Hackworth: Will Congress Blink Again?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/24/02 | David Hackworth

[ninenot]

History has repeatedly shown that the military solution is the least-desirable way to resolve conflict. Smart leaders know that "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting" – as Sun Tzu wrote years ago – and exhaust all other options before they unleash the dogs of war.

Instead, our president seems single-mindedly obsessed with attacking Iraq. For months, the Bush war team has been talking up taking out Saddam and sneaking so many war toys into places like Qatar and Kuwait that it's a wonder our desert launching pads haven't already sunk from the weight of our pre-positioned gear and ammo.

So far, the emir of Kuwait has been picking up the tab for the American muscle deployed outside of his palace that lets him sleep at night without worrying about Iraqi tanks roaring through his front gate, as they did in 1990. But probably a key reason President Bush is so keen on pressing Congress to sanction his unrelenting march to battle is because thousands more armored vehicles and tens of thousands of warriors are already on the move. Since it will soon be impossible to hide the buildup or cost, Bush clearly needs congressional consensus before the boys, bombs and bullets become the lead story on prime-time television.

Now it looks as though Congress is about to give Bush the green light for his shootout with Saddam rather than standing tall and insisting that U.N. weapons inspectors get another go at defanging the monster.

Almost 40 years ago, Congress kowtowed to another president from Texas and approved the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution – based on the repeated lies of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that Red patrol boats had attacked U.S. warships on a supposedly routine mission off North Vietnam, which the senior admiral in the Pacific had predicted months before would provoke exactly this type of response and result in an escalation of the Vietnam War. Only Sens. Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska stood tall and voted "nay." When Morse chillingly predicted we'd lose the war and LBJ would go down in flames, most members of Congress responded that they were patriotically backing the president in a time of crisis.

Before Congress blinks again, rubber-stamping one of the few wars in our country's history in which we've fired the first shot, the members should visit the Vietnam Memorial and read every name aloud on that black wall before blindly accepting their party machines' go-along-to-get-along directives. They should ask themselves: Do I want to be remembered as a William Fulbright – who pushed LBJ's bad resolution through the Senate, knowing all the while that he was repeating McNamara's spin – or as a Morse or Gruening?

They should also match what the ordinary folks who elected them are saying against the national polls' war chantey, "Let's Push With Bush Into Baghdad." Last week, I visited four states, and all of the hundreds of average Joes and Janes I spoke with were for U.N. inspectors returning and our tightening the choke leash on Iraq enough that nothing gets in or out without going through a U.S.-manned checkpoint.

A Vietnam combat Marine told me: "Certainly Saddam is a tyrant and a threat to his neighbors. But so are the leaders of Syria, Iran, North Korea and, for that matter, Pakistan. All of our comrades who died in Vietnam and those of us who vowed 'never again' will now again watch another generation march off to war without the approval of the American people."

"Who'll pay for it?" asks another citizen. "We all know it'll be our kids. They're the ones who will pay, as it has been since the Revolutionary War. Those who reap the rewards are of a different category."

Congressmen and congresswomen, which category are you? Will you vote for your own political future or the future of our country and its current generation of defenders? Will you challenge the rush to war along with Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who said last week that giving Bush the same broad, unchecked authority Congress gave LBJ is tantamount to allowing him to start a war and saying, "Don't bother me, I'll read about it in the newspapers"?

[ninenot]

So PJBuchanan and the Hack seem to be aligned against the sandbox-toy warrior, Billy Kristol and Wolfowitz.

[vbmoneyspender]

Smart leaders know that "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting" - as Sun Tzu wrote years ago - and exhaust all other options before they unleash the dogs of war.

I'm sorry, I am not really up on my Chinese history but did Sun Tzu have any experience with weapons of mass destruction when he wrote his how-to several thousand years ago?

[polemikos]

I dunno, Hack. Seems Saddam won't budge unless you have a sword over his head (and even then). And expecting the UN's globalcrats to be firm is akin to wishing jello was cement. Ain't gonna happen.

Saddam may very well be the most ruthless leader on the planet today. Dealing with him puts me in mind of Sean Connery's quote from the Untouchables:

"If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way."

[polemikos]

I dunno, Hack. Seems Saddam won't budge unless you have a sword over his head (and even then). And expecting the UN's globalcrats to be firm is akin to wishing jello was cement. Ain't gonna happen.

Saddam may very well be the most ruthless leader on the planet today. Dealing with him puts me in mind of Sean Connery's quote from the Untouchables:

"If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way."

[polemikos]

Oops, sorry for the double post. Mouse button chatter.

[Prodigal Son]

Nice point. I guess if Sun Tzu had known about nukes his book would've been a few chapters shorter.

[rockinonritalin]

For months, the Bush war team has been talking up taking out Saddam and sneaking so many war toys into places like Qatar and Kuwait that it's a wonder our desert launching pads haven't already sunk from the weight of our pre-positioned gear and ammo.

We will avoid fighting with Iraq by convincing them that we are damn well ready to do just that.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I respect Hackworth, but he has gotten a few things wrong. Firstly, LBJ probably lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident (although I only have heard Vietnam say so), secondly, Bush seems to be preparing for total war rather than the 'limited', costly action in Vietnam. Thirdly, Hackworth has Vietnam myopia. He apparently believes that we haven't learned anything from the past. That remains to be seen.

[uncbob]

What is going on here ?

I swear I saw Hackworth on some show about 3 months ago saying "It's going to be slam bam goodbye Saddam "

[fogarty]

Add Hackworth to the Bushbots list of "terrorist sympathizers and cowards" - a list which now includes:

General Zinni
General Schwartzkopf
Brent Scowcroft
Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Van Riper

Along with anyone who dares question the manner and tactics of an assault on Iraq, or anyone who dares raise concern about the logistics and manpower readiness.

[CatoRenasci]

The quote from Sun-Tzu represents great wisdom. However, saying supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting is not at all the same thing as taking a pacifist approach or being weak in the face of a ruthless and determined opponent. If an enemy in unwilling to yield and unbending in his opposition, the only ways to avoid fighting are capitulation (or appeasement, which is the same thing) or convincing the enemy that he is about to become engaged in a fight that he cannot win, while offering him a way out that preserves his person, but not his power. That involves what we we have come since the Eisenhower administration to call brinkmanship. And, in such situations, it is quite possible to miscalculate and end up in a real war. If one is not truly committed, as we were not in Vietnam, one then risks defeat. This is perhaps what Hackworth is concerned about.

I can hardly imagine that Hackworth truly believes in either appeasing Saddam or that the status quo can be maintained indefinitely. I would be very curious to hear if he has any serious policy proposals (which I doubt) to address the removal of Saddam and the successful prosecution of the war against Islamic terrorists. Hackworth is a brave man, and dedicated to our soldiers, but he showed strong leftist/isolationist tendencies after Vietnam. There is no necessary connection between his revulsion with Clinton and otherwise sensible views on foreign policy.

[Political Junkie Too]

Part of Sun-Tzu's philosophy was also to control the battlefield in order to prevent the enemy from fighting. If your troops control the superior ground, the enemy may choose not to fight instead of fighting a no-win battle. Sun-Tzu also advocated not surrounding an enemy, but allowing an enemy an "out." If surrounded to the point where death is inevitble, soldiers will fight to the death. But if given a retreat alternative, soldiers may surrender and retreat.

It seems to me that Bush wanting to amass troops in the region still fits in with Sun-Tzu's position of controlling the battlefield in order to convince the enemy not to fight.

-PJ

[Deadeye Division]

Hack on TV

Wednesday September 25
Oprah
Check your local listing for times and channel information.

CNBC
Kudlow & Cramer Show
8pm & 11pm Eastern

Thursday September 26
Fox News Channel
The O'Reilly Factor
8pm & 11pm Eastern

Saturday September 28
Fox News Channel
Cavuto on Business
10:30am Eastern

Monday September 30
Fox News Channel
Cavuto on Business
4:30pm Eastern

[Psalm 73]

"...I spoke with were for U.N. inspectors returning..."

Hey Hack, d'ya think FDR was a war-monger?
After all, going by his logic, Japan attacked us, so it was Japan that we should have whooped first. Why did we send troops into North Africa, why did we invade Italy? After all, they didn't attack us. (A rhetorical tack).
So, I see Hack has been drinking the UN kool-aid, maybe having tea with the French, too...

[CatoRenasci]

Indeed, there is nothing at this point to indicate that our strategy is other than to accomplish our mission without actual fighting. Of course, to do that you must maneuver the enemy into an untenable position. Simply playing UN pattycake with Saddam won't do that. Only the imminent threat of overwhelming force - not an abstract demonstration of power combined with feeble verbal remonstrations -- will be credible.

[Fearless Flyers]

Tough talk is meaningless without tough action to back it up. If Bush went on with his tirade against Sadam without positioning troops to back up his words, there would be no reason for the world to take the U.S. seriously and there would be no chance for inspectors to go back to Iraq.

[SevenDaysInMay]

We face a global Non-Governmental Organization warfare which seeks the offensive weapons destructive enough to devestate our economy while killing interesting numbers of us infedels. Whether by swarms of smaller scale attacks, such as practiced at WTC '93, OKC?, '98, East Africa, USS Cole, 9/11 or unleashed bio/chemical or even nukes, dirty or detonation, our mortal enemies M.O. is to wither our ability to function under Pax Americana.

Because this form of warfare offers the Axis governments plausible deniability, at least at the UN and on CNN, our national leadership must lead. The Battle of Iraq is no more offensive than our attack on the Japanese Fleets sailing east in mid 1942.

The failed societies jacking Pan-Islam's heinous envy are out to kill us, then dance in the streets over their triumph, dragging bodies of our dead if the can. The frustrated communists will continue to provide our enemies technologies to keep this war very dangerous.

IMO, we are mobilizing, with great shock over the depth and breadth of the Clintons'/Gore damage to our national defense. For too many American and international politicians, our 3,000 dead on 9/11 were not enough to prepare to win this decades long war of annihilation.

LBJ was a thoroughly corrupt bastard. He needed the Gulf of Tonkin event to play generalisimo. Our veterans need to lead in hanging the next McNamera who wastes our soldiers lives as a matter of party policy. Our current crop of politicans won't abide their Constitional duty of a Declaration of War because then we'd have to actually win the war. LBJ and Clinton are roll models to too many of our "leaders".

[dyed_in_the_wool]

It may be worth pointing out that Hack left the military because he became a pacifist.
While once a great leader of men on the field, International Relations, tact and civil leadership have never been his strong suits.
Love 'About Face', though. Great book.

[ohioman]

Shove it up your ARSE!

[Hugin]

So PJBuchanan and the Hack seem to be aligned against the sandbox-toy warrior, Billy Kristol and Wolfowitz.

And Patty Patty Buch Buch's vast military experience consists of what? He was wrong about Gulf War I and he's wrong now.

As for Hack, I don't know what's gotten into his drinking water, but I can just as easily point to Ollie North, John McCain and even Bob Kerry who support getting Saddam. Combat veterans all.