BrianBM Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 This probably needs a professional's answer, and the answer may still be classified. It can't hurt to ask. One of the famous missions undertaken by the late Carlos Hathcock was the assassination of a general. He had to infiltrate and exfiltrate through scant cover and plenty of security to get his target, which he did. The general was considered important enough to send a valued soldier on a suicide mission. Has anybody ever read the name of the general? I have a bunch of doubts about the whole story, but that's neither here nor there. Do we know who the celebrity general was and what made him worth the risk to get, and why? None of the accounts of the story I've seen (on TV) or read have hinted at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichum Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 This probably needs a professional's answer, and the answer may still be classified. It can't hurt to ask. One of the famous missions undertaken by the late Carlos Hathcock was the assassination of a general. He had to infiltrate and exfiltrate through scant cover and plenty of security to get his target, which he did. The general was considered important enough to send a valued soldier on a suicide mission. Has anybody ever read the name of the general? I have a bunch of doubts about the whole story, but that's neither here nor there. Do we know who the celebrity general was and what made him worth the risk to get, and why? None of the accounts of the story I've seen (on TV) or read have hinted at this. I've read the account of the general's killing but I don't know his name or why he was so important that Hathcock was tasked to kill him. IIRC, in the morning the general's adjutant would help the general don his uniform. Routinely, the general got dressed outside or stepped outside of his hut after he got dressed. IIRC, Hathcock observed this morning dressing routine and when predictably one morning the general was outside his hut Hathcock shot and killed him. "Who is John Galt?" Who? You? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nalu22 Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 Tom Berenger Son? "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianBM Posted September 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 The things about the story that bother me... and I have talked about them before, probably here. 1. A general, while a high-value target, is also mobile. The accounts given are that Hathcock had to travel 2-3 days by himself to take that shot and 2-3 days to exfiltrate. That's once the mission began, it's not the time to develop the intelligence that placed the general at the location to which Hathcock was sent. Why not send a bomber? 2) Generals don't travel in a vacuum. They travel with a posse of intelligence, communications, security, and so on. Why not get them all with that bomber? 3) Someone remarked that the general was in a location where we didn't want to violate neutrality. The only nation in the neighborhood whose neutrality we might respect is China. Is it plausible that a general would exercise field command of NVA units from China? Not without a building's worth of transmitters, he couldn't, and no account mentions this. He came out of a tent in the jungle and Hathcock whacked him. Well, maybe I'll live long enough for the details to be declassified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seal Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 Quote:Originally Posted by BrianBM The things about the story that bother me... and I have talked about them before, probably here. 1. A general, while a high-value target, is also mobile. The accounts given are that Hathcock had to travel 2-3 days by himself to take that shot and 2-3 days to exfiltrate. That's once the mission began, it's not the time to develop the intelligence that placed the general at the location to which Hathcock was sent. Why not send a bomber? 2) Generals don't travel in a vacuum. They travel with a posse of intelligence, communications, security, and so on. Why not get them all with that bomber? They probably didn't want to kill the "spy" that was telling them where the General was. Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended. ~ Plato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richie c Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 Quote:Originally Posted by BrianBM The things about the story that bother me... and I have talked about them before, probably here. 1. A general, while a high-value target, is also mobile. The accounts given are that Hathcock had to travel 2-3 days by himself to take that shot and 2-3 days to exfiltrate. That's once the mission began, it's not the time to develop the intelligence that placed the general at the location to which Hathcock was sent. Why not send a bomber? 2) Generals don't travel in a vacuum. They travel with a posse of intelligence, communications, security, and so on. Why not get them all with that bomber? 3) Someone remarked that the general was in a location where we didn't want to violate neutrality. The only nation in the neighborhood whose neutrality we might respect is China. Is it plausible that a general would exercise field command of NVA units from China? Not without a building's worth of transmitters, he couldn't, and no account mentions this. He came out of a tent in the jungle and Hathcock whacked him. Well, maybe I'll live long enough for the details to be declassified. I read this account myself but cant remember the Gen. name. As far as the neutrality situation, what year was the killing? Perhaps it was in Laos before we were conducting known bombings there and observing their sovereignty? Another thing,COSVIN was the mobile unit that took commands directly from Hanoi and from there the orders went out into the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mac Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 Yup makes sense Richie. The village, which had stood for maybe 1,000 years, didn't know we were coming that day. If they had, they would have run. boB was at the eye of our rage. And through him, our Captain Ahab. He would set things right again. That day, we loved him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeM58 Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 The things about the story that bother me... and I have talked about them before, probably here. 1. A general, while a high-value target, is also mobile. The accounts given are that Hathcock had to travel 2-3 days by himself to take that shot and 2-3 days to exfiltrate. That's once the mission began, it's not the time to develop the intelligence that placed the general at the location to which Hathcock was sent. Why not send a bomber? 2) Generals don't travel in a vacuum. They travel with a posse of intelligence, communications, security, and so on. Why not get them all with that bomber? 3) Someone remarked that the general was in a location where we didn't want to violate neutrality. The only nation in the neighborhood whose neutrality we might respect is China. Is it plausible that a general would exercise field command of NVA units from China? Not without a building's worth of transmitters, he couldn't, and no account mentions this. He came out of a tent in the jungle and Hathcock whacked him. Well, maybe I'll live long enough for the details to be declassified. People get lucky in bombings and survive. A sniper team can verify a kill easier. That's just a guess on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianBM Posted September 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 All answers are possible. Bombers wander off course and trip over borders now and then. If we wanted to be discreet, an F-111 could have hugged the terrain and been over the target pretty quickly, and probably not appeared on any neighbor's search radar. The COSVN question is interesting too ... did we ever verify that it was in the Parrot's Beak? As best I recall, we never found it. Protecting the spy .... distinct possibility. He'd have to be an NVA officer, though, and damn important to us to justify putting such a load of risk on Hathcock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dena Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Hathcock went in clean, no ID, no uniform with any US insignia. If he was captured, or killed, he could be anyone from anywhere, we have plausible deniability. A plane crashes, or is shot down, not so much. Material abundance without character is the path of destruction. -Thomas JeffersonThere are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. -Soren Kierkegaard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Sears Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 All answers are possible. The COSVN question is interesting too ... did we ever verify that it was in the Parrot's Beak? As best I recall, we never found it. Brian COSVN, was always people vice a place, COSVN was a leadership group made up of delegates from the Central Committee, they often traveled many miles to meet ,They may have met in Parrots Beak, Angles Wing, Elephant's Ear or even Rung Sat (Forest of Assassin) or the Iron Triangle Near the Angels Wing/Parrots Beak was a Town called Go Dau Ha on the Vam Co Dong River (Dong meaning east branch of Vam Co river) the River Division(53?) stationed there got beat up badly out of 10 boats two were operational, Coming south was village called Tra Cu, near Parrots Beak with another River Division (512) and then further south was Ben Luc/Nha Be ( with another River Division covering Rung Sat (591) this was eastern leg of Giant slingshot, Western leg was the Vam Co Tay, had a couple River Divisions on the Vam Co Tay in Moc Hoa (53?), Elephants Ear, Tuyen Nhon (535?) (near Plain of Reeds) Just speculation ,how ever I would say they COSVN would meet in locale that we was winning in to stem the tide, just for what it is worth, once we took over a river over canal we never gave it back, I catch your azz on my River after dark and I wont have to worry about you doing it again Al I read/heard Hathcock moved over several hundred meters in open terrain taking three days to do so in search and taking out a General , Successful mission ?,I understand he wore a white feather or left a white feather behind as his calling card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S J Fish Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Assassination of an NVA Commanding General Hathcock only once removed the white feather from his bush hat while deployed in Vietnam.[12] During a volunteer mission days before the end of his first deployment, he crawled over 1,500 yards of field to shoot an NVA commanding general.[6][12][13] He was not informed of the details of the mission until he accepted it.[9] This effort took four days and three nights, without sleep, of constant inch-by-inch crawling.[6][12][13] Hathcock said he was almost stepped on as he lay camouflaged with grass and vegetation in a meadow shortly after sunset.[1] At one point he was nearly bitten by a bamboo viper but had the presence of mind to avoid moving and giving up his position.[13] As the general exited his encampment, Hathcock fired a single shot that struck the general in the chest, killing him.[6][12][13] He had to crawl back instead of run when soldiers started searching, and later regretted taking the mission, for in the aftermath of the assassination NVA troops doubled their attacks in the area, apparently in retaliation for their general being killed and leading to an increase in American casualties.[6][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] After the arduous mission of killing the general, Hathcock returned to the United States in 1967.[6][9][12][13] However, he missed the Marine Corps and returned to Vietnam in 1969, where he took command of a platoon of snipers.[7] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianBM Posted September 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 1967 ... that date makes the concerns about respecting neutrality and not using airpower more likely. The spigot got opened a lot wider, later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to register here in order to participate.
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now