Posted on 03/27/2003 10:33:32 AM PST by Lance Romance
Ex-Military Commentators Criticize Strategy, Highlighting Their Role on Television
Published: Mar 27, 2003
|
|
|
He also knows he's infuriated some top brass, and ignited a debate over the roles of the dozens of former officers now earning paychecks from media organizations to explain war to the uninitiated.
They've become fixtures on television during the past week, standing over maps of Iraq with pointers, explaining military terminology and speculating about battle strategy.
McCaffrey and former Desert Storm commander Norman Schwarzkopf have given NBC and MSNBC star power, with a deep bench including former nuclear weapons inspector David Kay. ABC News has recently retired experts like Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and Gen. Charles Horner. CBS has former NATO commander Gen. William "Buck" Kernan and Gen. Joseph Ralston.
CNN's prime-time star is former Gen. Wesley Clark, who directed NATO forces in Kosovo. Gravel-voiced counterterrorist expert Lt. Col. Bill Cowan appears on Fox News Channel.
"Every general who ever worked for me is now on some network commenting on the daily battle," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.
McCaffrey, President Clinton's top anti-drug adviser and now a teacher at West Point, said he believes that the administration risked "a political and military disaster" if assumptions that Iraqis wouldn't fight hard proved untrue. He ultimately believes the coalition will prevail.
The combative McCaffrey, on the "Today" show on Tuesday, bristled when host Katie Couric referred to "armchair generals."
"Remember, Katie, I'm not an armchair general," he said. "I've had three combat tours and been wounded three times."
Clark, on CNN, has similarly questioned whether the U.S. should have sent in more personnel.
"Our primary loyalty is to the armed forces, there's no question - not to the channels we're with or the administration," McCaffrey said.
Yet some of the criticism has gotten under the skin of war supporters. Retired Rear Adm. Stephen Baker, who works at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington-based think tank, said the commentators shouldn't question the war plans.
Ralston said he believes his role as a CBS analyst is to explain the issues but not give his opinions.
The active-duty officials formulating the war plan are privy to more information than retired officers, he said.
"I think it's being a little bit presumptuous to think we can sit here in an air-conditioned office with the limited amount of information we've got and make some pronouncements that General (Tommy) Franks is all screwed up on this and not doing it right," Ralston said. "I just think it's wrong."
Col. Jay DeFrank, director of press operations at the Department of Defense, said he expects retired officials to have different points of view. "An informed debate is a foundation of democracy," he said.
In general, the retired officials perform a great service, he said. The Pentagon plainly doesn't object to having its friends explain things on TV. CBS' Kernan, who retired only last year, said he didn't consider becoming a television analyst until his friend, Iraq war commander Franks, suggested it.
Clark said he doesn't measure his performance on whether he supports or opposes a particular Pentagon line.
"It's possible to be objective and still be loyal to the people and organizations that you love," he said.
McCaffrey said his distance from the military - he's been retired for seven years - may give him an independence that more recent retirees lack. He didn't work on the current war plans and wasn't appointed to jobs by people who put them in place.
Former U.S. Army Gen. John N. Abrams, an analyst for The Associated Press, said he considered McCaffrey a credible source. Abrams also believes that more personnel should have been committed to the war effort.
"We've all been very supportive," Abrams said. "But I think there's a concern that's growing about how optimistic (the military's) assumptions were."
Exactly. McCaffrey is 10 past his expiration date, what he doesn't know and understand about today's military could fill a textbook.
Does anyone else think the AP could have come up with a less insidious headline?
Bingo.
During his military career, he served overseas for thirteen years, which included four combat tours: Dominican Republic, Vietnam (twice), and Iraq. At retirement from active duty, he was the most highly decorated and youngest four-star general in the U.S. Army. He twice received the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation's second highest medal for valor. He also was awarded three Purple Heart medals for wounds sustained in combat.
During Operation Desert Storm, he commanded the 24th Infantry Division and led the 370-kilometer "left hook" attack into the Euphrates River Valley. General McCaffrey served as the JCS assistant to General Colin Powell and supported the Chairman as the staff advisor to the Secretary of State and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
If you continually wage war the same way, you will lose your command."
Can't remember the ROTC instructor who said this but I never forgot it.
In accordance with standing OPLANS and his best judgment as the theatre commander, Gen Franks requested a heavily armored force slightly smaller than was used in Gulf War I. Instead, Rumsfeld sided with the "Shock & Jaw" cheerleaders in the Air Force, who have believed since Gulf War I that air power would almost completely eliminate the need for heavy (armored) ground forces. As Gen McCaffrey pointed out, the initial plan floated by the angels included only two (2) Army brigades!
But USA and USMC generals who knew better went ballistic; they argued that the light force was predicated on too many cheerful assumptions, and violated the proven doctrine of overwhelming force. Or, as Gen McCaffrey expressed, "I don't like fair fights." The light force now in the Iraq, still consisting of only one "heavy" division, is the result of a very hard-fought compromise. The failure of Shock & Jaw to bring Iraq to its knees underscores the wisdom of the Army and Marine generals, whose ground forces stood to bear the brunt of miscalculation.
We now have a single heavy division isolated deep inside Iraq with virtually no Rear Area Security. The 250 mile Lines of Communication (LOC) and Lines of Supply (LOS) are are not protected as per doctrine, and we have already seen a few tragic results with the trailing logistical train. To correct the miscalculation, we are now trying to rush the 4th Infantry Division and an Armored Cavalry Regiment into the battle -- as originally requested. If the war goes on much longer, I wouldn't be surprised to see the 1st Armored Division brought in -- also as it should have been.
While we might lose some momentum and prestige as we readjust, the consequences probably won't be too costly. On the positive side, we will have learned a valuable lesson for the future, and will not try to fight another war on the cheap with unrealistic assumptions.
I also think that if this WAS an Air Force driven battle plan, it would have started much the same way that Desert Storm did, with a month or more of bombing before we sent in ground troups.
While we're doing that we can send those aircraft carriers home with their air wings and get some good old reliable battleships in the Gulf too.
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.