This is a rather emotive topic, particularly for those persons who had some involvement with the men whose bodies were not recovered. Obviously their families have been affected directly. Also other persons, outside of the families, who knew the men or were involved in the cases somehow, may have an emotional connection.

This matter requires sensitivity towards, and due consideration of the feelings of those involved. On the other hand there is a need to achieve a degree of openness so that all interested or affected parties can see that reasonable steps have been taken to fully and definitively account for the young men who gave their lives for their country.

The legal requirements for maintaining the privacy of individuals must be met.

To establish a general framework for the assessment of evidence in relation to the possibility of recovery of remains.

What should we do: ignore the issue and hope it will go away, or uncover the facts and face them. I have no qualification for saying so, but my general experience says that I would like to know the true situation. Maybe other stakeholders feel differently.

To effectively investigate what has been done to fully and definitively account for these men, strict objectivity is necessary. If you are not prepared to deal objectively with this issue, I suggest you read no further. Emotive claptrap will only cloud the issue. If you are one who wants to play on emotions then please play elsewhere. You, and anyone else who are not interested in full and definitive accounting are not being compelled to read any further or to consider this issue. Please make your own choice, and perhaps let others do the same.

Obviously a judgment needs to be made as to whether a particular case is pursued or not. Who should make this decision? My understanding is that close relatives in at least four or five of the families may be interested in following up their respective cases. On the other case, I have no information. Nevertheless, we can make whatever judgements we wish, but we should be careful not to exclude one or more of the cases on the basis of what we think, or have heard from others. The families should make the call as to whether they want to be involved in following up these matters. To make decisions on their behalf is nothing short of paternalistic.

Having said that, there are other stakeholders and we could label these persons as "concerned individuals." I know of several such persons and the lack of knowing what has happened to their missing comrades is a cross to bear. It is possible that they may or may not wish to pursue full and definitive accounting for the man or men in question. So they should decide for themselves whether they become involved in following up on their particular case or not.

It is assumed that none of the six are alive to day and based on available information, this is seen as a reasonable assumption. Even if any one of them were captured, it is still most reasonable to assume that none is alive to day.

Remains Obliterated or Fragmented at the Time of the Initial Incident or Subsequently

This is a possibility in one or two or naybe three of our six cases. We need to prove that this is the situation, or alternatively we need to locate any remains and hence disprove the hypothesis of obliteration.

If the bodies survived the initial incident (dead or alive); there is a possibility that they may never have been buried. Scenarios could be that they died in a remote area and have not been found by anyone.

If the bodies survived the initial incident (dead or alive), there is a possibility that they may have been subsequently buried and still remain buried. (This could cover the POW scenario although there is no evidence whatsoever that any one of them was captured and died in captivity.)

Over the years since the various incidents took place considerable development has occurred in some of the areas of interest. In addition there has been ample opportunity for persons to venture into the areas, even those where less development has taken place. (Two of the incident areas appear to have been developed to an extent but there appears to be less development likely in the other two areas, but this needs checking.)

Hence there has been ample opportunity for the remains of some of our missing men to be discovered. This fact needs to be acknowledged as one of the possible scenarios where development of or human access to the incident area has taken place. Remains may have been simply ignored or discarded, perhaps even destroyed; buried or re-buried in location; or moved to another location for burial, storage or disposal. Such disposal could involve passing the remains on to others: relatives, friends or acquaintances, the Vietnamese government or the American authorities.

It is acknowledged that there is, or at least there was a private sector "industry" based on US remains. The major holder and dealer in remains in the past has been the Vietnamese government. However, the last hand over of remains by Vietnam was in 1991 (three sets) and it is assessed that the government doesn't have additional large numbers of remains it could repatriate, as previously believed. (They have returned unilaterally a total of 264 give or take a few since 1974.) See details on return of US remains here. The government's collection of remains was less prevalent in the south where our men were lost. Perhaps some private individuals may still have some but it against the law. (To be confirmed.) Perhaps such private individuals may have since discarded any remains that they were holding.

The US Army Central Identification Laboratory Hawaii (CILHI) regularly recovers remains from Vietnam and at any given time they have a fluctuating number of unidentified accessions. The primary mission of CILHI is to locate the remains of US servicemen. To do this they need to be able to exclude the possibility of any remains that they are holding being those of an Australian.

Objectively, the remains of the six men could be in any one or more of the following states:

1. Obliterated or fragmented at the time of the initial incident or subsequently;
2. Not ever buried and not discovered since;
3. Buried and not discovered since;
4. Buried or not buried, but subsequently discovered and buried, re-buried, passed on to others or discarded;
5. Buried or not buried, but discovered and now stored in Vietnam;
6. Recovered and stored in Hawaii or elsewhere.

The aim of OPERATION AUSSIES HOME is to pursue all facts and thereby achieve full and definitive accounting for these men. Each case is different. The facts, and this includes not simply the facts associated with the incident, but also the chronology over the intervening period, need to be compiled and assessed. Assessments will be made within the framework of 1 to 6 above.

OPERATION AUSSIES HOME exists to meet the needs of those who require better disclosure of the relevant facts leading to full and definitive accounting for the missing men. Such persons may include the families and other stakeholders. For those who wish to face these issues, please join us. For those who are satisfied with what they know, you need not be involved.