wesclimb

First Long War Marine to receive Medal of Honor Nov. 10, 2006; Submitted on: 11/10/2006 02:07:25 PM ; Story ID#: 2006111014725 By Staff Sgt. Scott Dunn, Headquarters Marine Corps Quantico, VA (Nov. 10, 2006) -- A corporal who died shielding men in his care from a bursting grenade deserves America’s highest military decoration, President Bush has confirmed. Actions by Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, who would have turned 25 today, merit the Medal of Honor, Bush said at the National Museum of the Marine Corps’ dedication ceremony, which coincided with the 231st Marine Corps anniversary. On April 14, 2004, in Iraq near the Syrian border, the corporal used his helmet and his body to smother an exploding Mills Bomb let loose by a raging insurgent whom Dunham and two other Marines tried to subdue. The explosion dazed and wounded Lance Cpl. William Hampton and Pfc. Kelly Miller. The insurgent stood up after the blast and was immediately killed by Marine small-arms fire. Dunham lay face down with a shard the size of a dress-shirt button lodged in his head. The hard, molded mesh that was his Kevlar helmet was now scattered yards around into clods and shredded fabric. Dunham never regained consciousness and died eight days later at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., with his mother and father at his bedside. Dunham’s commanding officers from 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, investigated his actions and nominated him for the Medal of Honor. After two years and seven months making its way to the White House, the nomination now has the necessary approval from the president. Next, the president will present the medal and citation to the Dunhams. Hoping the president would make the Medal of Honor announcement on their son’s birthday, Dan and Debra Dunham drove to Quantico from their home in Scio, N.Y. Dunham is buried in Scio. Before Dunham, the last Marine actions to earn the medal happened May 8, 1970, in Vietnam, according to Marine Corps History Division records. A Medal of Honor citation details Lance Cpl. Miguel Keith’s machine-gun charge that inspired a platoon facing nearly overwhelming odds: Wounded, Keith ran into “fire-swept terrain.” Wounded again by a grenade, he still attacked, taking out enemies in the forward rush. Keith fought until mortally wounded; his platoon came out on top despite being heavily outnumbered. The last Marine to receive the Medal of Honor was Maj. Gen. James L. Day, who distinguished himself as a corporal in the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. On Jan. 20, 1998, more than half a century later, President Bill Clinton presented the medal to Day. He passed away that year. Since the Long War began, the president has presented one Medal of Honor. On April 4, 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith posthumously earned the medal for organizing a defense that held off a company-sized attack on more than 100 vulnerable coalition soldiers. In the defense, Smith manned a .50 caliber machine gun in an exposed position until he was mortally wounded.

I thought this was an interesting read and wanted to pass this on. BALTIMORE SUN August 27, 2006 IN A WAR GONE BAD, SACRIFICE IS NOT IN VAIN By Frank Schaeffer SALISBURY, Mass. // The Marine Corps has just announced that it is calling back several thousand Marines from inactive reserve units. After Sept. 11, all our president asked of most Americans was to go shopping, travel and maintain the economy. But our service members are asked to make sacrifices most Americans wouldn't dream of. Many Americans are saying that our troops are sacrificing in vain. They are wrong. So are those who claim that if you want to support the troops, you have to support the president. Both misunderstand the meaning of military service in our democracy. My youngest son, John, joined the Marines in 1999. Bill Clinton was president. The nightmare of Sept. 11 was still in the realm of the unthinkable. John was trained to serve as a Marine wherever he might be sent, not for any particular war. He served five years and returned safely from two combat tours in Afghanistan - a "good war," according to most pundits and opinion polls - and after a mission in Iraq, a war gone "bad." I was fortunate. My son survived. A friend lost her only child. Mindy Evnin's son was killed in Iraq. On a sweltering day last month, my wife and I drove from our home in Massachusetts to Burlington, Vt., to visit Mark's grave. Standing in front of that young Marine's headstone, I was overwhelmed by sorrow, fury at the mishandling of so many aspects of the war by our political leaders and by gratitude for Mark's life well-lived. Those emotions aren't as contradictory as they might seem. I e-mailed a civilian friend about visiting Mark's grave. "To me," he answered, "the soldiers who are dying in Iraq should not have been there in the first place. ... If they die, they will have died in vain because the war is all a tissue of lies and/or failed policies." Did Mark and thousands of others die in vain? We need to take a step back from the bitter debate over the Iraq war and look at the deeper meaning of service. Does it change when wars go badly? If Mark had been killed in Afghanistan, would that have been a more noble sacrifice than being killed in Iraq? Maybe it would be helpful to consider the significance of service in a less politicized context. When a fireman runs up the stairs while everyone else runs down, the value of his action is unrelated to who started the fire, or whether those saved are "worthy." And the morality of his action doesn't depend on his motives or whether his leaders are truthful or wise. It is all about what he does once he's called upon to act on behalf of all of us. While we are busy looking out for ourselves, that fireman is busy looking out for us. His willingness to serve is a victory for community, social responsibility, compassion and bravery. What did Mark die for? He did not die for George Bush's ever-changing rationalizations: "finding WMD," "freeing Iraq" or "bringing democracy to the Middle East." And in all probability, if he was like my son, Mark never thought much about why he volunteered. The point is, he did, and in combat he acted on the belief that the Marines standing next to him were more important than he was - and, by extension that his country was more important than his individual right to comfort and safety. Service in our democracy is not about politics. My son's volunteering in the Clinton era, then being sent to two "Bush wars," one "good" and the other "bad," handily illustrates the fact that the act of volunteering has nothing to do with fighting any war in particular and everything to do with service for service's sake. Volunteering is a pre-political statement. And if you believe that American democracy is worthwhile, no matter what its imperfections, then the act of volunteering to be sent wherever your country needs you must be acknowledged as a priceless gift from the individual citizen to his or her country. This gift's morality doesn't depend on the rightness or wrongness of any war but on the soldier's high-stakes commitment to the value of our democratic experiment. Mindy wrote me: "I don't know if Mark was a 'hero.' He did what he was asked to do, and he did it without hesitation. ... Maybe that is heroic." It was. Our troops volunteer with no guarantee of success. They serve with or without support from other Americans. Now, some are being recalled involuntarily to participate in the fragile exercise of self-rule by equipping our government "of the people" to take action. There are several thousand Marines who thought that their time of duty was done. Now they are going to be sent back into combat. They will be unhappy, even angry. Some will believe the president is wrong to send them, and their families will be sick with worry. But our Marines will go. Their lives - and, inevitably for some, their deaths - present us with a stark question: Is citizenship only about enjoying personal preferences, or should we take responsibility for those around us, and by extension for our country? We don't all need to serve in the military, but in the face of the sacrifice of those who do, what is our excuse for just going shopping? How we answer the question posed to us by their service will decide the health, morality and ultimately the survival of our democracy. (Frank Schaeffer is a writer. His forthcoming novel is "Baby Jack." Contact him at frankschaeffer.com)

I have jumped here 3 or 4 times. The jumpers are mostly local military instructors from the PTS. They are very friendly and approachable. Stop in you'll have a blast.

Its not the weapon but the way it was used. If Saddam would have used it against enemy combatant's no one would have blinked an eye. He used it against women and children. There have been no such claims against US Forces. All the people in the picture's, if they were even killed by the action shown in the video were enemy combatant's. That is why they are wearing uniforms and military hardwear.

Didn't say anything about first. What I said is they used them against civilian's. We used them against military targets. What I also said is that those bodies didn't die from WP. I really think what that video shows is some one laying down smoke to mask a movement of troop's. Like I said WP does not make a very good weapon against people in hardened structures because concrete does not burn. Now against a enemy in the Jungle probable a much better weapon.

I think the point most of you are missing is that Saddam used them against civilians. During the operations in Fallujah all civilian were moved out of the city (Operation Fantum Fury)! If you look at the pictures all the bodies are wearing military clothing and load bearing vests. It also appears they had been dead for a while and that they had already begun to rot. I spent 8 month in Fallujah and I can tell you dead bodies are a common sight and that we had to kill allot of dogs that were feeding on said bodies. It looks like to me that the launching of the WP is being used to lay down smoke to screen the movement of a large force. WP is not a very effective anti-personnel weapon in an urban environment because the Muj were in hardened structures and WP doesn't really burn thru concrete that well. I don't know in my time over there we never used WP as a anti-personnel weapon and we certainly never used it in area's with allot of civilians. But hell what do I know it seems like you guys have all the answers seeing that most of you couldn't find Iraq on a map to save your life.

Ed, Thanks for the offer. I am currently in the Iraq so I will have to wait on the offer. When I get out of here I may just be heading to Calif. and if I do I will take you up on that. Thanks again!

I am a military free faller with about 130 jumps. Most of those jumps were under big canopies with gear. I also was lucky enough to get checked out on one of our tandem trainers (sport rig). What would I have to do to get my A License? Thanks in advance for your help.