Skip to comments.Why America's generals are out for revenge
Posted on 04/19/2006 1:20:33 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
***********************************AN EXCERPT *******************************
Whatever merits the article may have, the Rumsfeld vs the Generals debate has become political, a stage where noise really starts to exceed signal.
We should save this and send it to the whining loser generals and 1 admiral on the wrong side of the war, the left wing democRat side.
An excellent London Times OPED without the lies and spin of our left wing mediots.
For your ping lists.
I have too much respect for the military to play on this whole: Decorated War Generals vs. Clean-Faced Politicians game.
I'd rather support our troops than play the blame game and deride their efforts.
I hope this can be resolved with minimum casualties and with some understanding that we're all Americans and not have the media fall into the hands of liberal mudslinging.
Who is the lone Admiral, if I may ask?
I had hope the heavies in the Senior Service would have kept their own counsel -- or resigned.
I have heard that Crowe is one of these Clintoon Perfumed Princes. His Clintoon kneepads were autographed by Bill and Hill several times in the 90's.
I don't think that soldiers should be doing the "social workish stuff". As nice a photo op painting a school may be, all of the reconstruction should be done by Iraqis. Kicking the foreign contractors out (who are also targets, putting an extra security burden on our troops) would probably help also.
Exactly right. What cheek!
Interesting about Tommy Franks actions!!!! VERY interesting!!
Nice you have opinons, too bad they are stupid ones.
Our military won the war in Viet Nam. The civilians lost the media war here in the US to the communists.
In WWII we had a Civil Affairs Division that took control and established order as the front line moved past. They vetted the locals to weed out Nazis, but otherwise used local officials to maintain order, establish a police force, and keep the cities running. It prevented anarchy and gangs from taking over. It's apparent this lesson was forgotten or ignored by the Pentagon. But it's also a job that cannot be done if you don't take a force large enough to provide for occupation duty.
The article mischaracterizes McMaster's book a bit from what I recall of it. McMaster laid a lot of blame on civilians, McNamara and Johnson in particular, but he faults the senior military for not speaking up against those two, whose strategy did so much to damage our ability to conduct the war. The only flag officer I recall who did speak up was Admiral US Grant Sharpe who wrote a sharply critical book when he retired.
You state the real issues well.
One of Rumsfeld's ideas is apparently to substitute helicopters and missiles for artillery like the Crusader. I read of one battle where this was put to the test as we moved toward Baghdad. Helicopters were sent against an entrenched Iraqi line, but got shot up without dislodging them. Field pieces were eventually brought up to greater effect. Sandstorms are also not a helicopter's friend, artillery is a good deal less impressed by bad weather.