Posted on 06/10/2005 6:32:43 AM PDT by crushkerry
It seems that in nearly 4 year after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 some in our country seem to have forgotten that horrible day. Even worse, those that are in charge of protecting us do not seem to have learned the lessons that could help prevent another attack.
Luckily for Americans there are people like Colonel David Hunt out there. Col. Hunt is the no-nonsense, tell it like it is military analyst for Fox News, and has 30 years military experience, much of it in counter-terrorism. Most recently, he is the author of the New York Times best-selling book They Just Don't Get It: How Washington Is Still Compromising Your Safety--and What You Can Do About It.
We were fortunate enough to have Col. Hunt speak with us iin a wide-ranging interview where he discusses his bbook, what's going wrong in the War on Terror and Iraq, how to fix it, the media's coverage of the war, and a host of other national security issues.
Q: Since the book went to print, have you seen anything that we are now "getting right" in how we are fighting the war on terror that we weren't doing correctly while you were writing the book?
A: Our soldiers, sailiors and marines, and air men and coast guard get it right everyday. Our cops get it right everyday. But just look at our reaction to the plane in DC a few weeks ago?
Q: In the book you indicate that part of the problem with our military strategy is that they usually are "preparing for the last war", and clearly the war on terror is one we have never faced before on such a large scale. Many of the young officers currently in Iraq and Afghanistan are "learning on the job",not only in terms of actually fighting an urban guerilla war, but also are getting experiences in how to win "hearts and minds" of the local population through things like building hospitals, schools, and water treatment facilities. How are those experiences likely to influence how our military fights the war on terror in the future when these young Captains and Lieutenants are Generals and Colonels making "big picture" decision?
A: It will take years, unfortunately--we have guys still fighting the Russians in the FULDA GAP!
Q: How long will it take to get these young officers in positions of command where they're not "fighting the last war"?
A: About 10 years. A big part of the problem is that many of the generals we have now are what's known as "Clinton Generals". These were people who were promoted during the Clinton years and are far to hesitant to take use the force and sometimes brutal tactics that are necessary to really fight and win this war.
And Tommy Franks, who is a very good and honorable man is one of them. Many Republican friends say "Oh, but he's a big Bush supporter". And I say so what. He's made some bad decisions about how the war is being fought, or in some cases not fought, that are emblematic of a "Clinton general".
Perhaps the most telling thing that Don Rumsfeld did was lure General Pete Shoomaker out of retirement and promote him over nearly all the other "Clinton Generals" to make him the Army Chief Of Staff. Pete Shoomaker is a great guy and knows how to get done the things that need to be done in this war. That's pretty telling about what Rumsfeld thinks of many of the Generals he has.
Q: Can you give us another example that some in the military leadership were "fighting the last war".
A: Yeah. Many for example think that using an armored division in Baghdad to fight terrorists makes sense...duhhh. It's not that the tank guys are ineffective. In fact, we couldn't have done what we did without them. The problem is that tank divisions require more resupply than any other division except a helicopter unit.
There's a 300 mile supply route between Kuwait and Baghdad that was running 24/7 in order to keep the tank divisions supplied. It was on that route that our military men and women were getting hit and getting killed.
Q: What would you do differently to combat the guerilla war in the urban areas like Baghdad?
A: In addition to more special forces, I would have hundreds of sniper teams with much looser rules of engagement than we have now. For example, I would have shot looters on sight. When you start killing people from far away, that plays havoc with guerillas because they don't know where it's coming from or when.
I think this would also be a very effective tactic on the Syrian border. We have too many people coming across that border whose only mission is to kill Americans. We have to kill as many of those type of people as we can.
For example, Muktada al Sadr should have been killed long ago. He and his followers were killing Americans. We have to send the message that people like him that advocate killing Americans and have followers that do so are not going to live.
And it's not as if our guys aren't trained to do this. It's just that the rules of engagement are much too strict.
Q: It's often said, and I think it's true, that it will ultimately be up to the Iraqis themselves to ensure that our removing of Saddam was a success. After all it's their country and they have to be willing to fight for it, and we always hear about how many Iraqis we are training to take over the security of their own country. How close is that vision to becoming a reality?
A: At least a year. One of the biggest mistakes we made in trying to train Iraqis to defend their country is that we trained to many Privates and not enough Lieutenants and Colonels. It's more important to train good Iraqi leaders than it is to simply train a large number of soldiers.
The biggest example of this deficiency was when we were involved in heavy fighting last year in places like Fallujah. When the shooting started thousands of these "trained" Iraqis simply ran away. If those soldiers had well-trained leaders that would not have happened.
Q: You correctly state that the War on Terror is not going to be over anytime soon and will likely last over our lifetimes, and possible those of our children and grandchildren. Further, unlike WWII and other more "conventional" wars there will be no formal surrenders or peace treaties to let us know its over. Given that scenario, how do we measure success? What sort of things over the next 5 to 10 years should we look for that would indicate to the nation that we're making real progress in winning?
A: Success is when states stop sponsoring terrorism, and there's peace between Palestine and Israel.
Q: When will the public know that states have stopped sponsoring terrorism?
A: When the government tells them. A prime example would be the Saudis. These people are exporting terror, and have been doing so for years.
Q: What do you say to people who say, well, if we stop supporting the Saudi Royal Family, the people that take over for them will be worse?
A: This is a country where the royal family, who runs the county, approves of and supports Wahabbism being the state religion. Wahabbism is the most extreme and virulent form of the Muslim religion. It calls for the death of Jews and other infidels.
So you tell me if anything would really be different if they weren't in power. They've been buying off the mullahs for years to keep power, which led to the rise of Osama and the exporting of terrorism which eventually resulted in 9/11.
Yes, there might some changes on the surface. Today, the Saudi royal family and their representatives smile, they look nice, and their embassy is pretty, but the fact remains that these guys are exporting terror and have been doing so for 40 years.
Part of the problem is that the Saudis buy a whole lot of influence in this country among the elite. They take retired CIA Agents, retired 4 Star Generals and retired politicians and put them on the payroll as consultants.
They've bought this government for a long time, both Republicans and Democrats. In fact they're the major source of funding for nearly all of the Presidential libraries or recent Presidents. George H.W. Bush being a prime example of this.
Do you know that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia made the President of the United States wait for 30 minutes? That is simply unheard of, but they can get away with it because of how much money they spend trying to convince us that they are our friends, and think they can act how they please.
I'm certainly not advocating going to war with Saudi Arabia. I just want to "hate them back" a little bit. To say that they are our friends is a joke, and it's high time we stopped pretending that they like us.
Q: Is the reason we don't treat them like a state sponsor of terrorism terrorists also because of oil?
A: Absolutely. The only reason people in power care about the Saudis is because of oil. They're no different than the Syrians when it comes to sponsoring and allowing terrorists to fester. Yet we treat them with kid gloves because they give us so much of our oil. The same is true of Chavez in Venezuela, but he's not exporting terror like the Saudis are -- yet.
We've got to figure out a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, because that oil is the only chip they have on us, albeit a very big one. We've got to get more oil from Canada and more from Alaska.
It's about time people and especially politicians woke up and started realizing that we're going to need to start exploring and getting for oil off our own coastlines as well. The sooner we are honest with ourselves and realize that's what needs to be done, the sooner we can stop the charade that the Saudi's are our friends because if we don't need they're oil, we don't need them.
Q: Do you think that the American media is too quick to believe bad things about the American military? If so, why, and do you think the embedding of reporters during the Iraq war will change how the press covers the military in the future when those embedded reporters move up the ladder at their news networks or papers?
A: If it bleeds, it leads and yes bad news sells, bad news with sex sells better.
Q: What do you think is going to be the short-term and long-term effect on the War on Terror of the now-debunked "Newsweek" story which claimed interrogators at Gitmo flushed the Koran down the toilet?
A: Short term was the killing, long term is more fuel for those who hate us.
Q: What do you think should happen to the reporters/editors that ran the story based solely on anonymous sources?
A: Charge them with accessory to murder.
Q: What was your opinion of the article in The New York Times about the company Aero Plane being a CIA front company that was used to transport both our guys and terrorists secretly to places in the Middle East?
A: It's no less than absolute treason. When I saw the specifics and detail (and the pictures) in that article I wanted to throw something against the wall. I wish I was scheduled to be on with O'Reilly that night and express just how angry and upset that article made me.
Look, I can see the reason for publishing the Abu Ghraib pictures. Yes, we got a black eye there, and quite frankly, we should have. But what the Times did here was a "Gotcha" for which there was no purpose. It was a complete F--- Up. Now that operation, which was involved in "rendition", and which was very effective, has been shut down and it will take a number of years to start up again.
Q: Much of your book discusses your thoughts on how the government and military could better fight the war on terror. You lay out several plans of action. If by some way, you were assured that just one of your recommendations would be implemented, what would it be?
A: Accountability. For example, whose bright idea was it to sent Jay Garner to Iraq to help with reconstruction without sending a translator along with him? If that that kind of incompetence doesn't cause someone to lose their job I don't know what will.
Q: A great deal of your book points out how there are way to many "staff" personnel in both the military and the government whose sole job is to push paper and write reports that no one reads, rather than having them direct their attention towards actually killing terrorists. Given that, I went back and read the now-infamous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing which stated that Osama was determined to strike in the United States. If this PDB is the quality of the memos going to the President about terrorist threats we're all in trouble. Are all those wasteful "staff memos" and reports that go back and forth between agencies written as poorly, and aswishy-washy as this one?
A: Yes. Most are useless exercises in providing pablum to the starving, so yes most are wishy washy as no one wants to be wrong and everyone wants my favorite: a "win-win".
Q: One of your major proposals is appointing a National Director of Intelligence that has authority over all the intelligence agencies and bureaucracies. All those organizations would report to him or her. Given the sheer volume of information we receive on a daily basis, how is possible to weed out the useful nuggets from the idle chatter and make sure the right information getsto that NDI?
A: This is actually pretty easy; it is done by using PIR (Primary Intelligence Requirements) which basically says..only tell me about this stuff, and not that stuff. You control the flow with guidance, leadership, accountability and training.
Q: Without naming names, has any policy maker, be it a Congressperson, the head of an intelligence agency, or anyone in the "Pentagon Brass" told you that they read the book, told you that they agree with your conclusions, but that there's nothing that can be done about it? Also, how often do you speak with your contacts in the military leadership and in the intelligence and national security government organizations?
A: Mid-level managers have, as have the FBI has and Congressman Harold Ford. I do guest speaker events for the FBI and cops all the time.
Q: Conversely, have you gotten any negative feedback from those in the intelligence agencies or the military about the book? If so, describe them.
A: I have and expect to get more. One criticism from a CIA friend said I oversimplified my fixes. Another said I did not give enough ways for us to help. Some took exception to my implied criticism of Bush.
Q: Before 9/11 very few Americans knew that the Taliban was forming and plotting terror in Afghanistan, a country many may have never heard of or if they did, paid no attention to what was going on there. What countries and/or places that are not in the headlines or very well known should we be watching to ensure they don't become the next Afghanistan?
A: Columbia, Sudan, Russia and any "Stan"...Uzbekistan, et al.
Q: Do you read "Miliblogs"(blogs written by individual soldiers who are in Iraqband Afghanistan)? If so, which ones? Also, please discuss your thoughts on the effect these "Miliblogs" have on the website.
A: Don't really read that many. Soldiers should be able to whack away just like us..we just have to watch giving up classified info..but otherwise I like it..only those leaders who suck would object.
Q: Are you surprised that the recruiting numbers are going down and is it a problem?
A: No, I'm not surprised. It happens in every war when there are casualties. So while it's not unusual, it is a cause for concern. That's why I mention in my book that there should be some kind of national service program for every American ages 18-21. It doesn't mean all kids should go into the military. They can be teachers, volunteers, anything that would build a sense of service to the country.
Q: Do you think that's politically feasible?
A: Sadly no. Because we screwed up during Vietnam, in terms appearing to exempt too many kids of privilege and class, that people are right to distrust anything that looks like a draft. Unfortunately that makes it politically impossible.
Again, we want to thank Colonel Hunt for his service and for taking the time to answer our questions.
You can read our book review of Col Hunt's book here
Col. David Hunt Interview Ping
The first two criticisms are absolutely true... which makes the third true by default.
I only wish Col. Hunt's book had been as informative as this interview.
Yes indeed...
Hunt also gives his advice on how you can keep your family safe. That part did not really resonate with me. As even Hunt admits there is a 99% chance most of us not in the military or in the government agencies tasked with protecting us, will never have a hand in capturing or preventing terrorism. While his suggestions to thank soldiers or law enforcement for the jobs they do is a good one, it really won't directly keep us safe.In fairness to him though, he did admit there's really not a whole lot the average citizen can do. Thanks for the kind words about the interview.
The question I would ask of this military expert is this:
WHY is the elite pressing the false doctrine of Religious and Cultural diversity ,and a climate hostile to Evangelic
Christians and Pro-life Roman Catholics?(as reports from the Air Force Academy, and in the Baptist Press about the US Navy suggest. Are our men and women not being killed in
Iraq and Afghanistan because the Muslims do not share our
governments policy of Religious and Cultural Diversity?I think the better policy would be to reclaim the General
Orders and Ideals of General Washington for our enemy defends the faith of their people better than we defend our own.
Thanks for the ping
bttt
Coop, what's your take on this guy?
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Thanks for the ping!
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.