Hackworth: Will Congress Blink Again?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/24/02 | David Hackworth

[donozark]

My understanding is the North Viets have the patrol boat(s) involved in the Tonkin Gulf incident in a Hanoi museum. Bullet holes and all. This would of course lend credence to the incident actually occuring.

Anyone know if this is so? Any visitors to Hanoi?

[Brian Allen]

<< "If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. >>

And it used to be the American way.

And: "What's the matter, Soddom, can't talk with a gun in your mouth?"

[madvlad]

What do you expect? Hackworth is now a
POLITICIAN type. He stopped being a MILITARY
type long ago.

He is looking for fame, fortune and a permanent
spot at a CNN military analyst. Truth be damned.

He did say in an IBD column back in July I think
that we would cakewalk and that it would start
sometime after Oct 1.

Mad Vlad

[SBprone]

Hack would have us think he knows what's about to happen. He doesn't.

If Sun-Tzu were running this show he would be preparing overwhelming force just like the Bush team is doing.

Hack seems to think that Bush will let this whole thing get away from him.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Hack.

Now shut up!

[ninenot]

War is war--when you deal with the underlying strategy, the tactics follow. Weapons are tactical matters; war is strategic.

[madvlad]

My understanding of a pacifist if this:

If you kick me in the testicles, I will kiss
your cheek (unspecified as to which one).

Is this correct?

IOW, pacifist = pussy

How does a military officer who was trained
from his youth turn about face late into a
carrer?

Mad Vlad

[ninenot]

...or maybe on the question "what next?" IF we successfully unseat SadHuss

[ninenot]

Hack left the military because he became a pacifist.

Funny how watching hundreds of comrades die or become mutilated gets to you, ain'a?

[ninenot]

Indicating that John McCain approves does not constitute a principled endorsement. McCain wants to be re-elected and really doesn't care how...

[fogarty]

Perhaps you didn't detect the sarcasm on my post. The truth hurts. All of the persons on the list in some manner questioned the strategy and tactics that Bush was planning against Saddam - or brought up valid concerns about our manpower availability and training. All of them were roundly condemned here on FreeRepublic as cowards and terrorist sympathizers.

It is also interesting to note every single one of them has combat experience - almost all of them have DECADES of experience in the combat profession.

[WileyC]

Nice point. I guess if Sun Tzu had known about nukes his book would've been a few chapters shorter.

Arguably, Sun Tzu is probably right. What we needed was a strong CIA, the ability to hire 'criminal' foreigners, and the mandate to assassinate foreign leaders that threaten the US. Lacking those things, the only thing left in our quiver is war.

[Hugin]

Indicating that John McCain approves does not constitute a principled endorsement. McCain wants to be re-elected and really doesn't care how...

OK, so now that your implication that people who support the war have no military or combat experience, and those who have military experience don't support the war is disproved, you have switched the subject to your judgement of how sincere they are in their positions. So how sincere are the Democrats who agree with you that attacking Iraq is a bad idea?

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Funny how watching hundreds of comrades die or become mutilated gets to you, ain'a?

Sometimes it don't even take 'hundreds'.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

How does a military officer who was trained from his youth turn about face late into a carrer?

First off, I'm not calling Hack a pussy. Wouldn't dream of it.
But he did join the anti-war movement. If I was in his shoes, I probably would have too. Viet Nam turned a lot of people off from war.
I think your definition is a little exaggerated, too.
I'm just pointing out that not only is Hack not a Hawk, for a while he was a dove.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You shouldn't have said that without further instructions such as "First, move your head out of the way. Then, shove it...." :>)

[ampat]

We could do more short of war such as isolating IRAQ in more ways. However, then we have to deal with starving the civilian population more than they are being starved now. Our real goal is to oust Sad'um. In most "normal" countries, the thought of the overwhelming force of US power would be enough to "break their will to resist". And the government in question would give in. However, Sad'um is a dictator, and there is no government to give in.

[AdA$tra]

Bump for later reading.

[Vermont Lt]

Its been a while since I read Sun...but here goes. If I remember correctly, in order to be victorious you have to have the will, the way, the weather, and the terrain. We did not have the will in Vietnam. The people did not support the effort and there was no clear objective.

In this war we are developing the will. We certainly have the way--the means to win. We will have the weather, come winter. And the terrain is not really the problem that is was in Afghanistan.

Once the will is developed and solidified, we can be victorious.

The enemy will be given the "out"; that is the leadership of their army is probably already being told that they will survive a surrender and will not survive a battle. They know this through back channel communications that take place through intermediaries.

Once we show up on the doorstep with a clear "will", there will be little to fight over. That is the best way to win a war.

[r9etb]

I swear I saw Hackworth on some show about 3 months ago saying "It's going to be slam bam goodbye Saddam "

You probably did. That was before Bush got to talking seriously about Saddam.

You gotta realize: Hackworth caters to the niche market of adminstration-haters. (Any administration, it would seem.) He makes his living by nay-saying the people in the arena.

Whatever the WH says is wrong. So if the WH is silent on Saddam, the WH is wrong. If the WH talks about Saddam, the WH is wrong.

Hackworth is a hack.

[muleboy]

Absolutely correct.

While GW seems intent on emulating McKinley and T.Roosevelt, he should be replicating the capabilities of Eisenhower/Dulles and Golda Meir. But then there is not so much profit in such covert operations.

Hackworth has consistently highlighted questions concerning the effectiveness of U.S. forces and tactics going back to Tora Bora.

He seems genuinely and perhaps justifiably concerned that the Bush Administration will try to execute it's "regime change" policy on the cheap, ignoring the "overwhelming force" maxim, and find itself in an expensive and destructive quagmire should anything go wrong.