General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Tom Cervo
writes
quoting Hackworth
Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo
campaign when
I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed
Prince."
Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I
was
wrong-the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William
Cohen,
U.S. SecDef at the time.

snip


"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, and they *did* announce that it was back
into play (that latter cite is one that even you folks in the UK should have
heard of at the time).

http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archi...0/hed207.shtml

news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ europe/newsid_359000/359481.stm

1st ID(M) was pulled from the V Corps WFX and began readying for either
contingency (ground invasion or stabilization operations); engineers started
rather openly evaluating bridges and transport nets in Albania and
Macedonia, and TF Hawk grew from a simple AH-64 deployment into a sizeable
combined arms force, with armored, mech infantry, artillery, and engineer
support. No, we did not activate reservists at that point, but then again,
unlike other contingency operations fought outside Europe, this one was
happening at NATO's back door, and USAREUR was not exactly destitute of
resources to support a one or two division effort without having to resort
to major mobilization.

(Out of interest, just why was Clark condemned to rely
on the UK's famously reluctant, fearful and combat-averse Parachute
Regiment, when he presumably had his choice of US and other NATO units
to dispatch?)


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

Brooks

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:02:31 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

"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, and they *did* announce that it was back
into play (that latter cite is one that even you folks in the UK should have
heard of at the time).

Agreed, but then this change was a direct result of a change in
context which included *British* pressure to reconsider the use of
ground troops. When it comes down to it, the British were pushing
earlier for committing a force on the ground if necessary, and were
putting their money where their mouth was. I should know, I was
getting prepped for mobilisation at exactly that time, and I knew
where I'd be going. So, while I take your point, talking about
"British timidity" over Kosovo is, frankly, ********. When it came
down to it, the British goverment were displaying more nerve and
willingness to do the business than the US adminsitration.

As for Pristina airport, I would like to know precisely how many dead
Russian soldiers killed in the defence of their sacred Slavic brethren
the US hawks would have actually demanded as the price of stilling
their criticism. If they couldn't see the radical change of
cost-benefit analysis involved in that escalation of posturing, they
should read a little more about the defensive Slavic pretensions of
the Russians and little events like World War One.

[snip Hackworth; every retired Colonel has more opinions than sense]

Gavin Bailey

"Presidente Alcazar" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:02:31 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

"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, and they *did* announce that it was back
into play (that latter cite is one that even you folks in the UK should
have
heard of at the time).

Agreed, but then this change was a direct result of a change in
context which included *British* pressure to reconsider the use of
ground troops. When it comes down to it, the British were pushing
earlier for committing a force on the ground if necessary, and were
putting their money where their mouth was. I should know, I was
getting prepped for mobilisation at exactly that time, and I knew
where I'd be going. So, while I take your point, talking about
"British timidity" over Kosovo is, frankly, ********. When it came
down to it, the British goverment were displaying more nerve and
willingness to do the business than the US adminsitration.

I did not say otherwise. Hackworth was off-base with his assessment (not an
unusual event), and I would agree that the British position was probably the
wiser one. My comments were directed at Paul's (again) ignoring the fact
that the US did indeed (belatedly) buy into the ground invasion as a real
option, and did indeed begin some obvious preparations for that eventuality.
I seriously doubt that Milosevich gave the ground threat much creedence
until he saw the US start accepting that possibility (not a jab at the UK,
but just common sense in that any ground invasion without US troops
participating was not a realistic threat).

Brooks

snip

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

I seriously doubt that Milosevich gave the ground threat much creedence
until he saw the US start accepting that possibility (not a jab at the UK,
but just common sense in that any ground invasion without US troops
participating was not a realistic threat).

Brooks

Your brain cancer is getting very bad now. Why don't you end it - use
a sharp knife.

Grantland

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks

snip


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".

He must have missed the close combat operations conducted by the light
infantry battalion out of the FLARNG in Iraq, the various SF operations
conducted by 19th and 20th SFG (both ARNG assets) troops in Afghanistan (and
other places), the ARNG combat engineers, truck drivers, etc., who have
suffered their fair share of casualties in Iraq, etc. Like I said before,
the guy apparently just brays to hear the discordant sound of his own voice.


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.

You were aware that he was intimately involved in that affair? He was the
goober who "tipped off" Newsweek magazine about Boorda's decorations, and a
week after the suicide he was all over the media bellyaching about the
sanctity of decorations...then he got sort of quiet about that after his
unauthorized Ranger tab was mentioned. He used to portray himself as
"America's most decorated soldier"...and then the Department of the Army
stated that there was no such a beast (and one wonders what the surviving
MoH winners thought of his claim). The guy is scum, plain and simple. He was
danged lucky to have been able to retire--there was serious consideration
given to courts martialing him after he went to the media with his "get out
of Vietnam" crap while he was still a serving officer.

Brooks

Paul J. Adam