It's Popcorn Time AGAIN!

If you watched and liked the WWII movie we posted in June, then you will love what we have for you this month. In June we posted a movie sent in by Robert Oelrich, Class 10-42, that showed his time as a Signal Officer during WWII. The movie ran just over 1 hour.

This month we have Part II of Oelrich's movie, which mostly takes place on Hawaii and runs a full 3 hours, 6 minutes and 29 seconds. It covers his time time with the 443rd Signal Battalion, and has lots of great shots of downtown Honolulu back during WWII, as well even more interesting shots of the Signal group's effort to build a communications link to the northern part of the island, to link the radar site out there back to HQ in Honolulu. Duh... kind of a late effort, no boys? The last time I was down on the farm, the idea of closing the barn door after the horse had already escaped didn't make much sense?

Anyway, it's great viewing to watch the movie and see what people were doing and thinking back then.

By the way: there are some sections in this movie that repeat themselves. We did not edit-out anything from Bob's movie as he sent it to us. It is presented here just as it was when we at the Association received it. It may be less than a Hollywood production... but it's also more truthful, entertaining, and a whole heck of a lot more relevant than watching Jersey Shore or the Kardashians.

For those of you who did not see Part I, click this movie camera icon to watch Part I: For all of the rest of you, click below and enjoy! It's great!

NOTE: For full screen viewing, after the movie starts, right click on the screen and select "Zoom" then "Full Screen." Hit the escape key at any time to get back to normal size.

Fog of War, or Just Fog of Reporting?

Back in September of 2006, The Washington Post ran a front page story that said "Situation Called Dire in West Iraq."

The interesting thing was that at the time, everyone thought that the war in Iraq was going all squirrely. Things were "terrible" in Anbar, and as far as the press was concerned, America was in a mess as big as Vietnam, and losing.

Interestingly, while the article was being printed in The Washington Post, just two days before there was a meeting that was held by a bunch of tribal sheiks in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar no less, to decide whether to oppose Al Queda and work with the Americans, or not.

Well, we all know what the result of that meeting was: the "enemy" changed sides, helped us get to the root of the problem, with the result that it changed the course of the war. Of course, the Bush surge didn't hurt either.

Now, on August 19, 2010, America is marching out of Iraq with its flag held high, the locals on our side (for the most part), and while not a perfect situation, what is being left behind is at least one that offers the citizens of Iraq a better chance of ruling themselves than they have had since King Hammurabi (Babylonia, 1792-1750 B.C.) was in charge.

Look. It's not perfect. First, nearly everyone agrees that we should never had entered the damned country to begin with. But regardless of what your view is on how and why the war started, the fact is, when you put a bull in the China shop, you own the broken glass you create.

As the Brits might tell you, going into Iraq was "a bit of a rick..." Even so, now, on our way out, some might say "Bob's your uncle."  But the real question is, where was the press during all of this? As far as I can see, the U.S. news media failed to see not only what was happening in Iraq, but the turning point too.

Are they doing the same in Afghanistan? Are they so "balls up" (British) over writing about politics that they've stopped reporting? Are they so "cobblers" to play politics that they can't be "arsed," and that all they can publish is "two bob bits"? As far as I'm concerned, the American press is little more than a bunch of "plonkers" that couldn't "play a straight bat" if they had to. They're nothing but "dossers."

What are your thoughts? Is it time that the American press changes the way it approaches the news? Are they failing to report on the important developments, those that show how the war is going, in favor of  shock journalism or party politics? As Jim Michaels of USA Today said, "...if we applied today's press standards to WWII, the headlines after D-Day would have read: '10,000 Allies Killed or Wounded in Record Violence.' "

Something is wrong folks. We of my generation didn't get our fair shake from the press for what was clearly a malformed war in Vietnam. But hey, that was in the past, and I'm over it. Yet still, I can't help but feel that I don't want that long line of Army officers that followed us to end up in the same boat today that the press tried to sink us in, in the past. As the Army Manual of Leadership Statements and Quotes says, "What is past is prologue." It's just too damned bad that the press doesn't understand this. Where from our perspective "The soldier must be rooted in the past to understand the present so that he may project himself into the future." From the press' standpoint, they could care less about learning from their own mistakes. All they care about today is getting their byline in the news.

To download your own copy of the Army Manual of Leadership Statements and Quotes, click the PDF icon. If you have a comment or two that you want us to print, by all means send it to us.

Symbolism of Regimental Insignia: The gold eagle holds in his talons a golden baton, from which descends a signal flag. The design originated in 1865 from a meeting of Signal Corps officers, led by Major Albert Myer, the Chief Signal Officer, in Washington, DC. The badge was a symbol of faithful service and good fellowship for those who served together in war and was called the “Order of the Signal Corps.” The motto “PRO PATRIA VIGILANS” was adopted from the Signal School insignia and serves to portray the cohesiveness of Signal soldiers and their affiliation with their regimental home. The gold laurel wreath depicts the myriad of achievements through strength made by the Corps since its inception. The battle star centered on the wreath represents formal recognition for participation in combat. It adorned a Signal flag and was first awarded to Signal Corps soldiers in 1862. The battle star typifies the close operational relationship between the combined arms and the Signal Corps.

The Coat of Arms has the Signal flag suspended from a baton, which was adopted from the badge that originated in 1865 and was called the “Order of the Signal Corps.” The bronze battle star represents formal recognition for participation in combat; it adorned a signal flag and was first awarded to Signal Corps soldiers in 1862. Orange and white are the traditional colors of the Signal Corps. The hand on the crest personifying the Corps has grasped the lightning from the heavens, and is applying it to military communications.

Branch Colors: Orange piped with white. Orange - 65004 cloth; 67110 yarn; PMS 1655.  White - 65005 cloth; 67101 yarn; PMS White. Orange was selected in 1872 as the Signal Corps branch color.  In 1902, the white piping was added to conform to the custom that prevailed of having piping of a different color for all branches except the line branches.

Birthday: 21 June 1860. The Signal Corps was authorized as a separate branch of the Army by act of Congress on 3 March 1863.  However, the Signal Corps dates its existence from 21 June 1860 when Congress authorized the appointment of one signal officer in the Army, and a War Department order carried the following assignment: “Signal Department - Assistant Surgeon Albert J. Myer to be Signal Officer, with the rank of Major.

This page updated 23 August 2010. New content will be added throughout August and September. A new Home Page will be published in late September Please check back often.

NOTE: If you see factual errors in our content, or disagree with anything we say on this site, please send us an eMail at: WebMaster@ArmySignalOCS.com. We will be more than happy to publish your comments on our Home Page. However, you must identify yourself to us so that we can attribute your comments to you. If you wish to have us not show your name when we publish your comments, let us know... but please still identify yourself to us so that at least we know who you are.