The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> US war hero vs Brainwashington

US war hero vs Brainwashington

Posted by Andreas (Guest) - Sunday, December 7 2003, 14:14:03 (EST)
from 80.142.247.71 - p508EF747.dip.t-dialin.net

Network -

Windows 2000 -

Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

How an American war hero is taking his battle over Iraq to Washington

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
05 December 2003

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=470213

The left leg of retired Colonel David Hackworth still carries a bullet
that he picked up while fighting in the Vietnam War. Wounded a total
of eight times, he claims to be America's most highly decorated
soldier, his chest weighed down by honours such as eight Purple
Hearts, nine Silver Stars and eight Bronze Stars.

While no-one doubts Colonel Hackworth's patriotism or service to his
country, there are plenty of people who do not appreciate what he has
to say about the United States' occupation of Iraq and the way it was
carried out. Donald Rumsfeld is likely to be among his critics:
Colonel Hackworth, 72, described the US Defence Secretary as "an
arrogant asshole".

It is not just his outspoken comments and personal invective that have
established the swaggering retired soldier as a persistent thorn in
the side of the Pentagon. It is also because he acts as a lightening
rod for the complaints and criticisms of soldiers on the ground, for
the lowly grunts and GIs whose comments would otherwise go largely
unheard.

These complaints gain wide exposure on Colonel Hackworth's two
websites, www.hackworth.com and www.sftt.org. Entries may discuss
subjects ranging from shoddy food and badly performing equipment to a
lack of ammunition. He says he receives up to 2,000 such messages a
week from troops whose anonymity he scrupulously protects. His website
currently carries a letter from a veteran helicopter pilot, discussing
the recent attack that brought down two Black Hawk helicopters.

The veteran's self-chosen role as the Pentagon's harshest critic and a
powerful, uncensored source of what American soldiers are experiencing
on the ground has never been more important. In the aftermath of
America's worst month in Iraq, when 79 of its soldiers died, Col
Hackworth this week received an email from a "combat leader" involved
in the firefight in the city of Samarra in which US forces claimed to
have killed 54 attackers. Local people insisted that only eight
people, mostly civilians, had been killed.

In his email to Colonel Hackworth, who he has known for eight years,
the soldier with the 4th Infantry Division wrote of Sunday's incident:
"Hack, most of the casualties were civilians, not insurgents or
criminals as being reported."

He added: "We are probably turning many Iraqi against us and I am
afraid instead of climbing out of the hole, we are digging ourselves
in deeper."

Speaking from his home in Greenwich, Connecticut, the white-haired
veteran said yesterday of the man who sent the email: "I have known
this soldier for eight years, since he first came into the US Army and
I have watched him develop and have full confidence in the validity of
his report."

Colonel Hackworth's assessment of the discrepancy between the
body-count claimed by US forces and locals rests with the Pentagon's
alleged desire to portray a positive view about a situation most
independent observers believe is spiralling into chaos. "It's the
nature of the beast," he said. "You try and paint the greatest face on
it. It happens in every war... in Vietnam it became an art form."

He said the units involved in any firefight drew up an assessment
themselves of what happened and how many of the enemy were killed.
"It's like students grading their own papers," he said. "If you're a
commander, are you going to say I was a dumb shit and we used too much
firepower and we killed a load of civilians, or are you going to say
that because of your brilliant command... we killed 54 insurgents? You
don't get promoted by striking-out.

"You get promoted by hitting a home run, even if it's a mythical home
run. During Vietnam there were lots of mythical home runs."

The email from the battle commander has placed Colonel Hackworth at
the centre of one of the most controversial incidents in Iraq since
President Bush announced an end to major hostilities at the beginning
of May. Despite numerous eye-witness accounts to the contrary, a
spokesman for the 4th Infantry Division has stood by its claim of
having killed 54 insurgents.

Most newspapers and media organisations have been forced to retract
initial reports that relied on the United States' claim about the
number killed.

"In an incident like this we have an initial assessment, followed by
more detailed assessments," the division's spokesman, Lt Col Bill
MacDonald, told reporters. "At this time we do not know of any
civilian casualties in the attack on our convoy. We are very confident
of our assessment. Commanders are responsible for providing timely,
accurate information."

As well as being the author of two best-selling books about the US
military, Colonel Hackworthhas written magazine articles and appeared
as a television pundit. He has long had a reputation for speaking out.
As long ago as 1971, when he was a serving officer, he said of the war
in Vietnam: "This is a bad war... it can't be won."

This has led him to be criticised by some veterans and others,
particularly during the war in Iraq when he criticised the Pentagon's
plan for the invasion as being too "light" and called for Mr Rumsfeld
to be fired.

"Hackworth is a washed-up windbag who can continue making love in
guest appearances with [chat show host] Larry King," wrote one critic.
"That way, we know no one is watching. I salute him for his service,
but he is toast."

Others choose to mock his exploits and macho-style of writing and
reporting. In his book Hazardous Duty, which details his exploits as a
war reporter for Newsweek Magazine, he records one soldier saying to
him: "Goddamn. You're Colonel Hackworth. You're the hot shit dude who
tells it like it is."

John Rees, editor of the Armed Forces Journal, whose readership is
made up primarily of military personnel, said some people tried to
dismiss the colonel. But he added: "In the scheme of things he serves
a purpose for some of our younger troops, and when he speaks he is
listened to."

Samarra: soldier's e-mail devastates Pentagon's account

"The convoy which was attacked while driving through Samarra was not a
supply convoy as reported, but was carrying large amounts of new Iraqi
currency to stock local Iraqi banks and US greenbacks used to pay for
goods and services the US forces need to accomplish their missions in
Iraq. This convoy was heavily guarded by Abrams Tanks and Bradley
Fighting Vehicles. It was akin to a huge Brinks Truck delivery.

The reports of 54 enemy killed will sound great on the home front, but
the greater story is much more disturbing and needs to be told to the
American Public. When we received the first incoming rounds, all I
could think of was how the hell did the Iraqis (most of these
attackers being criminals, not insurgents) find out about this
shipment? This was not broadcast on the local news, but Iraqi police
knew about it. Bing, Bing Bing, You do the math.

Of greater importance in the scale of the attack and the co-ordination
of the two operations. Iraqi Rebel Guerrilla Units elements still
retain the ability to conduct synchronized operations despite the
massive overwhelming firepower 'Iron Hammer' offensive this month.

Hack, most of the casualties were civilians, not insurgents or
criminals ... During the ambushes the tanks, brads and armored Humvees
hosed down houses, buildings, and cars while using reflexive fire
against the attackers. One of the precepts of 'Iron Hammer' is to use
an Iron Fist when dealing with the insurgents. As the division
spokesman is telling the press, we are responding with overwhelming
firepower and are taking the fight to the enemy. The response to these
well co-ordinated ambushes was as one would expect. The convoy
continued to move, shooting at ANY target that appeared to be a
threat. RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] fire from a house, the tank
destroys the house with main gun fire and hoses the area down with
7.62 and 50cal MG fire. Rifle fire from an alley, the brads fire up
the alley and fire up the surrounding buildings with 7.62mm and 25mm
HE rounds. This was actually a rolling firefight through the entire
town.

The ROE [rules of engagement] under 'Iron Fist' is such that the US
soldiers are to consider buildings, homes, cars to be hostile if enemy
fire is received from them (regardless of who else is inside). It
seems to many of us this is more an act of desperation ... We really
don't know if we kill anyone, because we don't stick around to find
out ... the logic is to respond to attacks using our superior
firepower to kill the rebel insurgents. This is done in many cases
knowing that there are people inside these buildings or cars who may
not be connected to the insurgents.

The belief in superior firepower as a counter-insurgency tactic is
then extended down to the average Iraqi, with the hope that the Iraqis
will not support the guerrillas and turn them in to coalition forces,
knowing we will blow the hell out of their homes or towns if they
don't. Of course in too many cases, if the insurgents bait us and goad
us into leveling buildings and homes, the people inside will then hate
us (even if they did not before) and we have created more recruits for
the guerrillas.

The Commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Colonel Frederick
Rudesheim, said after this battle that 'We are going to continue to
take the fight to this enemy. This is the most significant contact we
have had to date in the city of Samarra. We are going to have to
respond accordingly.'

This is a great attitude for a combat commander to have when fighting
an armored force, but Colonel Rudesheim is not trained in
Counter-Insurgency and my soldiers are taking the heat. We drive
around in convoys, blast the hell out of the area, break down doors
and search buildings; but the guerrillas continue to attack us. It
does not take a George Patton to see we are using the wrong tactics
... Much of Samarra is fairly well shot up. The tanks and brads rolled
over parked cars and fired up buildings where we believed the enemy
was. This must be expected considering the field of vision is limited
... Not all the people in this town were hostile, but we did see many
people firing from rooftops or alleys that looked like civilians, not
the Feddayeen reported in the press. I even saw Iraqi people throwing
stones at us, I told my soldiers to hold their fire unless they could
indentfy [sic] a real weapon.

Since we did not stick around to find out, I am very concerned in the
coming days we will find we killed many civilians as well as Iraqi
irregular fighters. I would feel great if all the people we killed
were all enemy guerrillas, but I can't say that. We are probably
turning many Iraqi against us and I am afraid instead of climbing out
of the hole, we are digging ourselves in deeper."

A Combat Leader

---------------------

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:
No replies.

Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/msword, application/x-shockwa...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: de
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-length: 12579
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf/rkvsf_core.php?.GSku.
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)