Talk:Tiger Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... United States military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tiger Force article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 isn't there any 'pushback' on this story? 2 Cited before created? 3 Too restrictive page ? 4 Citation not given? 5 Rank 6 Links (names of unit members) 7 Tiger Force 8 A snapshot 9 Substantial changes to discussion of war crimes, and reorganization of Notes, Works Cited, and External links sections

[edit] isn't there any 'pushback' on this story?

When I read about the claims surrounding "Tiger Force," I find myself thinking of the similar bogus stories such as the incident in the Korean War at No Gun Ri or CNN's infamous "Tailwind" story (where they alleged the US used sarin on defectors in Laos during the Vietnam conflict). I also find myself thinking that a lot of the claims sound very similar to bogus ones put forward by some of the losers that were exposed in the book "Stolen Valor." This being said, I would be interested to know what the Army investigators' reports said and not just what the reporters pushing this story implied happened.

I think I can believe that a unit ran amok (happened at My Lai). I just find myself wondering why a bunch of its veterans would be trumpeting their involvement in atrocities 30 years after the fact

"Some reports by former members of this unit state that the soldiers wore necklaces composed of human ears."

It would be nice to have a source to cite for this. 134.114.59.41 09:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In the "Notes" section of the book Tiger Force, Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss provide the text of numerous sworn statements from solders and other documentation recorded by the Army investigators. This documentation provides unambiguous historical evidence for the claims that, for a period of time, team leaders and members of the Tiger Force unit routinely ordered and committed war crimes.

Sallah and Weiss also obtained a large amount of information from recent personal interviews of members of the Tiger Force unit during the time the atrocities took place, as well as their families and friends. These interviews corroborate the results of the Army investigation.

In response to your question, this is some of the documentation provided by Sallah and Weiss that some members of the Tiger Force unit collected human ears and wore necklaces composed of human ears:

CARPENTER: We were nearing a hillside in the Song Ve Valley while walking on a foot trail when Ybarra fired his M16 twice. As soon as we heard the shots we took defensive positions, then Sgt. Edge and I went over to Ybarra, who was kneeling over a Vietnamese boy. The body had blood all over its head and a large portion of the head was missing as a result of being shot twice by Ybarra. As I got to Ybarra, he was holding a hunting knife in one hand and a human ear in his other hand. While I was watching, I saw Ybarra cut the remaning ear from the dead body. Ybarra put both of these ears into a ration bag that he had taken from his jacket pocket. While he opened his ration bag, I could see that there were several human ears in it also. Ybarra replaced the bag of ears into his pocket just as calmly as he removed it.

QUESTION: Why was Ybarra permitted to cut this boy's ears off?

CARPENTER: Cutting the ears off of the dead was an accepted practice within the Tiger Force. By accepted practice, I mean it was accepted by the men in the field that were actually doing the fighting.

(Sworn witness statement of Specialist William Carpenter on January 18, 1973. Reproduced by Sallah and Weiss on pages 335-336. Obtained by Sallah and Weiss from the National Archives in College Park, MD. My emphasis.)

QUESTION: Do you remember him (Ybarra) in possession of a string of human ears or gold teeth?

MILLER: I remember that quite a few of the Tiger Force members had such a collection .... Collection of ears and cutting off ears from the dead was done in Tiger Force, but I had no fascination for such things, and had no contact with anyone who did so.

(Sworn witness statement of Sergeant Forrest Miller on January 18, 1974. Reproduced by Sallah and Weiss on page 371. My emphasis.)

Investigation disclosed that between Jun.-Nov. 67 at unknown dates and locations, Ybarra on numerous occassions cut ears from dead VN bodies; posessed a set of human ears and a jar containing two ears; possessed a string with human ears which he wore on several occasions around his neck and a gag with 15-20 gold teeth, suspected to have been removed from dead bodies.

        Investigation also disclosed an undetermined number of TFRP members ... were observed in possession of human ear, scalp, and gold teeth collections ...

(The "Report of Investigation" on the Tiger Force case by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division. Reproduced by Sallah and Weiss on page 383. My emphasis.)

There was a period of time when just about everyone had a necklace of ears.

(Statement by medic Larry Cottingham to CID investigators in 1973. Quoted by Sallah and Weiss on page 335. My emphasis.)

The evidence above demonstrates that the following claims in bold below are either false, unsubstantiated, or irrelevant:

For a short time in 1967, the unit was accused, and investigated of committing various war crimes, including indiscriminate attacks, rape, mutilation, and torture. Some reports by former members of this unit state that the soldiers wore necklaces composed of human ears. These particular charges where refuted. However, as the Operation Tailwind episode [1], the disputed No Gun Ri incident of the Korean War [2], and B.G. Burkett's book Stolen Valor [3] show claims about atrocities made decades after the alleged events took place cannot be taken at face value. There where [sic] many reports saying just the opposite, from much more reliable sources within the unit. While the Army gave credence to these reports refuting some of the more outrageous claims, investigative reporters from the Toledo Blade spent a significant amount of time and effort investigating various claims of wrongs committed.

I will therefore remove these claims (in bold).

AviN1 05:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cited before created?

First paragraph: How did they get a citation before they existed?

Formed in May of 1967 but cited in 1966? -Jeff

[edit] Too restrictive page ?

I found that page : http://www.tigerforcerecon.com/. It seems that "Tiger Force" still exists since Vietnam ? 81.67.39.165 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation not given?

I found this page http://www.answers.com/topic/tiger-force-1 that contains the EXACT same wording and pictures as this article. Neither article cites the other one.

That's because Answer.com copies everything from Wikipedia.--James Bond 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rank

As commisioned officers shouldn't LTs be listed before SGTs as LTs out rank SGTsBushido Brown 06:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links (names of unit members)

The links to William Carpenter and Charles B. Fulton points to non-related persons. Charles B. Fulton (the one linked to) would have been a very old soldier, as he would have been close to 60 years old at that point in time. Why have all the names linked, when there are no information about the individual members except for two of them? Make the names links when there is information about them. 70.244.173.235 05:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger Force

I am a Tiger force veteran. I know many of the men who served during that time. I run the Tiger Force web site. Much of what was reported in the Blade articles was writen with en eye to sensationalism. the authors virtually wrote a novel. for instance, in the book, there is a description ofwhat was supposed to be going on in one soldier's mind. The man died a long time before the authors even heard about Tiger Force, and never discussed any of his feelings with anyone. that sort of writing is nolonger a report, itis a novel. It is fiction. the book and article did only the most venial and mean spirited of harm to the history, reputation and honor of a unit that behaved in the most couragious and honorable manner. It is a fact that Tiger Force is the ONLY platoon sized element in the entire US armed forces to have been awarded two Medals of Honor. Several of the highest leaders in the military came from Tiger Force, a unit that lived up to it's original founding concept, to be the best amongst those who excell. One final observation: I have had to endure hundreds of hate letters, and foul language entries on our old guest book. All of those posts where done by childish people who never served in any military force. They have no real experience with how ugly things can get. They have no idea what our men and women of the armed forces are enduring NOW.

Many of us from that era went on to become productive members of a country that little respected or appreciated our sacrifices. I practiced Emergency Medicine until I retired, several are scientists, many are business owners. At least two that I know personally are PHD's in either literature or history. Yet for some reason, the only guys interviewed were men who are broken, severly sticken with PTSD, and who's stories when not documented, where questionable. Hank. Medic, Tiger Force, 1968/69 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hankpac (talk • contribs) 09:38, October 25, 2006.

Like Hank, I joined Tiger Force after the supposed incidents. I hope that several of the more eloquent vets who were with the Tigers during the period of supposed atrocities sign in and comment. To distill both my views and some of the comments I've heard from reliable vets who were there: --I believe there were some form of atrocities commited by individual members of Tiger Force during that limited period. BUT I believe the book exaggerates the nature and extent of these atrocities and descends into psychobabble trying to explain these isolated episodes and then creates an exagerated description of them--both due to pre-set agendas of the writers as well as questiuonable first hand accounts. --Harold Trout--accused in the book of murder, rape etc was an outstanding soldier in my experience during a period after the supposed war crimes. A professional. I would never have thought him capable of the actions described. I saw him interact with civilians during the Tet offensive--he was never less than professional. --Jimmy Haugh in the book sounds like an amateur soldier. In fact, he was among the best I ever served with, up to his death in '68 in a firefight. Based on accounts I had heard before the publishing of the book, his supposed wanton murder of a civilian--described as a close quarters killing in the book--was in fact an 800 meter sniper shot in which a farmer carrying a tool looked like he was carrying a weapon. Jimmy did ultimately kill that farmer, but it was an honest mistake that cost him severely mentally. --The book makes the farmers in the Valley that were the targets of Tiger Force sound like innocent people whose ancestral love of the land kept them in the Valley despite the VN government's edicts that they move (a mission assigned to Tiger Force and other 1/327 units to carry out). In fact, at least one veteren of the period reports that stay behind recon units saw many civilians mingling with and assisting the North Vietnamese Army and one of the reporters who went to Vietnam to interview Vietnamese "victims" reportedly admitted that a number of the people conceded to being VC. Neither of these facts are related in the story. These "civilians" were not necessarily innocents. --The book fails to depict Tiger Force as an efficient combat unit and only focuses on atrocities and depicts an out-of-control bunch of guys with guns. In fact, there were a number of impressive individual combat operations conducted during that period, including a spectacular one in which a small Tiger Force element infiltrated NVA rear units and killed senior North Viet army personnel. None of these positive examples are described in the book--only the negatives are related.

While many of we 101st veterans concede some bad things appear to have happenend in that valley, the specifics and the causes are not nearly as clear cut as the book would suggest.

I would further point out that soldiers are prone to exaggeration when talking to non-vets (I barely believe myself), so some of the more sensational first-hand accounts should be viewed with healthy skepticism.

The Tiger Force described in the book is nothing like the one I saw, despite many of the same personnel being involved.

Ron Christian Tiger Force '68Rchristian101327 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your feelings. See, we have a this problem that we must stick to verifiable sources. Naturally we can use your official site among our sources. To show your POV better it would be useful if you quoted the released Army material on your site for example so any critical reader can himself see through the subject on his own.

It is often hard to believe claims of attrocities commited by people you know or from institutions you have been part of. In Germany we had in recent times very frequent and unfortunately true reports about our soldiers like extreme humilitation (Abu Ghureib style as "counter torture training") of simple recruits by NCOs in Germany or soldiers abusing skulls (also sexually) in Afghanistan. I was in this club for some months like many others and actually it was hard to believe for us. A former classmate and some acquaintances (none of them charged) were even down there. Somehow it was really hard to believe these reports to be true first.

A different case was a very popular teacher at my school (whom I and my others greatly admired). He was convicted guilty for raping his minor daughter for several years.

Collecting human ears is an old military tradition. It shouldn't be carried on in modern times. On the other hand would you piss off an comrade in arms who saves your back if he wants to collect?Wandalstouring 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A snapshot

If one was to view your life and worth from a single snapshot of your worst and most regretable moment rather than a video of your entire life experience, what would you say? I served as CO and XO of the Tiger Force from June 66 to Feb.67, and to the day I die will cherish the memories of the honorable men with whom I served, the victories God gave us over our ruthless enemy, AND the manner in which we dealt with the innocent South Vietnamese. Whatever happened later in 1967 will surely never be known. Somewhere between what the novelists described and outraged vets profess lies the truth. Wherever it falls, it is not good and a blemish on the record of the Tiger Force established by the blood, sweat, toil and tears of many good and decent men. I say what you would say. Judge the Tiger Force from its inception in 1965 through this very moment in Iraq, and pay some deserved respect to those who had nothing to do with its only blemish. We, even more than you, find whatever happened reprehensible. John Carey Phuhu1 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substantial changes to discussion of war crimes, and reorganization of Notes, Works Cited, and External links sections

I have made a large number of changes to the Tiger Force article:

• I merged the "Allegations of war crimes" section with the "Investigation" section. The "Allegations" section did not clarify who made the allegations, when the allegations were made, and when the alleged war crimes took place. The section did not cite any sources either. I therefore consider it to be unsalvagable.

• I haven't found evidence that the reporters "received a tip about unreleased U.S. Army records of an investigation into war crimes." Rather, Sallah and Weiss report that they were given access to the unreleased records of Henry Tufts, and that these records led them to request documents produced by the Coy Allegation held at the National Archives. This is subtly different. I modified the article accordingly, and included citations to support my claims.

• The article listed the alleged war crimes only once, without citations, in the "Allegations" section. This list is vague. I therefore created a more detailed list of war crimes, citing the sworn witness statements of Tiger Force veterans produced during the Army's investigation.

• The statement that "The Army's investigation was shelved during Donald Rumsfeld's first month as U.S. Secretary of Defense" is true, but it is only relevant if Donald Rumsfeld was the one who decided to close the case. As far as I am aware, Sallah and Weiss do not make this claim, and I am unaware of any evidence to support this claim. I therefore removed the statement from the article.

• The following claim is uncited, and I do not believe it is correct: "Blade investigators seemed to be interested only in the most sensational stories, and ignored soldiers who where present, but who told a different story than that ultimately written." I therefore removed it.

• The following claim is uncited: "In an on-line network of former Tiger Force soldiers, many have expressed outrage and feelings of betrayal, at the way they where either ignored, or had their stories twisted." I therefore removed it. To be fair, however, I did add a "Charges disputed" section that summarizes statements made by Hank and Ron Christian on this Talk page. The content of this new section is verifiable.

• The following claim is uncited: "The Blade used a copywrited image from the Tiger Force web site, to use in the series. They offered no compensation, nor did they ask permission." I also question whether it is important enough to be included in the article, given that it has no relevance to the validity of the reporters' findings. For these reasons, I removed the claim from the article.

• I removed the claim that the book "did not perform well with critics or a wider audience and received various criticisms, and sales of the book have languished." This claim is uncited, and I am relatively certain that it is mostly false.

• The description of the recent Army Tiger Force probe was an almost word for word reproduction of text in Joe Mahr's article "Tiger Force answers still elusive." The article was also uncited. I rewrote the description and cited the article.

• I removed the References section (which was not being used much) and created separate Works Cited and Notes sections. This allowed me to refer to numerous pages in the Tiger Force book without reproducing the full citation in the notes section each time.

• I rewrote the awards paragraph, which was unorganized, lacked some citations, and contained some errors.

• I fixed the External links section and added a link to NPR's interview with Michael Sallah. I also moved the link to the Pulitzer Prize website to the section of the article describing the receipt of the award.

AviN1 03:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Wandalstouring 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)