based solely on preconceived emotional ideas about the Bush administration's decision are still rampant. A common sense evaluation of the likely consequences of these actions would be more effective.

President Bush chose to ignore opposition arguments, and now we know the consequences. Or do we? Saddam Hussein was deposed, and though qualified weapons inspectors are still searching, they have not found stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. In the minds of left wing critics, therefore, the weapons do not, or did not exist. Have these critics also determined that because we haven't found Saddam Hussein he, too, does not or did not exist? "Of course not," they would reply, "there's no analogy between our conclusion concerning weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein simply because American inspectors have found neither.

Does that mean weapons of mass destruction did not exist when the U.S. engaged in open warfare with Saddam Hussein's military forces? Give it some thought while considering these likely possibilities: the weapons probably did exist, but are still hidden; or they have been shipped to Syria; or have been placed in the hands of terrorists. No one should doubt that, though American critics lack patience, Saddam Hussein is a master of this perhaps his only virtue. If the critics opened their minds to possibilities of what could happen if we don't find weapons of mass destruction, it would ignite fear in their hearts. Then, they would demand the search be intensified. But their closed minds will have them saying, "We were right. Nothing is going to happen to us!"

The 9/11 disaster proved we can be attacked by terrorists taking advantage of security shortcomings in our open society. Let's examine one of those shortcomings. Of the million cargo containers that enter the Port of Oakland, California each year few are inspected. Hundreds of thousands of containers used to smuggle illegal contraband, among legal commodities, into the United States could also contain terrorists' (Saddam Hussein's) chemical and biological weapons. Add these figures to the cargo containers entering all Pacific, Atlantic, Gulf Coast and Great Lakes ports, and the numbers are staggering. Weapons that kill human beings by the tens of thousands (mass destruction) may have already been smuggled into the United States and stored all across our country. In addition to military casualties continuing in Iraq, clandestine attacks in this country with terrorists using stored chemical and biological weapons are the next logical step. Why hasn't it happened? Patience, it willl The same reasons that caused the 9/11 disasters still exist. Muslim extremists hate the American way of life and are dedicated to destroy it and us.

Though major military operations in Iraq have been concluded, does that mean the war is over? No way! critics have, however, jumped on the President's words and twisted them to satisfy their own preconceived ideas. Hostilities will continue as long as supporters (voluntary and involuntary) of Saddam Hussein believe he may come back. He will return to power if we pull out of Iraq before the job is finished, and that's why they are now conducting terrorist activities.

Before our attack, Saddam Hussein was waiting for the United Nations to exhaust its patience with inspections. Then, he was going to renew his nuclear weapons program. Which brings on the question, what would likely have been the consequences if President Bush had listened to opposition arguments and hadn't attacked Iraq? Later—how much later?—we would have discovered that Iraq had indeed developed nuclear weapons as well as stockpiling quantities of chemical and biological weapons. Though Saddam Hussein would have had the means to deliver them by missile or aircraft against neighboring countries, he would have been required to use clandestine operations against the United States. When he was ready, the Iraqi dictator would have used terrorists to attack Israel and the United States with chemical and biological weapons. Israel would have responded to such an attack without waiting for the time consuming positive proof that the terrorists involved were associated with Iraq. Israeli death toll would mount as a result of chemical and biological weapons attacks, and would therefore require a quick response. The fastest and most deadly counter attack would be with nuclear weapons. And Israel will not hesitate to use them if her survival is at stake. This would bring retaliation from Iraq with nuclear weapons. And where will that lead?

Unfortunately, our casualties continue to climb since major military operations have ceased. But they would have been far greater if we had waited for Saddam Hussein to attack us. Our preemptive attack was unthinkable to many, but not to those who have, or have had, responsibility for the lives of scores, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of men and women outside their immediate family. It may be distasteful, but it was sound military strategy. Faced with an attack against the United States that would inflict injury and death on enormous numbers of Americans in our homeland erases any thoughts of a preemptive attack as an unthinkable course of action. Besides, why call it preemptive when we announced the attack in advance? It should be called a defensive first strike against a known aggressor.

The question is the same today as the one President Franklin Roosevelt faced before December 7, 1941. Europe had been at war for over two years, and Roosevelt knew the United States should become involved. He was almost universally supported by a favorable media, but overwhelmingly opposed by the American people. Our military intelligence had already broken the Japanese secret code (despite dramatic movie scenes that depict otherwise) and received ample warning that Japan was going to attack American military forces. Our military strategy should have focused on American Army and Naval facilities and vessels anchored in Pearl Harbor because just such an attack had been spelled out by General Billy Mitchell years before. He had reported why it would be a Japanese target and how they could accomplish it successfully. Roosevelt had two choices: conduct a preemptive attack against Japan or wait until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He chose the latter.

What if President Roosevelt had decided to act first? What would have been acceptable to the American people: order a first strike against Japan; attack the Japanese naval task force before it launched its airplanes; or wait until they were airborne en route to Pearl Harbor? None of the above! The American people, however, accepted Roosevelt's decision and threw their heart and soul into World War II without knowing the truth contained in topsecret intelligence documents. Even now, most Americans refuse to believe the revered President Roosevelt would let such a dastardly thing as "Pearl Harbor" happen to American military men and women. Is that what the opposition to a first strike against Iraq would have wanted? Once was enough, wasn't it, or have they learned nothing from Pearl Harbor? Yet, that is what would have happened if President Bush had followed the advice of misinformed, misguided left wing extremists, or self centered political opponents, or poor souls who yearn so much for peace they cannot comprehend the thoughts that radical terrorists, including sympathizers and supporters, all over the world hate us and our way of life. Do we need any more information to know what Saddam Hussein would have done, considering his past actions? A common sense decision, based on likely consequences, required a first strike, or a preemptive attack if you still want to call it that.

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS October 16 November 15, 2003
OPINION: Tom Brokaw's Greatest Generation by Bill Edwards

Admiration of his father, and his father's contemporaries (which includes me), for overcoming extraordinary demands of life was likely responsible for Tom Brokaw calling us, "The Greatest Generation." Though we were faced with some of the most profound challenges in history, I have never thought of us in that way. We grew up during the Great Depression of the nineteen thirties, only to be thrust into World War II, the most devastating war known to mankind. Many young men survived the first, but not the second tragedy. Those that didn't come home knew happiness only briefly in their short lives. Americans of today do not understand the poverty and hardship of the Great Depression. Relating a few personal experiences while growing up at that time may shed some light on Tom Brokaw's thoughts.

In the summer of 1932, my father lost his business (auto repair garage in Pennsylvania) after the stock market crash of October 1929 threw the country into a deep depression. Twenty five percent of all American workers had no job, and those who did worked for meager wages as a result of severe deflation. Unable to find a job, my dad hopped a freight train headed west, hoping the opportunity for work in California would be better. We soon lost our home, so my mother, older brother, younger sister and I joined Dad in Los Angeles shortly before Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed office as President of the United States in 1933.

Jobs were also scarce in California. My parents did anything to make ends meet, Mother working in a garment factory and Dad repairing cars in the yard alongside our house. Our rent was only $10 a month, but we struggled to get that much together. There were no food stamps or rental subsidies, and other government assistance programs were almost non existent. Poor people of my youth would have considered poor people of today (poverty line is now at $18,362 per year for a family of four) as well off. My brother, Johnny, and I worked for our dad after school, on Saturday, and Sunday when necessary. Dad couldn't afford a hoist, so Johnny (thirteen years old) and I (eleven years old) each took hold of a side of the Model T Ford engine, then Dad grabbed the front end and guided it into position. My brother and I developed strong muscles which was good, but we were forever cutting our hands on sharp objects when wrenches slipped off rusty bolts. Scars, still visible today, remind me of the stories behind them and my hatred of the filthy dirt.

Johnny and I joined the Boy Scouts, attending activities at night, and an occasional week end. We also got a week camping during school vacation, the highlight of my childhood.

In 1935 things improved a little because of a veteran's bonus my dad received for his service in World War I. He bought a building (former tire shop) on Firestone Boulevard, east of Central Avenue, just north of Watts. This became our new home. My mother still worked in a garment factory, my sister cared for the house and Dad repaired cars in the yard. Again my brother and I worked for him after school, on Saturday, and sometimes Sunday. Same story: hard work, long hours, cut hands and grimy dirt. Johnny and I were now doing the work of grown men which earned us room and board, but little more. Dad paid us when he could afford it (25 cents a week). The money was enough to take in a movie on Sunday afternoon (clean baby faces got us in for ten cents until the cashier discovered we were going to high school). Dad took other work when it was available. One job required the delivery of handbills (flyers) to residences for $2.00 a thousand. My brother and I helped him on that one too, getting up at 4:00 A.M. and working until time for school. Our "new" house had no running water, and I could not enjoy a meal when I was filthy dirty. So I carried water in a bucket filled from an outside faucet, heated it on the gas stove, then poured it into a galvanized tub in the bathroom. When finished scrubbing myself clean, I emptied the tub into the toilet. Then I ate dinner.I was 16 years old in the summer of 1938 when Dad got another temporary second job at night, guarding a wrecking or junk yard (auto salvage yard) on 100th Street east of Central Avenue in Watts. Electronic security was unknown then, and junk yards were usually protected by German Shepherd dogs which were confined in old cars during the day, then let out at night. Potential thieves didn't dare enter, knowing full well those dogs would have torn intruders to pieces. Apparently we got the job because the junk yard owner couldn't afford a skilled worker (German Shepherd dog). I worked the swing shift and Dad took the graveyard shift. Only a few people can claim having had a job as a junk yard dog, but I did not list it on my resume' among prior work experiences.

My brother had already left home, joining the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), then enlisting in the U.S. Army. I tried to join the Navy after graduating from high school in 1939, but was put off until my eighteenth birthday. I had picked up a bad cold when the Navy called me to take a physical examination, and my enlistment was delayed again.

When I got rid of my cold, I had a good job with Douglas Aircraft Company in Santa Monica at 32 1/2 cents an hour as a mechanical draftsman. I had taken a vocational course of instruction in architectural drafting in high school, so they accepted me. And believe me, that was a good job. At last, I was working for someone who paid me every week. And I wasn't filthy from grease and dirt when the day was over. Heaven? I couldn't stand the confinement of an office. Therefore, I enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps right after New Year's Day of 1941. The salary was $21.00 a month, plus room and board.

My first duty assignment after completing basic training (boot camp) was to attend airplane mechanics school at Chanute Field, near Chicago. The highlight of that duty was seeing the Chicago Bears play the College All Stars in an pre season exhibition game. I actually got in Soldier's Field free because I was in uniform, a light weight summer uniform. A cold wind sent shivers down my spine, but I didn't mind. Sid Luckman shredded the All Stars defenses with his passing. I've always loved the Windy City because of the way Chicagoans respected members of the armed forces. Imagine me living near San Francisco now?

After graduating from airplane mechanics school, I returned to my permanent duty station at Salinas, California. On December 7, 1941, after playing tennis with friends in the morning, we went to a movie. The box office cashier told us to report back to duty. That was the end of the Great Depression. We were at war!

To Menu of Articles

THE PHIL AM PRESS 09/15/03 10/15/03
OPINION: The Big Lie by Bill Edwards

The Big Lie, so effectively used by Hitler, is at work again. Tell a lie, make it a whopper, then repeat it often enough and it becomes the truth to those who hear or read nothing contradictory. Many—perhaps most—Muslims outside the United States learn about Americans and the 9/11 attacks exclusively from Arab media. The one sided newscasts have spread everywhere, even to the United States. San Francisco has picked up these Arab news programs, broadcasting them in English'Monday through Friday, on satellite channel World Line TV in what its producers call news of the Middle East. Information presented is derived directly from A1Jazeera, the Arab News Network, and networks in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan and the United Arab Emerites. Biased news programs have reported that Jordanian and Egyptian educators and authors speculate it was American intelligence agencies who plotted the attacks of 9/11. The local San Francisco programs are produced by a Palestinian and an Israeli who say it should be shown exactly as originally presented in the Arab world because, "Our viewers are intelligent enough to know the news is coming with a slant." In San Francisco?

Americans are often accused of knowing little or nothing about Islam, and in not understanding those who practice this religion. That is probably true, but what can you expect? The media largely publicizes only the activities of fanatic Muslims. Fanatics are fanatics, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew and, despite media attention, Americans do not arbitrarily discriminate against Muslims as a group, though the actions and appearance of some of them will likely bring looks of askance.

In Georgia, on the first anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, three college students from the Middle East played a joke on an American woman who they thought was eyeing them suspiciously. Speaking in English, they pretended to discuss a pending attack that would rival the world Trade Center disaster. These students then got in their car and continued their misguided sense of humor by driving past a highway toll booth without stopping, resulting in their arrest. They were released without being charged.

When the media reports that Americans don't understand Muslims, they should also report that Muslims do not understand Americans. Several months ago, Dan Rather interviewed merchants, businessmen and teachers in Pakistan. All expressed views that the 9 11 attack on the World Trade Center was planned and executed by Jews. They cited as evidence, reports by Al Jazeera and Arab News Networks that the 1800 Jews who were employed at the World Trade Center had failed to show up for work the morning of September 11, 2001. Those of Jewish faith who actually lost their lives in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center were omitted entirely from these biased Arab media newscasts. Is objectivity in reporting news a lost cause in the Arab world? Unfortunately, many American newscasters also offer one sided reports or even editorialize news coverage. News directors must insure that newscasters cover both sides of an issue objectively and with equal attention, assigning editors to editorial comments.

What about the Muslim community in the United States? Most are loyal, but some have become clandestine members of terrorist groups such as the al Qaeda. Those who've been detained by authorities for investigation are supported by their relatives, friends and neighbors who believe them innocent of any terrorist charges. There are a few Americans who think they should be hung, but the overwhelming majority willingly await a decision by an impartial jury. Suspicions will continue to be aroused among an uninformed public, however, unless the Muslim community takes po