I really HATE doing this, but. This guy pisses me off. I give Hack is due, he served his Country. However this is the last guy who should be critical of others. Especially since Hack had to go to Austrialia to beat the statute of limitations with regards to a fraud case. You do remember that don't you Hack? There are those who served with him who question who exactly wrote some of the commendations for his awards. While Hack bravo's himself for reporrting on one CNO who wore an award that was suspect. Who BTW reportedly commited suicide over it.
Hackworth has not done a dang thing for the benefit of soldiers except report crap. When was the last time Hack appeared on Capitol Hill fighting for the rights of Vets? One wonders if he does this because he was passed over for flag rank. !
Remeber Hack perfume princes do not have to be those who have not been in combat.
Remeber Hack you are not the only so-called Hero in the US Military.
I do recall that he wore a Ranger tab that he never earned. He has since removed it, whining and carrying on that he should have had it because the recon unit he was in, which he (and no one else?) called the "Raiders," was almost like a Ranger unit. This idea flies with his sycophants, but it's a non-starter with real Rangers.
His "Soldiers For The Truth" is a mess. Over the years a number of his "associates" there have been found to have overstated their military achievements. Some of those guys propose stuff that makes me wonder if they ever made it past Tenderfoot. I remember one of them suggesting that the Army should lose the Apache helicopter (recently a thumping success in hard combat in Afghanistan, bringing all the copters and all the crews home after taking literally hundreds of hits) and buy a model of ultralight kit helicopter that is advertised in magazines but has never been seen flying!
As far as the adultery case is, I haven't read Hackworth's column yet, but as restated here, it sounds like the sort of endemic petty corruption that abounds in support and service support units. Whhat kind of girly-man is this that his reaction is to whine and demand apologies, and, and, and, if you don't say you're wery sowwy I'ss take my widdle stowy to the CO and tell on you. Jeeez. Frankly if I deploy and my buddy bangs my wife, the logical conclusion is that I was grossly mistaken in my choices of buddy and wife.
If the chain of command has time to be the marriage cops, then the unit isn't doing anything worthwhile and all these schmoes should be put on the street (where Jody will wind up with both of the worthless wives and both of the husbands will be bitter and alone).
Isn't Jon Dougherty usually the guy who does the legalize-my-dope articles? I wonder how much time he has under a rucksack. I'm betting it's a nice round number.
So I bagged on the guy that broke the story (Modest Dave Hackworth) and the guy that wrote it (Dougherty). But overall I think the story is a tale of a whiny sergeant who wants to use the Army as a stick to beat the guy who slept with his wife, maybe so that he doesn't have to face the fact that his wife betrayed him. Well this happens all the time in the Army and outside of it. It's really a mess in some of the co-ed units where both sides of the cheating relationship are often in the same unit.
Without knowing more (I'll go and read Hackworth's column now, though) I wonder if I can guess the reason the guy who diddled the subordinate's wife got away with it (a summarized Article 15, which is what happened to him, is getting away with it) and the guy that was betrayed by the other guy and his wife appears to be getting in trouble. My guess? The cheating sergeant is a good soldier, and the victimized sergeant a bad one. Although from the sound of this unit those terms are relative -- all concerned come off as losers.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F