Posted on 12/07/2004 10:36:51 PM PST by The Loan Arranger
We'll soon have 150,000 U.S. troops stuck in the ever-expanding Iraqi quagmire, a number that will probably grow even larger before Iraq holds elections presently scheduled for the end of January '05.
Maintaining such a force is a logistical and personnel nightmare for every grunt in Iraq. And according to several Pentagon number crunchers, it's also driving the top brass bonkers.
Meanwhile the insurgents continue cutting our supply lines and whacking our fighting platoons and supporters, who attrit daily as soldiers and Marines fall to enemy shots, sickness or accidents. Empty platoons lose fights, so these casualties have to be replaced ASAP.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
Hack likes wearing that stinky black turtleneck on the MSM TV shows. He noticed he gets called when he's slamming the military, and ignored when he doesn't. It's Pavlovian.
Oh boy... Why do these guys always get bitter and wacky when their 15 minutes of fame is over and NO ONE will listen to them anymore? .... Pat Buchanan Syndrone.
When did he attend Army Ranger school? He didn't.
Has gone??
He's been there for some time
You're quite welcome. Keep in mind that this forum, like any messageboard, does not lend itself to providing essays with footnotes. Plus, people move in and out of threads, because there is simply so much to read. Some comments are crisp, clear and concise. Some are not. Some are abrasive. Some are not. Some are on target. Some are not. Then, you (and me) need to remember that the thought you think you expressed may not be the same thought people are reading. Enjoy what you like and let the rest roll off your back.
However, I couldn't find any factual errors by Hackworth in the info you posted or linked to. Once again, it seems that General Bahnsen's beef is based more on Hackworth's willingness to call a spade a spade rather than Hackworth getting his facts wrong.
From the beginning, I said I objected to Hackworth because he only has one real thought: General Officers and Politicians are incompetent fools who never learn.
The link I provided was written by Brigadier General John Bahnsen, U.S. Army, (Ret.) In Vietnam, he served with the 11th Armored Cavalry. As a General Officer he is in the class most frequently attacked by Hackworth. That makes Bahnsen's published response something far more focused and well-aimed than you give him credit for.
You originally wrote that Hackworth was right about Vietnam. Most people seem to agree. I'm not sure I do. You also said he was right about the first Gulf War. I don't see how.
So, just exactly what kind of criticism might you accept as something other than objecting to Hackworth's willingness to call a spade a spade?
Col.Hackworth continualy argued that containment was the way to handle Saddam. He was wrong.
I'm with you. This bozo's fifteen minutes has come and gone.
``Protect homebase first Iraq is dead center in our commander in chief's cross hairs. While the trigger hasn't yet been squeezed, our forces are on the march, and soon a giant juggernaut will be cocked and locked. The Butcher of Baghdad will be hit everywhere but loose if the attack order comes down. No question Saddam Hussein, with spies near every U.S. military base and at our overseas launching pads ... is watching the fist move into position ... When Psycho Saddam's finally cornered, the bottom line being his bunker simply isn't deep enough to save his sorry butt from what we'll dump on him, he has to have figured out that he's got nothing to lose by taking as many of those he hates with him as possible. His idea of a good time these days is probably putting loyal kamikazes in place to strike back at us big-time with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) -- real nukes, chemical and biological weapons or dirty bombs. The Israelis know exactly what to expect from Saddam. Not only do they have an anti-Scud missile-defense system up and running, they're making sure their citizens are protected from WMD: Each house-building has a sealed room to keep out the deadly bugs and fumes, and everyone has a gas mask. All first-responders -- medical, police, firemen -- are being vaccinated against smallpox. Even anti-radiation pills might soon be distributed to the general population ... Thanks to our own proper planning, our forces in the desert will also be protected ... But are the average Joe and Jane and their kids in the USA similarly set for the bad stuff? Because if you ask savvy members of our security screen about Iraqi WMD, they'll tell you they're already here, that Saddam's agents have been sneaking them in for years. If we can't stop tons of cocaine and heroin, they say, how could we stop a few containers of WMD? Unfortunately, the average American family is about as ready for Armageddon as the good people working in the World Trade Center were up for evacuating the Twin Towers on the morning of Sept. 11 ... Regrettably, the history of our country tells us that we only get our act together after we're knocked down. But this time around, the white stars and crosses could stretch from New York City to Los Angeles and back. Mr. Bush, don't squeeze the trigger until our citizens are as well-protected as the Israelis. Right now, Saddam's exit from the world scene simply isn't worth the tragic price our unprotected citizens might pay.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here he is lock step with the fear mongering left.
http://www.avonhistory.org/mil3/down711.htm
I've read a couple of his books. He was wrong on a number of issues.
Is this specific? No. I have neither the time nor desire to go re-read his books and quote passages. I'm just going to say his intentions are good, but his opinions are out of touch with modern military reality.
If you don't believe that - fine.
Actually, I can't provide you with a quote, but Hack's view of airpower dates from Korea. He doesn't understand how targeting pods and precision munitions allow MORE ACCURATE bombing from high altitude than from low.
Ok, here you go. This is an excerpt from an editorial published in the March 1994 issue of Air Force Magazine. Shooting Blind: David Hackworth is a distinguished soldier, but his arguments about airpower are old, tired, and wrong.
David H. Hackworth is an outspoken infantry officer turned media celebrity and syndicated columnist. For the benefit of those who have not read his 875-page autobiography (About Face, Simon and Schuster, 1989), his newspaper columns come with tag lines explaining that he is "the nation's most decorated living military veteran." Colonel Hackworth has a poor opinion of many things, and one of them is airpower.
"Air power has failed in every modern war we've fought," Colonel Hackworth declared in a January column. "From World War II to the Persian Gulf, only the grunts down on the ground, where it gets nasty and costly, have produced the final victory.
"Contrary to the Air Force's post-Desert Storm hype, air power was not the main event even in the desert, where the Iraqis had no place to hide. . . . Victory came not because of decisive air power, but because of hard-hitting armor attacks against an Iraqi army with no will to fight."
[ . . . ]
The argument that airpower is not decisive is very old and very tired. If Colonel Hackworth can name any recent wars won single-handedly by the other services, we will be amazed to hear about them. As almost everyone except Colonel Hackworth seems to realize, modern warfare is a combined-arms proposition.
Furthermore, he made a strange choice in singling out the Gulf War for his ire. He could not possibly be unaware that airpower destroyed Iraq's command-and-control system before sunrise on the first day of fighting. Then it closed down Iraq's supply routes and put the world's sixth-largest air force out of business for the duration of the war. Before the coalition ground offensive began, the Republican Guard had lost a fourth of its armor to air attacks. Front-line units lost more. Vast numbers of troops had deserted their units because of air attacks. How does Colonel Hackworth suppose the Iraqi army lost its will to fight?
We have the highest regard for the bravery and achievement of the ground troops in the last 100 hours of the Gulf conflict, but to claim they won the war by themselves is ridiculous. If a "main event" must be designated, it was the air campaign.
Colonel Hackworth has twice made acerbic personal attacks on Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, Air Force Chief of Staff, whom he castigates for being "enthusiastic" about air strikes on Serbian artillery and US involvement in the Balkan conflict. In January, Colonel Hackworth predicted that General McPeak would eat his words if "air power is used as the final solution" in Bosnia.
In fact, General McPeak said nothing like that. In response to a direct question from Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), he said he did not know what effect air strikes might have on the political situation in the Balkans, but that, if ordered to do so, the Air Force could find, target, and destroy the Serbian gun positions--and do it without great risk to the aircrews. Does something in Colonel Hackworth's infantry experience qualify him to make a better judgment?
In his 1989 book, Colonel Hackworth said the next war would be one of insurgency and that US troops would not face large armored formations. He did not anticipate the Gulf War, on which he now lectures us. His contempt for airpower is illogical and unrealistic.
As you'll soon find out, you won't get much traction with the keyboard warriors here. They all know so much more than a Decorated Hero about war fighting, just ask them. I'll stand with Hack any day of the week. Welcome to Free Republic! Blackbird.
No argument here. He has been doing more harm than good lately.
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.