Replies

Do you seriously think, not having the forces that we had for Persian Gulf I, that we really could fight two MRC's at the same time?? Get serious, we can't get people (even prior service) in the pipeline that fast. We couldn't do it in WWII either, MacAuthur had to do the impossible with nothing. Rummy botched that one (two MRC comment). It is my observation that Hackworth seems to have redeemed himself with latest book and coorelation to present crisis. i've read BLACKHAWK DOWN author criticisms...Hack did not make comment, rather cited RAMPARTS for source on Garrison overhead in chopper, again, bad info from generally reputable source. i have already stated that i do not wish to defend this guy, i have too many objections to some of his ideas (mainly that they are unconstitutional). He is however, more qualified than any of us to pontificate from the perspective of the guy on the ground.

Here's what I think CDL. If the shit hits the fan on the DMZ in Korea, Iraq will become secondary.

The problem with Hackworth and your support of his analysis is that North Korea will become a seller of nukes to anybody with enough won to buy them.

Ignoring nuclear proliferation in the hands of whackjobs is not an option. NK can already reach Alaska, Hawaii and perhaps even the west coast. Who knows?

There's a reason for the initial deployment of missile defense in Alaska. It's because NK is a desperate country run by a whackjob.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield knew it was only a matter of time before they reached for the plutonium that Clinton and Carter were only too happy to give them.

He is however, more qualified than any of us to pontificate from the perspective of the guy on the ground.

If you read Hackworth's articles prior to Desert Storm, you will find that he predicted a World War One style bloodbath on the ground for U.S. forces.

The man could simply not think beyond the way war used to be in World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam. He truly believed that Desert Storm was going to be a replay of the World War One style combat seen in the Iran-Iraq War.

In addition, Hackworth is still fighting the Billy Mitchell vs Infantry arguments of the 1920's and 1930's that went out the window when the Germans introduced the LAND-AIR Battle Doctrine to the world in 1939. To quote the Air Force Association editorial linked below, "As almost everyone except Colonel Hackworth seems to realize, modern warfare is a combined-arms proposition."

Shooting Blind: David Hackworth is a distinguished soldier, but his arguments about airpower are old, tired, and wrong.

Hackworth is a highly decorated infantryman and he deserves our respect for that.

However, being an Audie Murphy does not automatically give you the strategic wisdom to be a theater commander and Hackworth's prior predictions have shown him to be rather clueless when it comes to the Big Picture.

The problem with the "perspective of the guy on the ground" is that he has no concept of the overall picture to guide him, and no idea what planning has gone on behind the scenes. In Hackworth's case the problem is compounded by his being out of business for so long.

It's a different world than it was during VietNam. It would be a different war than the Korean War of the early 1950's. We were not ready then, having been massively demobilizing from WW II.

We have been preparing for war on the Korean peninsula since the cease-fire at Panmunjong, and would be ready now.
It's just that "the guy on the ground" has no way of knowing what the Rumsfeld DoD has been factoring into the equation.

My bet is there isn't anything said here, or by observors like Hackworth, that hasn't long since been taken into account by the Bush administration.

After all, it isn't as if North Korea just jumped up ugly in the last six weeks.