Death of a Warrior

I am glad to have had the honor of hearing Col. David H. Hackworth speak at an event to promote his novel THE PRICE OF HONOR a few years back. I was also among the fortunate few who were invited to attend the post event dinner. My first exposure to Hack (he insisted on being called "Hack" never Col. Hackworth) was from his book HAZARDOUS DUTY, a scathing critique of the American military establishment along with some very radical proposals for reform. After getting a chance to meet him in person, I thought to myself, "If only we could make this guy Secretary of Defense."

Hack was unafraid to speak the truth to power from the get go. As a gung-ho 15 year-old he snuck his way into the army at the tail end of World War II. While overseas, his unit received a visit from General Eisenhower himself. Hack said that Ike walked up to him, poked a finger at his 98 lb frame and asked: "What's the biggest problem with your unit right now?" Hack immediately shot back: "The chow stinks, Sir." All down the line the response was the same: "Chow stinks, Sir, chow stinks, Sir, chow stinks..." Ike walked back over to Hack and barked: "If we do something about the chow, will that make things better?" Hack replied in the affirmative. He learned from that experience that if you wanted something to change in the army you had speak up and let the higher ups know about it.

During the Vietnam War, Hack's third, his truth-telling got him an appointment with one of the top brass in the Pentagon. Hack told him that the reason we were losing was that generals in Washington were trying to re-fight the Pacific theater of World War II rather than taking into account the unique nature of the struggle against the lightly equipped but well trained and motivated Viet Cong. This time Hack's advice went unheeded.

I'm of the opinion that even if the U.S. had decided to fight the Viet Cong with our own lightly armed, highly mobile, counter-guerrillas like Hack advocated, the V.C. and North Vietnam would still have emerged victorious. The reason is that their commitment to the war was total, every able bodied man, woman and child was engaged in what they saw as the most important project of their lives; ridding Vietman of unwanted foreign imperialists. In the U.S. there was nothing even remotely approaching that level of commitment. Lyndon Johnson wasn't going to let a little war, thousands of miles away interfere with his "Great Society" domestic agenda. And by 1968, 10s of thousands of Americans were taking to the streets to voice their agreement with the Viet Cong's view of the war, some even going so far as to literally carry their flag. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to see how the U.S. could have hoped to "prevail."

This is a lesson that has apparently been lost to the current crew in the White House. Here's what Hack had to say about the war in Iraq:

"[T]hroughout Bush's almost two-year rush to use the military solution against Iraq, I became increasingly convinced that the Butcher of Baghdad was not a threat to our national security and was far from the main event. No way in my military mind could I see how he represented anywhere near the clear and present danger of a dirty-bomb-armed al-Qaeda or a North Korea with nukes and a missile-delivery system probably capable of frying our West Coast at the push of a button.

So I was opposed to employing the military solution against Iraq because: We'd lose our focus on dealing with the main contenders; we'd use too many military assets and too many tax dollars; and we'd end up with an already overstretched military force stuck in the Iraqi sand for years."

Wise words, Hack. Rest in peace.