Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A bloody and well-worn path (Hackworth hacking at Rummy and Co)
South Florida Sun Sentinel ^ | 07/01/2004 | David Hackworth/Eilhys England

Posted on 07/01/2004 2:53:06 PM PDT by Roamin53

Top generals like former NATO commander Wes Clark and a squad of retired and active-duty four-stars warned long before the invasion of Iraq: Don't go there. It doesn't involve our national security. It's not the main objective in our war with international terrorism. Before the invasion, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, a distinguished soldier with counterguerrilla campaigns in Vietnam and Bosnia under his pistol belt, was asked by Congress how many soldiers he thought would be needed for the occupation phase in Iraq. His response: A minimum of 200,000. Rumsfeld treated this courageous soldier -- who left half a foot in the Vietnam Delta -- like a leper for telling a truth that was obviously contrary to party lockstep. And Shinseki's spot-on troop estimate was ridiculed by senior Pentagon chicken hawks like Paul Wolfowitz, a man who dodged the draft during Vietnam and wouldn't know a tank from a Toyota.

(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: hackworth; media; news; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last
Strange absense of facts in this column. He makes claims and innuendoes with no facts. If only he had made General, he wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life as a first class political HACK.
1 posted on 07/01/2004 2:53:07 PM PDT by Roamin53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Roamin53

As soon as he mentioned Wesley Clarke as one of the "experts" who warned against invading Iraq, Hackworth lost me. Wesley Clarke has ZERO credibility, and Col. Hackworth should know it.


2 posted on 07/01/2004 2:57:30 PM PDT by stylin_geek (Koffi: 0, G.W. Bush: (I lost count))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53
Did these same armchair generals warn Clinton about not going into Bosnia or Kosovo because it wasn't "in our national interest"? And since when has the decision about what is and is not in our national interest resided within the military? Sheesh, these people give an acid stomach!

Hack has had a bee up his butt about Rumsfeld for quite awhile. I don't think he has the ability to be objective about our current military strategies.

3 posted on 07/01/2004 2:58:42 PM PDT by My2Cents ("Well.....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53
Top generals like former NATO commander Wes Clark and a squad of retired and active-duty four-stars warned long before the invasion of Iraq: Don't go there. It doesn't involve our national security.

Of course not. How could the routine firing of missiles at our pilots ever involve our national security -- particularly when the pilots being fired at are in the Air Force?

4 posted on 07/01/2004 3:00:50 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53

He lost me when he brought that lunatic, Clark..


5 posted on 07/01/2004 3:03:33 PM PDT by cardinal4 (Its noteworthy that the two biggest shills for the left are Michael Moore and Al Franken..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53

I admit it's premature to declare the war a success, but by the same token it's way premature to declare it a failure. An earlier thread today compared the situation in month 16 of this war with month 16 of most other wars we've fought; by comparison, this is arguably the most successful major war we;ve ever fought, at this point in the time line - in terms of meeting objectives, minimal civilian and troop casualties, etc. Yet all these armchair quarterbacks are declaring it a colossal failure.


6 posted on 07/01/2004 3:05:58 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53
Just Hack hackin' again.

Really. He ought to marry the Huffington thing in CA, just so he can go gay and make it all official.

7 posted on 07/01/2004 3:06:18 PM PDT by Ghost in the Machine (Yes, I exist. No, I am not a virus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53

Next thing you know Hack will be on the Michael Moore admiration tour. Absolutely disgusting.


8 posted on 07/01/2004 3:06:19 PM PDT by dc-zoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

We are currently at the equivalent of 1946 Germany in Iraq.


9 posted on 07/01/2004 3:08:42 PM PDT by kaktuskid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I don't think he has the ability to be objective about our current military strategies.

Hackworth seems to be employing a guy who looks like an insane neo-nazi kook. A quick look around the web reveals that he also is known as someone who once set up a bordello for his troops in Vietnam.

I wouldn't p*ss on him if he was on fire. I might if he was not.

10 posted on 07/01/2004 3:08:44 PM PDT by DonaldDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53

Does anyone here know if Ollie North has commented about this clown?


11 posted on 07/01/2004 3:09:19 PM PDT by Mark (Treason doth never prosper, for if it prosper, NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dc-zoo; All

Just by listing Shinseki (black berets), Wesley Clark (relieved of command for credibility issues), I was waiting for him to mention Zinni, Stansfield Turner, Gen. Kennedy and maybe the general relieved at Abu Ghraib.


12 posted on 07/01/2004 3:13:05 PM PDT by Roamin53 (World War III started on Bill Clinton's watch. He just wasn't sure which side he was on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53

Isnt Hackworth the guy who pimped the Abu Gharib photos to 60 minutes? That got a lot of people hurt.


13 posted on 07/01/2004 3:51:22 PM PDT by sgtbono2002 (I aint wrong, I aint sorry , and I am probably going to do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53
First of all these Generals need employment. Second, they all reached the apex of their power under Clinton. Now days promotion to General is political. Clark, Shinseki, and the General that should have been attached to Madeline Albright's hip (forgot his anme already) all reached powerful positions because they backed the Clinton Administration policy. So of course they do not agree, besides other Generals are getting all the glory now. Where is Chesty Puller and George Patton when you need them!!!!!!!!!!!
14 posted on 07/01/2004 3:52:17 PM PDT by jstolarczyk (jstolarczyk : Bush could be the most successful one term president in history.. ..Morris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53

Just like doctors and engineers, professional soldiers often disagree on strategy. In a nutshell I see our strategy as sound. 1) Remove all regimes that support terrorists or give them sanctuary. Without state sponsors the terrorists are broke and hiding...effectively neutralized. The order is determined by degree of difficulty, geography, and political factors. Afganistan was easiest and therefore first. Iraq was second because we were well positioned to overrun them from bases in the Gulf. Iran is now surrounded and we should be assisting anti-mullah forces there in the overthrow of the terrorist supporting regime. Syria is effectively surrounded as well; I would recommend a coup engineered by Syrian armed forces that don't want to be annihilated by American air and armor. North Korea should have its own internal coup by officers disgusted by the current famine and genocide. 2) Induce the new regimes to ruthlessly root out the islamonazis and their supporters which they will do 10X better than we can. Open up the these countries to world news, modern civil liberties, economic growth, and religious tolerance. Its not easy changing the world, but this is the best strategy to come down the pike. BTW, I graduated from the Hudson Trade School for Wayward Boys just like Hack, Wes Clarke, et al. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu have not changed.


15 posted on 07/01/2004 3:56:49 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53; Cannoneer No. 4; SLB; Squantos; Fred Mertz; 68 grunt; tet68
Hackworth's puckered up lips applied firmly to Shinseki's ass do not hide the fact that Shinseki did some pretty loopy stuff as CSA.

We are still paying for it and will for some time.

My opinion of Hackworth just dropped another few notches.

16 posted on 07/01/2004 4:00:21 PM PDT by sauropod (Hitlary: " We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53
"F" OFF, Hack, you are irrelevant!
17 posted on 07/01/2004 4:02:07 PM PDT by Militiaman7 (Past time to get mad, angry. We need to get MEDIVAL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53

Hackworth and others opposed to the Iraq action always bring up Shinseki--but what about all the other generals who had the responsibility for making the decision?

They seem to all stand by their decision that they can get the necessary job done with what they have.

We don't have enough troops to put one on every corner in Iraq-nor would that stop random mines or attacks by terrorists.


18 posted on 07/01/2004 4:10:02 PM PDT by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53

I've had enough with Hack.

During the first Gulf War, he was on NBC laughing about how the ground occupied by Iraqi forces was going "to look like a waffle iron" after we got through bombing it.

Now he's real concerned.

Screw him.


19 posted on 07/01/2004 4:18:14 PM PDT by wingman1 (University of Vietnam '70)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roamin53
I don't generally agree with Hackworth,but he may have something there.

Shineski,I believe,suggested 300,000 as the number of troops needed to pacify Iraq.( I stress "pacify" because Iraq is a LONG way from being pacified !)

As we know, Rumsfield and the Joint Chiefs decided on 150,000. A brilliant campaign was waged,and Iraq "fell"...but the fighting continued,and continued,and continued.

"Whoa ! Problem !",cried the JCS."We didn't plan on THIS !"
I'm sure somebody asked : " Why not ?"-and somebody else answered "Because you made it plain you were not interested in pettifogging little crap like that,SIR."

Then somebody had a brilliant idea: "Since we have 150,000 troops, and it looks as if we need more,let's extend the duty tours of our troops,and issue "stop loss" orders to keep those whose enlistments have expired from escaping,and call up some more Guard units,and activate some of those "Unready Reservists",and then...then we'll say: " Hell no ! We don't need more troops !"

If we can put away our political contact lenses for a moment,we might begin to see that this military manuever is called "Sticking it to the Troops",and the drill goes something like this:

REMOVE (you can hear it echo down from division to regiment,to battalion,to company,to platoon,to squad,to fireteam...."Remove"

DRAWERS !

PRESENT......(Steady ! Steady !).......... BUTTS !!

20 posted on 07/01/2004 4:18:29 PM PDT by genefromjersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson