Re: Rewriting History

[<DELGADOGUINDIN@aol.com>]

Chico, 

The Army review, if you read it, points to facts that must have had an impact on the incident at Jackson Heights.  I have spoken to various members of the 65th and they all pointed out that Jackson Heights was capable of being taken, but impossible to hold. The conditions on the heights, e.g. lack of adequate cover, to name one, contributed to numerous casualties inflicted by a tremendous amount of enemy artillery. The veterans said that the heights were over 1,000 meters from the MLR and thus was not supportable by friendly troops. It seemed to many that the enemy would purposefully allow the U.S. troops to take the heights and then subject them to murderous artillery.  The issue was not that the 65th did not advance or that they did not take Jackson Heights. It was more like not staying in a place that was suicide and an objective that made no sense to hold.

But what I find interesting is that this incident, involving 90+ men is sometimes used to discredit the honor and accomplishments of a 4,000+ unit.  Fairness would be served if you would also speak to the other numerous instances in which U.S. troops ran for their lives in order to fight another day. On one occasion they called it "attacking in the opposite direction."

I wish you could speak to just one of the men that was at Jackson Heights and look him in the eye as he educates you to what happened.

Jose Delgado