There is a chorus of voices today, some even decorated combat veterans lamenting the perceived loss of the "warrior ethic" in our military. These people define being a warrior as a rowdy, hard-living and drinking type who bulls his way through life's problems with blind obedience to orders and his reward is his right to brag ceaselessly about himself (narcissistic personality disorder) and his unit, trash talking the other services just as he would put a bullet in his enemy. Technological advances that can keep an outnumbered 12-Division Army victorious against third world country "baby-machines" that can crank out dissatisfied rebels with an AKM or RPG by the thousands are castigated as it gives them less chance to showcase their own personal toughness by fighting "light" on foot that can be boasted upon later at a bar or gathering. Strangely linked to this phenomena is a connection to a right-wing political agenda in knee-jerk opposition to peacekeeping operations like Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo because the current left-wing civilian political rulers of the military are advancing a social agenda in the military that is opposed to their "image" of the warrior ethic. Today with "Patriotic correctness" in effect its AOK for foot narcissists to get blown up by enemy bombs just as long as we couch it all in the flag and country.

The irony of the latter, is that if the President were a combat veteran and sending them to peacekeeping missions, it would be "O.K". Even more weird is that the FICL crowd complains that by our Army being in places like Bosnia/Kosovo maintaining the peace, it is not going to be as ready for a war because its not shooting blanks at each other a few hundred miles away in Germany, when by being in Bosnia its PREVENTING THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE! The best way to win a war is to not fight it in the first place. Study Sun Tzu or B.H. Lidell-Hart or better the Bible and not action-adenture magazines and this will become clear. Think what the WWII generation could have done in terms of space exploration and science if it had taken out Hitler and the Concentration camps in the '30s and not turned a blind eye to the slaughter of the innocents. There would have been no flag raising on Mount Suribachi, no Medals of Honor, no D-Day, but 358,000 more living, instead of dead Americans. No need for the nuclear bomb, no Mrs. Sullivans losing all her sons in a cruel act of war. Instead of selling the men on the linkages of Balkan peacekeeping to preventing an ethnic war spreading to Greece/Turkey and farther and backing civilian leaders who despite their personal hypocrisies have chosen us a good path, we are fed a steady diet of isolationism and "America first": the same poisoned meat that gave us two world wars. Fast forward to Iraq, where suddenly these same folks have flip-flopped and are saying "we need to stay the course" and continue to occupy Iraq long after we toppled their regime because we are needed to nation build. Amazing when oil is involved that can line the pockets of Republicans that "America first" falls by the wayside.

What the FICL crowd would have us to do is return to some mythical "good ole days" where we train for a war as we drink it up at the bars/brothels later lamenting the fatalistic lot of the "warrior" and "bond" together as we let the world collapse into a hand basket from hell so the "warrior" can charge into battle and save the day at the cost of thousands, of American lives. The Warrior would have proven himself in this life and be fulfilled, surrounded by his comrades.

The thousands of Americans who know the true end of war CRY OUT against such narrow-minded madness. The TRUTH is that this is NOT the warrior "ethic" we need because its UN-ETHICal. Its immoral and grossly self-indulgent. War is a necessary evil, NOT a place to prove one's manhood or earn some glory or self-worth or be a private ego club for men.. Our military is here to defend the peace the BEST way possible and if that involves peacekeeping that bruises the egos of those who joined the military for childish desires of self-glory, than so be it. War is too complicated today for a warrior to spend his time in bars getting drunk singing songs of drunken fatalism when he should be studying war, tactics, topography, land navigation, modern weapons, conditioning himself and his men for battle not sports tasks so he can bring ALL his men home alive if possible. He must be SMART, fully understanding technology and using it (takes those night vision devices out of the arms room) as he employs his full measure of devotion and mind to the mission; if he can prevent a war in the first place, knowing the highest good is being served, he doesn't go around whining that he isn't earning Silver Stars as the men around him are getting body bags. The military is not here to cater to the war lovers, egotists and elitists, its the armed SERVICE, here to serve others, in this case to defend America and economic/political freedom warts and all around the world. America is the world's "policeman" because this is far better than someone else (Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung-Il, Milosivec etc.) being the world's "jailor".

The true warrior ethic is "ethical" and unselfish. It trains hard and sees the road ahead because its founded on SELF-discipline, not the tyranny of the loud-mouthed egotist. Study war instead of longing for it, and you will see that Armies that BELIEVED IN WHAT THEY ARE DOING fight far better than even those that are willing robots led by the ignorant. What we need today is a clear definition of the thinking, seeing warrior whose "head is in the game" that is built into the heart/mind of today's young recruit based on SELF-discipline. Those that simply think replicating the mythical old days where wars could be won by yelling/screaming and push-ups followed by rounds of drinks at the bar (if these days ever really existed) and adding harassment into our entry-level training are missing the boat by a mile. A simple solution to most of America and the military's problems would be to have a 2-year national service that ALL American citizens would have to do which would include a stint in the miltary if chosen and a nursing, police or wildlife conservation corps. This would bring a large body of people who are in uniform to defend freedom and pay respect due their citizenship not the current All-Volunteers wanting to have themselves served force. This would give the military a larger cross-section of ironically more mature, balanced Citizen-Soldiers who are NOT in the military for selfish reasons or long for war trying to fill some inner void with a uniform. If we had more people like this in the service we would have less "yes-men" trying to advance their careers at the expense of the men and the mission. They would be in the military to serve America, not with themselves as a motive lurking in the background.

As wars change, the warriors that are to defeat it must change in a way that we do not lose our values and who we are in the process. We are Americans, not elitist snobs. This false warrior image being fed to us as the fix-all is not the mutineers of the 20th Maine who when explained what they were fighting for were ASKED to go to Little Round Top where they held off the scourge of slavery in a desperate bayonet charge by school-teacher-turned-self-taught-tactician, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain that epic day that changed the course of a nation at Gettysburg, its not American and its not right. The American warrior creates his own untrod path to victory and freedom and this takes NEW IDEAS, new thinking, not bromides of the old sure to fail, YES---a risk that might not pan out. This is why we have COURAGE.

Airborne!

Mike Sparks

A young Army peacekeeping operation veteran writes:

Howdy Mike, love the information provided on your website but I wanted to drop you a line about the piece referring to "warrior ethic" and the FICL phenomenon...

While your agruement is pretty sound, I have to disagree with the idea that the military should support all of these taskings that keep coming down the pike and the whole global cop thing... I'm out of the service now, and when I was in, frankly I would've agreed with every single word you said here wholeheartedly, but that has changed...

The entire purpose of the US military is to support and defend the Constitution... to extend that purpose to include the support of freedom and democracy throughout the world is perfectly fine, and more than justified... the problem is that these missions to Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo are not doing that, not by any means... we are entering into situations that we simply never leave, the problems never get fully resolved... just look at Korea and now Iraq and Bosnia... some of these conflicts simply never end, and they ultimately become a situation where it is no longer freedom and democracy that we are supporting... I spent about a year and a half a few miles south of the DMZ... those people aren't free, they live under a perpetual cease fire that ultimately is going to end, the only question is when... hell, we're still dropping bombs in Iraq...

Enslaving a people to live under a perpetual state of non-war is not the answer... subjecting them to a never-ending military occupation financed entirely by the US is not the answer... starving the women and children of these nations through economic sanctions is not the answer... when America lacks the commitment necessary to wholly take over the other nation on a temporary basis to install democratic principles, then we need to butt out...

The drain that those of us who are against these expeditions are talking about is primarily on the logistics side of the house... another of your articles mentions the need for sustainment troops as opposed to support troops... it is here where these deployments take a heavy toll... that was my end of the business while I was in, and I can say with full confidence that these deployments are destroying the logistics troops... simply put, log soldiers can't train while they are deployed, they simply have too much work to do, and the training they are losing out on is the combat training they need to survive in a hot environment... out of an entire rotation that I took part in at JRTC with the 10th Mountain, I only spent 3 days in actual field training of any kind, the rest I was tasked out on maintenance, I never even pulled guard duty... field exercises were no different, we would often work nearly round the clock on maintenace and that was just a field exercise on post... deployments bring the training of the non-direct combat MOSs to a screaching halt, and it is here that the "in the rear with the gear" mentality develops and breeds like a bad virus... a high OPTEMPO, regardless of the cause, can often force support soldiers into abandoning ALL training, they simply have to many mission essential tasks to perform, especially maintenance soldiers... during an exercise in Korea, we had an officer that was so lacking in combat skills that he established a policy where the roving guard of our site would turn on the headlights of vehicles positioned on the perimeter to "blind the night vision of the enemy." It is genius like this that is the result of too many deployments... after a string of 4 field exercises over the course of two months, our company had a small exercise to see where we stood on basic field and CTT tasks, it was uglier than you could possibly imagine... most of our unit couldn't even pass the most basic of tasks, like putting on a gas mask and sealing it, first aid tasks showed equally hideous results, and camoflauging was an outright joke, especially for vehicles... when mechanics spend weeks upon weeks of not even picking up their weapon and looking down the sights because they spend every day under a truck, they lose the ability to adequately perform even the most basic of field tasks, and the same goes for the other support MOSs... maybe combat troops can withstand this and come out okay, but it doesn't work that way with support troops... this will become an even greater problem once we do see the day of the AIRMECH Army...

While it is important for us to support democracy wherever it lies, we must also realize that logistics is our weakest link and these excursions throughout the globe put a tremendous strain on that... we don't have the equipment or the personnel to handle these missions, and fielding new equipment to a deployed unit in action is not a realistic option... it sucks doing it in garrison, now we're going to do it with bits and pieces of units scattered all over the planet?

First, we need to take a step back from the global cop role... Second, we need to establish a realistic vision for our armed forces, the AIRMECH concept is a helluva good start, but even you have to admit that it needs some fine tuning before its implemented... Third we need to field it as rapidly as is possible. Once this is done, then we can effectively play the role desired here... You like to quote Sun Tzu in your articles... Let's not forget the part about knowing ones self as well as knowing the enemy... Our biggest weakness is our logistics... Let's not blow our foot off entirely before the enemy even decides to lock and load...

Sincerely,

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

MY REPLY:

Excellent feedback!

You disagree:

"the military should support all of these taskings that keep coming down the pike and the whole global cop thing..."

"The entire purpose of the US military is to support and defend the Constitution..."

I'd disagree, the purpose of the U.S. military is to defend the Republic as founded on the Constitution. If we do nothing and let World Wars brew like we did in WWI and WWII we will pay for it. Sun tzu said better to win without fighting via diplomacy and peacekeeping opns.

"to extend that purpose to include the support of freedom and democracy throughout the world is perfectly fine, and more than justified..."

So here you agree.

"the problem is that these missions to Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo are not doing that, not by any means... we are entering into situations that we simply never leave, the problems never get fully resolved... just look at Korea and now Iraq and Bosnia... some of these conflicts simply never end,and they ultimately become a situation where it is no longer freedom and democracy that we are supporting..."

The key problem here is you do not understand the nature of war. Its built into mankind..sin nature...you can't just ignore it...Your argument is like saying, why make your bed each day? We will just sleep in it and mess it up again". War comes from the human heart. Unless we wean the people of the Balkans off war for at least two generations old hurts will start things up again. We may not be supporting the freedom/democrcacy we like to see but its better than bloodshed that spreads. You are being here perfectionistic, not realistic. Like the "No Fear" t-shirt; "If you can't win, don't play". Well that is bullshit. You don't become a champion overnight. You take many 3d and 4th places before you become the champ. Look at the Wright brothers. Do you think they'd have invented the airplane with such attitudes? Life is a struggle, we Americans just don't want to do it because we are lazy and selfish. Peace is a struggle, if we are too lazy to fight for it we will get a fight alright and the body bag learning curve. Some will give all for our mistake.

If we are not getting the democracy we want in these countres we need to be patient and work harder. We always want a "quick fix" in America and that isn't always possible.

"I spent about a year and a half a few miles south of the DMZ... those people aren't free, they live under a perpetual cease fire that ultimately is going to end, the only question is when... hell, we're still dropping bombs in Iraq..."

STICK TO YOUR POINT DON'T WANDER!!!

You are playing mix and match. Go to a web site and relive the horror of the Korean war. Then go back and reflect on your experiences, I am sure its far better than war. You also miss the point that TIME is on our side here. The longer we can postpone a war in Korea, the more likely they will crack peacefully by internal dissent like Germany and the Iron curtain did..people still have to eat....even if they are die-hard COMMIES.

"Enslaving a people to live under a perpetual state of non-war is not the answer... subjecting them to a never-ending military occupation financed entirely by the US is not the answer..."

But its a BETTER ANSWER THAN WAR. YES? If we pull chocks from South Korea we will have war. Is this what you want? I say perpetual threat of war is better than actual war any day.

"starving the women and children of these nations through economic sanctions is not the answer..."

Are you willing to go in and wipe out Saddam at the cost of perhaps 1000 American lives?

"when America lacks the commitment necessary to wholly take over the other nation on a temporary basis to install democratic principles, then we need to butt out..."

AHA! The nay sayer's argument! I am sure you would not support losing 1000 Americans to free Iraq. "Butting" out to leave Iraq to go gobble up his neighbors again is not a realistic option. Welcome to the real world! I'll take second best over war any time. Have you ever lost a loved one in your life? Just curious. There is no "second chance" for dead people and we tried isolationism in the early part of the last century and 1 million Americans lost their lives. Where was their second chance to voice an opinion on isolationism?

"The drain that those of us who are against these expeditions are talking about is primarily on the logistics side of the house... another of your articles mentions the need for sustainment troops as opposed to support troops... it is here where these deployments take a heavy toll... that was my end of the business while I was in, and I can say with full confidence that these deployments are destroying the logistics troops... simply put, log Soldiers can't train while they are deployed, they simply have too much work to do,"

TRAIN FOR WHAT?

War?

The whole point is to PREVENT the war, silly. War is too late. Peacekeeping is more important than warfighting. Absolutely I will say it loudly and clearly to all. Preventing a war is better than winning it. And when I say peacekeeping, I mean being there on the ground keeping bellligerents at bay. YES.

Now there are other folks who have not shown their hands (RED China) waiting to strike. We have to have a "kick-ass" military to PREVENT THEM from even thinking of doing war. If we don't have enough troops to peacekeep and be ready to "kick ass", then we need a bigger Army and I say let's get the lard ass, we-need 90-days-of-training-National Guard's 15 "Enchanted" Ready Brigades and 8 Divisions involved. The National Guard 49th Armored Division in texas is beginning to do this later this year.

"...and the training they are losing out on is the combat training they need to survive in a hot environment..."

I understand the dynamics of this..I also know that there is always dead time to train on individual tasks..like how many damn times must we practice putting on the M40 FPM? What about sight alignment/sight picture on the M16? Assuming a defensive posture? These things are like riding a bike. Did you ever really learn these things? What is it with sustainment troops? This isn't rocket science. Its kill or be killed. I bet if you had better tactically proficient leaders you would have been "tactical" while you did your peacekeeping opns.

"...out of an entire rotation that I took part in at JRTC with the 10th Mountain, I only spent 3 days in actual field training of any kind, the rest I was tasked out on maintenance, I never even pulled guard duty... field exercises were no different, we would often work nearly round the clock on maintenace and that was just a field exercise on post... deployments bring the training of the non-direct combat MOSs to a screaching halt, and it is here that the "in the rear with the gear" mentality develops and breeds like a bad virus... a high OPTEMPO, regardless of the cause, can often force support Soldiers into abandoning ALL training, they simply have to many mission essential tasks to perform, especially maintenance Soldiers..."

LEADERSHIP FAILURE. If you cannot have local security while you are doing your jobs then our force structure is too thinly manned and/or leaders are not integrating tactical training into your operations. This a failure of the Army to realize we fight on a non-linear battlefield where there are no safe "rear areas". I had a maintenance section in my last unit and we had to hold them at "gunpoint" to make them do ANY tactical training of any kind. They will not take M113A3s to the field let alone mount a .50 cal HMG and they will not do any weapons training unless threateneded. The 2.5 ton truck MG ring mounts are not mounted. The marine corps is the same way, FYI. And whenever I see them they are at the Maintenance contact point sleeping or lounging around waiting for a track to break. In other words I see dead time to train...

"...during an exercise in Korea, we had an officer that was so lacking in combat skills that he established a policy where the roving guard of our site would turn on the headlights of vehicles positioned on the perimeter to "blind the night vision of the enemy." It is genius like this that is the result of too many deployments..."

Doe he read Jane's? Does he study war? If he were at home station would he be any better? You are saying he needs a warfighting FTX with OPFOR embarrassing his ass before he learns? Some learning curve!

"...after a string of 4 field exercises over the course of two months, our company had a small exercise to see where we stood on basic field and CTT tasks, it was uglier than you could possibly imagine... most of our unit couldn't even pass the most basic of tasks, like putting on a gas mask and sealing it, first aid tasks showed equally hideous results, and camoflauging was an outright joke, especially for vehicles... when mechanics spend weeks upon weeks of not even picking up their weapon and looking down the sights because they spend every day under a truck, they lose the ability to adequately perform even the most basic of field tasks, and the same goes for the other support MOSs..."

When Sustainment troops are in the field do they not take weapons and gas masks? Why can't we stop before chow and don the mask and assume a prone firing position? Like a football contact drill? When I played football the coach would say "Hit it!" and we would start running in place and be ready to do belly flop or hit the tackling sled....In Airborne school we snap into a tight body position to eliminate the surface area of the wind to spin you around upon aircraft exit....

I know our maintenance troops didn't take weapons and masks to the field....yet peacekeeping is far from a benign environment...

"..maybe combat troops can withstand this and come out okay,"

Maybe its because its ingrained in us more? Just guessing. I learned how to don a mask in 1981 and never forgot. What's the problem here? Maybe we never explain to our men HOW THE MASK WORKS? Once you understand you will always know roughly what to do..in this case stop breathing, get the mask on, use your last breath to force out the bad air, seal check the mask and start breathing again.

"...but it doesn't work that way with support troops..."

I think its because they are called "support" troops....they are RIFLEMEN and SOLDIERS first, perhaps we need to do a better job of ingraining his self-preservation instinct? Not by S/M recruit training but by flat out telling the men? And being actical in everything we do...but that's the problem Americans want to look cool and non-chalant....we don't we to be seen sweating or if we are lower life form "Support" troops we are not allowed "authorized" to be HOOAH! etc etc ad nauseum....

"...this will become an even greater problem once we do see the day of the AIRMECH Army..."

If we have our way there will not be any REMFs or even situations where one could be called one.

"While it is important for us to support democracy wherever it lies, we must also realize that logistics is our weakest link and these excursions throughout the globe put a tremendous strain on that... we don't have the equipment or the personnel to handle these missions"

Then we need to get it.

"...and fielding new equipment to a deployed unit in action is not a realistic option... it sucks doing it in garrison, now we're going to do it with bits and pieces of units scattered all over the planet?"

Your alternative>? wait til we go to war and find out our gear is obsolete?

"First, we need to take a step back from the global cop role..."

How much? To the point of bringing on a war?

"Second, we need to establish a realistic vision for our armed forces, the AIRMECH concept is a helluva good start, but even you have to admit that it needs some fine tuning before its implemented..."

Peacekeeping would be a part of that realistic vision. War is NOT a great event.

"Third we need to field it as rapidly as is possible."

We are writing a book and have a plan to do this by changing just battalions within existing Brigades instead of starting from scratch and building expensive Brigades using new equipment.

"Once this is done, then we can effectively play the role desired here..."

That role in peacekeeping and warfighting. Your toils in world dung heaps has NOT been in vain!

"You like to quote Sun Tzu in your articles... Let's not forget the part about knowing ones self as well as knowing the enemy..."

We will abide by this!

"Our biggest weakness is our logistics... Let's not blow our foot off entirely before the enemy even decides to lock and load..."

We realize the enemy will attack our logistics and not combat troops..I think we embed that argument in everything we write!!!

Americans are lazy.

Let's not forget this.

I have known columnist, and retired U.S.Army Colonel, David Hackworth since 1968 when we both served a short tour in the Pentagon as relatively junior field grade officers. We both departed that assignment to return for another combat tour in Vietnam. Our paths have not crossed since that time as our careers took different directions. Dave Hackworth left Vietnam under a dark cloud of pending multiple criminal charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Those charges were not drawn up lightly, however the senior officer handling the charges was reluctant to press the issues because of Hackworth's superb combat record. The Army leadership at the time allowed Hackworth to retire in lieu of charges. Hackworth retired from the Army and moved to Australia for the next 18 or so years. On his departure from active duty he publicly blasted the country's Senior leadership from the president on down, and was especially hard on the Army's military leaders concerning their handling of the war. This got wide spread news and TV coverage at the time. As we have learned in recent years, based on several outstanding books, many of our senior leaders were truly derelict in their duty. Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, and retired General Maxwell Taylor are just a few of the key players in this sordid era of poor American leadership. In 1989, after the statue of limitations on the charges against him had run out, Hackworth returned to the USA and wrote a best selling book and later became widely acclaimed columnist. He also has a well known web-site on the internet that cast a wide net over our military forces of all ranks. He is well wired, to say the least, with the junior military. Senior officers deal with him at their own risk, usually sad and sorry afterwards.

In his recent column, "TROOPS DON'T HAVE FAITH IN BIG BRASS", which was published on 26 Jan 2000 [HTML Editors Note: The date varies by which paper publishes the article, Hackworths date is different], he finally tripped my trigger with his broad damnation of our military leadership. He collectively damns all Generals and Admirals with a broad brush of gross incompetence and self promotion. In his own way, he breeds a lack of trust in our nation's most respected institution, our military forces. He does a great disservice to the American public, your readers and to our military.

He needs to zero in on the few bad folks with a sniper's rifle and quit using area fire on everyone.

There are a few poor leaders in our military hierarchy, but in the main, they are as fine a bunch of men and women as you can find anywhere. For 30 years I was a Soldier, and during my last 6 years I was a General Officer. Many of my best friends are serving and retired General Officers. 40 members of my West Point class (1956) are retired General Officers, to include Norm Schwarzkopf. I do not know a more honorable group of men. I maintain contact with a wide circle of senior and junior officers serving our country today, from Lieutenant to General Officer.

The Army, and our other services, have problems, some major problems, but there is no gross lack of professional competence, or reluctance to stand and be counted on the tough issues by the senior leaders.

Hackworth's suggestion that senior officers should retire when they do not like the orders they are given, contradicts the very essence of military discipline. Officers, and all leaders, are taught to argue and discuss until the decision has been made, then to execute the order as if it were their own. During my day I had junior officers argue vehemently for a specific course of action only to be told at decision time to get on with it. At all grades, I believed it was my duty to present alternative ideas and thoughts to my seniors. But when the decision was made, I moved out smartly.

When commissioned, an officer swears "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The Constitution clearly states that our President is our Commander in Chief. Military leaders follow the orders of the people appointed by the Commander in Chief whether they like them, or the orders they give them. There no room for quibbling, or slack, in this basic American document regarding military discipline.

An officer has the option at any given time of resigning his/her commission should they disagree strongly with a senior's decision. This option is rarely used and is easily uttered by those who do not have to take the action. Recently, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Ron Fogelman, took this action because he had a major disagreement with his civilian bosses regarding actions taken against one of his officers. There are many other less publicly well known instances where this has taken place over matters of conscience and principle.

Public disagreement with your superiors while on active duty is not conducive to good order and discipline. It is often done by our senior officers under questioning by our congressional leadership. Quite often the congressional leaders are tipped off by their staffs regarding the right questions to ask the military. One does not routinely question the orders of ones superiors, and certainly not in a public forum. It is called loyalty. Not blind loyalty, but following orders when the decision has been made.

Today there is much unhappiness in our military about the lack of integrity of our serving President. There is little enthusiasm for the multitude of peacekeeping missions they perform. Yet the military leaders continue to perform their duties and follow the orders given. No one liked the missions in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and most recently Kosovo. The military leaders argued their case, lost the argument and were told to execute. They have done what they were told to do in good spirit and with dedication to duty. Anything less is disloyal.

Dave Hackworth never made it to General Officer rank. There are many reasons for this, in spite of his many combat decorations. His gross lack of integrity during his last days in Vietnam and in the Army was not his finest hour. Since that time he has achieved more than his 15 minutes of fame and has a wide reading audience across America. Quite often he performs a great service to our military and the public with factual columns. His personal hang up on the poor quality of all Senior Military leaders is totally wrong headed. It sells to the movie and TV folks, a lot of junior Soldiers, and the masses of unknowing readers, but it is absolutely wrong.

I, and most of my friends, could routinely take up pen and contest his bad assertions weekly. It would not change his direction of writing and he would love the controversy. He pushed me too far this week and he may do it again. Until next time, take it from a well decorated retired Army General Officer and life long Soldier-------Hackworth needs to be believed about 50% of the time and highly suspected the other 50% of the time.

John C. "Doc" Bahnsen
Brigadier General, U.S. Army (Ret)
New Cumberland, WV
304-387-2199

Note: "Doc" Bahnsen served with the 11th Armored Cav in Vietnam. He can be reached at docbahnsen@juno.com

2005 Editor's note: Peacekeeping is hard for today's garrison military because they do not see the need for things unless Pearl Harbor hits them over the head. And 9/11 wasn't a wake up call to adapt to 4GW? We can't afford this. Since our Army's OPTEMPO is too high, its time cut out the BS fat and get rid of the current trash talk, do-nothing 172,000 man/woman obsolete from-the-sea-killed-by-space satellites-and-missiles marine corps and get more trigger pullers in tracks. That alone would save us $9 BILLION each year.

AIRBORNE!

E-mail 1st TSG (A)

RETURN TO AES HOME