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.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Hmm...sounds like the same kind of wishful thinking that prompted Ike to restore the Shah. I would think that a Libertarian woudl be somewhat aware of the unintended consequences usually produced by social engineering, especially when practiced on a world scale!

[sauropod]

Will wonders never cease. WE actually agree!

Hack does not understand modern warfare. He pooh-poohs any modern weaponry. I've seen him do it.

[lelio]

a large portion of the war that's covert and the portions that entail other agencies of the government including law enforcement etc.
Reading the article I think a lot of Hackworth's complaints are directed at the INS and those various agencies which should of been re-designed years ago.
And I think the issue of sleeper cells should be brought to the forefront more. How much damage did the DC Sniper do to the economy and raising local fears? And that was just two lone nutjobs w/o an agenda like a terrorist would have.

[MattAMiller]

Iraq, besides being ruled by a megalomaniac bent on getting his hands on WMD, is the key to getting a strong strategic foothold in the region. There's a reason the terror supporting regimes of the Middle East don't want us invading Iraq.

[NormsRevenge]

"It's time to take off the conventional hat and put on the unconventional hat. You have to understand your enemy and the nature of war."

Mr. Hackworth has served his country with honor and dignity. He has paid the price if he so chooses to speak about war.

I don't think it's about self-promotion, rather he has a voice and uses it as he sees fit.

[markfiveFF]

Money drives the terrorists, not fanaticism. Fanaticism drives the Iraq government and the Saudis and Iranians who pay for the terrorists. We need to take out Saddam first because there are no allies in power in Iraq. With Iran, there is a moderate population and government, but the clerics run the justice department and have some rich Iranians on their side.

In Saudi Arabia, the government pays for terror at the same time it condemns it. Iranian rich folk also lets terrorists train. It's very difficult to distinguish allies from enemies, like in Vietnam. But follow the money and see what turns up.

It's how x42 knew to schedule testimony in Jul 1998 for August. He knew that bombings were going to take place in between.

[JasonC]

You can't beat the terrorists with a purely defensive strategy. And he is wrong that it would take 40 years to beat Iraq, and that it is inessential. Yes Al Quada operatives hide in the shadows. But their nuclear weapon development programs do not hide in shadows, they require the shelter of entire nation-states with access to billions of dollars in funding, coercion of millions, etc.

The danger from terrorists is that they will get vastly improved weapons over time if left alone, if their sanctuaries are allowed to them, and we adopt a defensive posture. Hunting cells with small units of snake-eaters will not stop that long term threat. Only destruction of the regimes that harbor and arm terrorists can do so.

Which, contrary to Hackworth's pontificating, the administration and present military high command understands far better than he does. None of which means we shouldn't be doing more defensively than we are. But Iraq is no mistake, Hackworth is completely off base there. He is criticising people who know exactly what they are doing and are going about it more intelligently than his own suggestions, because sniping at them is the way to get media attention. It is beneath him, and not helpful at all.

[claptrap]

The "key" is to start killing All of these stupid Muslims,
and anyone related to them and yes kill all their dogs and cats and children. You put a bomb in my mothers house and Im going to put a bomb in your mothers house your Grandmothers house and every one of your stinking relatives house!

[Austin Willard Wright]

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think deeper involvement in that medieval hell hole called the Middle East will bring, in the end, us anything other than grief. The U.S. would do best to fortify its home defense rather than spread its resource thin playing an ultimately futile strategic chess game in that screwed up region.

[Don Corleone]

Generals are always gearing up to fight the last war. Leaders prepare for the next one!

[Austin Willard Wright]

Now you want to kill babies eh? Thanks but no thanks.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Money drives the terrorists, not fanaticism. Fanaticism drives the Iraq government and the Saudis and Iranians who pay for the terrorists.

Right you are!
See this:

Proof That Saddam Bankrolls Terrorism

[Jeremy_Reaban]

He's like many really old military people - they'd rather see terrorists strike civilians than to see the military be risked in combat.

When you're in the military for a very long time, you consider that to almost be your family, and you start thinking of civilians as something of an opponent - you don't care if they get killed or not, and in fact, might want to see them dead. Better them than your surogate family, soldiers.

He's on Fox a lot as a consultant, and he almost always argues with the other, younger military consultants.

Anyway, no one wants the military to throw their lives away needlessly. Long time military types need to realize we're all on the same side, and it's not like we're asking them to just die for our entertainment. We are in a war, here.

[The Duke]

Well, I wouldn't call hellfire missiles launched from
Predator aircraft quite "conventional"...

[hinckley buzzard]

Hackworth is rapidly losing any credibility with me. He may have been a leader of men, but his grasp of geopolitical reality is childish.

Fight like we fought in Vietnam and we'll get what we got in Vietnam--condemnation and abuse from abroad, a debilitating turncoat peace movement at home, and regime change (a democrap president) in 2004. No thanks, Kernel.

Containment worked with the USSR because the threat was geographic expansionism with conventional forces. We are not going after Iraq because we are afraid of their armor divisions overrunning Turkey or Saudi or Iran or anyone else. Iraq is not an expansionist threat. The comparison he makes is ludicrous.

We could put all the firepower in the world on Iraq's border, and still Saddam could make and smuggle out CBR weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah, AlQaeda, whoever, any time he chose.

If they had been so inclined, the USSR could have effortlessly supplied a terrorist group with anything their evil hearts desired, despite "containment," and we would never have known what hit us.

Containment Kernel? How do you contain a cloud of poison gas?

[Little Bill]

I believe Saddam Hussein can be taken out in a short period..

The Hack is losing his boldness, I think that he is remembering the '70 army. From what I have seen the troops that we have now are better trained than those that the Hack Commanded at any time in His active duty, Legs or Airborn. The thing that bothers me is that they are still an untried Army, they carry to much weight and bunch up. The Hack used to say, "Keep Five Yards...", true then and true now.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

The Shah was not the problem, Jimmy Carter's ineptitude in believing that America was not a force for good in the world lead him to assist the most Radical Clerics in overthrowing Shah. The message Carter spread of America’s complicity in creating the mess and his refusal to assist the Shah led to the success of the Revolution. To Carter’s surprise the Revolutionary Clerics took Carter’s message to heart and declared America to be the Great Satan.

[Bringbackthedraft]

Every war brings suffering to all sides. Iraq has to go because they have the facilities to produce WMD. The nut case running Iraq will think nothing of giving Al Queda access to them to spite the USA. I can understand the reasoning of cutting the supply line first. Chasing after small terrorist groups will take time but persistence will win in the end. Concentrate on destroying their supply bases and keep them constantly on the run breathing down their necks. The tactics being developed behind closed doors in the Pentagon are not privy to just anyone or any retired colonel on demand. What is Hackworths need to know?
I don't think the leaks are coming out as much as they did when the former POTUS ruled the roost.

[MinuteGal]

Perhaps Hack should remember what President Bush and Secretary Rummy said right at the beginning: "There are things you will know and things you will not know. This war will not be fought like any wars before".

That includes the Viet Nam war, Colonel.

Leni

[Gritty]

Hackworth said the United States should put the war against the al-Qaida terrorist network -- not a war against Iraq -- front and center.

As much as I usually agree with Hack, he is wrong in this case.

Using a Vietnam analogy (which Hack is very familiar with), his formula is a sure way to ultimately lose the war. Going after al-Qaida exclusively is like going after the Viet Cong and NVA military units and ignoring their sources of supply in Hanoi, Haiphong, China and the USSR and their American anti-war front sympathizers. That was our losing formula in that war! You get bogged down in the details of the tactical and ignore the strategic support and long-term political, economic and cultural ramifications.

We need to walk and chew gum at the same time. An integral part of this war is going after those countries who harbor, train, equip and finance the "soldiers". That includes Iraq. It also includes Iran, Syria, North Korea, and to some extent China, plus others. However, if one is smart, you don't take all your enemies on all at once. You break them up into bite-sized, chewable pieces and masticate finely while using strategic deception to prevent worse premptive attacks against your own soft spots (and we have many) by the remainder. The goal you should keep in sight is total victory on your terms, not a prolonged battle against the fringes.

Sorry, Hack. You get a lot of things right, but not this one. Learn from your Vietnam experiences. Time is not on our side in this one either, and for much the same reasons.