In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
"British timidity"? Just how many reservists was the US mobilising for a
ground offensive into Kosovo? I seem to recall the option being
categorically ruled out in the US... but we were getting ready to sign
Queen's Orders.

Personally, I could care less what Hackworth has to say about anything--IMO
he is a bit like James Dunnigan and Tom Clancy, in that he apparently
enamored with the sound of his own voice and impresses himself if nobody
else. But Paul, you do need to go back and check your facts--while Clinton &
Company had indeed ruled out the ground option early on (rating as one of
his administration's bigger military mistakes--it was stupid to give
Milosevich the additional breathing room it afforded him), they did
subsequently revisit the issue,

Sure, and never claimed otherwise. But the US _did_ rule it out (and
then change its mind), while here in the UK many of us were getting
ready for mobilisation despite a few years away from the colours. The US
was able to reverse course without having to call up reserves: not an
option for others, particularly when the US was still mumbling "no
ground troops under any circumstances".

The US made a mistake and successfully reversed it, and I'm not
attacking that: just the unspecified claims of "British timidity".
Refusal to obey really stupid orders, perhaps, but not timidity.

Sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
"useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)

He has also spent his ire at other US targets--he was especially deriscive
of the National Guard (though he has apparently piped down on that one over
the last year or two).

A quick poke around SFTT suggests not, at the moment: he's making the
British argument of STABs versus ARABs look like a friendly debate at
the moment. It seems the US National Guard units are untrained,
unskilled, and laden with huge numbers of unfit freeloaders who never
report and can't deploy but can justify claims for pay'n'rations... with
only heroic interventions by Regular troops saving them from certain
disaster.

One wonders how such bumbling amateurs managed to survive in a warzone,
let alone make any sort of useful contribution: yet rather more than a
few have apparently deployed and served, and I don't hear tales of
"Weeping National Guard wimps slaughtered as Regular heroes hold firm
and fight to last round".

Oh, well... where reality conflicts with a lucrative column, presumably
reality simply hasn't been properly informed and will eventually fall
into line.


Just make sure you don't shoot him where he wore that
unauthorized ranger tab he was bragging about...

Having been trained by a few Paras and a bootneck or two, and working
with both now, I imagine this is similar to wearing a red or green beret
without having passed P Company or the Commando Course. (Neither are
recommended strategies, if you couldn't guess).

And I recall that Chief of Naval Operations Jim Boorda committed suicide
over being accused of falsely wearing decorations he hadn't earned...
perhaps an extreme reaction, but interesting to compare.



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk