[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Col. David Hackworth - thoughts? (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 3/8/2014 3:38:50 AM EDT
|
I've read About Face and Steel My Soldiers' Hearts by Hackworth.
While not being shy about tooting his own horn, I came away with the impression that he is a pretty squared away commander. The story (in Soldiers' Hearts) of how he turned the 4/39 around and was annihilating the VC in their region seemed to validate his principle of "Out-G-the-G", or learning guerrilla tactics and applying them to the enemy in massive doses. Along with that, his criticism of how the war was being run seems sound. The guys running the war won WWII, so they were stuck in thinking of, "This is how we won the last big one, so let's keep using these tactics and strategy", and failed to adapt to the new battlefield. The same for a lack of institutional memory and having to relearn lessons repeatedly. What do you guys think of him? Looking forward to hearing the opinions of some of our experienced Army members/veterans. |
|
Quoted:
I've read About Face and Steel My Soldiers' Hearts by Hackworth. While not being shy about tooting his own horn, I came away with the impression that he is a pretty squared away commander. The story (in Soldiers' Hearts) of how he turned the 4/39 around and was annihilating the VC in their region seemed to validate his principle of "Out-G-the-G", or learning guerrilla tactics and applying them to the enemy in massive doses. Along with that, his criticism of how the war was being run seems sound. The guys running the war won WWII, so they were stuck in thinking of, "This is how we won the last big one, so let's keep using these tactics and strategy", and failed to adapt to the new battlefield. The same for a lack of institutional memory and having to relearn lessons repeatedly. What do you guys think of him? Looking forward to hearing the opinions of some of our experienced Army members/veterans. He repeated what others were saying and did what others were doing, and acted as if it was all his original thoughts and actions. |
|
While not being shy about tooting his own horn, I came away with the impression that he is a pretty squared away commander. The story (in Soldiers' Hearts) of how he turned the 4/39 around and was annihilating the VC in their region seemed to validate his principle of "Out-G-the-G", or learning guerrilla tactics and applying them to the enemy in massive doses. Along with that, his criticism of how the war was being run seems sound. The guys running the war won WWII, so they were stuck in thinking of, "This is how we won the last big one, so let's keep using these tactics and strategy", and failed to adapt to the new battlefield. The same for a lack of institutional memory and having to relearn lessons repeatedly. What do you guys think of him? Looking forward to hearing the opinions of some of our experienced Army members/veterans. He repeated what others were saying and did what others were doing, and acted as if it was all his original thoughts and actions. First post an all. Army needs better non corporate leadership. We have ineffective generals that cant think at the strategic level and spend there whole adult lives agreeing with the superiors and not thinking, until one day they turn around, are in charge of a large organization in a situation they haven't thought about and don't know what to do. The "genius" of Patreus was to read a half dozen books on counter insurgency and think for himself (and pick really good subordinates) Hopefully 12 years of war will give us a generation of senior leaders that can do COIN and conventional war. |
|
Quoted:
He did earn a metric shit ton of decorations: 2 Distinguished Service Crosses 10 Silver Stars 8 Bronze Stars 8 Purple Hearts ETA +1 Quoted:
He did earn a metric shit ton of decorations: 2 Distinguished Service Crosses 10 Silver Stars 8 Bronze Stars 8 Purple Hearts ETA Quoted:
I really enjoyed About Face. +1 you know, a good commander should never put himself or his men in the position where heroics and valor are required. medals are what you hand out when things are going to shit and someone has to bail your poor planning ass out. when the guy getting the most medals is also the commander? yeah. about that. |
|
Quoted:
He got a lot of people killed in his units so he could talk about have good he is as a commander. fuck him. frankly a gifted leader who was tactically incompetent. shouldn't have made it past captain. Completely agree.....................................a self-promoting hack!!! |
|
Quoted:
IIRC, I saw him on some talk show and he was saying that out of the 550K personnel in theater, there were never more than 80,000 in the field. I don't know if that is a good ratio or not, but he made it sound like there were a ton of REMF's. 6.8 to 1 Sounds about right. |
|
Quoted:
you know, a good commander should never put himself or his men in the position where heroics and valor are required. medals are what you hand out when things are going to shit and someone has to bail your poor planning ass out. when the guy getting the most medals is also the commander? yeah. about that. Quoted:
Quoted:
He did earn a metric shit ton of decorations: 2 Distinguished Service Crosses 10 Silver Stars 8 Bronze Stars 8 Purple Hearts ETA Quoted:
I really enjoyed About Face. +1 you know, a good commander should never put himself or his men in the position where heroics and valor are required. medals are what you hand out when things are going to shit and someone has to bail your poor planning ass out. when the guy getting the most medals is also the commander? yeah. about that. Thank you, that's interesting. I'd never thought of it in that way. Obviously, being shot at adds perspective. I've long wondered what Hackworth's awards history said about the man. Beyond an obvious flair for self-promotion, I figured it meant he was either consistently brave and smart or consistently brave and lucky. It never occurred to me that it might mean he was consistently brave and stupid. |
|
A good commander clubs baby seals. the battle should be over and won before the first shot is ever fired.
If the enemy is too stupid to figure it out and has to die, so be it. I'm comfortable with that. the mark of a good commander is when he is stacking enemy bodies like cord wood and none of his men have a scratch. Not when he is calling back to his boss how brave he and his men were and all the casualties he took in a fierce fight. |
|
Quoted:
A good commander clubs baby seals. the battle should be over and won before the first shot is ever fired. If the enemy is too stupid to figure it out and has to die, so be it. I'm comfortable with that. the mark of a good commander is when he is stacking enemy bodies like cord wood and none of his men have a scratch. Not when he is calling back to his boss how brave he and his men were and all the casualties he took in a fierce fight. It used to really piss us off when the REMF's in the C&C ship 10,000 feet over the battle would get the big impressive medals just because they were there, while the people who actually risked their lives & participated in the fight got nothing or some lower insignificant award. Like John Kerry, officers are allowed to nominate themselves for awards and decorations. I suspect Hackworth, being what he was, did this quite often. 
|
|
Quoted:
A good commander clubs baby seals. the battle should be over and won before the first shot is ever fired. If the enemy is too stupid to figure it out and has to die, so be it. I'm comfortable with that. the mark of a good commander is when he is stacking enemy bodies like cord wood and none of his men have a scratch. Not when he is calling back to his boss how brave he and his men were and all the casualties he took in a fierce fight. Yes, I've read Sun Tzu also. Obviously, our wholly different life experiences gave you insights that eluded me. Now, whenever I read of a situation involving exceptional courage, my first thought will be "Who fucked up and put this poor bastard in this mess?" I learned something this morning; it's been a good day. 
|
|
Quoted:
you know, a good commander should never put himself or his men in the position where heroics and valor are required. medals are what you hand out when things are going to shit and someone has to bail your poor planning ass out. when the guy getting the most medals is also the commander? yeah. about that. Interesting perspective. Can I ask your level of Command experience? |
|
Quoted:
Completely agree.....................................a self-promoting hack!!! Quoted:
Quoted:
He got a lot of people killed in his units so he could talk about have good he is as a commander. fuck him. frankly a gifted leader who was tactically incompetent. shouldn't have made it past captain. Completely agree.....................................a self-promoting hack!!! Well played, sir. 
"Hack" was his nickname IIRC.
|
|
Quoted:
Interesting perspective. Can I ask your level of Command experience? Quoted:
Quoted:
you know, a good commander should never put himself or his men in the position where heroics and valor are required. medals are what you hand out when things are going to shit and someone has to bail your poor planning ass out. when the guy getting the most medals is also the commander? yeah. about that. Interesting perspective. Can I ask your level of Command experience? 
|
|
Quoted:
Interesting perspective. Can I ask your level of Command experience? Quoted:
Quoted:
you know, a good commander should never put himself or his men in the position where heroics and valor are required. medals are what you hand out when things are going to shit and someone has to bail your poor planning ass out. when the guy getting the most medals is also the commander? yeah. about that. Interesting perspective. Can I ask your level of Command experience? Infantry, Field Grade, commanded in Afghanistan in a LTC position (I was a staff major the first two months, LTC got relieved and the COL gave me his command) |
|
Non-military companies need better leadership. You have generals who can not be considered valid at the strategic level, and remained there throughout adult life, agrees with superiors, instead of thinking, until one day, they became in charge of a large organization , have no desire to A and do not know what to do. |
|
Quoted:
Infantry, Field Grade, commanded in Afghanistan in a LTC position (I was a staff major the first two months, LTC got relieved and the COL gave me his command) Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
you know, a good commander should never put himself or his men in the position where heroics and valor are required. medals are what you hand out when things are going to shit and someone has to bail your poor planning ass out. when the guy getting the most medals is also the commander? yeah. about that. Interesting perspective. Can I ask your level of Command experience? Infantry, Field Grade, commanded in Afghanistan in a LTC position (I was a staff major the first two months, LTC got relieved and the COL gave me his command) Thanks for your service. The bolded seems a bit broad as you don't always get to choose your fights. I have no opinion on Hackworth other than reading some of his stuff 20+ years ago as an enlisted infantryman. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks for your service. The bolded seems a bit broad as you don't always get to choose your fights. I have no opinion on Hackworth other than reading some of his stuff 20+ years ago as an enlisted infantryman. If you are doing it right, you should choose them most of the time. especially in the fights we do now. Terrain is meaningless. We aren't seizing ground, we are stacking bodies. You can generally disengage if the circumstances aren't fortuitous. Unless, of course, you are stupid enough to put isolated platoon cops in non-mutually reinforcing positions in the middle of terrain that makes maneuver extremely difficult and you have CAS doctrine based upon supporting Sherman tanks assaulting the Wehrmacht on the Seigfried line. well, then, you are kinda fucked. |
|
Quoted:
Seriously? Google Hackworth and Boorda. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Navy veterans don't have much love for him. whats their beef? Seriously? Google Hackworth and Boorda. Boorda was either in the wrong and thus Hackworth in the right, or he had no reason to react that way. |
|
Quoted:
Boorda was either in the wrong and thus Hackworth in the right, or he had no reason to react that way. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Navy veterans don't have much love for him. whats their beef? Seriously? Google Hackworth and Boorda. Boorda was either in the wrong and thus Hackworth in the right, or he had no reason to react that way. If only things were always so simple. |
|
Quoted:
It used to really piss us off when the REMF's in the C&C ship 10,000 feet over the battle would get the big impressive medals just because they were there, while the people who actually risked their lives & participated in the fight got nothing or some lower insignificant award. Like John Kerry, officers are allowed to nominate themselves for awards and decorations. I suspect Hackworth, being what he was, did this quite often.
Quoted:
Quoted:
A good commander clubs baby seals. the battle should be over and won before the first shot is ever fired. If the enemy is too stupid to figure it out and has to die, so be it. I'm comfortable with that. the mark of a good commander is when he is stacking enemy bodies like cord wood and none of his men have a scratch. Not when he is calling back to his boss how brave he and his men were and all the casualties he took in a fierce fight. It used to really piss us off when the REMF's in the C&C ship 10,000 feet over the battle would get the big impressive medals just because they were there, while the people who actually risked their lives & participated in the fight got nothing or some lower insignificant award. Like John Kerry, officers are allowed to nominate themselves for awards and decorations. I suspect Hackworth, being what he was, did this quite often.
Whoa, whoa whoa there. He started out as a private! You guys are talking as if he was born as a commander and never did the grunt work. |
|
Think he was a product of his times.
Very tactically gifted man; I have read a lot of his works and learned a lot from him. His forward to Foley 's "Night Work" was great. As a primer for young lieutenants it is one of the best passages ever. That book is a penny on amazon. If you have not heard of it you're missing out. His paper he wrote with SLA Marshall was very good. He was not a West Pointer and was prone to jealousy. A vain man, he was obsessed about medals and being recognized for valor. This was a time when officers received DSCs and silver stars for things we don't recognize today. It's hard to really judge that today unless you look at the context of who Hackworth's peers were and what the norms were. In this day and age, commanders getting awarded for valor for doing their jobs gets a real sideways look. Awards inflation was a huge issue in Vietnam and Hackworth sure seemed obsessed by it. Funny, my recollection of his book was that he was very proud of lopsided battles where his men laid in ambushes, used beaters to push them into kill zones, and was critical of some frontal assaults his peers led. He seemed like a leader who wanted to kill the enemy at minimal cost. That being said, I never met the man or his soldiers. I have read all his stuff and I learned a lot of nuggets from him. He was not perfect. I think he was a great commander and an eecvellent tactician and teacher; less then perfect officer and man. |
|
Quoted:
It used to really piss us off when the REMF's in the C&C ship 10,000 feet over the battle would get the big impressive medals just because they were there, while the people who actually risked their lives & participated in the fight got nothing or some lower insignificant award. Like John Kerry, officers are allowed to nominate themselves for awards and decorations. I suspect Hackworth, being what he was, did this quite often.
Quoted:
Quoted:
A good commander clubs baby seals. the battle should be over and won before the first shot is ever fired. If the enemy is too stupid to figure it out and has to die, so be it. I'm comfortable with that. the mark of a good commander is when he is stacking enemy bodies like cord wood and none of his men have a scratch. Not when he is calling back to his boss how brave he and his men were and all the casualties he took in a fierce fight. It used to really piss us off when the REMF's in the C&C ship 10,000 feet over the battle would get the big impressive medals just because they were there, while the people who actually risked their lives & participated in the fight got nothing or some lower insignificant award. Like John Kerry, officers are allowed to nominate themselves for awards and decorations. I suspect Hackworth, being what he was, did this quite often.
Have you read Hackworths books? iirc, he was mad as hell about exactly that. He did absolutely toot his own horn way to much, and I don't think he was a super hero. BOTOH, I don't see where he was as bad as some of you guys are making him out to be. |
|
Quoted:
Think he was a product of his times. Very tactically gifted man; I have read a lot of his works and learned a lot from him. His forward to Foley 's "Night Work" was great. As a primer for young lieutenants it is one of the best passages ever. That book is a penny on amazon. If you have not heard of it you're missing out. His paper he wrote with SLA Marshall was very good. He was not a West Pointer and was prone to jealousy. A vain man, he was obsessed about medals and being recognized for valor. This was a time when officers received DSCs and silver stars for things we don't recognize today. It's hard to really judge that today unless you look at the context of who Hackworth's peers were and what the norms were. In this day and age, commanders getting awarded for valor for doing their jobs gets a real sideways look. Awards inflation was a huge issue in Vietnam and Hackworth sure seemed obsessed by it. Funny, my recollection of his book was that he was very proud of lopsided battles where his men laid in ambushes, used beaters to push them into kill zones, and was critical of some frontal assaults his peers led. He seemed like a leader who wanted to kill the enemy at minimal cost. ... I think there was a lot of projection and selective story-telling, there. I ate his shit up as a Lieutenant - it was basically some guy reinforcing my world view. The more experience I got, the more self-serving and full of shit I realized his rhetoric was. |
|
Quoted:
Have you read Hackworths books? iirc, he was mad as hell about exactly that. He did absolutely toot his own horn way to much, and I don't think he was a super hero. BOTOH, I don't see where he was as bad as some of you guys are making him out to be. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A good commander clubs baby seals. the battle should be over and won before the first shot is ever fired. If the enemy is too stupid to figure it out and has to die, so be it. I'm comfortable with that. the mark of a good commander is when he is stacking enemy bodies like cord wood and none of his men have a scratch. Not when he is calling back to his boss how brave he and his men were and all the casualties he took in a fierce fight. It used to really piss us off when the REMF's in the C&C ship 10,000 feet over the battle would get the big impressive medals just because they were there, while the people who actually risked their lives & participated in the fight got nothing or some lower insignificant award. Like John Kerry, officers are allowed to nominate themselves for awards and decorations. I suspect Hackworth, being what he was, did this quite often.
Have you read Hackworths books? iirc, he was mad as hell about exactly that. He did absolutely toot his own horn way to much, and I don't think he was a super hero. BOTOH, I don't see where he was as bad as some of you guys are making him out to be. Yeah, he got mad as hell. Everyone except him was getting awards for BS. Yet, read his books and try to identify where his came from. |
|
Quoted:
Damn Sylvan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Quoted:
Quoted:
.............. Infantry, Field Grade, commanded in Afghanistan in a LTC position (I was a staff major the first two months, LTC got relieved and the COL gave me his command) Damn Sylvan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's why my earlier.
I thought folks knew Sylvan was a BTDT |
|
Quoted:
I think there was a lot of projection and selective story-telling, there. I ate his shit up as a Lieutenant - it was basically some guy reinforcing my world view. The more experience I got, the more self-serving and full of shit I realized his rhetoric was. Quoted:
Quoted:
Think he was a product of his times. Very tactically gifted man; I have read a lot of his works and learned a lot from him. His forward to Foley 's "Night Work" was great. As a primer for young lieutenants it is one of the best passages ever. That book is a penny on amazon. If you have not heard of it you're missing out. His paper he wrote with SLA Marshall was very good. He was not a West Pointer and was prone to jealousy. A vain man, he was obsessed about medals and being recognized for valor. This was a time when officers received DSCs and silver stars for things we don't recognize today. It's hard to really judge that today unless you look at the context of who Hackworth's peers were and what the norms were. In this day and age, commanders getting awarded for valor for doing their jobs gets a real sideways look. Awards inflation was a huge issue in Vietnam and Hackworth sure seemed obsessed by it. Funny, my recollection of his book was that he was very proud of lopsided battles where his men laid in ambushes, used beaters to push them into kill zones, and was critical of some frontal assaults his peers led. He seemed like a leader who wanted to kill the enemy at minimal cost. ... I think there was a lot of projection and selective story-telling, there. I ate his shit up as a Lieutenant - it was basically some guy reinforcing my world view. The more experience I got, the more self-serving and full of shit I realized his rhetoric was. You were an Lt!!?? Damn!!
|
|
Let me follow up with this: In addition to asking for opinions (which everybody has), how would those of you who have read Steel My Soldiers' Hearts rate it?
When he started Steel My Soldiers' Hearts he realized the fallibility of his memory over time. He decided to use interviews of men who served under him for much of the sources material. Also, to try and avoid him influencing what they said, he would not conduct the interviews, but had his wife do it. Seems like he did a good job turning the battalion around and when they came up to speed they were racking up a pretty impressive kill ratio on the VC, with, as Syvlan mentioned, massive VC casualties and minimal on the US side. As for combat decorations meaning things went south, I took them to mean that when the enemy cast his vote you stomped him at great peril, and sometimes cost, to yourself. |
|
Quoted:
oh. I forgot all about that. yeah. good call. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Navy veterans don't have much love for him. whats their beef? Seriously? Google Hackworth and Boorda. oh. I forgot all about that. yeah. good call. For those unaware, Hackworth charged that Boorda was not authorized to wear a Combat "V" device on his Navy Commendation and Navy Achievement Medals. The citations for the awards mention combat missions, but did not specifically authorize wearing of the device. Now place this little bit of nothing in the context of the Navy of the early 90s. The Iowa turret explosion and Iranian Air Flight 655 incidents were still fresh in people's minds. Tailhook's after-effects were still being felt. Admiral Stan Arthur's nomination to be PACOM had been pulled over it. The Navy had just went through the controversy of Kara Hultgreen's death. There were other controversies at the time. And now the CNO was being accused of wearing devices for valor that he wasn't technically entitled to. When the error was pointed out, he took them off. I believe Hackworth was a willing dupe of Boorda's "enemies." They seized upon, what was either an administrative error or a misunderstanding of the regs - it is important to note his peers wore the same device on the same ribbons with similar write-ups - to scuttle Boorda. Boorda wasn't popular, especially in the Naval Aviation community. He was a ship-driver. Not a Naval Academy graduate, didn't back Turner, was the CNO when the first females were being taught to fly combat aircraft, and while I don't like to race bait he was of Jewish descent, if not practicing. Suffice to say, he wasn't part of the club. Hackworth, never one to let the opportunity to stick it to a general officer or flag officer go to waste, jumped into the fray. The only problem is Hackworth claimed something he never technically earned either. Hackworth claimed a Ranger tab he didn't really earn. Even more damning in my opinion, is the second Distinguished Flying Cross he claimed, but never earned. The point being is that the awards system in the Navy was and is broken. The awards system in the Army was broken, apparently. Instead of focusing on the real issue, Hackworth was going to make it about Boorda's character, all while he was claiming awards he never earned. So if Boorda's character was flawed, what did that say about Hackworth? Hackworth insisted the two didn't compare. He was right, claiming a second and unearned DFC is much more damning than wearing a V device on a medal that was awarded for performance during a combat mission. |
|
On a related note, there was a great book called "Soldier" written by LTC Anthony B. Herbert. Herbert was the most decorated enlisted man in the Korean War. He then became an officer and served in Vietnam where he was very critical of the Army's leadership and eventually forced to retire.
I once sent Hack an e-mail and asked him if he knew Herbert. I was surprised that he took the time to send me an answer. It said, "Knew him. Enjoyed his book. Good man." |
|
Quoted:
Are you saying that Boorda did not wear medals he did not earn? Quoted:
Quoted:
If only things were always so simple. Are you saying that Boorda did not wear medals he did not earn? The medals were earned, it's the device that was in question. The main beef is that no one gave a hoot until Boorda became CNO. The devices were worn by all who earned those medals in theatre who exchanged gunfire in Vietnam, per the CNO at the time Zumwalt. He came aboard my boat in the Med when he was CINUSNAVEUR, solid dude. The enlisted community loved him. We suffered as a result of Hackworth; Boorda was the Navy's Ted Cruz of the time, the establishment looked to take him down because he was not a "club member". They won, we (I) lost. |
|
Quoted:
The medals were earned, it's the device that was in question. The main beef is that no one gave a hoot until Boorda became CNO. The devices were worn by all who earned those medals in theatre who exchanged gunfire in Vietnam, per the CNO at the time Zumwalt. He came aboard my boat in the Med when he was CINUSNAVEUR, solid dude. The enlisted community loved him. We suffered as a result of Hackworth; Boorda was the Navy's Ted Cruz of the time, the establishment looked to take him down because he was not a "club member". They won, we (I) lost. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If only things were always so simple. Are you saying that Boorda did not wear medals he did not earn? The medals were earned, it's the device that was in question. The main beef is that no one gave a hoot until Boorda became CNO. The devices were worn by all who earned those medals in theatre who exchanged gunfire in Vietnam, per the CNO at the time Zumwalt. He came aboard my boat in the Med when he was CINUSNAVEUR, solid dude. The enlisted community loved him. We suffered as a result of Hackworth; Boorda was the Navy's Ted Cruz of the time, the establishment looked to take him down because he was not a "club member". They won, we (I) lost. Agreed. http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/17/boorda.8p/index.html |
|
Quoted:
A good commander clubs baby seals. the battle should be over and won before the first shot is ever fired. If the enemy is too stupid to figure it out and has to die, so be it. I'm comfortable with that. the mark of a good commander is when he is stacking enemy bodies like cord wood and none of his men have a scratch. Not when he is calling back to his boss how brave he and his men were and all the casualties he took in a fierce fight. Sometimes commanders get handed a shit sandwich and are told to execute. You don't always get to pick the time and place. As for Hackworth he was definitely a self-promoter. But i won't spend a lot of time speaking ill of the dead. I was always more impressed by the legions of btdt guys who maintained a low-key demeanor. 4073 |
|
Quoted:
On a related note, there was a great book called "Soldier" written by LTC Anthony B. Herbert. Herbert was the most decorated enlisted man in the Korean War. He then became an officer and served in Vietnam where he was very critical of the Army's leadership and eventually forced to retire. I once sent Hack an e-mail and asked him if he knew Herbert. I was surprised that he took the time to send me an answer. It said, "Knew him. Enjoyed his book. Good man." I read that book and liked it. Never read any of Hackworth's writings though and I am surprised the officers here thought he was somewhat a blowhard..............but I never knew one way or the other. |
|
Quoted:
You were an Lt!!?? Damn!!
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Think he was a product of his times. Very tactically gifted man; I have read a lot of his works and learned a lot from him. His forward to Foley 's "Night Work" was great. As a primer for young lieutenants it is one of the best passages ever. That book is a penny on amazon. If you have not heard of it you're missing out. His paper he wrote with SLA Marshall was very good. He was not a West Pointer and was prone to jealousy. A vain man, he was obsessed about medals and being recognized for valor. This was a time when officers received DSCs and silver stars for things we don't recognize today. It's hard to really judge that today unless you look at the context of who Hackworth's peers were and what the norms were. In this day and age, commanders getting awarded for valor for doing their jobs gets a real sideways look. Awards inflation was a huge issue in Vietnam and Hackworth sure seemed obsessed by it. Funny, my recollection of his book was that he was very proud of lopsided battles where his men laid in ambushes, used beaters to push them into kill zones, and was critical of some frontal assaults his peers led. He seemed like a leader who wanted to kill the enemy at minimal cost. ... I think there was a lot of projection and selective story-telling, there. I ate his shit up as a Lieutenant - it was basically some guy reinforcing my world view. The more experience I got, the more self-serving and full of shit I realized his rhetoric was. You were an Lt!!?? Damn!!
He probably still is.
|
|
Quoted:
.............. He probably still is. Jesus Christ, we have quite a few military officers at Arfcom!! Note Bohr said "as a Lt"..........maybe he got a promotion? I guess I should have suspected that but they NEVER say their rank. (Until now a bit at least.) ETA: Oh, I'd probably know more if I was able to get into the military forum!! 
|