Posted on 11/03/2001 6:04:22 AM PST by Diogenesis
Stufflebeem expressed "surprise"; Rumsfeld did not. And Stufflebeem clarified his widely-quoted statement on October 30, according to my notes at the time during his live press conference: "Stufflebeem explained he was simply looking at the Taliban's situation from an American perspective: He knows the inevitability of their defeat, and was surprised that they did not yet realize that inevitability. But they will eventually."
You have yet to back up your claim that Rumsfeld supports the Seymour Hersh article. As I said, you are full of crap.
I hope you are right.
To those at the very top like Bush or Rumsfeld who must be tearing their hair out in frustration trying to get a straight story on anything filtered through 23 layers of Pentagon bureaucracy. If it is wrong, I see little harm in it. The article will be used as a cover for dart boards in military messes around the world. If it is right - it will save lives and he will be a hero among the JO's and noncoms.
The problem with him is that when he screws up - its big news and that's all that people remember. I generally beieve what he writes - but it has to be read critically.
Now that makes a lot of sense. I'm all wrong because you don't approve. You have given NO evidence of your assertion. I've proven mine. Now go away, you're bothering those of us who are interested in the truth.
That may well be. I await further evidence. Hersh (and his lapdog, Mr. Z) have failed to provide it.
A few posters so far have one thing pegged for sure- I find it difficult to believe that the reporter actually talked to a Delta Force member. I was 8 years US Army Infantry. I'm here to tell you- almost nothing is known about Delta Force. I would expect the knowledge level about Spec Ops to be higher in the Army than in the civilian life (or "the world/real world" as it's refered to). Long time soldiers don't even know anything about Delta- and I mean nothing. So it is very difficult to believe that someone outside of that world could know anything about what Delta Force is about, has done or is about to do.
I would like to put this into context. As an Infantryman who has deployed more than once, I can tell you, we were given classes on the media, reporters and how to react to an interview. The Army (in contrast to the Air Force and Navy) is deeply suspicious and wary of the media. Before I was sent to Bosnia we were explicitly trained in what we could, could not and what we were "expected" to say to the media. Any reporter would be accompanied by a liason officer who would know when to shut up a dumb private if he said the wrong thing- that's a fact. In addition, think about this:
You have to have a security clearance before you can be Delta Force. If the ordinary Joe (with no security clearance) can't talk to the media, do I really think that someone who is the elite of the "secret society" would blab to a reporter who exposed one of the Army's uglier skeletons?
I also want to shed some more light on something from a former Infantryman's perspective. This regards the public conception of "Special Forces" and how the media reports on them. When you hear the terms "Ranger", "Special Forces" and "Delta Force" you are hearing about three distinctly different animals.
To start with, Rangers (at the risk of upsetting any Rangers out there) are NOT Special Forces. These two "tabs" are the most highly respected in the Army and it is the rare soldier who has them both. If you are Special Forces you wear that tab and you know who you are. If you are a Ranger, you wear THAT tab and you know who you are. Also, there's a difference between "wearing the tab" and "being in a Ranger Bat (battalion)". If you made it through the "school" you are a Ranger and wear a Ranger "tab". Soldiers with a Ranger tab are HIGHLY respected in the Army by their fellow soldiers. They are "special" and the first thing one soldier does when he meets a new soldier is to check out his uniform. He scans the left breast and shoulder for "badges and tabs". Airborne, Air Assault, EIB, CIB,Ranger, Special Forces- and the very rare "Pathfinder" and "Scuba".
But any Infantryman makes a distinction between someone with a Ranger tab and a Ranger who was in a Ranger Bat. This is much the same as the epiphany a soldier has when he realizes he really became a soldier "downrange" or in in the "real Army" and not in Basic Training. That's where you really learn your job and how to do things. The same for a Ranger. Someone in a "bat" trains with Ranger tactics a great deal of the time where as the more mundane Infantryman spends a great deal of time maintaining equipment and doing sh*t work. It's all about funds. Rangers are better soldiers physically and mentally and they rightly get more funding. But Rangers are still Infantry and they still fight in Infantry sized compliments (platoon, company, battalion).
Special Forces go through the "Q" course and wear the famous "green beret". They are very smart soldiers who have displayed a very good ability at working as part of a team (in addition to their physical prowess). To go through the "Q" course a soldier first has to make it through SFAS (SF assessment). This drops most candidates (including Tim McVeigh). SF is no f*cking joke. An SF medic is basically trained to do surgery and his is the hardest training of all at approx. 12 months. There are four job specialties (weapons, commo, medic and engineer) An 18B (SF Weapons Spc) is the LOWEST job specialty and if you are a former mortar man (like me :-) you have already sussed a full 50% of 18B training which is mortar related (you gotta be a genius to be a mortar ;-)
But Delta? Nobody knows what those guys are up to, including this reporter. A couple of points ring true in his article. One- Pathfinders were the first in for the Ranger mission. Yes, that's what Pathfinders do. This doesn't make them more "special". They have a short school that teaches them all about indentifying and securing drop zones for Air Assault/Airborne missions. They can do "cool stuff" like build an air assault platform in the tops of trees for jungle Air Assault missions. There is a lot of inter-service rivalry and I could imagine some Pathfinders being POed about the Rangers taking "first in" honors.
The next is- I read this article to refer to two different missions (but perhaps related). This would account for a lot of the confusion about the Rangers getting beat up in their raid although they had video showing a "low stress" operation (please don't take me wrong on low stress). If one thinks on the Ranger drop as being a distraction and cover for the Delta mission- it makes sense.
But bottom line- I can't imagine the reporter got his info directly from Delta. Maybe third or fourth hand with some truth behind it but not directly.
Sorry. My problem is that I can actually read. The statement that you bolded is not in question. However, it does not in any way relate to your assertion that Rumsfeld supports the Hersh article.
Exactly right.
I have to say, knowing your background as I do, that your take on the raid probably is closer to truth than Hersh's.
Nope again. That is the Telegraph writer. That the two were killed "in the Afghan raid" is broadly true. It was part of the same operation. But you clearly weren't watching television at the time, or TV, because the Pentagon was quite clear this happened in Pakistan. This STILL has nothing to do with your assertion that Rumsfeld supported the Hersh piece.
Oh, that's convincing. If your contention is that Rumsfeld supported the Hersh piece "on TV," you haven't provided any evidence. As I have said, everything Rumsfeld says — yes, on TV, too — is immediately put on the DOD website. I gave you the url. C'mon. Post your backup.
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.