BLAME REACHES TO THE PENTAGON'S TOP

What went wrong at Abu Ghraib prison? Two reports released this week agree: Woefully deficient planning for post-war Iraq, too few troops and inadequate leadership at the top....

Is anyone surprised at Lt. Col. Half-Track's rant, nay, obsessive and irrational hatred of neo-cons and the Pentagon? McCaffrey's boy has a vested interest in sensationalizing Abu Ghraib for his own purposes: to exact revenge on Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Cambone for trying to transform the military.

After demonstrating incompetence at analyzing both the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns, Peters concocted with McCaffrey a theory that our troops were understrength -- even though we were never overwhelmed by enemy forces owing to our superior command communications, quick mobility and precise firepower.

Putting a soldier (read, stationary target) on every corner was Peters' solution to every problem, as Lyndon Johnson's solution to Vietnam was to increase troop strength by a half million. Unfortunately, Peters never took into account the unavailable Turkish front as a factor limiting the troops in the initial stages of the war nor the disastrous Soviet experience of too many soldiers in Afghanistan, attendant with vulnerable supply lines.

Peter's has been wrong on nearly every issue, and his usual out-of-sync thinking prmoted increasing our footprint when the Pentagon was planning its exit by turning over responsibilities for security to newly trained Iraqis as soon as they were able to handle them.

While Peters rails against columnists who exploited Abu Ghraib for their own purposes, he is one. Peters' could well have written the extraordinarily biased New York Times articles on the subject, as well as its editorial today. His irrational quest for revenge (for what, I don't know), transcended any damage he was doing to the reputation not only of the US but its military. Peters, you will recall, said Abu Ghraib dishonored all service personnel who ever wore the uniform.

I beg to differ with Lt. Col. Half-Track: It is Peters who dishonors the military, his country, and the New York Post.

There has never been to my knowledge any picture or anecdote coming out of Abu Ghraib that did NOT include one of those 7 or 8 soldiers who are at the center of this controversy. THEIR cellblock was out of control. No others. There was an entire MP battalion operating in and around Abu Ghraib (maybe even an MP Group...my memory is lacking...)

If this was "policy" and "encouraged," then it's odd that those 7 or 8 are the only ones who "understood" those imaginary orders.

"The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests; we did (winks.)

But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals.

For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system?

And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general?

(The other Deltas cheer; Otter addresses the Student Council President directly.)

I put it to you, Greg! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?

(The Deltas cheer again.)

Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!

(Otter packs his briefcase and leaves the room; the other Deltas follow, humming 'The Star-Spangled Banner')"

- Otter's Speech in defense of the Deltas" from "Animal House", written by Douglas Kenney, Chris Miller, & Harold Ramis

The fear of a PC backlash allowed an inept woman a command that she did not deserve and where she failed to maintain discipline.

Very real possibility..

MANAMA, Bahrain (NNS) -- Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet has directed that the commanding officer of USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) be relieved Aug. 27, as a result of a collision that occurred between a dhow and Kennedy during the night of July 22.

Didn't take them long to fix the problem with a male commander though, did it?

Not one General was prepared to haul Karpinski over the coals for poor performance. The fear of a PC backlash allowed an inept woman a command that she did not deserve and where she failed to maintain discipline.

Belatedly, let me express my complete agreement with you. Where in the investigative reports do they comment that Gen. Sanchez, who was blamed for not sacking Karpinski, had a war to fight and didn't need the distraction of Congressional inquiries and Washington-based hearings over his reasons for firing a showcase general in these times of extreme political correctness and election fever?

Too often, these investigations are woefully partisan or surrealistically ivory-towerish and divorced from reality, the 9/11 Commission being a prime example. That is, where did those commissioners address issues of Congressional failures through meddling in intelligence agencies matters and time-consuming grandstanding, its effects of agency morale and effectiveness, conflicts of interest, etc.?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.