Talk:Operation Eagle Claw
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. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Some conspiracy buffs suggest that this operation was hindered and sabotaged by Oliver North under orders from those he answered to.
- Clearly, North contaminated the helicopter rotor bearings by his own hand before they ever took off. I mean, what? --Dhartung 11:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I recently had the oppurtunity to visit the "Desert One" site. It's pretty much cleared except for a few bits of scrap metal lying around. Nothing at all there resembling helicopters.. Commking
[edit] This really needs a linkable source to be included
"An investigation from congress found evidence that negotiation from the camp of then candidate Ronald Reagan may have influenced the Iranians to hold the captives until after the US elections. Persons named in this investigation included Donald Rumsfeld, Brent Scowcroft and Oliver North. (see Tower Commision Report)"
-
- I think it deserves a linkable source, i'll leave it in the article for a bit, but if no source presents itself, then i'll remove it. Batman2005 06:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It is clearly not encyclopedic from the start, but a political statement and unsupported by the author's own citation. It belongs in Iran Contra, not here--I have never in 25 years seen a source to verify the allegation, any more than George HW Bush was flown by SR-71 to Moscow to monkey up the works against Carter.--Buckboard 09:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Empty conjecture
"Anecdotal information relayed from special forces personnel suggest a different version of events took place. According to one special forces member, the Iranians had been tipped off of the impending rescue attempt and were waiting for the US forces. It seems likely that this information must have come from Republican operatives wishing to see the Amercian hostages remain in captivity until at least after the 1980 presidential election."
-
- Is a statement like this really appropriate? "It seems likely?" To whom? Based on what? It seems to me that there are any of a number of far more reasonable explanations as to how the Iranians may have learned of Eagle Claw.
- I agree with much of the above. This statement needs to be presented in a more NPOV way, with explicit citation - if it is to remain at all. I have edited the statement to try to soften the POV a bit, and to request citation. C.W. Loney 18:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Is a statement like this really appropriate? "It seems likely?" To whom? Based on what? It seems to me that there are any of a number of far more reasonable explanations as to how the Iranians may have learned of Eagle Claw.
It isn't conjecture, it's a political statement. Create a section of conspiracy theories spawned by Eagle Claw and throw it in there, but don't leave it as "fact."--Buckboard 09:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's likely that the USSR tipped the Iranians. This was the timeframe that the Walker spy ring was handing over most of the US crypto keylist. I was on the USS Okinawa running the crypto/radioroom during the rescue mission. All of our comms were compromised and our movements were watched by AGI spy ships and aircraft. The Russians knew more about what was going down than Carter did. Nsaspook 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tower Commission Report
The Tower Comission Report has nothing to do with Operation Eagle Claw...it was an investigation into the Iran Contra affair, not the hostage crisis, and certainly had nothing to do with Reagan influencing the Iranians to hold Americans for a greater amount of time. I will remove this until such time as someone can show a concrete connection.
[edit] Dubious claims need citation
I removed this paragraph:
- Anecdotal information relayed from special forces personnel suggest a different version of events took place. According to one special forces member, the Iranians had been tipped off of the impending rescue attempt and were waiting for the US forces. Groundfire is alleged to have been the cause of the aircraft losses - it is noted that this accounts for the large number of bullet holes found in the returning aircraft that have been officially attributed to ordnance touched off by the conflagration from other burning aircraft. That the US personnel evacuation was done in hostile conditions helps explain why so much sensitive information was left behind.
For a claim such as this, which goes against the widely reported narrative, I think we must insist on a citation. It may well be a theory that somebody has, but who has made the claim and in what published material? --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I find that "anecdotal information" pretty flaky because neither the Holloway Report, nor the article Disaster at Desert One: Catalyst for Change from Parameters Magazine, Aug 1992, nor Command, Control and Communications Lessons Learned: Iranian Rescue, Falkland's Conflict, Grenada Invasion, Libya Raid research report for the Air War College, 1988 mention any such thing, nor even hint that anyone involved made such a claim. I'm a little skeptical of the claim that the Iranians knew anything, that they took ground fire, or that there was some kind of Republican conspiracy unless you find some pretty darned solid evidence. Moreover, it was clearly stated in all three articles that this operation partly failed because it was so tightly compartmentalized and few people knew anything about it--only the President, Sec Def, Sec State, Press Secretary, VP, JCS, and the JTF Commander. Everyone else only knew their piece of the puzzle and nobody really knew anything outside their little sphere. PowerPointSamurai 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Analysis / Aftermath
Wouldn't the following piece be better placed under Aftermath?
"The failure of the various services to work together with cohesion forced the establishment of a new multi-service organisation. The concept of USSOCOM was born and finally established, and became operational in 1988/1989. Each service subsequently now has its own Special Operations Forces under the overall control of USSOCOM. For example, the Army has its own Army Special Operations Command (ASOC) that controls the Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF)."
Also, it might be worth including that the creation of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) was a direct result of the failure of this mission.
[edit] Battle Box
It seems really foolish to use the battle box for this. There was no actual contact between Iranian and American forces. I'm going to remove it in about a week (retaining information, of course) if no one objects. --Detruncate 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There was no combat only because the rescue mission part of the battle plan failed. We had plans to attack several high value targets (Kharg Island, power plants, etc...). The marines on the ship were ready to go and the ship was at battle-stations. USS Okinawa But Carter send the stand-down message. I still remember the look on the operators face when that TS/SPECAT FLASH started coming across the TTY. I knew that men had been killed but very few people knew what happened. During this time I had been monitoring TASS news agency in Kabul via clear RTTY when the first news report of the failed mission went public. It's ironic that the men on our ship were told about what happened from a russian news report. Nsaspook 06:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Holloway Report
I added a link and intro to the official investigation into the incident and the impetus for transformation of the DoD from it's recommendations. PowerPointSamurai 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blue Light or Blue Light Commandos
At the time I remember reading something about the "Blue Light" or "Blue Light Commandos". Was that a cover name for Delta? --Purpleslog 04:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Blue Light was the name of the competing counterterrorist unit in Special Forces. I don't know if Delta ever used the name as cover. A quick glance at the index in Beckwith's book suggests they did not, but who knows. Maybe a reporter got the two confused. --VAcharon 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Add Mark Bowden's recent book on the subject to references at the end.
Small Text
It also contains a detailed explanation of Reagan's political team and its actions during the crisis. That would solve the citation issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.133.238 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Post-Vietnam U.S. military: Bad shape
The U.S. military budget had been so badly ignored since Vietnam that the military was completely unable to field technologically superior quality equipment. I recall in the early '80's when I was in the ROTC how badly the situation was for the military. The elite troops were still in good shape but the basic troops were simply not in the best condition. It wasn't until the late '80's after President Reagan had made the military a priority from his early days, that the military became the fighting force it is today.
Regardless, the CH-53 helicopters are crap and do worse in desert conditions. The Israeli's improved them but they still have the deadliest helicopter accidents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtpaladin (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
