The 'bayonet charge' you refer to appears to have been replaced by a charge of a different name performed by special forces....and yet, their blood sheds just as easily as the bayonet charging infantryman.
..."As this war continues, the perfumed princes who rose to their positions by punching the right tickets, will fall to the wayside, replaced by true leaders and warriors. Just like they always have at the start of every one of our major conflicts"....
And at what cost....how many more men have to die or be seriously wounded before the perfumed ones fall away so the true warrior/leaders rise from the ashes?
I'm a female, never been in the service so I've never seen combat or even a make-believe combat scenario, but I believe this is what Colonel Hackworth is getting at......its the rank and file who are biting the dust while the strutting peacocks continue to preen...it seems his first concern is always with and for the men, as was great leaders like Gunn.
I can picture Gunn's men following him willingly through the gates of hell and back.....something I can't envision with the likes of a Wesley Clark.
This IS definitely Hackworths' point about what leadership has to be in managing true combat situations. My earlier point was - the importance of this current war has to do with Lieutenants and Captains getting REAL combat experience. That and our killing monsters, of course.
Has it ever been different? I'm not saying that is the way things should be, but it is the way things always have been. I'm sure Hackworth isn't advocating putting Colonels and Generals on the frontlines. Can you imagine some 50+ year old man trying to keep up with a bunch of 20 year old special forces troops doing what they do best. Personally, the last place I want a commanding officer is anywhere near me in the heat of battle.
With regard to bayonets, I would be interested to know the recency of experience of anyone who still advocates a bayonet charge as a productive, useful tactic. For years our combat pilots were taught to ingress into a target area at low altitude. After all, that was the way we'd always done it. Nevermind the fact that we had developed technology that allowed even more precise bombing from higher altitudes outside the ranges of enemy air defenses. After we lost some great aircraft and even better pilots flying the old low altitude tactics in the Gulf War, we learned our lessons and shifted tactics to match the technology available. We've been kicking butt ever since, and haven't lost a man to enemy fire. It's not as dramatic as the old way, but it is a heck of a lot more effective. What's more important?