Replies

"Hack was wrong, but he's still a great American, motivated only by his concern for young men in harm's way and cynical of politicos - even the good ones."

Both Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold were (at one time) American military heroes. In fact, without Arnold, the United States would not exist. His contributions to the Continental cause in 1775-77 kept the United States in the Revolution. Yet their shortcomings should not be ignored because they served their country honorably in wartime.

Similarly while I honor Hack's contributions to this country *while* he was wearing a uniform, I cannot but reflect that his military judgement from 1989 to the present has been as flawed as . . . oh, Peter Jennings or Peter Arnett. Certainly he has underestimated the military as frequently as those two.

Why should that be surprising? Hack is the product of the post WWII-Vietnam era constript military. If you looked at the 20th century military, with the *possible* exception of the period prior to the US's entry into WWI this period was probably the most underperforming time for the US Army in that century. A soft, flabby army that did not believe in the importance of the infantryman marked the beginning of the period (1946-50) and an unimaginative yes-man culture (1963-1972) ended it.

Today's army is all volunteer, highly skilled, and highly motivated. There are no Cat IVs. The unwilling Beetle Bailey conscripts are gone. It is an army driven by technology, teamwork, and maneuver.

Hack's army is gone. Hack's opinions are as valid to today's army as a Spanish-American War cavalry officer's opinions would be at the beginning of WWII.

I would still buy the Colonel a drink for his service in Vietnam and Korea, but that does not mean I buy his opinions.