Hanging out the Troops (Hackworth Fails to Mention 17 Senators)

David Hackworth ^ | May 10, 2004 | David HAckworth

[Dolphy]

In 1951 in Korea, I was told by my commanding officer to kill four POWs and refused his direct order. I well remembered the Nazi generals’ sorry rationale for their despicable conduct: “We were just following orders.” I would get booted out of the Army before I went that route.

In 1965 in Vietnam, I saw a very connected intelligence captain torturing a POW with a field-telephone wire attached to his testicles and decided my personal belief system outweighed his father’s four stars. When I told him I’d shoot him if he didn’t cease and desist, the atrocity came to a screeching halt.

Isn't Hackworth choking the life out of his point here or is it just his usual point not quite fitting with this situation? His usual rant is againt those in command and here he illustrates the same point along with his usual "moral" superiority. He can't possibly argue that those involved in the current situation just didn't know that abusing prisoners and posing with them wasn't wrong.

[swheats]

Actually this could be great news. Hackworth is basically making the point of what everyone was saying that under Clintons' watch the military was gutted and our soldiers not trained properly to be ready for any mission.

"LEGACY PROJECT" LAUNCHES SPIN CAMPAIGN TO OBSCURE CLINTON RECORD ON MILITARY READINESS

..."Legacy Project" talking points cannot erase the inconvenient fact that during the Clinton years, military readiness and morale were seriously degraded. Contemporaneous news stories, published with headlines such as these, reported the steady decline:

· "BAND-AID NAVY -- How Shortages are Burning Out Sailors and Wearing Out the Fleet," Navy Times, May 22, 2000
· "Two Army Divisions Unfit for war-- Both Flunk Ratings of Preparedness," Washington Post, Nov. 10, 1999
· "They Weren’t Ready -- General Says Task Force Hawk Aviators Unprepared for Challenges in Kosovo," Army Times, July 5, 1999
· "Army Says Strained Resources Leave Troops Unprepared for War" -- New York Times, Nov. 10, 1999
· "ROCK BOTTOM -- Training Centers Report They Can’t Meet Mission," Army Times, Sept. 11, 2000
· "Workload Swamps Ship Maintenance Depots," Navy Times, May 22, 2000
· "Readiness Hits Lowest Level in 15 Years" -- Air Force Times, May 15, 2000

Defense analyst O’Hanlon nevertheless claimed that Clinton’s Administration had "maintained a strong and focused military able to carry out a post-Cold War mission." Pointing to the performance of American forces in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, O’Hanlon came to the faint-praise conclusion that "Bill Clinton did not squander the legacy" of his predecessors, President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

To appreciate the fatuity of that claim, just imagine Reagan or either President Bush starting their respective terms as Commander-in-Chief by calling for the acceptance of open homosexuality in the military. By contrast, Reagan delivered on his promise to restore the strength and morale of America’s volunteer force, following four years of "hollowing out" under President Jimmy Carter.

In addition to what was taken away, social burdens were loaded on. High-level Clinton appointees--including an Assistant Secretary of the Army (Sara Lister) who derided the Marines as "extremists" -- turned the Pentagon into a feminist power base. Liberal civilian appointees pursued an "ungendered military," and lavished scarce resources on social engineering that undermined military culture and morale.

In addition to continuous attempts to accommodate homosexuals in the military, despite congressional action to the contrary, Clinton policies became increasingly problematic. His legacy includes co-ed basic training, gender quotas and gender-normed standards, a push to relax personal discipline rules, and a pervasive lack of candor about the consequences of such policies. The result was a widening credibility gap, detected in numerous surveys, which demoralized the troops and caused hundreds of junior officers to leave the service early.

Who's in trouble now, a woman and her subordinates who are bordering on homosexual acts. Clinton's Legacy just keeps on giving.

[Askel5]

=== Hack is so phoney he is pathetic. He reminds of John McCain, liberals have put him on a pedastool and it has gone to his head.


I don't agree with you, of course, but a better comparison than McCain might be David Whoreowitz and the radicalized right. =)

[Askel5]

=== There is NO MORAILTY in war, unless hack can claim that he never killed anyone

Are you familiar with Just War theory?

[chilepepper]

If all this is true, then my respect for him grows

Not mine. If I heard it from someone else, my respect might go up. Hearing it from Hack himself just re-inforces my opinion of him as a leftist tool shamelessly promoting himself.

If the Abu Ghaid scandal stiffens the spine of the Iraqi opposition and causes, say, 500 more Americans to die, will you still admire Hack?

If the 17 Senators include prominent, vulnerable Democrats who will be embarrassed, and whose "negligence" causes the scandal to start to disipate, will you admire Hacksworth even more for not mentioning them publicly? Maybe perky katie couric told him he won't be on her program anymore if he outed hillary as being one of the 17, would that make you admire Hack more?

[aft_lizard]

He can label me what he wants, he is after all on the same side as the paleo-con Pat Buchanen and the National Alliance.

[raptor29]

And what's particularly devious is that the military cannot come out and publicly argue and make excuses about the depleted forces they are currently trying to upgrade, as it gives our many enemies an admission we would rather they not have. So the 'rats' rail on and on about Rumsfeld 'not having enough troops in Iraq', knowing they ('rats) are the reason we don't have enough troops, period, but also knowing that the military can't blame them and admit to the deficiency. And Hackworth wants nothing to do with any of this, for fear he won't be invited on TV shows anymore.

[aft_lizard]

Hey I got a reply LOL.

Ready, this is from the Hack:

What is your point????

[John Lenin]

You are calling David a radical rightest ? If you had said Mike Savage I could agree but Dave is not a nutcase.

[CWOJackson]

LOL!

[Askel5]

Not at all ... Horowitz is just the same liberal opportunist he's always been. What he's doing is Radicalizing the right. The notion folks not only are hailing the atheist pro-abort but dutifully adopting the tactics of the Left (as if lies worked the same way as the truth) dumbfounds me, actually.

I think I listened to Savage once on the highway one night. I could stand about 10-12 minutes, if I remember correctly. I have no feel for the guy.



But back to your original statement ...

Absent a strict adherence to the prosecution of war by absolutely objectively moral standards (such as the four-prong test of a Just War which has served Western Civilization for hundreds and hundreds of years), you open yourself to some pretty muddy waters.

Self-styled "Saviors" are held to a much higher standard than those acting in simple Self-Defense.

As a military brat, especially, I find unsettling your belief that there can be no "morality" in war simply because the infliction of death to stop an aggressor is warranted.

[John Lenin]

I have a problem with anyone who tries to bring gods name into war. It's just who I am, it's like a mafia guy saying the other guys is worse so he deserves to die. Cath my drift ?

[DonaldDuke]

Be careful, he'll label you a Nazi.

Oh brother, do I have a response to that :).

First, check this:

Omholt/Skydrifter, Hackworth Editor

Then, check this:

More Skydrifter

Then, check for Skydrifter's posts on, for example, www.libertypost.org. Look for the stuff about Israel/Jews.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

And why is that lots of women just adore male homosexuals?

Because they're "safe". Meaning that if they seem interested in a woman for her company, the woman knows for certain that there are no sexual motivations to the attention.

That, and the fact that they don't spend inordinate amounts of time looking at a woman's breasts.

[cyncooper]

I want to see what the letter said.

I don't expect the letters to the Senators to be a big deal since they were sent in January right when Centcom announced the allegations and investigations.

Unless Uncle Lawson included some unique information in the letters I can't say I would expect such a missive to garner much attention. The fact that letters were sent means no more than the fact that newpapers and news channels reported same during the same time frame. It doesn't stop the dems from claiming this is all new and was hidden from the public.

[Let's Roll]

I thought when I heard he was going to name names that he'd better have his life insurance paid up.

[jwalsh07]

What is your point????

I thought your point was eminently clear. Hackworth had to sensationalise the photos for his own self agrandisement at the expense of Americans being held prisoner by jihadist whackjobs and the guys in the line units who now have to deal with a bit more "hate".

[John Lenin]

8 of the 17 are demowits, no wonder Hackworth-less is holding back on releasing names.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

You have my highest praise: "Damn, I wish I'd said that".

V/R,

[LADY J]

"8 of the 17 are demowits, no wonder Hackworth-less is holding back on releasing names."

Wonder if anyone emailing HACKworth are asking him about this.