But they still bring us Geraldo with nary an apology to the "rats" at MSNBC who were spreading lies which turned out to be true or to the troops whose lives he endangered!!!

He also used to appear on Fox a lot, actually. He would really get this one other military analyst mad, calling him a 'young pup' on occasion. (Major Bob Belevaqua sp?)

Anyway, I think just like a lot of people, he was misled by some of the media coverage of the first part of the war. And I think, like the media, he looked at the tactical aspect, as opposed to the overall strategic picture.

What rats at MSNBC?

And Geraldo seems to get along fine with the same unit he was in before, and I would trust their judgment about how much they were endangered.

Hackworth is yet another officer that was passed over by a selection board for general. He didn't have what it takes. While sometimes it's political, most of the time the failed for selection is a result of the officer's lack of skills, tactical, planning, logistical, the ability to see the big picture. Not all company commanders make good generals. Hackworth was one such.

In particular, Hackworth has consistently demonstrated that he has failed to understand the combined arms concepts so crucial to the American military, in particular the uses of armor and tactical air support. Whether he slept through those courses at CCC school or just was too dumb to understand them, I don't know.

Hack is well intentioned, but like a lot of us retired Colonel type folks, slightly delusional about his own importance. If the truth be known, I’m more impressed that I can field strip this computer, put it back together, and it will still work. Not many of our rank who are old enough to be retired can say that. Hack gets paid good money for his time, gets to hawk a few books, and doesn’t have to punch a time clock. Don’t be too jealous!

Folks,
It's also important to remember where this guy is coming from. I read his book about face and one of the major criticisms he had concerning Vietnam was our reliance on our superior firepower and technology. Now, he was seeing the first generation of smart weapons in Vietnam, the overall tactical and strategic leadership and understanding was lacking in that war, and he saw first hand how our much hyped toys just plain didn't do the Job in that war. So, I'm not really surprised that he what he heard and saw leading up to this war didn't exactly inspire confidence; after all, the strengths we were touting were the same ones he had seen disproven in Vietnam. He was wrong in his assessment because of his experiences. I don't think we should give him any grief over it though, his concerns were still very valid and topical, even though they were ultimately disproven, and I think his about-face on his opinion of the war and the military is based, not on the fear of appearing wrong, but because he KNOWS he was wrong and has seen the evidence to convince him that things have changed in the military. Just my 2 cents

I remember reading an article by Austin Bay on StrategyPage, some months ago. He was talking about the time (GW1 if I remember right) where the TV director was pushing him to give a certain (negative) view of what was going on in the war. Austin tried to convince them that they were being stupid, but didn't have much success. Hype - its all about hype to these guys.

The reason Hackworth deserves respect is that in Vietnam he used his guts and his brains to figure out how to achieve, without the advanced technology we now have and in the face of indifference or worse from his superiors, the 50:1 kill ratios we are now so awed by.

I don't think he has ever been able to understand why the US armed forces never showed any interest in following his lead, preferring to pursue technological approaches which were clearly failing abjectly at the time (and ultimately lost us that war).

The technology has finally delivered. This is fortunate, and we are fortunate, because many of Hackworth's criticisms of the way the army's 'upper management' operates are still valid. Now they have 'Powerpoint' to play with I hear that things are actually much worse.

Against a better armed and trained foe they may one day lose us another war. Hackworth is right to worry about this.

Anyway, as I say Hackworth's strengths had nothing to do with his ability to assess high technology, they had everything to do with what he was able to achieve without it.

His autobiography, 'About Face', is a rewarding read in the context of this war.

I read "About Face" long ago and considered it to be naive and from an overly narrow viewpoint. Unlike Hack, I was in a position to see what was happening both inside the military and more importantly, inside the country. Johnson and McNamara were idiots who thoroughly screwed up the military, and Hack ran into the results of that, but the anti-draft...errr....war movement was even more destructive

Hack was good at operating a battalion and killing lots of folks - but that's what Colonels are supposed to do. I suspect there were other battalion commanders who also did well but didn't get the fame.

The first lesson to be learned from Vietnam is that technology and warfighting didn't lose the war - bad press did. Nixon had the war thoroughly won (something Hackworth still doesn't understand) through the application of strategic force (carpet bombing Hanoi, block Haiphong, and threatening worse).

Technology did not lose us the Vietnam War. Technology in fact helped, and in fact was used by Hack (see his latest, excellent book).

The military didn't show interest in following his lead because Hack is a royal pain who knows everything and never makes a mistake, criticizes all above him, and in general behaves and behaved in a manner guaranteed to get his viewpoint ignored. There is a reason that he is a retired Colonel (read: tactician) rather than General (read: strategic operator).

The US ultimately lost the Vientmam war when a super-dove (and partly commie) cohort took over congress. Even without US support, the South kept fighting, but they were overwhelmed by conventional arms after our congress EMBARGOED arms shipments to South Vietnam. In other words, it was lost at a high political and strategic level, far removed from Hack's boots on the ground little insignificant part of the struggle.

We didn't lose South Vietnam. We gave it away. It was disgusting then, and today I am still angry about it.

But Hack doesn't understand this. He still rails at the Army's upper managment.

He should also recognize that upper management in *any* large bureaucracy will behave in manners he connot stand (see this for a twisted look at why).

The military will always be a bureaucracy. It will always have twits with large amounts of power. It will always be fascinated with new gadget and new tactics. This is the nature of a bureaucracy. The good news is that the same will apply to our opponents.

If he studied his history, he would find that the upper levels were much worse in our civil war army. He would find incredible levels of incompetence and arrogance among some high level WW-II commanders. He shouldn't be shocked - he should read some history.