Talk:Patrol Base Diamond I

October 2020
User:Billmckern you need to stop adding information from non WP:RS to this page. None of, or  is an RS. There is no RS that states that Patrol Base Diamond I was established as bait as part of some great deception plan to draw in and destroy PAVN forces. Due to its proximity to the Parrots Beak, the Tay Ninh area was hotly contested between Allied and PAVN/VC forces in the 1968-70 period. In the aftermath of the Tet Offensive Allied forces conducted Operation Toan Thang I to IV in III Corps, culminating in the Cambodian Campaign and they pushed the PAVN/VC out of their base areas north-northwest of Saigon. The PAVN/VC, which had adopted a strategy of sapper attacks to reduce their losses, attacked various firebases established by the Allies to support their operations including Diamond I particularly in the Tet 1969 period. If you actually read the ORLL I added you will see that there is no mention of Diamond I being used as "bait" any more than all firebases were designed to deny territory to the PAVN/VC, interdict their supply routes and withstand attacks from them. Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Bob Seger was a member of the 25th Aviation Battalion and was present at the time of the base construction and the subsequent attack. He says the base was built to bait the North Vietnamese. How he's not reliable is beyond me.


 * In addition, Preston Rowser received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism during the battle at Diamond I. How did he describe his unit's presence at that location? "Bait." Are you going to argue that he's unreliable?


 * I stand by my characterization. I'm interested in your reply.


 * Billmckern (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Billmckern Yes they are unreliable personal accounts which haven't gone through any editorial review process. No US Army document refers to Diamond I as part of a plan to invite an attack and so that characterisation is a creation of one of them that presumably the others have picked up on, or it may have been the feeling among those present at the base. However to say that it was part of a great US deception plan requires more than just the opinions of one or more men on the scene. I suggest that you reread WP:RS and see what is and is not regarded as reliable. Mztourist (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I give up. You're wrong, but obviously unwilling to let it go. Moving on...


 * Billmckern (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not wrong. If you don't like it you can take it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see if you can gain support for your sources, but I'm confident that you won't. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're willing to take a look at this reference and this one. Do key word searches for terms including bait, lure, and Diamond. Then let me know if you think there's any progress to be made here.


 * Billmckern (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Billmckern The 25th Infantry Division ORLL says nothing about Diamond being part of some deception plan. The only use of "bait" is on page 9 describing actions in April 1969 where it states "Capitalizing on the enemy's desire for a moral victory, the Division again set the bait close to the border. Following a standard procedure, a well entrenched company sized patrol base was established within two and one-half kilometers of the border." In relation to "lure" on page 7 it states "Patrol Base DIAMOND II, which was shifted along the border in the ANGEL'S WING sector (XT3322) as a lure for the enemy. Apparently the temptation was too great." All of which just reiterates what I said on 1 October: all firebases were designed to deny territory to the PAVN/VC, interdict their supply routes and withstand attacks from them. As the beginning of the report states "The Division's efforts were keyed to finding, fighting and destroying the enemy in his base areas." Anticipation and Improvisation: The Firebase Concept in Counterinsurgency Operations states that "The successes US forces achieved in destroying the attacking enemy led some commanders to employ fire bases to lure the enemy into attacking (baited attacks)" which again just reiterates what I said. Neither of the sources you provided supports the assertion that Diamond was established as part of a deception plan, firebases were built in contested territory and PAVN/VC attacks were always a possibility, there was nothing new about this. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm out. If you think words like bait and lure don't mean deception, I don't know what you do think they mean. Clearly you're not letting this go and there's no room to work together. I'm moving on to something more productive.


 * Billmckern (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Billmckern the use of those words do not amount to a deception plan and certainly don't rise to the level required for inclusion on the Military deception page where I see you have added this in. As I said before numerous firebases were attacked as part of the Tet 1969 attacks and attacks on firebases were very common. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can respond here because anything I write will be personal, not article-related. Like I said, I'm out.


 * Billmckern (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)