Hackworth: Interesting Comments in Column

[gcutler]

Seems the supply lines were never really secured due to lack of available forces....

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Hackworth_042203.htm

Hackworth is a retired Army Colonel and is one of the Highest Decorated soldiers.

[Richard King]

Now that the war has cooled down, here’s the word from some who ran the gauntlet or know the inside score:

"Every vehicle in my convoy was hit," says a supply captain. "We had no armor protection, just thin-skinned vehicles. Every town we hit was a fire-swept gauntlet."

From the number of casualties I would say that the "gauntlet" was full of people just shooting at random or people who were the worst shots to ever to pick up a firearm.

“It wasn't just the 507th [Transportation Co.] that got shredded by the Fedayeen – Jessica Lynch's shot-up unit that paid a high price because the supply route wasn't secure – but every convoy that I was on,” says a sergeant truck master. As I understand it, Jessica's unit got shot up because they took a wrong turn. The number of casualties don't back up any of the other claims. If there were in fact supply problems they were most likely caused by the fact that the forward motion was going much faster than anyone had anticipated.

Hackworth may be very well decorated for his time of service, but he has since that time turned into nothing more than an overblown ego seeking out attention at any turn.

[Ryan]

This information was in various articles from CNN and MSNBC throughout the push north. The embedded reports and the soldiers with whom they travelled reported that they were targets throughout much of the supply and personnel routes. A number of vehicles were temporarily or permanently disabled. Mostly a nuisance, but one that technically could have killed US personnel at any random moment. So it must have been rather anxious to travel.

I imagine it was a consistant back and forth of fire, but since the US firepower was stronger and more accurate, the Iraqi forces probably were unable to get clean looks from a close enough range to be very effective. Think of trying to use a garden hose against a firetruck.

I think our strategists knew this 'guantlet' would be the case from the get-go, but felt that it would be ineffective and unimportant to try to quell such nuisances. It was more important to get personnel north.

[Bogy]

“We all knew we could beat their forces – that was a no-brainer – but there wasn’t a single general officer in the land force that wanted to go in as light as we did,” reports a major at Third Army Headquarters in Kuwait. “They predicted the problems on the drive to Baghdad and pushed for more ground force. Then they followed orders and went in light.”

“We had battalions of combat MPs (military police) sitting in the states,” writes another Army major. “They should have been beefed up with armor and sent in the wake of 3ID [3rd Infantry Division], but that never happened because [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld overruled our generals and went light.”

Clearly, had the MPs secured the supply route and the 101st and 82nd grabbed their Baghdad objectives by vertical envelopment, several hundred Jessica Lynches and Patrick Millers wouldn't be dead or wounded, and the looting and rioting could have been minimized. We also might have saved Iraq’s irreplaceable treasures, as well as securing the gas station.

When things looked grim, Rumsfeld was quick to announce that the operation was “[Gen. Tommy] Franks’ plan.” But now that the spinners have spun the victory – and so the responsibility – back into the SecDef's corner, Congress must move to investigate these charges by warriors who risked it all executing his allegedly flawed plan. If what these very angry troops report is true – if we did go in too light – we owe it to them to hold Rumsfeld to the same standard as his predecessor Les Aspin in 1991, when he refused to send tanks to Somalia and 18 American warriors were killed.
There doesn't seem to be much question that from the get-go "Supreme General" Rumsfeld planned to go in light. This is nation-conquering on the cheap, which is what you have to do when you have no money in the budget for empire-building when the boots hit the ground and the wheels started rolling, and you don't want to share your empire with anyone else. This is Rumsfeld's "New War" strategy. And before I get hit with the "support our troops" crap again, I do support our troops, its always been Bush and Rumsfeld that I had severe doubts about. I don't think they have had our troop's best interests at heart in their planning. We lost American lives needlessly, not to mention Iraqi death and destruction that was also needless. What are you trying to say Rking, that all these Captains, Colonels, Majors and Sergeants are all unpatriotic traitors because they doubt Rummy's strategy?

Once again, this was the right thing to do, but it was done in the wrong way, from many different perspectives.

[RichW]

Both Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to be armchair generals. Cheney especially wanted to do it "on the cheap", perhaps knowing that rising deficits may undo the administration in the next election.

I suspect that if Tommy Franks could really speak his mind (which he cannot because, as a soldier, he respects the chain of command) he would be critical of the original plan/schedule to come out of the White House.

[Richard King]

What are you trying to say Rking, that all these Captains, Colonels, Majors and Sergeants are all unpatriotic traitors because they doubt Rummy's strategy?QUIT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!! I never doubted ANYONE'S patriotism in my comments and wouldn't do that for someone as decorated as Hackworth. I simply think that his goals have changed and his ego has gotten the best of him. Watch him on television sometime and try to tell me that he doesn't have a very overinflated ego and isn't out simply for self promotion now.

[Bogy]

What's the matter Rking, don't like me doing what you do to me all the time?

[DmitriA]

I wouldn't listen to a word this lying scumbag (Hackworth) has to say. I listened to talk a few months ago by a true hero - Col. Danny McKnight (the guy portrayed by Tom Sizemore in Black Hawk Down) and he has told us some stories about this character. About how he was not-so-honorably discharged from the military in Vietnam and went to live in New Zealand for like 20 years only to come back to the US and somehow through his connections manage to get himself a medal for completely undeserving service in Vietnam and turn into a so-called "journalist".

McKnight ran into him after coming back from Somalia and had quite a few things to say about the way Hackworth treated him and his guys and the kinds of completely untrue stories he wrote about that operation for (I think it was) Newsweek.
Apparently no one in the military has any respect for this guy

[Richard King]

What's the matter Rking, don't like me doing what you do to me all the time?:rolleyes:

[toenail]

Bogy: "I don't care HOW successful Bush and his cronies are at accomplishing their goals. I will always find SOMETHING to criticize them for, whether I'm right or not."

Now THAT is putting words in your mouth, Bogy. I suspect I couldn't have said it any better for you. ;)

[Bogy]

Originally posted by toenail
Bogy: "I don't care HOW successful Bush and his cronies are at accomplishing their goals. I will always find SOMETHING to criticize them for, whether I'm right or not."

Now THAT is putting words in your mouth, Bogy. I suspect I couldn't have said it any better for you. ;)
To a certain extent you are correct. If Bush and his cronies are very successful at accomplishing their goals I will have plenty to criticize them for, because I believe their goals are contrary to the good of this nation. As an example, the goal of abrogating most privacy rights is not something I support. Neither is putting my grandchildren deeper in debt so that wealthy people today can have more is not a value I hold dear. And I don't even have to make this stuff up. :D