Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective
eHistory Book Reviews
MultiMedia Histories

eHistory Archive Logo
THESE ARE ARCHIVED PAGES OF THE OLD EHISTORY SITE
click here for the NEW eHistory site
These pages are not actively maintained and may have errors in content and functionality
icon: the new eHistory
click to see our Origins feature click to see our Multimedia histories click to see our Book Reviews
Ancient History Middle Ages Civil War World War II Vietnam War Middle East World
      eHistory  >  Vietnam War Search


Page 487(A Matter of Doctrine: Marine Air and Single Manage)previous pagenext page


CHAPTER 24

A Matter of Doctrine: Marine Air and Single Manager

The Establishment of Single Manager-Point, Counterpoint-The Continuing Debate

The Establishment of Single Manager

While the Khe Sanh situation influenced the implementation of the 'single manager' system at the time, General Westmoreland's doubts about the ability of III MAF and its limited staff provided an underlying motivation for his action. He especially worried about the capability and even willingness of Marine aviation to support the new Army divisions he was sending north. From a senior and joint commander's perspective, the MACV commander also sympathized with the desire of General Momyer, the Seventh Air Force commander, to centralize the air assets in Vietnam. All of these factors played a role in his final decision.'

Apparently accepting with relative good grace (at least outwardly) Admiral Sharp's initial denial of his effort to bring Marine fixed-wing air under the Seventh Air Force in Operation Niagara, General Westmoreland yet remained concerned about air support for the newly arrived 1st Air Cavalry Division in northern I Corps. With the establishment of the 1st Cavalry command post near Phu Bai on 20 January and its subsequent deployment to Camp Evans by the end of the month, Westmoreland became even more agitated on the subject. According to the MACV commander at a meeting with both Generals Cushman and Norman Anderson, the 1st MAW commander, he told them that with the new deployments and the impracticality of Seventh Air Force direct support for the division, he wanted the Marines to provide that air coverage. Westmoreland claimed that he received assurances from both Marine commanders that the Marine wing would establish liaison with the Army division and the necessary arrangements would be made.2

The three commanders had different impressions about the results of their meeting. While Generals Anderson and Cushman promised that III MAF would furnish air support, their understanding about the undertaking was at great variance from that of General Westmoreland. General Cushman later recalled that the Marines flew air support for the 1st Air Cavalry, but that the Army division did not know how to employ it. The 1st MAW commander, Major General Norman Anderson, related that the problem was one of communication. According to Anderson, he told General Westmoreland that the Marine wing would support the Air Cavalry, but that there would be need for the Army division to establish a communications network with the Marine air command and control system.?*

The upshot of the situation was that the 1st Air Cavalry still had not tied into the Marine Tactical Air Direction Center after it deployed to Camp Evans. According to General Westmoreland, about 24 hours to 48 hours after he had broached the subject to the Marine commanders, he visited Major General John J. Tolson, the 1st Air Cavalry Division commander at his CP and discovered that there had been no liaison with the wing. Until that juncture, Westmoreland claimed he had been content not to alter the air command system, but now 'I blew my top . . . [this] was absolutely the last straw.... I go up there and nothing has happened and here I've got a division up there ... and they [III MAF] just ignored me.' The result, according to the MACV commander, was his decision to go ahead with the single manager directive.4

*General Eari''E. Anderson, who at the time as a brigadier general was the III MAF Chief of Staff, recalled that he also attended this meeting, 'and it became a little 'testy' at times. General Cushman stated that any excess sorties would be made available to Army units on request, but that the 7th AF had the primary responsibility to provide air support for the Army units.' According to the former III MAF Chief of Staff, 'the lack of communication between the 1st MAW commander and the CG of the 1st Air Cav at the outset, in my opinion exacerbated the problem and brought the matter to a 'boil' in Westmoreland's mind.' Anderson further stated that 'we should have taken the initiative. By not doing so, we got off on the wrong foot as MACV and 7th AF were looking for anything for which they could, rightly or wrongly, assess blame to III MAF or the 1st MAW.' Gen Earl E. Anderson, USMC (Ret), Comments on draft, dtd 18Dec94 (Vietnam Comment File), hereafter E. E. Anderson Comments. Colonel Joel E. Bonner, the 1st MAW G-3, also emphasized that for Westmoreland the support of the 1st Air Cavalry 'was priority ONE!!' Col Joel E. Bonner, Comments on draft, dtd 18Jan93 (Vietnam Comment File), hereafter Bonnet Comments. Brigadier General Henry W. Hise, who was one of the two assistant wing commanders, observed, nevertheless, that the Army units needed the appropriate 'radios and frequencies to enter Marine nets . . . [and] this was clearly an Army responsibility.' BGen Henry W. Hise, Comments on draft, dtd 22Dec94 (Vietnam Comment File), hereafter Hise Comments.



Page 487(A Matter of Doctrine: Marine Air and Single Manage)previous pagenext page



About | Contact


All images and content are the property of eHistory at The Ohio State University unless otherwise stated.
Copyright © 2008 OSU Department of History. All rights reserved.