Posted on 09/25/2002 4:27:07 AM PDT by RJCogburn
IF GEORGE W. BUSH had employed the services of David H. Hackworth as speechwriter, the discomfort level might have been considerably higher at the United Nations on Sept. 12, when the President challenged and chided the world body over its inaction on Iraq.
“I would have taken his speech and laid it on the table,” said Hackworth, a retired Army colonel known for his outspoken and frequently controversial opinions. “And every place it said Iraq, I would have crossed it out and I would have replaced it with Syria, China, Lebanon and we could just go down (the list).” Hackworth, a Connecticut resident, ventured up to New Hampshire last week and was interviewed on the WNDS-TV program “Capitol Ideas” with Arnie Arnesen.
The former colonel gave the commander-in-chief something less than a four-star review for the case he presented against Iraq at the U.N. “Can I give you about two dozen guys who are equally as bad as Saddam Hussein?” Hackworth asked. “I’ll go to Pakistan. The guy that’s running that place got into power with a shotgun, blowing everybody out of the way. Anybody who wants to run against him, he blows out of the way. He supported and organized the Taliban, who provided haven to al-Qaida’s bunch. And he’s got ‘nuke’ weapons that are really far more sophisticated than the alleged ‘nuke’ weapons that Saddam Hussein has. So I just don’t think the President has made a case and I don’t think he’s articulated what the threat is. And I think if that was his best shot to the United Nations, he hit his foot.”
“Hack,” as he likes to be called, knows something about shooting oneself in the foot. The nation’s most decorated living solider, he won more than 100 awards, 78 of them combat related. Highly regarded for both his skill and courage, Hackworth became the youngest full colonel in Vietnam. But discretion was not the greater part of his valor. In 1971, he appeared on ABC’s “Issues and Answers” and was remarkably candid in his criticisms of our military’s leaderships, strategy and tactics in Vietnam. The Army brass soon convinced him that a career change might be preferable to a court martial, and the 26-year veteran retired from active duty.
But not from speaking his mind. He has written or co-authored four books (one of them a novel), writes a column that appears in about 100 newspapers, and he remains active on the lecture circuit, making about 20 speeches a year. The Bush administration might wish he were still in the Army, so he could be court-martialed after all. Hackworth is openly scornful of the administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program poses an urgent threat to the United States.
Assuming he is on the verge of creating a “crude” nuclear bomb, the Iraqi dictator is still a few thousand miles short of being able to deliver it to the United States. “He’s got to put ‘em in his canoe,” Hackworth cracked. He believes our government’s fixation on Iraq has less to do with “weapons of mass destruction” than with barrels of “black gold.” “We want a new gas station and we’re going to get it,” said Hackworth. “And we’ll use the military power to get it.”
The Vietnam veteran isn’t worried about a protracted war this time. He predicts it will be over in 90 days—60 days of bombing followed by 30 days of ground war. But we may still be in Iraq years — even generations — after Saddam Hussein is gone. “Do we occupy a new oil well, a gas station for the next 60 years?” Hackworth asked.
The more immediate consequence, he fears, is that U.S. standing in the Arab world will further deteriorate and more young people will be inspired to join the radical, anti-American forces.
“We’re engaged in a hell of a fight with the main opponent,” he said. “That is the al-Qaida, the terrorists that delivered such a grievous blow to our country on Sept. 11. If we distract ourselves on a sideshow such as Saddam Hussein, maybe to pay back what Daddy (Bush) didn’t do or whatever, we might lose the main event.”
Having lived long enough to be an old solider, Hackworth, 72, resents “the suits” in the Washington power elite who appear quite eager to send another generation of young Americans into another needless war. “The ones that are advocating war, all these super hawks, never went to war,” he said. “Nor are any of the kids of the congressmen and women in the forward positions of a foxhole or a tank. They’re not going to be the ones that come back in a body bag.”
Dr. Suess isn't going to be happy about this.
Damn, how old is Hack? I would have guessed about 65 by looking at him, but that just can't be right. Late 70s???
Woops, I guess reading is a skill. I'll shut up now.
Bush adheres to the old saying...........
Keep your friends close.........
but keep your enemies closer.
LOL. At least you caught yourself. By the way, Hackworth was the youngest Colnel in the Army back in '71 according to his bio page at www.hackworth.com
He enlisted in the merchant marine at age 14 and the U.S. Army at 15. In almost 26 years in the Army he spent over seven years in combat theaters, winning a battlefield commission in Korea to become that war's youngest Army captain.
Why is this so hard to understand? Saddam's chem and bio agents are a threat to the US...his nuke program is a threat to Israel.
Let's see: The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis
Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi
Saudi money finances most of the terrorist activity in the world
N Korea has missles - probably targeted at our west coast.
China is working behind the scenes to foment Anti-americanism throughout the world
Pakistan, the Phillipines and other places are hotbeds of Radical Anti-american Islam (the kind that supported the 9/11 hijackers)
So let's go after Saddam Hussein in Iraq - a SECULAR middle eastern country (which is actually at odds with most of the radicals in the Islamic movement). Makes perfect sense to me < /sarcasm >
Having lived long enough to be an old solider, Hackworth, 72, resents “the suits” in the Washington power elite who appear quite eager to send another generation of young Americans into another needless war.
It's tough being right when the "boss" is wrong. Hack's got it right. Again.
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
Iraq is essential to international terrorism, big, oil rich, independent, anti US, militaristic, ruthless, WMDs, perfectly situated. Saddam grows stronger and our will to take him out grows weaker each month. It's now or never.
China's too big to declare war on. There's no political will for it. Syria's will be next to irrelevant after we control Iraq. Pakistan's leader is cooperating and controls his people better than any other that we could replace him with. Lebanon? Please…
This guy's been hanging out with his fan club for too long. It's pitiful to watch. I bet he drives a convertible and has a 25 y/o blond girlfriend.
How long Perle and Wolfowitz served in the army?
And has WMDs. You do not attack countries with real WMDs, you respect them.
I read Hackworth's comments like this - every reason Bush has given for going after Saddam: i.e "he's a threat to his neighbors"; "he's developing weapons of mass destruction"; "he kills his own people"; etc. can be leveled against the likes of China and N. Korea.
No sane person is suggesting we go to war with China or N. Korea - for the exact reason you stated. So where does that leave us?
IMO - unlike wars in the past, this one is not against a nation- it is against an idea. And if we're going to prevail, the first step should be determining exactly WHO (or WHAT) our enemy is. History is replete with examples (from Yorktown to Saigon) of smaller forces overcoming larger ones. And that CAN (I'm not saying WILL) happen if we're not clear about what we're fighting.
Sure, we can level Baghdad tomorrow and blow Saddam to Kingdom Come - then what? Since our beef is with radical Islam, all we'll do (again, just IMO) is solidify our opposition and scatter it.
In the speach President Bush gave to congress shortly after 9/11, I thought I heard him say we would go after terrorists "wherever they hide". I took that to mean this would be an unconventional war, mostly using stealth tactics, infiltration, etc.
Maybe we ARE doing those things (by definition, we wouldn't know for sure, would we?). I hope and pray we are.
BUT, I think this talk of invading Iraq is at best a diversion or distraction. At worst? Well, I won't go there.
Hackworth's ALWAYS against war. Always. Just like the rest of his retired cohorts.
That's why civilians are in charge of the military.
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
I think that accusation is irrational, "At worst? Well, I won't go there".
The administration has said over and over and over again that we are at war with "international terrorism", not necessarily "radical Islam" as you say, and not necessarily WMDs in the hands of corrupt dictators. To say that by taking out Iraq, "all we'll do (again, just IMO) is solidify our opposition and scatter it" is mentally crippled.
It's possible that we may do that, but we will also establish a military presence with heavy ports and airfields bordering Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. We'll try to build a modern government in the hart of it all, deny terrorist a nuclear protected refuge, and we will demonstrate our resolve in the face of people who may only understand strength.
Iraq is the next logical step, and this is probably our last opportunity to take it out. If not this winter, we've failed.
Just as I said in my previous post, we're not at war with an idea, we're at war with a behavior: "international terrorism". Consider this to be behavior based therapy, rather than psycho analysis. Focus on fixing the behavior and the ideas behind it will follow.
Good thoughts on North Korea BTW, I hadn't considered the economic impact to them if they loose this customer.
Hardly. Unfair? Maybe, but irrational? No.
Unless you're a member of the CIA, sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or are GW Bush himself, YOU don't know all the pros and cons of an Iraq invasion. Like me, you must rely on your own intuitions, biases, and gut feelings. In my case, people I respect are on BOTH sides of this issue. I think they deserve a hearing.
Those of us who've been on FR awhile have seen all the supposed "reasons" floated - all the way from "it's absolutely the right thing to do" to "it's only about making Bush's oil buddies rich". My comment "I won't go there" was meant so as not to re-hash those.
It's nice that you're absolute convinced invading Iraq is the right thing to do.
I'm not.
To know all the pros and cons, sure. But you can make an informed decision from the information at hand. You do have to be able to recognize the indicators of obstructionism and integrity. You have to be reasonably sophisticated in both the politics and the logistics of war. And after all that, you have to rely on your own ability to reason, rather than the wait for the opinions from "people [you] respect are on BOTH sides of this issue" to be aired.
I didn’t say that not wanting to invade Iraq was irrational (although it's not fare from it). I said that about your accusation that to invade was at best mistaken but went on to echo unnamed accusations of sinister motives. "That's" irrational at best.
"To: Linda Harris, Editor Weirton Daily Times Subject: MILITARY TOP BRASS CAN BE TRUSTED I have known columnist, and retired U.S.Army Colonel, David Hackworth since 1968 when we both served a short tour in the Pentagon as relatively junior field grade officers. We both departed that assignment to return for another combat tour in Vietnam. Our paths have not crossed since that time as our careers took different directions. Dave Hackworth left Vietnam under a dark cloud of pending multiple criminal charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Those charges were not drawn up lightly, however the senior officer handling the charges was reluctant to press the issues because of Hackworth's superb combat record. The Army leadership at the time allowed Hackworth to retire in lieu of charges. Hackworth retired from the Army and moved to Australia for the next 18 or so years. On his departure from active duty he publicly blasted the country's Senior leadership from the president on down, and was especially hard on the Army's military leaders concerning their handling of the war.
This got wide spread news and TV coverage at the time. As we have learned in recent years, based on several outstanding books, many of our senior leaders were truly derelict in their duty. Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, and retired General Maxwell Taylor are just a few of the key players in this sordid era of poor American leadership.
In 1989, after the statue of limitations on the charges against him had run out, Hackworth returned to the USA and wrote a best selling book and later became widely acclaimed columnist.
He also has a well known web-site on the internet that cast a wide net over our military forces of all ranks. He is well wired, to say the least, with the junior military. Senior officers deal with him at their own risk, usually sad and sorry afterwards.
In his recent column, "TROOPS DON'T HAVE FAITH IN BIG BRASS", which was published on 26 Jan 2000 [HTML Editors Note: The date varies by which paper publishes the article, Hackworths date is different] , he finally tripped my trigger with his broad damnation of our military leadership. He collectively damns all Generals and Admirals with a broad brush of gross incompetence and self promotion. In his own way, he breeds a lack of trust in our nation's most respected institution, our military forces. He does a great disservice to the American public, your readers and to our military.
He needs to zero in on the few bad folks with a sniper's rifle and quit using area fire on everyone. There are a few poor leaders in our military hierarchy, but in the main, they are as fine a bunch of men and women as you can find anywhere. For 30 years I was a soldier, and during my last 6 years I was a General Officer. Many of my best friends are serving and retired General Officers. 40 members of my West Point class (1956) are retired General Officers, to include Norm Schwarzkopf. I do not know a more honorable group of men. I maintain contact with a wide circle of senior and junior officers serving our country today, from Lieutenant to General Officer.
The Army, and our other services, have problems, some major problems, but there is no gross lack of professional competence, or reluctance to stand and be counted on the tough issues by the senior leaders.
Hackworth's suggestion that senior officers should retire when they do not like the orders they are given, contradicts the very essence of military discipline. Officers, and all leaders, are taught to argue and discuss until the decision has been made, then to execute the order as if it were their own. During my day I had junior officers argue vehemently for a specific course of action only to be told at decision time to get on with it. At all grades, I believed it was my duty to present alternative ideas and thoughts to my seniors. But when the decision was made, I moved out smartly.
When commissioned, an officer swears "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The Constitution clearly states that our President is our Commander in Chief. Military leaders follow the orders of the people appointed by the Commander in Chief whether they like them, or the orders they give them. There no room for quibbling, or slack, in this basic American document regarding military discipline.
An officer has the option at any given time of resigning his/her commission should they disagree strongly with a senior's decision. This option is rarely used and is easily uttered by those who do not have to take the action. Recently, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Ron Fogelman, took this action because he had a major disagreement with his civilian bosses regarding actions taken against one of his officers. There are many other less publicly well known instances where this has taken place over matters of conscience and principle.
Public disagreement with your superiors while on active duty is not conducive to good order and discipline. It is often done by our senior officers under questioning by our congressional leadership. Quite often the congressional leaders are tipped off by their staffs regarding the right questions to ask the military. One does not routinely question the orders of ones superiors, and certainly not in a public forum. It is called loyalty. Not blind loyalty, but following orders when the decision has been made.
Today there is much unhappiness in our military about the lack of integrity of our serving President. There is little enthusiasm for the multitude of peacekeeping missions they perform. Yet the military leaders continue to perform their duties and follow the orders given. No one liked the missions in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and most recently Kosovo. The military leaders argued their case, lost the argument and were told to execute. They have done what they were told to do in good spirit and with dedication to duty. Anything less is disloyal.
Dave Hackworth never made it to General Officer rank. There are many reasons for this, in spite of his many combat decorations. His gross lack of integrity during his last days in Vietnam and in the Army was not his finest hour. Since that time he has achieved more than his 15 minutes of fame and has a wide reading audience across America. Quite often he performs a great service to our military and the public with factual columns.
His personal hang up on the poor quality of all Senior Military leaders is totally wrong headed. It sells to the movie and TV folks, a lot of junior soldiers, and the masses of unknowing readers, but it is absolutely wrong.
I, and most of my friends, could routinely take up pen and contest his bad assertions weekly. It would not change his direction of writing and he would love the controversy. He pushed me too far this week and he may do it again. Until next time, take it from a well decorated retired Army General Officer and life long soldier-------Hackworth needs to be believed about 50% of the time and highly suspected the other 50% of the time.
John C. "Doc" Bahnsen Brigadier General, US Army (Ret) New Cumberland, WV 304-387-2199
Note: "Doc" Bahnsen served with the 11th Armored Cav in Vietnam.
He can be reached at docbahnsen at juno "
Ref
http://wwww.airborne-ranger.com/ranger/wannabees/Bahnsen.html
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.