Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/15/2001 7:04:14 AM EDT
While I think Col. Hackworth is sometimes a little looney, I think he's right on here... The Marines Have Landed -- Again By David H. Hackworth (Col., U.S. Army Ret.) The first non-Special Ops unit deployed to Afghanistan is the U.S. Marines Corps -- no big surprise to this old Army doggie. In World War II's South Pacific, Marines were "the firstus with the mostus" into the Solomons, and they led the way into Vietnam. In Korea, they landed second, but unlike the Army units initially deployed there, Gen. Edward Craig's Marine brigade hit the beach ready to fight. And without their skill, sacrifice and courage, the beleaguered Eighth Army would've been pushed into the sea during the early months of the conflict. A similar scenario occurred during the early stages of Desert Storm, in which Marine units came in ready to fight while the first Army troops -- the 82nd Airborne Division, with its insufficient anti-tank capability -- were a potential speed bump waiting to be flattened. The Corps, which has never lost sight that its primary mission is to fight, remains superbly trained and disciplined -- true to its time-honored slogan "We don't promise a rose garden." When, under Clinton, the Army lowered its standards to Boy Scout summer-camp level in order to increase enlistment, the Corps responded by making boot training longer and tougher. Now under USMC Commandant James Jones, that training has gotten even meaner for the young Marine wannabes waiting in line to join up, as well as for Leathernecks already serving in regular and reserve units. Unlike U.S. Army conventional units -- their new slogan, "An Army of One," says it all -- the U.S. Marine Corps remains a highly mobile, fierce fighting team that has never forgotten: "The more sweat on the training field, the less blood on the battlefield." The Marines are flexible, agile, ready and deadly, while the Army remains configured to fight the Soviets -- who disappeared off the Order of Battle charts a decade ago. For example, right after Sept. 11, the two Army heavy divisions in Germany -- with their 68-ton tanks that can crush almost every bridge they cross -- deployed to Poland for war games. Hello, is there a brain at the top somewhere beneath that snazzy Black Beret being modeled at most U.S. airports by too many overweight Army National Guard troops?
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 7:04:50 AM EDT
The Army has eight other regular divisions, all designed to fight 20th-century wars. Three are heavy -- Tank and Mech Infantry -- and two are light, the storied 82nd Airborne and the elite 101st Airborne (now helicopter), and then there's the light/heavy 10,000-man 2nd Division that's in Korea backing up a million-man, superbly fit South Korean Army. Less the light divisions, our Army's not versatile, deployable, swift or sustainable. The heavy units require fleets of ships and planes to move them, and it takes months to get them there -- it took Stormin' Norman six months to ready a force for Desert Storm. The 101st -- while deadly, as Desert Storm proved -- is also a slow mover requiring a huge amount of strategic lift -- ships and giant planes -- to get to the battlefield, not to mention the massive tax-dollar load to outfit and maintain it. Sadly, today's Army is like a street fighter with brass knuckles too heavy to lift. After the Rangers' disaster in Somalia -- where there were no tanks to break through to relieve them -- and the embarrassment of not being able to fight in the war in Serbia, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki started forming light brigades strikingly similar to USMC units. When I asked, "Why the copycating?" an Army officer said: "It was either copy or go out of business. We'd become redundant because of long-term lack of boldness and imagination at the top." The Army costs about $80 billion a year to run. It's time for Congress to do its duty and stop enjoying the benefits of all the pork this obsolescence and redundancy provides. If the Army can't change with the times -- as the powerful horse cavalry generals couldn't just prior to World War II -- then it should fold up its tents and turn the ground-fighting mission over to the Marines. The law of nature is simple: survival of the fittest. And in the 21st century, heartbreaking as it is for me to admit, the forward-based and highly deployable U.S. Marine Corps is the fittest. Semper Fidelis.
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 7:18:00 AM EDT
I would almost agree with him, except that we will still need our Tank Heavy divisions. Hackworth has become a man without a cause. He needs to shut up. He can bitch about training, but I wouldn't bitch about Tanks or Mechanized infantry. Train them better and Harder always, Get rid of them , naaah. Benjamin
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 7:26:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: I would almost agree with him, except that we will still need our Tank Heavy divisions. Hackworth has become a man without a cause. He needs to shut up. He can bitch about training, but I wouldn't bitch about Tanks or Mechanized infantry. Train them better and Harder always, Get rid of them , naaah. Benjamin
View Quote
Agreed. Sometimes when I see him on Fox News, he sounds like a babbling idiot. Not that I disagree with his views, but a lot of times he sounds like a 6th grader trying to argue them.
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 10:46:31 AM EDT
Someone posted this same article already a couple weeks ago. My opinion that he is a drama queen still stands.
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 11:33:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cat: Someone posted this same article already a couple weeks ago. My opinion that he is a drama queen still stands.
View Quote
Or make that just queen... Have you seen the way the man dresses anymore? Black turtlenecks, John Lennon sunglasses worn INDOORS on a TV set? And this dandy complains of the "feminization" of the US military?
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 11:42:52 AM EDT
The Marines method of operation has always been to use the Navy as transport. This makes them easier to transport than heavy Army units, but who ever said being there at a moments notice was the Army's (not including airborne/spec-ops units) primary job? The Army spent the last 50 years building up for a potential WW3 with the USSR. Now that threat is gone, but can you really expect them to reverse 50 years of development overnight? And heres another question - why should they? With the exception of Desert Storm, the U.S. military has been envolved in a lot of 'putting out fires' in the last 10 years. Small forces that needed to get there quick, right? Okay, but thats what the Marines are for. If another country, say China, starts mobilizing for war - building mass heavy tank columns, infantry divisions, etc will the Marines alone be able to handle a land war with an army of that size and scale? Probably not. Thats where the Army comes in. Yes, its slow and heavy but once it gets there by God it will pretty much crush anything in its path. Now of course much of this applies to the 'heavy' army units. The Airborne and Spec-Ops are a different story.
....the 82nd Airborne Division, with its insufficient anti-tank capability -- were a potential speed bump waiting to be flattened.
View Quote
Well you know what? Anti armor is NOT what the 82nd are for. For Christ sake, are we really supposed to expect an airborne, light infantry unit to handle large soviet built tanks? Putting them in that position was a blunder to say the least. Its called the right tool for the right job... BTW, I think it quite funny that he undermines part of his arguement in his very first sentence:
The first non-Special Ops unit deployed to Afghanistan is the U.S. Marines Corps
View Quote
So in other words, the Army still got there first. I'm not trying to fan the flames of the Army vs Marines thing - they're both relevant and honorable. I'm just pointing out that they each have a specific job and theres no reason why the Army should try to be the Marines just because light force conflicts are the current trend in world events lately. Besides, Afganistan is just the beginning. There are reports of Somalia, Philipeans, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc all having the potential for U.S. conflict. There will be enough to keep all branches busy.
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 1:06:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 7:17:40 PM EDT
yeah, the guy seems a bit questionable. the beatnik look is odd too.
Top Top