This is the continuation of a story begun on our September 2014 Home Page. To
go to an archived version of that page, click here: October
2014 Home Page Archive. To return to this
month'sactual Home Page, click on the Signal Corps
orangeHome Page menu item in the
upper left corner of this page.
It’s possible. General
Claire Lee Chennault
proved it was possible to mount an independent air
campaign over friendly yet independently commanded army
troops, with both sides chasing the same enemy, when he
crafted a group called the Flying Tigers. While Chiang
Kai-shek's Chinese army took after the Japanese on the
ground, with little regard for what Chennault was doing
in the air, Chennault kept the Japanese from ruling the
skies even while he took the fight to the Japanese on
the ground... all still without coordinating with
Chiang until far into the war.
This then is the Dutch Treat War Policy we speak of: a
concept built around the idea that in a mid-level
regional conflict one country would provide the army,
another the air force, perhaps a third the navy, and a
fourth the logistical support required to enable the
whole thing to work. For the most part, each would stick
to their own area of responsibility… and presumably
expertise. Senior level command and control would come from the most
seasoned and capable of the three countries involved,
but such command would not extend down, for example, to
management of the troops on the ground by some central
authority. Instead, the troops on the ground would fight
the war they want to fight, the air power above would
fight the war it wants to fight, and when useful or of
value, the two might mount a combined operation...
but not as a rule. There thus would be no "combined
forces" operations, in the traditional sense that our
readers may know of it as taking place. Yes,
there would be coordination, but no, the forces involved
would not be directed from a centralized command center
in terms of each level's small-force tactical goals,
objectives and responses to events on the ground.
Is
this what President Obama has in mind for fighting the
Islamic State?
We know not, but whether he knowingly invented this
concept or just stumbled upon it as part of his normal
knee jerk reaction to avoid anything having to do with
war, it just might prove a useful model as the world
moves on through the next century. And to be sure,
somewhere, sitting at some desk in the Pentagon, is a
young butter bar fresh out of college with his MBA in
strategic thinking and planning framed and hanging over
his desk… someone who will look at this whole thing and
turn it into a war doctrine of beauty… a new strategic war
concept able to allow America to forge drone wars
wherever it wishes, without putting more than a token of
its youth onto the actual battlefield.
Doubt and skepticism aside… there is both value and
danger in such a concept, and it should be explored
more; but for a Dutch Treat War Policy to work there are
some preconditions that must be met. One of them is that the coalition
partners be able to coordinate their efforts and
integrate their actions. This is so even to the extent
that they strive to act autonomously.
Going back to our earlier
analogy, in a Dutch Treat lunch this means, for example,
that we both have to be using the same kind of currency
that the restaurant accepts. A Dutch Treat lunch won’t
work if the restaurant accepts U.S. dollars but one
party brings Guilders.
The same is true in a Dutch Treat
War. For all practical purposes, the two parties are
going to have to be using the same kind of military arms
and communication equipment if they are to effectively
coordinate their efforts. It’s because of things like this that NATO was
formed—to assure not only that its members can depend on
support from other members in a time or war, but also to
make sure that all of the military equipment, systems,
and command and control parameters involved were
compatible.
In a case like NATO, a formal organization,
establishing a common standard that assures
military-to-military compatibility is easy to do. But
what of the case of an Obama led Dutch Treat War, like
the one ramping up in the Middle East? Can the U.S. be
assured that its coalition partners—the ones that will
provide the troops on the ground that will underscore
America’s airpower—will have military equipment
compatible with ours?
If the Saudis, Iraqis, Jordanians or Kurds provide the troops
on the ground, the answer would likely be yes, and that
would be good. But there is no guarantee that the next
time a U.S. President decides to apply the Obama Dutch
Treat War Doctrine that that will be the case. For that
to happen, America is going to have to actively identify
those countries around the world that it feels it may
turn to in time of a Dutch Treat War as a coalition
partner, and go out and seek to sell them U.S. military
equipment of the type and kind necessary for them to be
able to act as a terra firma partner to our avian war
power.
Make no mistake, we think that what President
Obama is playing around with here—the formation of an
innovative approach to war, what we have called with a
bit of tongue in cheek humor a Dutch Treat War Doctrine—is
good. We laud him for his creativity and support his
efforts. Let’s hope he succeeds both in the coming war
in the Middle East, and in establishing this new
international power projection tool as something America
can depend on for years to come. However, if what he is
doing is going to have long term value, then America
needs to get busy building coalition partners that will
neatly fit into the Dutch Treat War Policy puzzle.
Among
the first such countries we recommend America try to bring
into this framework as a potential future partner is
Vietnam.
The Vietnam Syndrome
Fifty years ago it would
not have seemed possible to think that someday in our
lifetime we, the ones who fought that war, would be
recommending that America bring under its fold as a
combat partner those we were fighting against back then…
but that was back then. Today the world has changed.
Vietnam is no longer an enemy, nor for that matter is
the concept of other countries living under different
social, economic or political systems than ours.
If a
country’s people want to live under some abstract form
of socialism or communism, let them. There’s no need for
us to give of our country’s youth to stop them. Let the
dominos fall where they may.
Hegemonic power projection
though is a different matter. If a country wants to
project its power to the extent that it stifles the
freedoms of neighboring countries, holds citizens of
other countries hostage to economic, military,
religious, or social
goals that serve their purpose alone, then they have to
be stopped. Stopped not to the extent of forcing change
on the way that a hegemonic country lives, but its ability
to stifle the freedoms of its neighbors.
We talk here of
forming a new relationship with Vietnam because in China
we see such hegemonic ambitions. Born of long held and still
simmering anger over centuries of “unequal treaties”
forced on it by the world at large (think England,
Germany, France, Holland Portugal and especially Japan);
stung by the embarrassment of having once controlled
more of the world’s land mass than any other nation,
only to be reduced for a while to a desperate, starving,
over populated cult run by a despot… China today is full
of young people who think that now that they have turned
their country and economy around, it is their time…
their time to rule the world. And in feeling
such, many of these young people look with barely
concealed spite and malice at countries like South Korea,
Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and especially Vietnam…
as countries who are due for a comeuppance. Countries
that need to be put in their place and taught a lesson
for what they did to China in the past… countries that
need to be reminded of China’s superiority over them.
Why should we care?
Because if China expands her
hegemonic activities in Southeast Asia she will
destabilize not only the countries she targets, but the
global economy as well. And while this would cause only
a minor disruption to the economy of China itself, and
no military threat to speak of, it would play havoc with
America’s economy and might well have military
consequences too. The reason is that a) today the world
comprises an integrated global economy to which America
is tied to many of the countries of Southeast Asia, and
b) America is also tied to many of these same countries
via mutual defense treaties. Because of this dual
linkage, when
America catches a cold… economic or military… Southeast
Asia sneezes. And when one or two of the countries in
Southeast Asia get sick at the same time, America gets sick too. If China
embarks on a path to make a number of these countries
come down with a cold, we will suffer.
Presuming for
the sake of argument that we are right, and that China
poses an economic and military threat to its neighbors,
and there through to America as well, what should
America do about it? Our answer is that Obama’s new
Dutch Treat Foreign Policy concept just might provide a
means for stopping China from undertaking hegemonic
activities and exploiting its neighbor’s and America’s
weaknesses in that part of the world. If so, then
America needs to begin now to reach out to countries
like Vietnam and ask them to sign on to a new Dutch
Treat Foreign Policy initiative with us.
To do that with Vietnam
however, America must first lift its weapons sales ban
on the country; because until we do so, we cannot bring them
into the fold and prepare their troops to fight
alongside of us… trampling the earth underneath our
airborne umbrella, if you will.
Is there some risk in
bringing Vietnam so close to us? We doubt so. From our
perspective, China represents a much greater threat to
the world than Vietnam does, and the sooner America puts
together a coalition of like minded countries… such as
Vietnam… interested in not necessarily containing China
but at least making her think twice before throwing her
weight around, the better.
An Enemy No More?
Getting to
the point where the U.S. begins selling weapons to
Vietnam… weapons and weapon systems that integrate with
our own… is not going to be easy. Yes, ties between our
two countries have been warming of late, but problems
still remain.
On the plus side, our two countries have
developed what might be called a common strategic
foundation. This has led to the U.S. military making
more headway in working with Vietnam than their cohorts
in the U.S. State Department. There is no doubt,
relations between our two militaries have become
increasingly cooperative, to the extent that the road is
already paved for America to help Vietnam upgrade its
armament to U.S. standards. But the weapon sales ban still continues.
Why? In great measure because of two things, a
reservation on our part, and another on theirs. For our
part, there continues to be concern about Vietnam’s
human rights record. For theirs, some members of the
ruling Communist Party Politburo in Hanoi worry about
provoking China by enhancing military ties with the
United States.[1]
That’s the bad news. The good news is
that despite both of our concerns, there is keen mutual
interest in taking another look at these issues and
seeing if they can be mitigated. President Obama’s Dutch
Treat Foreign Policy concept just might provide an
impetus to do so.
In terms of what kind of
U.S. military weapons and systems the Vietnamese need in
order to fit into a Dutch Treat War framework, the
Vietnamese are way out in front of America on this
issue, and have already presented the U.S. with a wish
list of first pass purchases of military hardware. They
did this back in 2012 when former secretary of defense
Leon Panetta visited the country. At that time he was
invited to tour Cam Ranh Bay, where during meetings the
Vietnamese pointedly made the case that the upgrade the
U.S. was seeking in terms of bilateral defense ties
could not go forward as long as the U.S. continued to
keep in place a ban on military equipment sales to
Vietnam... yet they wanted the U.S. to know that not
only did they want to upgrade ties between our two
countries, but also begin to buy military hardware from
us too.
From this author’s perspective, their pressing the case
that the weapon sales ban should be lifted seems
only natural. After all, if the U.S. wants to upgrade its military
ties with Vietnam to the “normalized level,” then isn’t
it only right that Vietnam be treated like any other
country the U.S. maintains “normalized” military
relations
with?
The D.O.D. seems to accept
this premise, it's the State Department (perhaps
under orders from the White House) that is dragging its
feet. They seem to be the ones who are sticking to the proposition that until they see
“significant" improvements in Hanoi’s human rights
record, they will be against dropping the arms sales
ban.
We think they are wrong. From our perspective,
preparing now for a more aggressively hegemonic China is
much more important than jousting over human rights
issues. Do not mistake us, we are not saying that human
rights comes second on our list of important societal
attributes. What we are saying however is that if you
want to see real human rights abuse, wait until you see
what China does to the peoples of the countries it tries
to subjugate on its quest to become a world power. If
you want to know what’s in store in this regard,
reference if you will the Tian An Men massacre, or even
China’s stifling these very day's of Hong Kong’s efforts
to hold representative elections.
Be that as it may,
America needs to become more responsive to Vietnam’s
efforts to forge a new relationship with us, paying
particular attention to her views and efforts. As an
example, human rights watchers all agree that in the
past year Vietnam has made good progress on the human
rights front. So much so that the issue found itself
center stage when Ted Osius, President Obama’s nominee
to be the next U.S. ambassador to Vietnam, testified
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that
continuing human rights improvements being observed in
Vietnam suggest that “it's time to begin exploring the
possibility of lifting the ban.”
For the State
Department, that’s a positive statement. For us, it’s
time to lift the ban. Period.
By doing so America
will actually be helping Vietnam, in overcoming its own
fear of upsetting China by portraying the lifting of the
ban as nothing other than the normal activities of two
former adversaries who are now celebrating 20 years of
normalized relations (next year will be the 20th
anniversary of that event).
Let’s face some facts:
Vietnam is an important player in the Southeast Asia
region. America needs her on its side in every way
possible. This is especially true in terms of slowing
China’s inexorable rise to power, greatness and
propensity to project its muscle and influence without
care for the consequences.
Unless America shows the
peoples and countries of Central and Southeast Asia that
she intends to remain a force in these regions, slowly
but surely these countries will hedge their bets by
beginning to replace their allegiance to the United
States with a growing one towards China. Hilary
Clinton’s platitudes about a new pivot strategy towards
Asia aside, the fact of the matter is that throughout
the Obama Administration’s reign America has talked a
good story but done nothing of substance. The countries
of Asia are not fooled. One by one they are already
turning to China, seeking a more reliable big brother
than we have been for them. From their perspective, if
in the process they have to kowtow [叩头] to the
Mandarin’s in Beijing, that is still a far smaller price
to pay than depending on the United States to be there
for them when everyone knows the U.S. has no intention
of going to war to save any one of them. Look if you
will to the Ukraine. If the U.S. won’t act decisively to
protect the integrity of this little pocket sized
country, what will it do for, say, Burma or Bangladesh?
And while this
may perhaps not be the case for Japan, it most
definitely will be such for South Korea, Taiwan, the
Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, India… and even
Australia. How do we know? Because reality says so: when
you have an 800 pound, sulking, angry gorilla with an
attitude on your doorstep, you tend to try to make
friends with it. China is that gorilla, and the doorstep
she sits on is that of her neighbors in Asia.
As regards
the U.S. and Vietnam, it should be clear that the
relationship between us cannot reach its full potential
if it is not built on mutual trust. Continuing to ban
military equipment sales while trying to increase
military-to-military ties implies a lack of trust from
our side. Telling the Vietnamese that America sees it as
a constructive partner in safeguarding regional peace
and stability, and has felt this way since the early
1990s, but won’t sell it arms because Vietnam once
occupied Cambodia with its own troops, and while no
longer shows any tendency towards human rights abuses
might again one day, makes no sense. Especially when
other countries in the area are not subject to this same
line of reasoning or even military equipment sales ban.
So what’s the real reason behind America’s continuing
ban on military equipment sales to Vietnam?
Can Vietnam Ever Be Trusted?
We think
that the truth lies in an old fear… left over from the
very early 1980s when Vietnam was trying to rejoin the
world… that Vietnam sought the ability to buy arms from
America as a sort of seal of approval, to tell the world
that it was now o.k. for other countries to view Vietnam
as a good citizen of the world again. Twenty-plus years
ago there was some truth to this. Vietnam then had no
intention of buying military equipment from the United
States, it merely sought the change in status to help
leverage it from the economic mess it had created for itself
after the Vietnam War ended.
But that is not the case
anymore. Today Vietnam has in fact rejoined the world
and does in fact see an improved relationship with both
the U.S. and its military as crucial for its long term
growth, prosperity and survivability. As to how this relates to its own
views in terms of what kind of military hardware it
should adopt as a standard, in recent months Hanoi has
indicated an interest in acquiring U.S. made radar and
surveillance equipment. Compare this if you will to one
of America’s oldest partner countries… one just a short
distance away from Vietnam: Australia. Last month
(September 2014)
Australia announced that it would be purchasing its next
generation of submarines from Japan.
Australia… a died
in the wool, stalwart partner of America… spending $20
billion to buy 10 - 12 submarines from Japan, while
America’s shipbuilding industry sits steeping in rust?
What’s going on here?
Look if you will to Vietnam then.
If America does not recognize that times have changed
and that the Vietnamese government has too—for the
better—it will lose its chance to add an important ally
to its arsenal. Vietnam not only can be trusted, it
should be trusted. And if we do not get busy
demonstrating our trust and ability to work with this
important little country, we will soon see her cozying up to India,
Japan, England, Germany or any number of other
fair-weather friends only too anxious to sell arms
to her and take her money and run... leaving America out to dry
from both an economic and military standpoint.
Why
should we care? Because at the root of any initiative to
keep China in check over the long term must be Vietnam.
And if that initiative should take the form of either a
Dutch Treat War policy, or even a conventional one, then
Vietnam is absolutely essential, if for no other reason
than the fact that she shares a 1,306 km long
border with China, and looks askance at almost
everything China
does.
Still not enough for you? Still don't know if you can
trust her? Consider then as a sign
that Vietnam is sincere about changing its posture and
becoming a trusted friend of America and its military an
announcement it made in May, when it said that it would
participate in the U.S.–backed Proliferation Security
Initiative. This decision on Vietnam’s part to follow
America’s military lead in its part of the world fully
opens the door for the U.S. and Vietnam to conduct
future joint maritime surveillance work, as the need may
arise.
Against the backdrop of growing Chinese
assertiveness and rising maritime tensions in the South
China Sea, there is no more clear a sign that Vietnam
sees the value of an American presence in this part of
the world than a request to join the U.S. formed
Proliferation Security Initiative. The Vietnam of old
would not have done that.
Finally, to show that Vietnam
has sure and truly come in out of the cold, Vietnam has
expressed its intent to both find common interests with
other members of, and strengthen its interest in, ASEAN.
It looks in this regard towards building closer ties to
ASEAN defense institutions, such as the ASEAN Defense
Ministers’ Meetings—a platform that includes the defense
ministers of the ten ASEAN states and their eight major
dialogue partners, and strives through this platform to
develop mutually supportive and mutually beneficial
military policies—almost all of which align perfectly
with America’s views.
We're Getting There, But Still Have A Long Way To Go
So where do the U.S. and Vietnam
stand today in terms of relations? The answer is that
our relations are based on a mixed hodge-podge of
sometimes close, often not so close, and usually distant
ties, all existing under a veneer of smiling statements
professing close ties, but of little value to either
side. There is little rhyme or reason as to how America
is building bridges to this important country. It’s
almost like the President and his Secretary of State are
asleep at the switch.
Consider this:
The ban
on military equipment sales is still in place, yet the
Vietnamese Coast Guard was allowed to purchase and is
soon due to receive five or six new patrol vessels from
the U.S. Still, because of the sheer difficulty of
dealing with the U.S., Vietnam has turned to other
countries to supply it with even more vessels. What
kind of a salesman makes one sale and then lets the
customer go to another company to fill future
orders, we ask you? What’s wrong with our government
that it can't follow up on opportunities like this?
While the final
decision has not yet been made, and with no clear reason
as to why it hasn’t been, it is likely that the U.S.
will agree that over the next several years Vietnam will
be allowed to receive a number of used U.S. Coast Guard
cutters. This will help Vietnam protect its own littoral
maritime interests, vis-à-vis China’s activities in
Vietnam claimed waters. Yet if this is to happen, what’s
stalling it? Are we going to wait for China to invade
one of the contested islands before we act on this effort?
Secretary of State John Kerry announced an $18
million assistance package when he visited Vietnam in
late 2013. Why? No one seems to know. $18 million is too
little to move the needle one way or the other, if
anyone can even figure out what needle Kerry was trying
to move. How about a package that accomplishes
something? How about specifying what the package will
accomplish?
Becoming tired with America’s
intransigence… or the White House’s inability to make a
decision (sound familiar?)… Vietnam opted and announced
just a few weeks ago its intention to purchase six ships
from Japan, ostensibly to be used to strengthen
Vietnam’s maritime security and help it both project and
protect its maritime domain. While no one is labeling
these ships warships, one wonders what kind of maritime
vessel can provide maritime security if not a warship.
One also wonders why, as in the case of Australia, those
countries America needs most on its side are buying
military hardware from the Japanese?
While
Vietnam slips farther and farther from a course designed
to form close and improving relations with the
U.S.—because the U.S. doesn’t seem to be targeting such
on its own front—Congress continues to whine that if it
lifts the arms sales ban the U.S. will lose leverage
over Hanoi’s human rights activities. Someone should
tell these cretins that what’s important is leverage
over China’s human rights activities, not Vietnam’s.
More to the point, by building closer ties to Vietnam
the U.S. can gain leverage over both country’s human
rights activities. From China’s side, having America
sitting in Vietnam and acting like a trusted friend is
going to make China pay greater attention to how it
treats the peoples of this area of the world. From
Vietnam’s side, with the U.S. as a close friend and strategic partner it will be more inclined to listen to
America’s entreaties over human rights. After all, who
are you more inclined to listen to when you are called
out for doing something wrong, someone you barely know,
or a close friend? If America wants Vietnam to listen to
it, then it needs to become a closer friend of this
small but important country.
And if all of
this is not enough, rumor in Washington is that
President Obama is reluctant to bring Vietnam closer to
the U.S. because it will cost him political capital.
Really? Does America’s left hold so many objections to
building closer ties to Vietnam that they would hold it
against President Obama if he lobbied for Vietnam’s
participation in, say, the Trans-Pacific Partnership
free trade agreement that is currently being negotiated?
Have people gone mad? Do they not know that America
benefits economically every time a free trade agreement
is signed? Does Barack Obama have so much political
capital tied to Vietnam that he actually has to worry
about this? Does the left not know that if President
Obama’s Dutch Treat War Policy initiative were to
actually be put in place between the U.S. and Vietnam it
would mean that in any confrontation with China it would
be Vietnamese troops doing the fighting, not American
soldiers? Would they prefer our Army take to the field
over the
Spratly Islands, instead of Vietnam’s?
It
boggles the mind.
Putting all of the smoke and mirrors
of politics aside, it is time that the U.S. put its
house in order as regards both present and future
relations with Vietnam. To begin, the U.S. must define a
clear policy that will lead to significantly improved
ties between our two countries—in the short term—and it
needs to start acting on those policies now. Why?
Because the U.S. military needs Vietnam on its side. The
fact is:
Vietnam is going to be on someone’s
side, and it might as well be on ours than China’s. So
let’s get busy organizing such a state of affairs and
putting it into effect.
Crazy as it may sound,
President Obama’s Dutch Treat War Policy concept just
may work in the Middle East. If it does, it might also
find value in other places in the world. America would
do well to begin signing up free agents to act as local
boots on the ground partners if we ever have to go to
war under circumstances similar to that which we face
with ISIS—an issue important enough to require kinetic
action on our part, but not important enough to warrant
American soldiers patrolling the ground being fought
over. In terms of Southeast Asia, Vietnam would make an ideal partner in this
regard, and should be brought into our stable of
thoroughbreds just in case we need her at the post the
next time the bugle goes off in that part of the world.
Expect A Cold
Shoulder From Our Hot New Friend
In putting this new
relationship in place however, the U.S. should understand that
how Vietnam acts in public, with respect to U.S.
initiatives seeking closer ties with it, should not be
misconstrued as a sign of its true feelings or
intentions. Instead, the reality is that the U.S. must
cut Hanoi a great deal of slack, such that while it acts
in private to bring our two countries closer together,
it will display in public, for the world to see,
something short of cold antipathy towards the idea of
deeper bilateral security cooperation between itself and
America.
As to why this is the case, it should be
remembered that while Vietnam is a scrappy little
country, it is still little. In building closer ties to
America Vietnam is going to have to walk softly and
gingerly such that it is able to portray for China’s
consumption a guarded response towards building closer
long term military ties to the U.S. On the surface, for
the foreseeable future, Vietnam will have to look as
though it is pursuing a policy of remaining independent
of the U.S. in its foreign policy, even while it is
undermining this very point by, behind the scenes,
building closer military ties with us.
In conclusion, as
regards the concept of a U.S. Dutch Treat War Doctrine, there
is value in such an idea and that value should be
further explored. One area deserving of scrutiny... in
fact action... relates to deciding which of the many
countries around the world might make ideal partners to
work with under such a protocol. If the U.S. decides to
pursue relations with countries that might fit into such
a doctrine, one aimed at jointly but severally fighting
small regional wars of limited size, it should most
definitely consider and include Vietnam in the list of
countries targeted.
Regardless of whether it does or
not, considering the instability that China's actions
are bringing to Asia, it's time for the U.S. to improve
its military ties with Vietnam. If for no other reason
than this alone, we think it is
time that the U.S. end its ban on arms sales to Vietnam.
The U.S. should also promote and engage in a greater
effort to work together more closely with Vietnam,
actually doing something about this matter rather than
just subscribing to friendly words published in a
memorandum of understanding produced by the State
Department for PR purposes.
One way the U.S. can do this
is to not only lift the ban on lethal weapons sales but
also offer greater technical support and training to
Vietnam, to increase the level of integration between
our two militaries… as might be required in a future
kinetic engagement where the U.S. provided either air or
naval power in support of their army in the field.
We
understand that Secretary of Defense Hagel will visit
Vietnam in November. If so, his visit will provide an
ideal opportunity for our two countries to reach
agreement as to what things both sides must do now
to see forward movement as regards the new relationship
we need build. On this point, the very
first thing we must do, again, is lift the
ban on lethal weapon sales to Vietnam.
Thank You
Footnotes:
[1] Human rights concerns seem to center around
Vietnamese authorities’ actions with respect to areas
relating to freedom of expression. In particular, the Hanoi
government's treatment of Internet bloggers, peaceful
activists and dissidents seems to be at the fore of the
world's concerns. The same is true with respect to the
Vietnamese people’s ability to enjoy freedom of religion,
practice ethnic minority rights and lobby for greater labor
rights, although to a lesser extent. .
- To return to your place in the text click here:
Like
this article? Let us know by helping us with our scholarship fund efforts. A
$30.00 donation
to our
Scholarship Fund
will help us get one step closer to helping another deserving High School
graduate attend college. Your donation is tax deductible and your kindness
will go father than you think in making
it possible for another young American to fulfill their dream of a college
education. Thank You!
Original Site Design and Construction
By John Hart, Class 07-66. Ongoing site design and
maintenance
courtesy Class 09-67.
Content and design Copyright
1998 - 2014 by ArmySignalOCS.com.