Military has war all wrong, author says (Col Hackworth speaks out )

New Orleans Times-Picayune ^ | 11/24/02 | Sarah Brown Staff writer/The Times-Picayune

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More than a year after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the nation's military leaders have failed to understand the enemy and the kind of war needed to unearth the terrorists, retired Army colonel and author David H. Hackworth said Saturday.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Not sure what Hackworth has in mind?

[clintonh8r]

The leadership is thinking conventionally.

How the hell does he know?

[sinkspur]

Not sure what Hackworth has in mind?

His phone is not ringing, and he's not accustomed to being ignored.

I like Hackworth but he is nothing if not arrogant. "Let's fight al-Qaeda the way I fought the Vietnamese."

[AmishDude]

That was my first thought. He's throwing around an awful lot of criticism for somebody not on the inside.

[Steven W.]

hack doesn't know what's going on and is so military-centric he doesn't see that a large portion of the war that's covert and the portions that entail other agencies of the government including law enforcement etc.

[Sparta]

His 15 more minutes of fame.

[uscit]

...it needs to act quickly to seal national borders and bolster the ranks of the Immigration and Naturalization Service so it can root out the thousands of potential terrorists in the United States....A recognized nation with a conventional army, Iraq should be dealt with as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War -- though containment, not combat....

He makes a tremendous amount of sense to me.

[jwalsh07]

A good soldier and a patriot but time keeps marching on. Hack's day has come and gone.

How conventional was the missle from the drone and up the poop chute of 6 bad guys in Yemen last week?

[TopQuark]

Hackworth shattered his military career in 1971 by speaking out against the war in Vietnam. But not before the Army's youngest colonel whipped his battalion into shape,

Well, that's why they shouldn't be too young. Skills is not everything: they should be augmented with maturity.

[cynicom]

Hackworth has been beyond credible for some time.

[Cicero]

Hackworth was right on the money until 9/11, especially during the clinton years; but since then he seems to have lost it. I don't think his friends in the service are telling him what's going on any longer, because now they have a real job to do and leaders they can respect.

Going after terrorists is completely separate from going after the regimes that support terrorism. One does not exclude the other. Iraq is the key at this time, and Bush is quite right to go after them first.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I remember Hackworth's prediction back during Desert Storm. He predicted that our army was "all tail and no teeth", that it would be a long and bloody war, that we would have a very difficult time advancing with so few actual ground forces and most of our troops not being 'teeth'.

I don't recall his being very enthusiastic about fighting the Taliban either.

Recently, I've heard him debate Hannity three times I think. He is concerned that the bio/chem safety suits have holes in them. He doesn't think they are being patched properly. And thus, he thinks that we will end up with another Gulf War Syndrome. Hannity tries to point out that waiting will only make the future conflict more dangerous, especially for civilians. But Hackworth thinks that attacking is more dangerous than leaving Saddam alone.

Hackworth one time even suggested nuking any failed inspection sites, or sites we aren't allowed to inspect. He simply hates the thought of using soldiers.

Before we hit the Taliban, I suggested that we fight like the Eagle because we are the Eagle. We hit and run. We use special forces and train/recruit locals. We bend over backwards to gain local support and foil local hostility. We never keep soldiers around for mop up until later. I was amazed at how the Pentagon was exactly on the same page. In Iraq, the Eagle strategy would work even better. There are fewer caves to hide in, Iraq is target-rich for bombers, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but I suspect that Saddam is more hated by his own people than the Taliban was. Further, the Eagle strategy is ideal for dealing with a bio/chem weapons enemy.

[MHGinTN]

Sink, if Hack's rantings are not a disinformation effort to aid the disarming campaign, then we are left to conclude he is missing the primary function of our 'war' build up against Iraq ... it displays our absolute seriousness in disarming Saddam from having or building WMD's.

It is hoped that Saddam will see the 'no wiggle room' position he's now in with a firm leader preparing to kick his ass to hell if he doesn't comply ... and if he doesn't comply, the build up will lead to doing the necessary crushing of the enemy and disarming of the survivors.

[Austin Willard Wright]

He has in mind a simple strategic insight. Don't spread your resources too thin. Unfortunately, we are doing that by getting involved in a side war with a Mussolina wannabe like Saddam. Bin Laden and his cohorts (still alive apparently alive and *not* in Iraq) are the real enemies.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Iraq is the "key" to nothing. The key is Bin Laden. Perhaps we should kill him first before we start engaging in utopian wars against "evil" with every Tom, Dick and Harry which will only spread our resources to the breaking point.

[AmericaUnited]

Generals(colonels) always tend to fight the last war.

[RLK]

"The opponent is not a conventional enemy, with vast armies, big navies and a powerful air force," Hackworth said. "This enemy hides in the shadows, hits and runs. We can only win against this enemy by employing the same hard-core tactics used successfully against the Viet Cong." Hackworth said the United States should put the war against the al-Qaida terrorist network -- not a war against Iraq -- front and center.

-----------------------------

I am in partial agreement, and partial disagreement with Hack here.

In the first place what needs to be understood is that we are in a religious war where every fifth person is a fanatic so-called terrorist moving within, and throughout, the world-wide Muslim population. We are seeing this even in Nigeria this week where hundreds have been killed over a stupid beauty contest. There are no physical battle lines where forces can be deployed as in WWII tactics.

Contrary to what Hack believes, I believe Saddam Hussein can be taken out in a short period, although perhaps now with the ease we had ten years ago. He should have been captured and hung by his heels in the town square 10 years ago. It should be done now to establish an object lesson.

As far as the war against Iraq, I am suspicious of the entire thing. The Bush family seems to have a pattern of making war on Iraq, then acting like the weakling kid who comes home with his chest puffed out to tell his father he made the high school football team. I have doubts about how much we are being told is true, and how much is hype in service to Bush's proving himself. The Bush family seems to be diffusely lacking and is looking to prove themselves. I can't trust what's happening or how much of it is twisted by this goal.

[Austin Willard Wright]

So the military doesn't know its own business and armchair warrior freepers (who never met a war they didn't like) do?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Hackworth is right on many counts but replacing the most extreme governments such as Iraq's will aid the war on terror. Those who are not in accordance with America and its ideals will always push to see how far they can go, the more we let Saddam and his ilk get away with the more they will try. Knock Saddam down and the leaders and future leaders of the Arab States will tread more carefully around America’s interests. It may increase the rhetoric of many radical Muslims but without a realistic chance of any success there will be few followers. American success signals Radical Muslim weakness and few people, Muslims included, like to be on the losing side.