[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."

[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.

[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.

[AmericaUnited]

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

[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.

[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?