Talk:Operation Tailwind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Tailwind article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] POV Check

The POV of the statement "Like the dissidents who became "non-persons" under Stalin, Operation Tailwind is now officially a "non-event"." may not be NPOV. It leaves a bad connotation when I read it, comparing Tailwind to Stalin. --68.76.145.110 09:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This operation never happened. I think we can all agree on that.

Oh, please. Branden 18:03 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The issue was raised on CNN/Newsweek's TV program "Newsstand" and was quickly retracted.

Let's just consider: All the nerve agent in Pacific Theatre is stored on Johnston's Atoll. Moving more than a litre at a time requires Congressional approval. Moving smaller amounts requires a special "Tech Escort" team.

Even if there was a secret cashe of nerve agent somewhere. Even if our secret team decided to use it, the story still doesn't pan out. I know of no example anywhere in the world of a nerve agent being packed into hand grenades. Nerve agents are strategic weapons used against nations, not tactical ones used against a Laotian border guard.

(I would digress if I mentioned the one excpetion. The Soviet Special Forces used to have spray cans of anti-guard dog nerve gas. But I digress.)

Anywho, the biggest objection to this story is the fact it would have been easier and cheaper to kill the bad guys with regular ol' weapons. Using nerve agent added nothing to the mission.

The whole idea is silly.

(Now if someone would be willing to calm me down and write all this coherently I would be much obliged.)

Whoever made the first remark on this page said the operation never happened. As far as I know, CNN and Time did not allege, and the Pentagon did not deny, that an "operation" called Tailwind took place. They merely differ with regards to whether or not nerve agents were used. Regarding your remark about moving nerve agent requiring "Congressional approval", well, it was undisputed as early as 1974, maybe even sooner, that Cambodia was being bombed illegally. Which means, among other things, without Congressional approval. Nixon and Kissinger weren't going to let the law stand in their way. (Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson didn't either.)
Additionally, how do we know that small "Tech Escort" teams weren't used to get some nerve agent off the atoll? How about from anyplace else? How reasonable is it to assume that all U.S. stashes of nerve agent are publicly known now? How reasonable is it to assume that all U.S. stashes of nerve agent were known publicly during the Vietnam War? (Are there any we now know about that did exist then and which weren't known about then?)
Your personal lack of knowledge of nerve agent "ever" being packed into hand grenades, except when the Soviets did it (which would appear to demonstrate a bit more than just a theoretical feasibility of the practice) hardly seems a reason to lean one way or the other in this story.
Furthermore, I see no reason to assume that the U.S. government (or any government) would be any more likely to adopt reasonable projects with known expenditures, or avoid cost overruns, in military operations that it does anywhere else in the public sector. (SDI and Crusader, anyone?) Why send strategic weapons to do a tactical job? I don't know -- ask Douglas MacArthur and Edward Teller. I am reminded how many self-styled "conservatives" spew so much rhetoric about how everything you let the government do results in a circus of inefficiency and stupidity which you wouldn't see if we'd let private companies handle it -- until you reach a government function they personally want to see the government keep control of, then all of a sudden inefficiency, waste, and just plain wrongheadedness are unimportant concerns. At least Murray Rothbard, who wanted to privatize the courts, the police, and the military, was consistent!
So, no, I don't think we can "all agree" that Operation Tailwind "never happened". There is, as always, reason to think carefully and critically both about CNN and Time's claims, and about the Department of Defense's. Branden 11:17, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Even if you don't believe the operation happened, the Wikipedia article doesn't claim it did or have any incorrect facts I can see. The one sentence alluded to appears to be the only questionable comment in terms of POV, and is in no way necessary to understanding the article. Raising a POV argument on this seems cheesy to me (personal opinion).

I am convinced Air America could have EASILY flown in ANYTHING needed for this operation. Their "owners" (read, "handlers") are people who would want to know about diverse uses of lethal substances. Probably the ones blowing the smoke then, as well as now.

In an article about covert operations, it would be practically impossible to be free from POV accusations, IMHO. When I first read the article, I thought the POV argument must be about the statement "erroneously reported that this operation included the use of Sarin gas" since the article later admits there is evidence this may not have been "erroneous."

TampaDAve 03:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont see any reference to the fired producers, who like the CBS scapegoats in the "forged" Bush TANG document setup, most likely still stick to their guns. See also the CIA blackout of Gary Webb's Dark Alliance. Also the Politics of Heroin, but then, who needs context when rewriting history?

I removed the word "alleged" from the opening sentence because it looks like a Pentagon apologist got a little carried away. The Pentagon's own report acknowledges the existence of the operation. http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/21/pentagon.tailwind.report/

The operation was launched as a reconnaissance in force to engage the enemy and to divert enemy attention from OPERATION
GAUNTLET, an offensive operation to regain control of terrain in Laos.

-- Branden 10:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


The whole thing needs to be removed and re-writen. While "tailwind" was an actual operation, it has nothing in common with the imaginary events descriped in the article.

[edit] Remove POV label?

While the subject of the article is controversial, currently I don't see anything in it that is POV. If no one can point to something that is, I suggest removing the POV template. Lawyer2b 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Tailwind

Operation Tailwind DID occur. It was a joint operation conducted with Army Special Forces, Montyard (sp) troops and supported by Marine helicopters from Marble Mountain (Danang). The Air Force provided most of the fixed wing support. The operation was designed to act as a diversionary tactic to pull Communist Laotion troops away from the western portion of Laos. At the time, they were putting significant pressure on the royal Laotion troops. As for the sarin gas. Did not happen. If it had been employed, there would have been many of the 130 plus "friendlies" on the ground that would have been effected. If it had been employed, it is doubtful that we would have lost two CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters to ground fire. If it had been employed, it is doubtful that the insertion force would have been in constant enemy contact for the 2-3 days they were on the ground. If it had been employed, the Marine Cobras would not have looked like swiss cheese after the insertion of the ground force.

I was the co-pilot for the lead Marine Cobra.

Patrick Owen

[edit] Wierd beyond belief

  • Paranoia, it strikes deep. Into your life its going to creep. It starts when your always afraid, step out of line the man coming gonna shoot you down. Anyone with any knowledge of SOG's personnel or operations knew that the news story was bullshit from the get-go. What freaks me out is that so many people believed it (and still believe it). The fact that the reporters twisted the facts and statements of the participants and used Gene McCarley and Moorer in that way made me sick to my stomach. If Edward R. Murrow were still alive, he would have kicked both reporter's asses simultaneously while chain-smoking Pall Malls. They should be working for some ass-wipe paper in Pago-Pago now, yet, look what happened to them. This country is indeed turning into the ultimate in bizzaro. RM Gillespie 12:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not "air operation"

"Airborne", yes. --HanzoHattori 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Good point. Should it be moved from "air operations" to the main list in {{Campaignbox Vietnam War}}? - Crockspot 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and changed the template. - Crockspot 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Tailwind

I assure you that Operation Tailwind did happen, as I was the SF Medic on the operation, and still have a scare on my right foot where I received a B40 rocket fragment.

G. M. Rose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.22.25 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Tailwind

Sorry about the date: G. M. Rose wrote his comment 3 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.22.25 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)