Hackworth on Iraq: Interview

[catdat]

The War According to David Hackworth

The Retired Colonel calls Donald Rumsfeld an "A$$hole" Whose Bad Planning Mired U.S. troops in an Ugly Guerrilla Conflict in Iraq. His Sources? Defiant Soldiers Sending Dispatches from the Front

Retired U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth is a cocky American military commander who for half a century was at the front lines of the Army's most important battles. Most recently, though, Hackworth has been at the front lines of a domestic war: the debate over U.S. military strategy in Iraq, and whether the Bush administration planned well enough to achieve a decisive military victory and keep the postwar peace.

Hackworth was everywhere on cable television during the first days of the war, when early military setbacks convinced him and other retired military leaders that the administration, whose backers sold the conflict as a "cakewalk," hadn't sent enough troops to quell Iraqi resistance. He wrote a widely quoted column headlined "Stuck in the Quicksand" in early April -- just as the tide seemed to turn and the pace of victory picked up again. Though he is a colonel by rank, Hackworth was counted among the so-called "television generals" the administration blasted after Baghdad fell, and many conservative admirers turned against him.

But now, with American soldiers still dying almost daily in Iraq, the tide of opinion may be turning again, in favor of Hackworth's argument that the administration was unprepared for what's turning out to be a long-term guerrilla resistance in Iraq. Today the primary front of Hackworth's war of opinion isn't cable television, but a pair of Web sites -- Soldiers for the Truth and his own site, Hackworth.com -- where he's campaigning to document the dire fate of U.S. troops in Iraq. The sites have quickly become a repository for the gripes and fears of America's beleaguered combat troops.

On a typical day Hackworth receives hundreds of e-mails, letters and faxes from American soldiers, complaining about everything from silk-weight underwear to the weapons they've been assigned. "Pistols suck," wrote one soldier. "Bring and use every weapon. Shotguns are great at close ranges." At a time when soldiers have been disciplined for griping to the media, Hackworth is providing a fascinating outlet for what they're really experiencing. Among the more evocative messages:

"Soldiers are living in the dirt, with no mail, no phone, no contact with home, and no break from the daily monotony at all. I practically got in a fist fight with this captain over letting my private send an e-mail over his office's internet. This clown spends his days sending flowers to his wife and surfing the net. F#cking disgraceful and all too typical of today's Army."

"Soldiers get literally hundreds of flea or mosquito bites and they can't get cream or Benadryl to keep the damn things from itching ... .I am not talking about bringing in the steak and lobster every week. I am talking about basic health and safety issues that continue to be neglected by the Army."

"We did not receive a single piece of parts-support for our vehicles during the entire battle ... not a single repair part has made to our vehicles to date ... my unit had abandoned around 12 vehicles ... .I firmly believe that the conditions I just described contributed to the loss and injury of soldiers on the battlefield."

"We have done our job and have done it well, we have fulfilled our obligation to this operation, but we are still here and are still being mistreated and misled. When does it end? Do we continue to keep the liberators of Iraq here so they can continue to lose soldiers periodically to snipers and ambushes? My unit has been here since September and they have no light at the end of the tunnel. How many of my soldiers need to die before they realize that we have hit a wall?"

Although the controversial Hackworth has his critics, no one disputes his half-century of military accomplishment. During World War II the 15-year-old Hackworth lied about his age to fight in Italy. During Vietnam he designed and implemented unconventional warfare tactics -- allegedly including a private brothel for his troops -- and wrote the Vietnam Primer, considered by many to be the leading book on guerrilla warfare tactics in Vietnam. Wounded eight times (his left leg still carries a bullet from the Vietnam War), he racked up enough medals, he says, to declare himself the "Army's Most Decorated Soldier" -- though he admits the U.S. Army has no such title. No one denies that Hackworth has seen more combat and taken more bullets than almost any American soldier still alive.

Today, the bestselling author -- his books include "Steel my Soldiers' Hearts," "Price of Honor" and "About Face" -- writes a column for the conservative site World Net Daily.

He's starting to feel his years. His bullet-ridden leg propped up on pillows at his home in suburban Connecticut, Hack is far from the action. So he chose another tactic: He brought the front home. In a conversation with Salon, he termed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld an "a$$hole" who "misunderstood the whole war" and he predicted that American troops could be stuck in Iraq for "at least" another 30 years.

How long do you think U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq?

God only knows, the way things are going. At least 30 years. Tommy Franks [recently retired commander of U.S. troops in Iraq] said four to 10 years. Based on Cyprus and other commitments in this kind of warfare, it is going to be a long time -- unless the price gets too heavy. We say it is costing the U.S. $4 billion a month; I bet it is costing $6 billion a month. Where the hell is that money going to come from?

How do you see the combat situation evolving in Iraq?

There is no way the G [guerrilla] is going to win; he knows that, but his object is to make us bleed. To nickel and dime us. This is Phase 1. But what he is always looking for is the big hit -- a Beirut [-style car-bomb attack] with 242 casualties, something that gets the headlines! The Americans have their head up their ass all the time. All the advantages are with the G; he will be watching. He is like an audience in a darkened theater and the U.S. troops are the actors on stage all lit up, so the G can see everything on stage, when they are asleep or when his weapons are dirty. The actor can't see sh!t in the audience.

For many weeks your Web site has described conditions in Iraq as being far more chaotic and unstable than generally reported. Why did the Pentagon try to downplay the problems instead of playing it straight and saying this is a long- term problem for America?

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz made a very horrible estimate of the situation. They concluded that the war would be Slam Bam Goodbye Saddam, followed by victory parades with local Iraqi folks throwing flowers and rice and everything nice, then the troops would come home.

When I examined the task organization, my estimate was totally contrary to this asshole Rumsfeld, who went in light and on the cheap, all based upon this rosy scenario. I never thought this would be a fight without resistance. And there was another guy who thought the same way I did; his name is Saddam Hussein. He looked at the awesome array of forces being set up against him and said, "Wait a minute, no way can I prevail, I tried that in '91 and just saw in Afghanistan what happened to Taliban and Al-Qaida, I will run away for another day."

Saddam is saying, "I am going to copy Ho Chi Minh and the Taliban and go into a guerrilla configuration." It [the invasion of Baghdad] did go Slam Bam Goodbye Saddam, but we are in there so light that we don't have sufficient force to provide the stability after the fall of the regime. We can't secure the banks, the energy facilities, the vital installations, the government, the ministry, the museums or the library. The world was witness to this great anarchy, the looting and rioting that set over Baghdad. There was that wonderful quote by Rumsfeld. "Stuff happens," he said. He flipped it off.

Do you see any similarities to the U.S. engagement in Vietnam?

The mistake in Vietnam was we failed to understand the nature of the war and we failed to understand our enemy. In Vietnam we were fighting World War II. Up to now in Iraq we have been fighting Desert Storm with tank brigade attacks. The tanks move into a village, swoop down, the tank gunner sees a silhouette atop a house, aims, fires, kills and it turns out to be a 12-year-old boy. Now, the father of that boy said, "We will kill 10 Americans for this." This is exactly what happened in Vietnam; a village was friendly, then some pilot turns around and blows away the village, the village goes from pro-Saigon to pro-Hanoi.

What kind of weapons would you be using in this war if you were running it? Would you trade the pistols for grenade launchers? Would you bring in more Apache helicopters, more snipers, what?

You have to use surgical weapons, not weapons that can reach out and strike innocents. The American Army is trained to break things and kill people -- not the kind of selective work that is needed. You don't use a tank brigade to surround a village; instead, you set up ambushes along the route. It is all so similar to what I saw in Vietnam, this tendency to be mesmerized by big-unit operations. But if you fight like a G, everything is under the table, in the dark, done by stealth and surprise; there is no great glory -- except the end result. America has never been capable of fighting the G; from [Gen.] Custer who f#cked it up, you can fast-forward to today. [In Iraq] they are proving it again. The U.S. military never, never learns from the past. They make the same mistake over and over again.

What other changes would you say need to happen in Iraq?

Get rid of the conventional generals; these guys in Iraq are tank generals, but they don't have any experience in fighting an insurgency. Reminds me of Vietnam when the artillery commanders wanted to build bases everywhere to fire their cannons. These tactics do not work against the G. I said in a recent piece: "Fire these f#ckers and get a snake eater."

Snake eater -- where does that term come from?

That is an old expression from the beginning of Special Forces. They would have demonstrations at Fort Bragg [U.S. Special Forces headquarters in North Carolina] to demonstrate their animalism and they would bite the head off a chicken or bite a snake in half.

Gen. John Abazid -- a snake eater -- has just come in and admitted this is a classic guerrilla war. What kind of new strategy can we expect to see?

The guy is extremely bright and a fighter -- a very rare combination. Generally the fighters are Rambo types who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. There are on occasions the Rommel and Patton who are brilliant f#cking guys who can also duke it out with you, they understand the street fighter. You got that with Abazid.

How is it that you, a retired soldier in suburban Connecticut, appear to have a better take on the soldiers' mood than the generals in the Pentagon or in Baghdad?

I have incredible sources -- on average I get 500 e-mails a day from kids around the world that have read my work and know that I am not going to blow the whistle on them; a lot of that **** you see on my Web site comes from those kids.

This is the first war with e-mail. You have asked U.S. soldiers to emulate Winston Churchill and act as war correspondents by sending you dispatches from the front. What has been the response?

Very, very favorable. The soldiers know the traffic is being monitored by the Pentagon, that Big Brother is monitoring everything they write. But still my sources keep coming from Afghanistan and Iraq. I very seldom get direct sources -- remember before we deployed, they [soldiers] were at home and could send e-mail from personal Yahoo accounts, now they have to use military accounts and are paranoid that these are being read. The [direct] traffic I get now are from guys who don't give a ****, who are not going to stay in [the military], who don't give a **** about the consequences of sounding off. But remember -- you can never outsmart a convict in prison or a soldier on the battlefield. They both live by their wits, so what they do is write home and say "Hey dad I love you, we are having a few problems with tanks, etc. If this letter should happen to find itself into the e-mail of Hackworth at www.Hackworth.com it wouldn't disappoint me." I am getting 30 to 40 of these letters.

American troops in Iraq are complaining of basics like clean clothes, hot food and mail from home. Is there anything wrong with the Pentagon's famous supply chain?

This goes back to the ****ty estimate on the part of Rumsfeld. He did not provide enough troops or the logistical backup, because his Army was not staying, it was coming home. So who needs a warehouse full of sh!t?

One letter I got today, written by a sergeant in a tank unit, said that of its 18 armored vehicles -- Bradley or Abrams -- only four are operational. The rest were down because of burned-out transmissions or the tracks eaten out. So it is not just the ****ty food and bad water -- a soldier can live with short rations -- but spare parts, baby! If you don't have them, your weapons don't work. Most of the resupply is by wheeled vehicles, and the roads and terrain out there is gobbling up tires like you won't believe. Michelin's whole production for civilians has been stopped [at certain plants] and have dedicated their entire production to the U.S. military in Iraq -- and they can't keep up!

Do you think there is any truth to the sense that British soldiers are better at nation-building than the Americans?

I would say so. They have a long history -- going back to the days of the colonies. If you look at their achievements in some places where they have established solid governments -- in Africa, in India, they have done a very good job. They were very good at lining up local folks to do the job like operating the sewers and turning on the electricity. Far better than us -- we are heavy-handed, and in Iraq we don't understand the people and the culture. Thus we did not immediately employ locals in police and military activities to get them to build and stabilize their nation. (Pauses) Yeah, the Brits are better.

What would you tell Rumsfeld if you could talk to him?

In mid April, I wrote a piece that asks for Rumsfeld to be fired, to be relieved. I took enormous heat for that. He went in light, on the cheap, he has misunderstood the whole war, he should go ... Rumsfeld is an arrogant a$$hole. That's a quote, by the way.

[Merik]

Bah, he is nothing more than an armchair general when he does something like that.

[Marmot1]

Bah, he is nothing more than an armchair general when he does something like that.
Explain please...


Maybe he is right... Iraq will be a long lesson for US and coalition... it is easy to destroy army but can you give me one example of succesful war against guerilla??? Viet? No Laos? No WW2? No Columbia? No N Ireland? No... I do not remember any succesful campain against guerilla... If your enemy is determined it it imposible to win... and longer you are in iraq - more enemies you have... every killed Iraqi,even if he is terrorist have fammily and killing him creates more enemies from day to day... Last Japanees solider after ww2 surrendered in mid 70's!!!

[catdat]

Maybe an armchair Colonel?

I don't think you uber-stand. Hack has like 8 or 9 purple hearts and a load of fruit salad. He lied about his age (15) in WW2 and enlisted. He is not a general and never was.


n 1971, Hackworth commanded Advisory Team 50, a unit that advised Vietnamese forces in the Mekong delta. He had been fighting in Vietnam more or less constantly since 1965, and he was a legend. But the war disgusted him. He blamed American generals for underestimating the North Vietnamese, and for using archaic, suicidal tactics. Hackworth decided to retire early and torch his bridges. He gave a long interview to ABC, in which he savaged the idiotic commanders and declared that America could not win the war.

Hackworth was not without his faults though.
From another source:

Hackworth sanctioned the operation of a brothel--the "Steam and Cream"--in the Team 50 compound.

Hackworth gambled with enlisted men.

Hackworth smoked marijuana with subordinates.

Hackworth lived in the compound with a woman who was not his wife.

Hackworth broke currency regulations by exchanging U.S. dollars for military payment certificates on the black market.

Hack's doesn't deny any of this but notes, "He established the brothel, he says, so that his troops would sleep with disease-free women. He may have smoked marijuana once, but only when he was very drunk. He lived with a woman who was not his wife because his marriage was falling apart (and besides, the troops liked having her around). He gambled and violated currency regulations to build himself a nest egg for his retirement. (Incidentally, he also admitted to stealing jeeps from other Army units, faking drug tests for his soldiers, and fraternizing with enlisted men, all Army no-nos.) Hackworth writes: "It was the regulations that were wrong. ... The real question was, did discipline on Team 50 break down as a result of these command irregularities? No. ... Did morale improve with the implementation of these irregularities? No one could deny it."

I still like the Hack and I would have served under him he sounds pretty cool.

[Merik]

Look Im not knocking on the guys record, especially since I know a lot of what he has done. I am just saying that when he and other officers start saying what they want to see happen they become armchair generals or whatever. Same thing goes for us here on the net, we express our opinions of what we think should be happening.

[American Patriot]

Everything that Hackworth writes must be taken with a grain of salt.

[sethen]

Everything that Hackworth writes must be taken with a grain of salt.

I just read in Sundays paper that ole Hack was the guy that broke the prisoner abuse scandal!!!!!! :bash: Yea, right...his opinion is gold in my book!!!!! I value his judgement far more than any pasty old fart who couldn't command a squad of Admin clerks!!!! (Rumsfeld)

[catdat]

Thats fair ...take anything that any of us write with a grain of salt. I give him credit for giving active duty grunts a forum where they can complain about the stuff thats going on.

http://www.sftt.org

Go read what they write.

[sethen]

Thats fair ...take anything that any of us write with a grain of salt. I give him credit for giving active duty grunts a forum where they can complain about the stuff thats going on.

http://www.sftt.org

Go read what they write.



I have been there. Descent site, needs work. BTW...You 3rd I.D.?????

[Beowulf]

I found this on a Socnet thread.
http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22274&perpage=20&highlight=hackworth&pagenumber=1

There seem to be varying opinions of Hack....


Newsweek's Major Embarrassment
He's called Col. Hackworth.
By Charles Krohn and David Plotz
Posted Thursday, November 28, 1996, at 12:30 AM PT


Part 1: Pose


At that moment I was thinking how I would like to be a fly buzzing around in the command tent, eyeballing the maps, checking the intelligence, finding out what the hell was going on in this weird war. Suddenly my daydreaming was interrupted by the tall, rugged-looking paratrooper standing guard over me.

"Hey, Mr. Reporter," he said, "How come I know your face?"

I was writing notes when he started up. I told him I had written a book about my military experience, that maybe he had seen me on TV.

"Goddamn," he said. "You're Colonel Hackworth. You're the hot **** dude who tells it like it is?"

--From Hazardous Duty, by Col. David Hackworth

On a recent episode of Seinfeld, Elaine hires an aging Army veteran to write for her clothing catalog. The vet wears combat fatigues, black boots, and a thousand-yard stare. He recites his copy in a cigarette rasp: "It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife. The only friend who hasn't betrayed you. The only friend who won't be dead by sunup. Sleep tight, mates, in your Chambray Quilted Nightshirts."

It is a part--the self-regarding, self-parodying military macho man--that might have been modeled on former Col. David Hackworth, not unlike the part he's written for himself as America's ballsiest war reporter, "the hot **** dude who tells it like it is." Hackworth is the type known as a legend in his own mind. The colonel's own press materials assert that he is the "reputed model" for Col. Kurtz, the Marlon Brando character in the movie Apocalypse Now. (In fact, the model for Col. Kurtz is Mr. Kurtz--the character in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, on which the movie is explicitly based.)

Since 1990, Hackworth has been swaggering his way around the world as a military correspondent for Newsweek. He's ubiquitous. Hackworth covered the Gulf War, the Somalia mission, the invasion of Haiti, and the Bosnia deployment. He played a crucial role in the affair of Adm. Jeremy Michael Boorda's suicide. Hackworth writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column, "Defending America." He regularly takes his stone jaw and ramrod back on television shows like Today and Larry King Live. And he just published his fourth book, Hazardous Duty, an account of his six years as a journalist: war stories about war stories. Thanks to six years of globe-trotting and vigorous self-promotion, Hackworth is probably America's most prominent military reporter. He is undoubtedly its most ridiculous. He is an embarrassment to Newsweek, and to American journalism.

Let there be no doubt: David Hackworth is a war hero. In 1944, when he was a 14-year-old orphan, Hackworth faked his way into the U.S. Merchant Marine. At 16, he was a U.S. Army private, fighting Yugoslav partisans on the Italian border. At 20, he won a battlefield commission in Korea, then commanded a savage and brilliant Army Raiders unit that wreaked havoc on the North Koreans and Chinese. When he left the Army in 1971, he was the youngest full colonel in Vietnam, winner of eight Purple Hearts, nine Silver Stars, eight Bronze Stars, four Army Commendation Medals, four Legions of Merit, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and a chestful of other medals. Today Hackworth calls himself--often--"America's most decorated living soldier."

(The Army challenges Hackworth's right to claim this title. For that part of the story, click here. Or, finish the main article first. You'll get another chance to click to this sidebar at the end.)

When he retired, Hackworth renounced the Vietnam War, immigrated to Australia, and became an anti-nuclear activist. He vanished from the American scene until 1989, when he published About Face, his 875-page autobiography. Bloody, profane, and ferocious, About Face glorifies the courage and suffering of "warriors" (notably Hackworth himself) and spits on the generals who command them. It was a best seller, and, in 1990, Newsweek editor Maynard Parker invited Hackworth to return to the battlefield as a special Gulf War correspondent.

Parker didn't need to ask twice. Soon, Hackworth was roaring through the Saudi Arabian desert in a four-wheel drive, dolled up in Army camouflage and Kevlar helmet, carrying fake papers and bluffing his way through checkpoints. The 60-year-old expatriate peace activist had been reborn. He was Col. David Hackworth again--a k a "Hack"--part Audie Murphy, part Ernest Hemingway, all man. He had become, he writes without irony, a "truth-teller," and he was armed with "the ultimate bayonet": his pen. When the Gulf War ended, Hackworth kept writing. For the last six years, he has been stabbing the ultimate bayonet into battlefields around the world, inflicting a variety of ugly wounds, most of them on the English language and Newsweek subscribers.

If history's first pass gave Hackworth the tragedies of Korea and Vietnam, of Purple Hearts and dead comrades, the second round has been farce. Hackworth's oeuvre can be roughly divided into two categories: war stories and populist rants. In his telling, he is always the hero of both. Hazardous Duty, which Hackworth co-wrote with Tom Mathews, offers many priceless examples. It is a measure of Hackworth's journalistic talents that he requires a collaborator to write an autobiographical book. It is a measure of Hackworth's jaw-dropping arrogance that he would subtitle the book "America's Most Decorated Living Soldier Reports from the Front and Tells It the Way It Is."

The stories in Hazardous Duty follow a formula, which is this: Hack smells the battle approaching in _______ (insert your favorite trouble spot here: Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, the Gulf). He heads for ground zero. The U.S. troops are in chaos: The "warrior studs" have been given the wrong tanks, the wrong body armor, the wrong helicopters. Hell, they're even eating the wrong food. Meanwhile the "Perfumed Princes" (generals and their lickspittle staffs) and the other REMFs (Rear Echelon Mother ****ers) are maxing and relaxing in their lavish air-conditioned quarters. The three-star generals are eating five-star food. Hack tracks down a "Deep Throat" who fills him in on the real story--the deadly mistakes by generals, the idiotic strategy of the generals, the lying by the generals, the poor personal hygiene of the generals, etc.

The military's PR weasels try to stymie Hack, but Hack, camouflaged like the wily vet he is, eludes them. Then Hack finds the studliest warriors on the mission. (How do we know they're studly? They listen to Hack's advice.) They are commanded by a "romping, stomping" old veteran, preferably someone who served with Hack in Vietnam. There's a whiff of cordite! The zing of a bullet! A mine blasts an armored vehicle into a twisted wreck. A bomb sprays hot shrapnel at Hack's feet. Haitian police nearly slaughter an angry mob. Blood and italics and clichés spatter across the page:

"Holy ****, what next? I know what this means. What this means is trouble. Big trouble."
"My gut was saying, **** this. Look at those houses. Dangerous people could be coming out of them in about one minute and then Bang Bang You're Dead."
"Incoming dropped on all sides of us. CRUMP, CRUMP, CRUMP. Hot steel whizzed past our ears. We piled into a bunker. I hit the floor wondering what the hell I was doing here: Welcome to the Balkans, mother****er."
"My sixth sense began screaming again. Something sinister was in the air. If we stay too long, and keep ****ing around, somebody's going to get killed."
But there's really nothing to worry about, because Hack's here. He's the **** of this walk--an oracle, a Clausewitz, a warrior. Hack saves an innocent boy from brutal Haitians. Hack accurately predicts the U.S. battle strategy in Iraq ("I wrote a story for Newsweek and hit dead center. Stormin' Norman thought I had given away his Hail Mary battle plan."). Hack forecasts the collapse of the Haitian army. Hack anticipates the firefight that kills 18 American Rangers in Somalia. Hack has a premonition that Boorda will kill himself. Hack helps take Iraqi prisoners ("These sorry-ass sons of bitches didn't touch their weapons. They were no more going to fight than guests at a Quaker wedding."). Hack--no joke--is worshipped by Haitians as a "Great White God."

The colonel's Newsweek and newspaper columns, on the other hand, tend toward populist screed, often directed at the military. Hackworth despises his old employer. His hatred of the Army may stem from the way he left it. Hackworth retired under a cloud in 1971, narrowly avoiding court-martial. For the full story, and how it relates to Boorda's suicide, click here, or at the end of this article.

Occasionally, Hack does bury the ultimate bayonet in a worthy victim. He consistently inveighs against military pork, nailing generals--always by name--for taking perks and botching assignments. He argues persuasively against big peacetime defense budgets. He has even gored that most sacred of cows, the four-service military, by advocating the unification of the armed services. But Hackworth also unleashes tirades that are astounding in their fury. His political philosophy--if it can be called such--is Buchananism plus steroid rage. It is stagily anti-elitist, anti-Washington, anti-corporate, conspiratorial, and egotistical. Hazardous Duty closes with this memorable passage:

Be warned, all you Perfumed Princes and Propaganda Poets, all you slick political porkers and weapons makers with your hands in the till. I intend to keep sniffing around like an old coyote, chewing on the Military Industrial Congressional Complex and calling 'em as I see 'em.



I intend to continue to tell it like it is to my fellow citizens with the hope that one day they will become so damn mad they'll stomp out the bad guys and retake charge of this great but sinking republic.



Hackworth's bombast is mostly just empty and silly, but sometimes it is worse. Which fellow citizens should take charge of this great but sinking republic? In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, Hack wrote a newspaper column likening militia members to American revolutionaries. A few weeks later, Hackworth caught the attention of accused bomber Timothy McVeigh, who gave his first interview to the colonel. It was a wise move by McVeigh. Hackworth can't resist a man in uniform, even if it's an orange jumpsuit. He wrote an astonishingly sympathetic profile of the ex-Army sergeant in Newsweek. "I could immediately see why he was a crackerjack soldier," gushed Hack. McVeigh has "fire in the belly." Hackworth bestowed on McVeigh his highest compliment: He called McVeigh a "warrior." Hackworth even proffered an explanation--if not quite an excuse--for why McVeigh could have committed the bombing: "Postwar hangover. I have seen countless veterans, including myself, stumble home after the high-noon excitement of the killing fields, missing their battle buddies and the unique dangers and sense of purpose. Many lose themselves forever."

Hackworth is particularly hysterical on the subject of gays in the military. On CNN's Crossfire, he generalized about gay soldiers: "They live by deception. They are not trustworthy." Then he called the other guest, a gay serviceman, "a deviant ... a third ***." Then he said he would ban all gays from the military and from civilian jobs at the Department of Defense. When challenged, Hackworth declared: "I've been there, you haven't. So you don't know what the hell you're talking about." This is Hackworth's favorite pose: Army Everyman. He's a vet, ergo, he's speaks for all grunts. Anyone who hasn't "been there" has no right to an opinion on anything relating to the armed services. It is the military version of identity politics.

Hackworth also sells himself as an expert in military strategy, but his strategic insights are no sharper than his prose. Like the generals he despises, Hackworth re-fights his old battles. An example: Bosnia. Bombing never broke the spirit of the North Vietnamese, so Hackworth insisted that NATO bombing alone could not bring the Serbs to the negotiating table. It did. Then, when the United States was considering sending troops to Bosnia, Hackworth warned of another Vietnam: Troops would be picked off by snipers, and U.S. involvement would escalate into an all-out war. It hasn't happened. Hackworth also predicted the Bosnia deployment would "KO" Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign. It didn't.

Or, take the Gulf War. At its outset, Hackworth declared in Newsweek that "[t]his time, we want to limit this war to the objective George Bush announced: to free Kuwait. Period." Today, with unacknowledged hindsight but the usual grunt's-eye-view self-righteousness, Hackworth proclaims the opposite conclusion:

I don't know a lot about high political strategy, but I do know a lot about war. When you fight a war you should fight it all the way. ... We left the job undone even though we had been on the verge of total victory. We had the muscle and the stature to hold the allied coalition together long enough to finish Saddam Hussein. We erred in not doing so. ...


President Bush, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf should have delivered a KO punch as we did with Hitler and Tojo. Back then, George Catlett Marshall didn't stop simply because he had succeeded in kicking the Germans out of France. He went in and destroyed Adolf Hitler. We haven't really won a war since World War II.

Neither Newsweek nor other media show signs of weariness with Hackworth's absurd routine. Hazardous Duty was moderately well reviewed. Hack is the subject of frequent fawning profiles. He is still filing copy from far-flung battlefields, still wildly thrusting the ultimate bayonet. When will his employers--who know better, or ought to--stop pretending that his macho posturing and potted strategic sermonettes constitute journalism?


Part 2: Why Hackworth Left the Army

On May 16, 1996, Adm. Jeremy Michael Boorda, the chief of naval operations, committed suicide. Newsweek had planned to confront Boorda that day with evidence that he had worn two valor medals that he had not earned. Hackworth had tipped Newsweek off to the story; Hackworth had been tipped off by Roger Charles, an old friend who writes for the National Security News Service. On the surface, Hackworth seemed the perfect person to expose Boorda's lie. Hackworth is, after all, "America's most decorated living soldier." Who better to judge Boorda's false claims of valor?

And judge Hackworth did. Before Boorda's body was cold, Hackworth was thundering about military honor and the soldier's code. In Newsweek, he declared that "[t]here is no greater disgrace" than wearing unearned valor medals. In his newspaper column, he announced that Boorda's deception threatened the bedrock integrity of the armed forces:

Midshipmen at Annapolis, cadets at West Point, the Air Force Academy, all the ROTCs and other officer-producing schools of this land are taught the code, "I will not lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate anyone who does."

These sacred rules don't apply only to cadets, NCOs or junior grade officers, but to every leader who wears the uniform, from cadet to general, midshipm[a]n to admiral.

In recent years, there's been an epidemic of violations of these rules, many by senior officers. These offenses range from lying under oath to stealing to misusing government property.

But Hackworth was not always so righteous about the sacred rules. Here is his history.

In 1971, Hackworth commanded Advisory Team 50, a unit that advised Vietnamese forces in the Mekong delta. He had been fighting in Vietnam more or less constantly since 1965, and he was a legend. But the war disgusted him. He blamed American generals for underestimating the North Vietnamese, and for using archaic, suicidal tactics. Hackworth decided to retire early and torch his bridges. He gave a long interview to ABC, in which he savaged the idiotic commanders and declared that America could not win the war.

This--understandably--infuriated the Army, which set investigators on Hackworth. They didn't have to dig hard. In an August 1971 report, an Army deputy inspector general alleged that:

Hackworth sanctioned the operation of a brothel--the "Steam and Cream"--in the Team 50 compound.
Hackworth gambled with enlisted men.
Hackworth smoked marijuana with subordinates.
Hackworth lived in the compound with a woman who was not his wife.
Hackworth broke currency regulations by exchanging U.S. dollars for military payment certificates on the black market.
All these activities violated military regulations, not to mention traditional standards of ethical conduct. The report concluded: "Col. Hackworth lacked the character, integrity and moral attributes required of an officer and a gentleman, acted without honor in dealings with his subordinates and superiors alike, and was derelict in the performance of his duties as Senior Advisor of Advisory Team 50." Gen. Creighton Abrams, the Army commander in Vietnam, and Lt. Gen. William J. McCaffrey, his deputy (and father of Clinton drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey), wanted to court-martial Hackworth. But Hackworth retained Washington superlawyer Joseph Califano to represent him, and, in September 1971, the secretary of the Army stopped the investigation and allowed Hackworth to retire. "Gen. Abrams and I were astonished and chagrined when [the secretary] let him go," says McCaffrey today.

And how does Hackworth answer the charges? In About Face, he says the Army retaliated against him because he blew the whistle. This is undoubtedly true. Yet, Hackworth concedes most of the Army's allegations, all the while offering self-righteous excuses that don't fit with his haughty denunciation of Boorda. He established the brothel, he says, so that his troops would sleep with disease-free women. He may have smoked marijuana once, but only when he was very drunk. He lived with a woman who was not his wife because his marriage was falling apart (and besides, the troops liked having her around). He gambled and violated currency regulations to build himself a nest egg for his retirement. (Incidentally, he also admitted to stealing jeeps from other Army units, faking drug tests for his soldiers, and fraternizing with enlisted men, all Army no-nos.) Hackworth writes: "It was the regulations that were wrong. ... The real question was, did discipline on Team 50 break down as a result of these command irregularities? No. ... Did morale improve with the implementation of these irregularities? No one could deny it."

The title of the chapter in which he describes the "irregularities" is "A Law Unto Himself." He does not mention the Army's sacred, universal rules. He calls his behavior "Hackworth-honorable."

"Hackworth-honorable" or "sacred rules"--which will it be? You can say (self-righteously), "I'm a Boy Scout who is outraged by any violations of the sacred military code," as Hackworth does about Boorda. Or, you can say (self-righteously), "I'm a macho guy who plays by his own rules and is too big to be hemmed in by petty bureaucrats," as Hackworth does about himself. But you can't have it both ways.



Part 3: Hackworth's Medals: "The Most Decorated Living Soldier"?
Does Hackworth have his own Boorda problem?


No one doubts that David Hackworth earned--earned in battle--his medals. But is he, as he tells readers incessantly, "America's most decorated living soldier"? Not according to the Army.

The Army does not recognize, and has never recognized, the title. According to an Army memo, "It has been a long-standing and unwritten policy of the Army that no single soldier or veteran is ever named officially as the most decorated person in a conflict or in a particular period of time." The Army did not even keep a central medal database until the mid-1970s. It has never searched through its millions of individual records to find top medal winners.

But let us suppose that Hackworth is the soldier who has earned the most medals, which is possible. Would that make him "America's most decorated living soldier"?

Again, no. The Army rejects the concept of "most decorated soldier" for fear that someone would do exactly what Hackworth is doing. Medals are not equal. The Medal of Honor, which Hackworth never won, is by far the most important award. "Statistical comparison, if possible, could allow a recipient of many awards to surpass a soldier with the Medal of Honor," says the Army memo, and this, the Army makes clear, is not acceptable. There are more than 200 living Medal of Honor winners. All of them, in the eyes of most military men, trump Hackworth. Hackworth's claim is puffery.

edit: here's a CNN link about the ranger tab scandal.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9705/16/hackworth/

[ArmedPacifist]

I'm a fan of Hack's and I remember reading a lot of his stuff back before the invasion. He had this crazy idea of giving any soldier who surrendered a certain ammount of money and guarantee them a job, he made some kind of referrence to Mcdonalds that I can't seem to remember.

But he made some grave predictions about the war in Iraq...

When the invasion occured and Saddham's regime was toppled I starting thinking to myself "maybe Hack was wrong about all of this..."

Now I realize he was right all along.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Having read both sets of articles I think this Hackworth character makes some rather good points but is also abit fruity in the head. Nothing wrong with some eccentric behavior.

Relating to biting snakes heads off - that really sounds like pointless macho crap - does that still go on?

[catdat]

sethen

You 3rd I.D.?????

I was when I was RA. Notice my patch has 3/64AR which don't exist now because they had too many tanks. That was from back in the day when real tank brigades had four battalions. So I'm an "armchair" NCO now according to some peeps in this thread.

I do bleed blue and white though - Rock of the Marne.

[catdat]

Beowulf

The deal with "authorized medals" can be a funny thing. My DD214 is missing a ARCOM. Do I care? No. I have the orders, the certificate and the medal in my records. I was on terminal leave so I didn't get a chance to check my paperwork they just sent it to me and I didn't look at it for months. Should I ask them to correct it and re-issue my DD214? No. No. No. They'll probably screw up something else.

That article concerns a Ranger Tab. Hack has what 9 purple hearts????

I was a tanker. I went to lots of schools and you know what? I wasn't authorized to where any of the stuff except my jungle patch because it wasn't authorized for tankers. oh well.

catdat

[esl]

He can't speak while in service long time [security] . Now he is not in service , is called "armchair soldier". SOme people are never happy! :roll:

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I have been reading Hack's stuff for a while and although I don't hold with some of his views I would go as far as to say he is on the money nearly all of the time. :)

[catdat]

mocking_loudly_died wrote:

Relating to biting snakes heads off - that really sounds like pointless macho crap - does that still go on?

Rangers and pointless macho crap? Dunno rofl
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the official op comparison pertaining to snakes:

Infantry: Snake smells them, leaves area.

Airborne: Lands on and kills the snake.

Armor: Runs over snake, laughs, and looks for more snakes.

Aviation: Has GPS coordinates to snake. Can't find snake. Returns to base for refuel, crew rest and manicure.

Ranger: Plays with snake, then eats it.

Field Artillery: Kills snake with massive Time On Target barrage with three Forward Artillery Brigades in support. Kills several hundred civilians as unavoidable collateral damage. Mission is considered a success and all participants (i.e., cooks, mechanics and clerks) are awarded Silver Stars.

Special Forces: Makes contact with snake, ignores all State Department directives and Theater Commander Rules of Engagement by building ******* with snake and winning its heart and mind. Trains it to kill other snakes. Files enormous travel settlement upon return.

Combat Engineer: Studies snake. Prepares in-depth doctrinal thesis in obscure 5 series Field Manual about how to defeat snake using counter mobility assets. Complains that maneuver forces don't understand how to properly conduct doctrinal counter-snake ops.

Navy SEAL: Expends all ammunition and calls for naval gunfire support in failed attempt to kill snake. Snake bites SEAL and retreats to safety. Hollywood makes fantasy film in which SEALS kill Muslim extremist snakes.

Navy: Fires off 50 cruise missiles from various types of ships, kills snake and makes presentation to Senate Appropriations Committee on how Naval forces are the most cost-effective means of anti-snake Force projection.

Marine: Kills snake by accident while looking for souvenirs. Local civilians demand removal of all US forces from Area ofOperations.

Marine Recon: Follows snake, gets lost.

catdat

[incubz5]

David Hackworth is a total liberal ideologue who was screaming 'quagmire' from the moment we stepped into Afghanistan and Iraq. I used to read bits of his whining on military.com until I couldn't stand it any more. Thank goodness they had Oliver North's columns to offset this idiot.

I can understand generals being liberals like Hackworth and that feckless back-and-forth whiner who lost the Democratic nomination for prez, but when they start whining that we losing losing losing or doing a bad job, etc, they're the opposite of generals and soldiers, they're not on our side. I wouldn't fault that behavior if we were, but we're far from losing and the war on terror and in Iraq has been and is a resounding success. I remember generals and admirals (of which there are around 800 in the US) estimating 3000 casualties just from Baghdad streetfighting alone prior to our invasion of Iraq!

[SABER 2-3]

CATDAT,
Good one, I have not seen the snake break-down in a long time. Here is an addition for the list: SFOD-D : Infiltrate the snakes AO by looking and acting very "snakey", learns the snakes patterns, routines, strenghts and weaknesses. Develop a plan of action, clandestinely rehearse and eliminate (verified by Sat. image and DNA sample) the creature once known as snake. Element quickly exfils. using worm assets for cover. All National Command authorities deny any involvement, and once again officially deny the existence of any Ultra Secret Snake Force.

I am ever worried about all of you who think that Col. Hackworth (Ret.) is anything more than a Hack w/ no Worth.

[catdat]

SABER 2-3
Very good I'll add that to my list.

incubz5

I hesitate to reply because I may be wasting my breath on you. I like Col. North too and I respect his opinions. I really think you're painting
Hackworth with the "liberal" tag because he disagrees with the status quo. It's ironic to see people calling for a bigger military and more military spending to be called "liberals".

I think what you really mean is this = tell truth + buck pentagon + don't mince words = "liberal"

That BS is still getting soldiers killed. Wake up and smell the cordite.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I do hope this Hackworth thing is just a phase - there are plenty of other places we can all go to see this guy's opinion. This place shouldn't be about simply cutting & pasting old columns. We've seen it before.

Funny thing about Hackworth. He portrays himself as the tell-it-like-it-is, straight talking tough guy, but he's really just a left wing ideologue who happens to be a vet. He serves up his military past in heapin' helpings as if it's some way to validate his opinion. The military is full of normal folks, nut jobs, communists, conservatives, homo******s, housepainters, pederasts, etc etc - what I'm saying is that his record is no "proof", no validation of his opinions.

I mean, no disrespect to his purple hearts etc., but getting yourself hurt in the service is no indication of intelligence, insight, or creativity. It means that he was willing to put himself in harm's way for his country, which I can respect. But it doesn't earn him any points with me beyond that.

He rails against the "bloated military", constantly points fingers, complains, whines, bitches, makes personal attacks - the man acts as if he's still 19 years old, sitting in a trench and complaining about the food. At his age, he needs to display a more evenhanded assessment of things if he is to be taken seriously. Otherwise, he will remain in the realm of Mike Moore et al - more entertainment than journalism.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[catdat]

2sheds_Jackson

mean, no disrespect to his purple hearts etc., but getting yourself hurt in the service is no indication of intelligence, insight, or creativity.

I see that as disrespect. If you participate in combat for extended periods through several conflicts you will accumulate in all probablity several purple hearts. if you don't, well I'd say you're damn lucky. I'll bet you don't know the forst thing about combat leadership just from your comments.

He spoke up about Vietnam while he was still in the service that means more to me than your petty b_llsh_t.

[Hellfish]

Ironically, my boss just saw me reading this topic and said that Hackworth is a right-wing looney. My boss is also a retired colonel. :roll:

I like how Republicans/right-wingers use "Liberal" as a curse. Like it's something better **** out of one's ass than spoken, and gives them the right to immediately dismiss anything said as idealistic, unrealistic or foolish.

How about instead of simply labelling someone something, you intelligently debate or examine their argument. Surely if the liberals are so whiny and stupid, then you can prove that you aren't and say something smart? ;) :bash:

[incubz5]

Medals mean very little to me. I remember a guy telling me a Gulf War story about a convoy of tanks rolling across a bridge in Iraq. The lead thank was hit with RPGs (you always want to take out the first to stop the entire line). The guys kept the tank rolling even tho it was dangerously hot on the inside and they faced the prospect of one of their rounds firing hot within the tank. They just did their job, got to the other side, no medal ceremony.

When an AC-130 gunship in Afhganistan was fired upon with a surface to air missile in a video I downloaded from the DoD, they hit the flares and evasive maneuvers and avoided death. No medals.

As for John Kerry's trashing of his fellow soldiers in Vietnam and his country, I'll let his own words speak for themselves:

"Our democracy is a farce; it is not the best in the world. There is a disbelief in the American Dream. People are questioning if it is really a dream or if the dream still exist...[Some veterans] came back with a heroin habit that cost $12 a day in Vietnam. That same habit costs $175 to $250 a day in the U.S. [S]till other veterans came back with psychological problems, such as those who sleep with knives under their pillows, or those whose wives have to wake them up with code words so they won't get stabbed."

That was Kerry in '71. Pathetic. He was a radical then and a radical now. Hitler was a wounded decorated war veteran too, who gives a flying F. Medals a great leader doth not make.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

2sheds_Jackson

mean, no disrespect to his purple hearts etc., but getting yourself hurt in the service is no indication of intelligence, insight, or creativity.

I see that as disrespect. If you participate in combat for extended periods through several conflicts you will accumulate in all probablity several purple hearts. if you don't, well I'd say you're damn lucky. I'll bet you don't know the forst thing about combat leadership just from your comments.

He spoke up about Vietnam while he was still in the service that means more to me than your petty b_llsh_t.


You ain't pickin' up what I'm layin' down. Just to be clear - I'm not attacking him for having numerous decorations. I'm attacking you for using those decorations to validate his opinions. He would never say "I'm right because I have these purple hearts".

So, now you're gonna have to explain how being shot, or hit by mortar fragments etc can increase your intelligence or analytical ability. If you want to use his purple hearts to back up his statement about keeping one's head down in combat, or assessing what it's like getting shot, or his general statements about medivac procedures...that makes sense. His decs are clearly proof that he's got experience with that.

But for you to use them to substantiate his political views isn't right. That's like me saying "I've got a degree in chemistry, so I can tell you that Bono is a better singer than Mick Jagger". It makes no sense.

You and I can both admire his combat record. But using his service to his country to prop up his political views only cheapens him. Vets are like anybody else - they are not of one mind. There are plenty of folks with similar records who would disagree with him all day long. Ooop look at that, I'm a vet & I disagree with him. Hey, just my 2 cents.

[incubz5]

Hellfish,

The word "liberal" is a curse, even liberals think so (certainly the ones in public office or running for office) and they shy away from it.

Here's some examples of liberal idiocy, since you asked:

"We spend $300 billion a year on planes and bombs and military marvels but still can't faze Taliban warriors who pop up out of the charred earth and mock us as ineffectual. Our institutions are lumbering as they try to keep up with the simple, supple, clever paladins of Islam."

-Maureen Dowd, New York Times, one week before the fall of Kabul

"Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden's good buddy, is making a big comeback in southern Afghanistan. The Taliban thugs under Omar...run a fair chunk of the countryside, especially along the wild and woolly border Afghanistan shares with Pakistan."

-David Hackworth, right before fall of kabul

[catdat]

incubz5
Way off topic. it's not for me to say what anyone does with their medals but I think in Kerry's case it was a symbolic gesture. A war that consumes 50,000 over ten years can make people do some pretty emotional things. You were all full of piss and vinegar back then too, I assume?

[catdat]

2sheds_jackson wrote:

Just to be clear - I'm not attacking him for having numerous decorations. I'm attacking you for using those decorations to validate his opinions. He would never say "I'm right because I have these purple hearts".

Agreed but I'm not sure where I propped him up by his medals. I think they reflect his experience and I mentioned the purple hearts when someone brought up his "unauthorized" ranger tab.

Beowulf quoted:

At 16, he was a U.S. Army private, fighting Yugoslav partisans on the Italian border. At 20, he won a battlefield commission in Korea, then commanded a savage and brilliant Army Raiders unit that wreaked havoc on the North Koreans and Chinese. When he left the Army in 1971, he was the youngest full colonel in Vietnam, winner of eight Purple Hearts, nine Silver Stars, eight Bronze Stars, four Army Commendation Medals, four Legions of Merit, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and a chestful of other medals

You continue to minimize his service by asserting that a purple heart will give one experience in how to get shot, how to keep one's head down and medivac procedures. OK fine. What's the rest of his service likely to experience him in?

As far as his politics? I have no idea. Has he supported Kerry? Am I a democrat because I agree with him about the situation in Iraq?

We obviously are two vets that disagree. I hope he's wrong about Iraq.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Funny thing about Hackworth. He portrays himself as the tell-it-like-it-is, straight talking tough guy, but he's really just a left wing ideologue who happens to be a vet.
Just sometimes you American guys confuse me, Hackworth is a "left wing ideologue" huh? if Hackworth is a lefty then I am Mao Tse Tung what gives with some of you guys some feller disagrees with the incumbent government and they either are a lefty or Pat Buchanan. :D

[aktarian]

Maybe he is right... Iraq will be a long lesson for US and coalition... it is easy to destroy army but can you give me one example of succesful war against guerilla??? Viet? No Laos? No WW2? No Columbia? No N Ireland? No... I do not remember any succesful campain against guerilla...

Malaysia, Borneo, Oman, Kenya (?). I'm surprised no Brit here brought these up.

[Hellfish]

Hellfish,

The word "liberal" is a curse, even liberals think so (certainly the ones in public office or running for office) and they shy away from it.

Here's some examples of liberal idiocy, since you asked:

"We spend $300 billion a year on planes and bombs and military marvels but still can't faze Taliban warriors who pop up out of the charred earth and mock us as ineffectual. Our institutions are lumbering as they try to keep up with the simple, supple, clever paladins of Islam."

-Maureen Dowd, New York Times, one week before the fall of Kabul

"Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden's good buddy, is making a big comeback in southern Afghanistan. The Taliban thugs under Omar...run a fair chunk of the countryside, especially along the wild and woolly border Afghanistan shares with Pakistan."

-David Hackworth, right before fall of kabul

So... what's the problem with those quotes? Are they false? Last I checked, the Taliban was still very active in Afghanistan.

[Mark Sman]

I would say Hackworth's writings are a mixed bag. Some good, some bad.

I wonder about writings that rip policy but don't offer clear, well defined alternate policy along with costs and dangers associated with the alternate path.

Alternate policy does not include time machines that go back and ease mistakes already made.

They do include plans based on the reality on the ground.

[Marmot1]

Maybe he is right... Iraq will be a long lesson for US and coalition... it is easy to destroy army but can you give me one example of succesful war against guerilla??? Viet? No Laos? No WW2? No Columbia? No N Ireland? No... I do not remember any succesful campain against guerilla...

Malaysia, Borneo, Oman, Kenya (?). I'm surprised no Brit here brought these up.

Yeah brits won with mau mau but now they are accused of war crimes for that...

[Gordon]

Maybe he is right... Iraq will be a long lesson for US and coalition... it is easy to destroy army but can you give me one example of succesful war against guerilla??? Viet? No Laos? No WW2? No Columbia? No N Ireland? No... I do not remember any succesful campain against guerilla...

Malaysia, Borneo, Oman, Kenya (?). I'm surprised no Brit here brought these up.

Yeah brits won with mau mau but now they are accused of war crimes for that...

Well I was guessing he was talking about US counter-insurgency victories so I didn't bring them up and what exactly do you mean by mau mau Marmot?

[aktarian]

Maybe he is right... Iraq will be a long lesson for US and coalition... it is easy to destroy army but can you give me one example of succesful war against guerilla??? Viet? No Laos? No WW2? No Columbia? No N Ireland? No... I do not remember any succesful campain against guerilla...

Malaysia, Borneo, Oman, Kenya (?). I'm surprised no Brit here brought these up.

Yeah brits won with mau mau but now they are accused of war crimes for that...

So we agree that guerilla can be defeated?

[catdat]

Mark Sman (good name btw),

I think some of the points he's making are that we're supposed to have learned from our old mistakes. I also don't agree with everything he says but look at his site, it's not always him making the suggestions. He seems to give voice to those that disagree too. Where else are you going to find out about the new up-armored hmmv from the grunt's perspective?

Helfish6,

Exactly. didn't Kabul fall fairly early? didn't we have some major operations in the south following that? That's why I left that alone.

[Marmot1]

Maybe he is right... Iraq will be a long lesson for US and coalition... it is easy to destroy army but can you give me one example of succesful war against guerilla??? Viet? No Laos? No WW2? No Columbia? No N Ireland? No... I do not remember any succesful campain against guerilla...

Malaysia, Borneo, Oman, Kenya (?). I'm surprised no Brit here brought these up.

Yeah brits won with mau mau but now they are accused of war crimes for that...

So we agree that guerilla can be defeated?

Yes but only if you displace local population or use scorched earth tactics...

We have had problems in poland with UPA (ukrainian nationalists) who caused a lot of trouble in small part close to soviet border (basicaly in this region 40-50% of population was ukrainian ,and tried to get rid off ethnical poles (what they unsuccesfully tried to do since 1941 with german support)
We won but only when village after village was displaced to other part of Poland and those UPA fighters which remained lost their suppply and support. (Action was called "Wisła" and ended in 1947 or 48) This ukrainian population was distributed in small groups all around poland so there was no chance to continue fight)

EDIT: But try to displace whole nation.... like iraqis - it is imposible...
(mau mau was only a small ethnic group and AFAIK scorched earth tactic was used)

[aktarian]

Maybe he is right... Iraq will be a long lesson for US and coalition... it is easy to destroy army but can you give me one example of succesful war against guerilla??? Viet? No Laos? No WW2? No Columbia? No N Ireland? No... I do not remember any succesful campain against guerilla...

Malaysia, Borneo, Oman, Kenya (?). I'm surprised no Brit here brought these up.

Yeah brits won with mau mau but now they are accused of war crimes for that...

So we agree that guerilla can be defeated?

Yes but only if you displace local population or use scorched earth tactics...
was used)

Which of this was used in Oman, Malaysia and Borneo?

[incubz5]

So... what's the problem with those quotes? Are they false? Last I checked, the Taliban was still very active in Afghanistan.

Hellfish, the Taliban lost control of the country, their leaders are wanted men who are hiding like rats, the women do as they please, radios play, kites fly, and the children go to proper schools.

Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that Hackworth and Dowd's "THE TALIBAN ARE COMING ON STRONG!" BS one week before the fall of Kabul is anything short of idiocy?

Come on!

[incubz5]

Maybe he is right... Iraq will be a long lesson for US and coalition... it is easy to destroy army but can you give me one example of succesful war against guerilla??? Viet? No Laos? No WW2? No Columbia? No N Ireland? No... I do not remember any succesful campain against guerilla...

ROFLOL! Iraq is not a guerilla war. The Iraqi people as a whole, all 30 million of them, are not arming themselves w/ AK-47s to fight guerilla war against us. The insurgents are a combination of power-grabbers w/ militia (al Sadr), terrorists paid to come in from foreign states, and Fayedeen with nowhere else to go.

Frankly, it is the insurgents inability to get a decent guerilla war going that is their downfall. The people of Baghdad and the tens of millions of other Iraqis putter around fine and dandy every day regardless of what happens to al Sadr and the terrorists.

[Hellfish]

According to your quotes, the Talibs weren't coming on strong. They were merely surviving against overwhelming odds. And they aren't running like dogs - they are currently putting up a fight in eastern Afghanistan two and a half years AFTER Kabul fell. The death of Tillman only, sadly, reinforced that fact.

The point of the articles you referenced wasn't that the Talibs were going to defeat the US, it was that they were able to avoid total elimination. We've got a $300 billion dollar military but we still can't wipe out a band of religious nuts living in the stone age. THAT was what I understood the articles to say. It's irony, not "Liberalthink" or defeatism.

Don't get me wrong here - I think that America was justified in the invasion of Afghanistan and the toppling of the Taliban. I honestly think we did the right thing, and I think we're still doing the right thing in that country. I think we're safer with them out of power. But that doesn't mean our **** don't stink - we still haven't caught Omar and Osama, so the fact that they're "living like rats" is really irrelevant - the fact that we haven't killed them yet is the real issue. The fact that all this high-tech warfighting machinery that can drop a bomb within inches of a target still can't kill a man who is, essentially, a cave man. Irony. Get it? If anything, I'd say those articles are pro-bloodshed. They WANT Omar and Osama dead, but they're dissappointed that it hasn't happened yet.

So like I said... if you're going to use "liberal" as a curse word, know what the **** you're talking about first.

[incubz5]

According to your quotes, the Talibs weren't coming on strong. They were merely surviving against overwhelming odds. And they aren't running like dogs - they are currently putting up a fight in eastern Afghanistan two and a half years AFTER Kabul fell. The death of Tillman only, sadly, reinforced that fact.

The point of the articles you referenced wasn't that the Talibs were going to defeat the US, it was that they were able to avoid total elimination.

Hellfish, this is absurd and a clear indication that you

A) Can't read.

B) Can't understand what you read

C) Are in utter denial.

Here are the quotes again:

"We spend $300 billion a year on planes and bombs and military marvels but still can't faze Taliban warriors who pop up out of the charred earth and mock us as ineffectual. Our institutions are lumbering as they try to keep up with the simple, supple, clever paladins of Islam."

-Maureen Dowd, New York Times, one week before the fall of Kabul

"Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden's good buddy, is making a big comeback in southern Afghanistan. The Taliban thugs under Omar...run a fair chunk of the countryside, especially along the wild and woolly border Afghanistan shares with Pakistan."

-David Hackworth, right before fall of kabul

When Maureen Dowd writes that we can't "faze Taliban warriors" and that our "institutions are lumbering as they try to keep up w/ them" you're saying that this is simply pointing out that we're not making them extinct?

Puh-lease!

[incubz5]

we still haven't caught Omar and Osama, so the fact that they're "living like rats" is really irrelevant - the fact that we haven't killed them yet is the real issue.

Quick question: Did we kill Hitler after years of war and half a million men lost?

'Nother quick question: Did we win that war?

Get a grip.

[Hellfish]

Last I checked, the Talibs were still fighting, still inflicting casualties... ergo, they aren't all that fazed by us.

As for institutions, we're a bureaucratic society - even the military. Buracracies aren't known for their flexibilities and adaptability. Luckily we have the Special Forces who are more flexible and anti-bureaucratic, for if we'd gone into Afghanistan without them, we'd have lost a lot more than we did.

Maureen is simply bringing to light our shortcomings vis-a-vis the decentralized nature of our enemy. Much like the Vietnamese only needed ten rounds and a handful of rice to fight, and ultimately prevail, over us, the Talibs only need twenty rounds and their Koran to hold off $300 billion dollars worth of the most powerful military the world has ever known. She's not saying that we're ineffective.

It's a common right-wing tactic to think that you're smarter than the average liberal and denounce them as idiotic, ignorant and clueless. Yet I still have yet to see you even make a real case for liberal idiocy from the very examples you've given. You're giving us conservatives a bad name. If you're going to be a spokesman for our beliefs and values have the common courtesy to reflect them intelligently. Right now it's like your poking at a beehive with a stick while chortling like a retarded child because all the bees are angry. You haven't learned yet that they sting.

I think you simply find it amusing that these quotes were made right before the fall of Kabul - and you aren't reading into them. By your logic, the fall of Kabul was a monumental event. As if with the fall of Kabul, we won the war, much like the fall of Berlin ended the Second World War. Hardly. Hitler didn't escape to the Alps to continue fighting. Oman and Osama did. There's a big difference.

So as I said, unless you feel like making an honestly intelligent argument against liberals (if it's even within your intellectual capacity to do so) step aside and keep the snide comments to yourself. You're not helping us.

[incubz5]

Hellfish,

The Taliban have utterly lost that country, they can snipe or throw mortar rounds at our troops there and kill one here, one there, the fact is that their rule of that country is over. How many casualties have we suffered since our 2001 invasion and subsequent occupation?

119.

Now Hellfish, to put your whining defeatism into perspective, the Soviets lost, are you listening, over 100,000 and were run out after years of war.

[catdat]

This thread is way off course. I meant to have a debate or ideas about Hackworth's statements concerning Iraq.

There hasn't been much said except to flame Hack.

Hitler doesn't belong in this discussion neither does Maureen Dowd.

The most disturbing thing I note is a majority of the "let's go kill them all crowd" doesn't seem to know what that entails. Fpr all your posturing about supporting the war there's very little about supporting the people who actually have to fight it for you.

my two cents ...I'll get off my soapbox now

[aktarian]

Now Hellfish, to put your whining defeatism into perspective, the Soviets lost, are you listening, over 100,000 and were run out after years of war.


:bash: Where did you get this number from? Your arse? :cantbeli:

[Hellfish]

Hellfish,

The Taliban have utterly lost that country, they can snipe or throw mortar rounds at our troops there and kill one here, one there, the fact is that their rule of that country is over. How many casualties have we suffered since our 2001 invasion and subsequent occupation?

119.

Now Hellfish, to put your whining defeatism into perspective, the Soviets lost, are you listening, over 100,000 and were run out after years of war.

If the Taliban are totally and utterly lost, then why do we still have something like 10,000 troops in-country? Because we like to make sure than the Afghan women are flying kites?

You clearly don't comprehend what I write. And once again you've resigned yourself to name-calling, just like I said you would. I'd really like to see you call me a whining defeatist to my face. You'd probably be thrilled to find out that I am a Republican finance committee member down here in Florida, wouldn't you? Or to see that I have an autographed picture of GWB here in my office?

There's a difference between you and me - you see what you want to see and dismiss everything else by calling it names. I see what is there, analyze it for what it is and make an informed statement. You just spout... and spout.. and spout. It's people like you making comments like yours that are going to lead this country to it's downfall.

[Beowulf]

[hijack]: hellfish, were you in the old WWII unit the "Flying Hellfish" ;)

[incubz5]

Where did you get this number from? Your arse?

Wounded and dead total 100,000:

The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was a 10-year war which wreaked incredible havoc and destruction on Afghanistan. The 'shooting' war is generally held to have started December 24, 1979. Soviet troops ultimately withdrew from the area between May 15, 1988 and February 2, 1989. The Soviet Union officially announced that all of its troops had left Afghanistan on February 15.

Approximately 22,000 Soviets were killed and 75,000 wounded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan

But hey, you want to focus on the dead, fine: 10 years and 25,000 reds dead for nothing, 119 Americans dead and the Taliban is history. It doesn't get any better than that.

[incubz5]

Last I checked, the Talibs were still fighting, still inflicting casualties... ergo, they aren't all that fazed by us.

BWEAHWAHWEAWHAWHAWHAWHAHW!!!!!

Hey, Hellfish, the Taliban aren't "fazed" by us???????

You're a riot!

119 dead soldiers in Afghanistan after YEARS of war...we lose more than twice that number of police officers in the United States EVERY YEAR from crime. Statistically speaking, it's safer to be a soldier in Afghanistan than a cop in the worst cities in the United States.

The Taliban aren't "fazed"...You crack me up.

[incubz5]

Hellfish,

Do you really want to root for the Taliban so?

Do you really want to root for those that rape women in front of their fathers and mothers? Execute them in front of villagers and in stadiums?

Do you really want to root for the Taliban who were utterly routed from power w/ a minimum loss of life?

Is this who you are? Are the little girls in Afghanistan in need of people like you, or people like me and our soldiers?

Think about it.

[Hellfish]

Jesus Christ. You just aren't reading what I'm saying, are you?

There's a quote - "Don't ever argue with an idiot because they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience."

On that note, I'm done talking to you.

[incubz5]

Hellfish says the Taliban aren't "fazed" by the United States.

I would ask Hellfish, since he is done talking w/ me, to ask Mullah Omar whether he and his islamofacist organization are "fazed."

Good luck finding him Hellfish.

[Hellfish]

[hijack]: hellfish, were you in the old WWII unit the "Flying Hellfish" ;)

The fightin'est squad in the fightin'est company in the third fightin'est battalion in the whole army! :D

[incubz5]

Clearly Hellfish's acumen is geared more towards The Simpsons than national security, history, or even common sense.

[Hellfish]

As I said, I'm finished talking to idiots who can't even read.

[incubz5]

Hellfish,

Would you like to tell the posters here a third time you're done talking to me?

Sky's the limit man!

[catdat]

incubz5

100,000 casualties from the taliban? The Taliban were fighting the soviets? Don't think so. Your numbers would mean something if we were talking the same opposition. Let's just say you may twist whatever you want.

I repeat way off topic lock plz

[Beowulf]

incubz5

100,000 casualties from the taliban? The Taliban were fighting the soviets? Don't think so. Your numbers would mean something if we were talking the same opposition. Let's just say you may twist whatever you want.

I repeat way off topic lock plz

ok.

Just to clarify Taliban weren't fighting soviets, mujahideen were. This is an important distinction.