Hackworth on Larry King Live: Rumsfeld Screwed Up

Larry King Live ^ | 3/29/03 | CNN

[FreepnDeacn]

KING: Colonel Hackworth, have you been proven right based on your criticism the last two nights because the reports are contradictory?

COL. DAVID HACKWORTH, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, my sources are there and they're not the spinners that belong to the liar's club, and I check with them and they tell me what's going on and it's not like being on the battlefield but my sources are young officers who really know what's going on and they're only interested in one thing is keeping their troops alive.

The bottom line is Saddam is saying, said years ago publicly he was going to fight this war differently. He told his people to arm themselves and prepare for guerilla warfare and that's exactly what he's doing. Our own CIA presented this intelligence to Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and it was just totally ignored.

KING: But, Hack, a week ago you thought this was going to be a slam dunk.

HACKWORTH: If we had the combat force that we were supposed to have. The president of the United States authorized eight divisions. Of those eight divisions, less than half of them are there. Rumsfeld thought he could go on the war on the cheap.

The end of result of that, Larry, is that we don't have sufficient forces to do the job. And so, it is right now, we're between a rock and a hard place. We don't have the forces to keep our supply lines open and we don't have the forces to give our troops a rest.

You can't take combat troops, infantry and tankers, and work them night and day and that's what's happening. They've got to have a rest.

[agrace]

I heard Hackworth on Sean's show Friday, and basically Sean's response to him was a polite "ooooookay...thank you, goodbye" with no rehashing or questioning of the points he had made. What I read from that was that Sean thinks he's loony but was being nice, maybe due to their long relationship. Because immediately after the break, Sean had an army colonel (I think) from Centcom in Qatar comment on things on the ground, basically saying the exact opposite of what Hackworth had just ranted about.

[rintense]

If Hack is on CNN, it seems that FOX may have dumped him. I like FNC without Hack, so please stay with the Clinton News Network.

[FreepnDeacn]

Hey, man. I was just flippin' channels. Really. I only rarely watch CNN. For the pictures.

[daddypatriot]

OK. I am dredging up my account from memory, but recall reading that a family member and a coroner's report suggested that Boorda was deeply depressed over what had happened and being a man filled with pride for serving his country was not able to deal with what was to come. I do find it strange that a man who faced many hurdles in his life and overcame them all could not deal with rumor mongers and those jealous of his position. Hackworth, for instance, has a lot to be mad about since he never rose to the general ranks, although to hear him tell it he won every battle he ever participated in. Perhaps someone should go over Hackworth's personnel file and report what lies within. Oh, one other thing: I understand only one shot was fired from Boorda's weapon.

[Gorjus]

. . why would we be "experimenting" . .

It $eem$ to me that the an$wer i$ obviou$.

Lighter forces are less expensive, and in an exponential way because lighter forces don't need as much transport to get where they need to go, don't need as much maintenance, don't need as much fuel, don't need as much of a lot of things.

The actual combat forces in the US military are about 1/3 the size they were in Desert Storm (Gulf War 1). Rumsfeld was faced with the choice between building up slowly, with a robust infrastructure and heavy forces usable in high-intensity conflict (things like the Crusader Self-Propelled Artillery system), or building up more quickly on the cheap with lighter forces.

He chose light, and he might have been right. Perhaps a 'better' force in the near term would be smarter than a 'best' force that took years to get together. In some scenarios, like Afghanistan, the lighter forces are even 'best'. Also, entropy being what it is, it took Clinton a lot less time to tear down the US Military than it would take to build it back up, and he had the US military in free fall for 8 years.

My big gripe is that Hackworth has been trumpeting the lighter force structure for years (complaining that our tanks are gold-plated, and that all our new systems are welfare for the defense industry), then he complains because we don't have 4 Armored Divisions ready to deploy to Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Pretending you can is hypocrisy. And he should know better.

[FreepnDeacn]

Maybe I'm just not crunching the numbers right, but to me, 390,000 troops does not seem to be a "light force" -- especially when you factor in the disproportionate amount of enemy butt that is being kicked.

Now... fifty civilian-clothed fedayeen on a bus that can be taken out with one shot? That's a "light" force.

[onedoug]

...and seems a little light in the loafers, to me.

[Gorjus]

The 'light' aspect deals with equipment, of course. A division with 15,000 rifle-armed infantry is 'lighter' than a division of 10,000 men with 1000 tanks and 1500 APCs and 800 MLRS and 1200 155mm SP guns.

The issue is whether the force emphasizes firepower or emphasizes keeping the logistics tail small. In general, Hackworth complains about every new weapon development, whether it's the Crusader cannon or a better sight on an M-16. He wants lots and lots of 'light' infantry troops armed as they were in Viet Nam, but with better training and pay.

Until the first time they get into real combat against an enemy with armor. Then it's, "Where's the high-tech 4th Division, or the 1st Cavalry Division, or . . . ?"

[calljack]

"young officers who really know what's going on and they're only interested in one thing is keeping their troops alive"

I'll bet this is Hack's type of officer, as opposed to the rest of them who understand that some will die while pressing forward to accomplish the mission,because that is why they are there.

[montag813]

Hackworth is an a self-absorbed, mentally unbalanced individual. I pity him, but his opinions have no place in the public forum of ideas.

[MHT]

He's been sacked by Fox and Hannity so he has to pitch his goods to the competition. Without a gimmick, he's just another retired colonel--and there are alot of ex-generals out there who retired more recently and are offering the same networks their "expert" opinions.

He's found a new gimmick and he's sticking with it. I never thought I'd see the day when the military was little more than Hollywood-types marketing themselves to the masses.

[dalebert]

Hack is a liar and I can't believe anyone is still listening to him. How does he get air time?

[Mr. Mojo]

Amazing that anyone still takes this faggot with the Roman haircut seriously.

[Sawdring]

Bump!