Slipped Mickey
12-11-2002, 11:24 AM
Col. Hackworth: Stick With Containing Saddam
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002
Although war hero, journalist and military advocate, retired Army Col. David Hackworth colorfully tells NewsMax that a new war with Iraq would result in “slam, bam, good-bye Saddam,” he is dead set against the U.S. ever launching such a campaign.
He is also warning that if war breaks out, he has little doubt Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. targets.
“It’s a question of misdirected priorities,” says Hackworth. “Containment has worked with Iraq; focus attention on the main event – fighting terrorism.”
Hack says he is hardly alone in his thinking, having sounded out senior military officers both present and past, noting such figures as retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who are also firm advocates of containment over war.
Hackworth has an extensive Pentagon rolodex and he says that the top brass is almost unified in opposition to an outright invasion of Iraq.
The former colonel says that the higher the rank the more opposed to striking Iraq.
“I’ve got a whole platoon of colonels in the Pentagon that are very vocal about the policies coming out of the White House,” he says. “They all favor containment.”
So where did this lust to war against Saddam come from?
Hackworth’s ready answer to NewsMax: Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who he says, “was advocating that Iraq should go long before 9-11.”
According to Hack, Wolfowitz was writing war plans to dispose of Saddam early on in the administration. Currently the hawkish defense official and right-hand-man to Donald Rumsfeld wants to use the relatively successful American campaign in Afghanistan as a “template” to neutralize Iraq.
Says Hackworth, Wolfowitz apparently went too far in pressing his template model, advocating that the military go in lean and mean rather than with heavy forces as in the 1991 Gulf War.
But folks like Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks “put his stars on the line,” holding out for a force of about 250, 000.
In the meantime, as the politics are played out and inspectors come and go, U.S. military operatives in the region are working overtime on what Hack styles as “psy-ops” or a psychological warfare campaign. A key element of that campaign, says Hack, is talking with Iraqi Army commanders via cell phone, going so far as to discuss rally points for surrender if the Coalition invasion ever steps off.
The remainder of the articlehere (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/11/62418.shtml) on NewsMax.
I've been saying it all along that a move on Iraq is a bad move when it is politically directed. Hack feels a war with Iraq at present is a bad move. Bush thinks, a la Thatcher, a war will win him another term. Bullshit, say I. The war drums re Iraq have represented nothing more than mission creep by the Bush administration. Fight the terrorists, worry about North Korea and China. The economy could use some attention as well as other domestic situations but nooooooooooooooooooo this president is fixated on going to war with Iraq and spending American lives and 20 trillion on a war to get re-elected. (A Lieberman/McCain ticket might just do it.)
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002
Although war hero, journalist and military advocate, retired Army Col. David Hackworth colorfully tells NewsMax that a new war with Iraq would result in “slam, bam, good-bye Saddam,” he is dead set against the U.S. ever launching such a campaign.
He is also warning that if war breaks out, he has little doubt Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. targets.
“It’s a question of misdirected priorities,” says Hackworth. “Containment has worked with Iraq; focus attention on the main event – fighting terrorism.”
Hack says he is hardly alone in his thinking, having sounded out senior military officers both present and past, noting such figures as retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who are also firm advocates of containment over war.
Hackworth has an extensive Pentagon rolodex and he says that the top brass is almost unified in opposition to an outright invasion of Iraq.
The former colonel says that the higher the rank the more opposed to striking Iraq.
“I’ve got a whole platoon of colonels in the Pentagon that are very vocal about the policies coming out of the White House,” he says. “They all favor containment.”
So where did this lust to war against Saddam come from?
Hackworth’s ready answer to NewsMax: Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who he says, “was advocating that Iraq should go long before 9-11.”
According to Hack, Wolfowitz was writing war plans to dispose of Saddam early on in the administration. Currently the hawkish defense official and right-hand-man to Donald Rumsfeld wants to use the relatively successful American campaign in Afghanistan as a “template” to neutralize Iraq.
Says Hackworth, Wolfowitz apparently went too far in pressing his template model, advocating that the military go in lean and mean rather than with heavy forces as in the 1991 Gulf War.
But folks like Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks “put his stars on the line,” holding out for a force of about 250, 000.
In the meantime, as the politics are played out and inspectors come and go, U.S. military operatives in the region are working overtime on what Hack styles as “psy-ops” or a psychological warfare campaign. A key element of that campaign, says Hack, is talking with Iraqi Army commanders via cell phone, going so far as to discuss rally points for surrender if the Coalition invasion ever steps off.
The remainder of the articlehere (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/11/62418.shtml) on NewsMax.
I've been saying it all along that a move on Iraq is a bad move when it is politically directed. Hack feels a war with Iraq at present is a bad move. Bush thinks, a la Thatcher, a war will win him another term. Bullshit, say I. The war drums re Iraq have represented nothing more than mission creep by the Bush administration. Fight the terrorists, worry about North Korea and China. The economy could use some attention as well as other domestic situations but nooooooooooooooooooo this president is fixated on going to war with Iraq and spending American lives and 20 trillion on a war to get re-elected. (A Lieberman/McCain ticket might just do it.)