Shove Hackworth up the wingers ass when they demean Kerry's

[fishface]

purple hearts.

The meaning of a Purple Heart
By David H. Hackworth
The patrol boat slipped quietly up the canal until the eerie silence was suddenly shattered by enemy automatic-weapon fire from both heavily vegetated riverbanks. The U.S. Navy crew instantly responded with a barrage of machine-gun, mortar and grenade-launcher fire while I looked for cover.
But I was in South Vietnam's Mekong Delta, stuck on the deck of the ultimate moving target, and there was no place to hide. The only protection I had from the singing slugs was my paper-thin U.S. Army jungle-fatigue jacket.

Soon, U.S. Navy helicopter gunships were hosing down the Viet Cong, who were dug in no more than 100 yards from us. Then we continued our surreal surf upstream through the miasma of cordite and smoke.

A Navy petty officer asked, "How's it going, colonel?"

"I gotta tell you, chief, this isn't my bag," I responded.

"What just happened is pretty much standard down here, sir," he replied. "Welcome to the Brown Water Navy."

This Apocalypse Now-type vignette took place in 1970, when I was running the advisory side of the 44th Special Zone. Along with primarily U.S. Army Special Forces and South Vietnamese Ranger units, a number of Brown Water naval units also fell under my control. Our combined job was to cut off the movement of communist troops and supplies out of Cambodia.

Staying close to troops

Since it was always my standard drill as a commander to stay in close touch with what was going down, I spent a lot of time in the boonies with the troops under my control. But during that year, I did the small-boat thing only twice. Why? Because as an infantry grunt, I simply didn't like the odds. And since those hair-raising trips, my steel pot has always been off to those sailors.

Now a number of war veterans have picked the campaign-stumping season to question the first Purple Heart that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry received during his four months as a small-boat skipper — where one day out on Vietnam's rivers and canals was a lifetime, and four months had to have been an eternity.

That Purple Heart was one of three awarded to Kerry. (He also won Silver and Bronze stars.) His critics — who incidentally never served under Kerry on his swift boat — are saying his particular wound wasn't serious enough to warrant the award.

But the Pentagon regulation governing the Purple Heart reads: "A wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy."

So — minor or major — a wound is a wound.

Does that fact cheapen the value of the medal? During the ongoing conflict in Iraq, several U.S. military grunts have complained to me that while their bravery has gone generally unrecognized, the awards system has been unfairly tipped in favor of officers. In fact, I've written about an Army general who put himself in for a Silver Star merely for being in Iraq. And an Air Force bomber crew received the Distinguished Flying Cross for dropping a bomb from 30,000 feet onto a home where Saddam Hussein was believed to be hiding.

More recently, plans to award Bronze Stars to the Army's 800th Military Police Brigade were dropped after a report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba and photographs were released about prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

The awards system has always been fraught with abuse, but for anyone who has ever served in combat, the difference between earning a Purple Heart and death is, indeed, very slim.

Former Navy doctor Louis Letson clearly recalls treating Kerry and removing a small piece of metal from his arm with forceps, bandaging that wound and returning him to duty. And when Kerry was hit, he was certainly engaged with the enemy and in harm's way.

In fact, if the fragment Letson removed had been slightly larger and struck the lieutenant between the eyes, Kerry's award would no longer be a current-events issue — since he'd be planted in Arlington National Cemetery instead of campaigning to be the next occupant of the Oval Office nearby.

Medals were prized

Reports say Kerry was an aloof, gung-ho, super-ambitious, young stud whose eye was already on the White House and whose role model was Navy war hero Jack Kennedy. Like a lot of soldiers and sailors who valiantly served in Vietnam, he was eager to come home, but probably just as eager to scoop up the golden gongs that came his way. It's also worth noting that medals for officers were especially prized as magic steppingstones that could help propel the recipients onward and upward.

Under the circumstances, it wouldn't have made sense for Kerry to ask his commander to rescind the automatic orders for a Purple Heart — our country's first decoration. (It was instituted in 1782 and awarded originally only for bravery in combat. Subsequently, it was changed to honor our wounded and dead.)

On an earlier tour in Vietnam, one of my gallant soldiers, a draftee named Don Wallace, picked up seven Purple Hearts in less than a year without ever being hospitalized. Most of "Ole Magnet Butt's" wounds were easily patched up by "Doc" Holley, our battalion surgeon. But any one of them could have shut off his lights forever.

Jerry Sullivan, another trooper in the same "Hardcore Battalion," was wounded just once. He spent five years in hospitals and still lives in agony.

Whose Purple Hearts were more deserved? Should Wallace have measured his hits and turned down Purple Hearts for his smaller wounds? I don't think so.

But I do think that Kerry's Purple Heart wouldn't be considered problematic if he weren't a presidential candidate. The grousers, to a man, seem to be simply passing on secondhand bilge that they ought to stow in their sea bags and lay off.

The Purple Heart deserves less petty quantifying and more respect.

No one should play politics with any warrior's wounds.

David H. Hackworth, a retired U.S. Army colonel, is a King Features syndicated columnist and author of the recent best seller about Vietnam, Steel My Soldiers' Hearts. He was awarded eight Purple Hearts during 26 years as a soldier.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-15-hackman_x.htm

[AspenRose]

1. I am confused

Wasn't Hackworth a RW radio shill?

[fishface]

2. No..Hackworth is a veterans advocate.

He'll take on anyone that screws with the troops or the vets, no matter what party. He's called Bush a liar and Rumsfeld an arrogant asshole.

[Hoping4Change]

9. You gotta check out Soldiers for the Truth web-site.

From Salon


Hackworth was everywhere on cable television during the first days of the war, when early military setbacks convinced him and other retired military leaders that the administration, whose backers sold the conflict as a "cakewalk," hadn't sent enough troops to quell Iraqi resistance. He wrote a widely quoted column headlined "Stuck in the quicksand" in early April -- just as the tide seemed to turn and the pace of victory picked up again. Though he is a colonel by rank, Hackworth was counted among the so-called "television generals" the administration blasted after Baghdad fell, and many conservative admirers turned against him.

But now, with American soldiers still dying almost daily in Iraq, the tide of opinion may be turning again, in favor of Hackworth's argument that the administration was unprepared for what's turning out to be a long-term guerrilla resistance in Iraq. Today the primary front of Hackworth's war of opinion isn't cable television, but a pair of Web sites -- Soldiers for the Truth and his own site, Hackworth.com -- where he's campaigning to document the dire fate of U.S. troops in Iraq. The sites have quickly become a repository for the gripes and fears of America's beleaguered combat troops.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/04/hackworth/index_np.html


http://www.sftt.org/

[arbusto_baboso]

3. I love Hack!

Yeah, I know his politics aren't what most on this board would agree with.

But he's never afraid to cry "Bullshit!" to the Pentagon, and provide a counterpoint to all the happy-crappy talk about how "easy" certain things are going to be militarily.

He truly cares about soldiers.

[fishface]

4. You must have loved this article he wrote.

What would you tell Rumsfeld if you could talk to him?

In mid April, I wrote a piece that asks for Rumsfeld to be fired, to be relieved. I took enormous heat for that. He went in light, on the cheap, he has misunderstood the whole war, he should go ... Rumsfeld is an arrogant asshole. That's a quote, by the way.


American troops in Iraq are complaining of basics like clean clothes, hot food and mail from home. Is there anything wrong with the Pentagon's famous supply chain?

This goes back to the shitty estimate on the part of Rumsfeld. He did not provide enough troops or the logistical backup, because his Army was not staying, it was coming home. So who needs a warehouse full of shit?

One letter I got today, written by a sergeant in a tank unit, said that of its 18 armored vehicles -- Bradley or Abrams -- only four are operational. The rest were down because of burned-out transmissions or the tracks eaten out. So it is not just the shitty food and bad water -- a soldier can live with short rations -- but spare parts, baby! If you don't have them, your weapons don't work. Most of the resupply is by wheeled vehicles, and the roads and terrain out there is gobbling up tires like you won't believe. Michelin's whole production for civilians has been stopped and have dedicated their entire production to the U.S. military in Iraq -- and they can't keep up!

"Soldiers are living in the dirt, with no mail, no phone, no contact with home, and no break from the daily monotony at all. I practically got in a fist fight with this captain over letting my private send an e-mail over his office's internet. This clown spends his days sending flowers to his wife and surfing the net. ####ing disgraceful and all too typical of today's Army."

"Soldiers get literally hundreds of flea or mosquito bites and they can't get cream or Benadryl to keep the damn things from itching ... .I am not talking about bringing in the steak and lobster every week. I am talking about basic health and safety issues that continue to be neglected by the Army."
"We did not receive a single piece of parts-support for our vehicles during the entire battle ... not a single repair part has made to our vehicles to date ... my unit had abandoned around 12 vehicles ... .I firmly believe that the conditions I just described contributed to the loss and injury of soldiers on the battlefield."

"We have done our job and have done it well, we have fulfilled our obligation to this operation, but we are still here and are still being mistreated and misled. When does it end? Do we continue to keep the liberators of Iraq here so they can continue to lose soldiers periodically to snipers and ambushes? My unit has been here since September and they have no light at the end of the tunnel. How many of my soldiers need to die before they realize that we have hit a wall?"

[arbusto_baboso]

6. I've never seen that article, thanks.

Damn, I knew things were bad, but shit!:scared:

[fishface]

7. This one is even more damning!

09-15-2003

Hack's Target

Time for Straight Talk





By David H. Hackworth



Recent polls reveal that 70 percent of Americans honestly believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 – a powerful testimony to Karl Rove and the neoconservative propaganda machine.



Connecting the dots where there aren’t any in order to pin the rap on Saddam is about as bent as ignoring Saudi Arabia’s very real involvement in 9/11. But that linkage just might inconvenience a bunch of crooked oil barons doing “bidnezz” with their porker pals in Washington.



The cold facts are that the destruction of the twin towers was carefully planned by the al-Qaeda gang led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi fundamentalist Muslim who would probably sooner form some sort of alliance with the state of Israel than join forces with Saddam, whom he’s always considered as corrupt an infidel as the rest of us. Count on it – no fingerprints from former top Iraqi leadership will ever be found tying Baghdad to 9/11.



Several years before that sad, calamitous September day, my wife and I moved from New York City to Connecticut. As a contributing editor for Newsweek who’s spent a fair amount of my life studying terrorism and insurgency, I could see a tsunami-grade terrorist attack coming as clearly as the cityscapes of the towers we used to seek out during early morning constitutionals. That is, until my fears finally convinced my wife that we should move to safer ground.



As I pumped grunt sources, read thousands of reports and slowly put the terrible puzzle together, all the arrows pointed toward our being whacked – just as the fall of Saigon seemed inevitable to me after comparing that bloody reality to the Nixon/Kissinger spin on how well the phony “peace with honor” Vietnamization program was going.



And as in Vietnam in 1971, I began sounding the alarm about this imminent new terrorist threat during well-attended speeches across America, as a talking head on hundreds of TV and radio shows and in this column. I even did a major piece for Maxim’s August 2000 issue called “World War III: Terrorism,” which outlined five possible scenarios Osama’s boys might use in five U.S. cities – including the Big Apple.



The general underwhelming reaction was: “Well, Hackworth's finally lost it, and he should fade away.”



Instead, I held my position and kept putting out the word while Eilhys and I built our house of bricks at a careful distance from what's now known as Ground Zero.



On the two-year anniversary of 9/11, both the hardliners within the administration and the chicken hawks on the airwaves are stubbornly continuing to blame the strikes on Saddam, painting his tyrannical regime as a major player in the Islamic fundamentalist jihad to maintain support for our gigantic misadventure in Iraq. It was the same sort of scare tactics the manipulators used during the Vietnam War when they kept asserting that a defeat there would be the key domino falling and we’d soon be defending the beaches of the West Coast from invading commies.



Once again, most Americans – including a lot of red-faced lawmakers – have fallen for the old Hitler trick: Tell a lie often enough and the people will believe it.



The losers are our soldiers still stuck in the sand, the scores of fallen warriors who were quietly buried from “sea to shining sea,” the hundreds of maimed who are maxing out our military hospitals, and the American taxpayers who’ll be laying out big bucks for a war against terrorism that has struck the wrong target.



And we’re talking another big win for Osama, who’s out there somewhere sucking the sweet Pakistani mountain air as he plots yet more genocide against an America whose homeland defenses – despite the billions of dollars blown – are perhaps only marginally better than pre-9/11.



The Bush administration has a responsibility to tell the American people the truth, not feed us more self-serving lies – now more than ever, since so many good folks are too busy looking for jobs to separate the cow mounds from the grass.



And the buck doesn’t stop there: We the people need to understand that if we aren’t vigilant and insistent on the truth, then we are one with the liars who got us into this mess in the first place.



The address of David Hackworth's home page is Hackworth.com. Sign in for the free weekly Defending America column at his Web site. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts.”

© 2003 David H. Hackworth.



http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=34&rnd=523.1613597003178

[arbusto_baboso]

8. So much for, "No one could have forseen 9/11"!

[Jack from Charlotte]

10. I read Hack's site several time per week.........

He's been all over The Bush crowd for not supporting the troops. Body armor, armor for Humvees, vet's benefit cuts..... you name it Hack's been screaming about this crowd.

Wonder why he's not on TV much anymore. Saw him all the time during Gulf War I.

[Wind Dancer]

5. He was the only person with the guts

to address the family of a soldier involved in the prison torture. He has my respect!

[mainer]

11. Hack doesn't care who the party in office is

He just cares about his soldiers. He had high praises for Wesley Clark, by the way. Neither RW nor LW, this is a man you can rely on to speak the truth as he sees it.

Interestingly enough, if you check out the message board on Soldiers for The Truth, you'll find a lot of rightwing shills there -- surprising that they should be posting on a site like that, while totally ignoring Hack's anti- Bush editorials on the home page.

[lebkuchen]

12. I sure would like to see him anywhere near Kerry

He would be the equivalent of Nancy Reagan of the Democratic Party as far as troops go. He's received thousands of letters from discontented soldiers in the Middle East.