Incorrect

[Anonymous]

I got this e-mail from an army buddy and thought I would share.

Subject: Politically incorrect
>Subject: Gen. Hawley's pol. incorrect MUST READ!
>
>For those who don't know General Hawley, he's a newly retired USAF 4-star
>general. He commanded the USAF Air Combat Command [our front-line fighters
>and bombers]. The Command headquarters is at Langley AFB, VA. General
>Hawley is now retired and no longer required to be politically correct. His
>short speech is very much to the point. The following are excerpts:
>"Since the attack [9-11], I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such
>surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too.
>Here they are:
>1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative." Listen
>carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me
>now and free yourselves. You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean,
>"We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the
>ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our country has, with
>all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be the greatest
>beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you
>need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens.
>2) "Violence only leads to more violence." This one is so stupid you
>usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it.
>Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already:
>Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky,
>half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully
>thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more
>violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's
>right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the
>bosom of love." Dead. D-E-Well, you get the idea.
>3) "The CIA and the rest of our intelligence community have failed us."
>For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground,
>and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting
>us. Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield
>Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best
>way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites. "After
>all, (they reasoned,) you can see a license plate from 200 miles away."
>This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate.
>Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans. Finding humans is not possible
>with satellites. You have to use other humans. When we bought all our
>satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part. It
>takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the
>world. You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring
>Break '93 sweatshi rt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say
>"Hiya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella. "Well,
>you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll be
>telling for years.
>4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at
>us."
>Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate
>cry for help. The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John
>and, ironically, a good deal less annoying. The poor helpless people, you
>see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power.
>Mohammed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the
>killing grounds is the son of a Cairo surgeon. But you knew this, too. In
>the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were
>upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of
>to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking. It's the
>same today.
>5) "Any profiling is racial profiling." Who's killing us here, the
>Norwegians? Just days after the attack, the New York Times had an article
>saying dozens of extended members of the gazillionaire bin Laden family
>living in America were afraid of reprisals and left in a huff, never to
>return to studying at Harvard and using too much Drakkar. I'm crushed.
>Please come back. Let's all stop singing "We Are the World" for a minute
>and think practically. I don't want to be sitting on the floor in the back
>of a plane four seconds away from hitting Mt. Rushmore and turn, grinning,
>to the guy next to me to say, "Well, at least we didn't offend them."
>
>SO HERE'S what I resolve for the New Year: Never to forget our murdered
>brothers and sisters. Never to let the relativists get away with their
>immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political
>science professor says, we didn't start this. Have you seen that bumper
>sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"? I wish I had one that says, "No
>More Pearl Harbors."
>THIS NEEDS TO STAY IN CIRCULATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE , & WILL FALL FOR THE
>STUPIDITY GOING AROUND. PLEASE PASS IT ON!
>
>
>GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS
>MEN AND WOMEN
>WERE EVER THEY
>MAY BE.

[PherdnutChiken]

Lotsa good stuff in there mixed in with some downright scary stuff.

[DirtPoorChiken]

The saddest thing about that article is that we use to have Generals that could say that while in command. Patton anyone? Macarthur?

I think they should force this Gen. Hawley guy out of retirement and back into command.

[Anonymous]

Patton was a bumbling fool, but MacArthur was a highly intelligent marauder with some command skills. I say give Hawley back his command only if he's the first one in. I support profiling and preemptive measures, but do not support false vengeance. It would make a lot more sense to just go back to MacArthur's way of handling things instead of continuing the lies in order to try and backwash a mistake that was made 15 years ago.

Kill em all, but do it with a smile and keen sense of why you are killing them.

Your good generals don't turn in huge numbers of casualties.

General Patton turned in huge losses time and time again.

[BasT]

Kill em all, but do it with a smile and keen sense of why you are killing them.

Your good generals don't turn in huge losses of men.

General Patton turned in huge losses time and time again.

i find people go against the war when poeple start to die, its like fighting a bully and when you get a bloodied nose run away and cry
WAR = losses priod,
as MacArthur said how much losses depends on the people and the commanders on the operation

[Anonymous]

I didn't say I was against war, just false vengeance. I was a Nurse Officer in the US Army, saying that I'm anti-military is like saying that the Irish are a sober lot.

[GuerillaChiken]

but MacArthur was a highly intelligent marauder with some command skills.

Actually Mac was not a very good general in the tactical/strategic point of view. What makes this true is the Invasion of N. Korea, after Inchon of course. Mac sent many American troops to their death when it was not necessary.

America has had very few truly great military commanders, and none in recent memory. The two best are Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson (who was a confederate unfortunately), whom many scholars and military would have won the war for the South if his leaders had listened to him. The second was Sherman, his racist qualities aside, whose campaign punished the south for not listening to Jackson!

Hawley pretty much destroys the Cultural Relativist argument that has infected our society, especially our post secondary educational system.

I would like to add to his third point though, that in the intelligence community you (the public in general) only hear about the mistakes, as the successes must always be kept secret.

[Anonymous]

You forgot a few qualified leaderz from the Civil War era, and would have never known that InnocentChiken iz the great (however many greatz) niece of Stonewall.

Milton Wiley Humphreys, great strategist, but not a general, served on the general staff of Lee, but did not have a hand in Gettysburg due to an illness.

MacArthur waz responsible for "island hopping," which at it'z time waz revolutionary. Inchon waz a gamble on MacArthur'z part, and, an effective one in termz of the goal he waz trying to accomplish.

Guerilla, you're going to end up having a philosophical debate with 2 women who are both major history buffz. Innocent'z specialty iz from prior to the civil war and mine iz just the civil war.

[Anonymous]

Ohh yeah, well I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former room-mate.

[PherdnutChiken]

Well, I get the impression 'Rilla can hold his own where history of warfare is concerned but damn... you ladies just got ten times sexier than you already were.

Wasn't Macky's pushing too close to China considered a bit of a "bumble" during the Korean war though?

That and I had the impression that Schwarzkopf's handling of the first Iraq war was held in pretty high regards even if we did have a vastly superior force.

[Anonymous]

Actually, no. In termz of the political side of the war, hiz brushez with china were unwarranted and dangerous. However, he waz fighting Chineze forcez who had crossed over into Korea, and waz already at a state of undeclared war with the country. I don't see how driving them back to their own borderz would be a bauble.

Let'z remember that the reazon that MacArthur waz fired waz hiz lack of respect for the 38th parallel deadline. A lot of military strategistz agree that stopping at that parallel instead of continuing the advance waz costly in termz of men. If you bring the argument that the Russianz would have been involved had we gone north, then let it be known that Russian pilotz were fighting us with Mig aircraft throughout the course of that war. They were involved! Now North Korea iz less humane and a larger threat to world peace than Iraq could have dreamed of being.

Schwarzkopf'z handling of the Gulf War waz professional and efficient. Once again, the blunder waz a political one, in stopping short of removing the regime when the war waz in action in the first place. That allowed the reign of terror to continue, albeit on fewer people than if we had not had Operation Desert Storm.

When looking to military history, it iz vastly important that we also look at the political history of each event with our eyez wide open to the pressure that political leaderz put on the military commanderz to incorporate electioneering through military force. Political correctness haz alwayz been something which waz forced upon our generalz, and will continue to be, az long az we have the current form of government where a civilian iz the supreme commander of the military.

The precedentz are set in this arena:

Washington -- Supreme Commander Revolutionary War
Grant -- Civil War
Eisenhower -- ETO Allied Commander

MacArthur ran for prezident az well but couldn't campaign becuz he waz buzy fighting a war at the time.

Political leaderz win electionz by either claiming the victoriez of their military leaderz or by chastizing them. Military leaderz win electionz by promising something other than political bumbling. To blame MacArthur for Truman'z shortsightedness iz part of the same game.

I do not mean to suggest that we should have a military government, just that this iz something we should see and understand.

[DirtPoorChiken]

Patton was a bumbling fool

General Patton turned in huge losses time and time again.

I respect your opinion but I completely disagree with you. Patton was one of the most important generals of WWII (if not the most). If not for him D-Day would/could have turned out very different. It was Pattons unbeatable 1st Army (a unit that did not really even exist) that kept the Germans pinned at Pas de Calais. The Germans where so convinced that Patton was coming to kick their butt, that even after the invasion force at Normany broke out the Germans stayed at Pas de Calais. You have to keep in mind in the process of turning in "huge losses" the Third Army reclaimed more territory faster, killed, wounded, or captured more of the enemy than any other army in the history of man (at least up until that point). He was the driving force behind the tank corp (from inception) (which is why he has a tank named after him while he was commanding unlike others who get something named after them later on.

He may have made some unpopular decisions but he got the job done (very well) and was definately not a bumbling fool.

I will talk WWII all day :D I know the Civil War pretty well but I cannot call anyone that lines their troops up in a row to shoot at each other a great anything regardless if it was the style at the time or not. Even the colonists during the start of the revolutionary war where smart enough to hide behind something and shoot :D

[Anonymous]

Then sir, you don't know the civil war very well. At little round top the union soldierz were spread along a thin line at the crest of the hill behind some timberz. The confederatez were approaching them through the woodz below and had to climb over large boulderz to advance, but were hiding behind thoze boulderz. Just an example, but one of the real truth of the Civil War.

Pickett'z Charge waz a military blunder by an officer who waz not highly intelligent.

Now, let'z talk Patton. Let'z talk Sicily.

Patton went through Sicily in a race with "Monty" to capture the main port city on the northeastern corner of the island. Meanwhile, General Bradley waz fighting along the northern coast of the island, trying to advance toward the city himself. Patton waz instructed to coordinate with Bradley, making a rear action so that both he and Bradley would have an eazier time making it to that port. However, since Eizenhower had given Bradley the more fortified route to the city, and Patton waz in hiz race, Patton did nothing to alleviate the pressure on Bradley.

This move needlessly sacrificed thouzandz of American soldierz in that fight. All for what? Ego.

Later in the war, there waz a famous picture of Patton on the front linez commanding hiz troopz. That picture waz taken 20 milez from the front linez. Stage job anyone?

Patton wazn't good, he had good PR. There iz a major difference. He waz nothing more than Custer without a last stand.

Oh, the 101st Airborne didn't need rescued at Bastogne. By the time Patton got there they were well supplied. When that Patton did arrive, hiz army rested shortly in Bastogne while the 101st made the push westward and took 5 major townz before getting a small reprieve from being on the front linez.

Beyond this, Patton did not create the Tank Corps az an original idea. That waz simply an idea taken from Rommel, who, even if German, waz a great military leader.

Ego and skill are two completely different thingz.

[Anonymous]

By the way, the real reazon the invazion at Normandy worked iz becuz an allied spy waz captured a month prior to D-Day and met with Field Marshall Rommel. The spy waz captured in the area which waz to be the fake landing zone. Rommel conversed with the guy not about the landing, but about why they were soldierz. The spy said that he asked Rommel how he could be a German soldier with the thingz they are doing to the jewz. One week later Rommel met with the head of the conspiratorz which would attempt to kill Adolf Hitler.

He waz shot for being a conspirator.

[BasT]

Ohh yeah, well I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former room-mate.

spaceballs..... darth bush anyone?

[DirtPoorChiken]

Now, let'z talk Patton. Let'z talk Sicily.



Yeah let's talk Sicily. Patton's Seventh army did not get the respect they deserved from General Alexander (who was British). Politics it may have been but Patton didn't want to play second fiddle to the English (no offense to any Brits out there :D). Patton came up with the idea to flank Palermo from the west and lost less than 300 men taking the capital and most of the Island in one stroke (while capturing 53000+, not bad). and then had to bail Montgomerys butt out as well. Patton's style was always to keep advancing and not let the enemy have any breathing room and it worked over and over again. And yes many called it a race (that Patton won and his troops won :D ) but I think more importantly it showed that the American troops (most of them untested and green) could hang with the British and beat the Germans (and Italians...)

Mission Accomplished. This is what made the Germans (Including Rommel) respect Patton so much that they kept an eye on him thinking that any invasion from England would be lead by Patton.

As for Bastonge, the 101st did an excellent job and probably could have held for a lot longer but I bet you all the cookies and beer in your fridge that not one of the 101st was upset or disappointed when Pattons supplies and armor showed up to support them. You have to remember that Patton got the Third Army turned around and moving in less than two days which if you have any expereince with the Army is a miracle in itself.

[GuerillaChiken]

Graceful wrote:
MacArthur waz responsible for "island hopping," which at it'z time waz revolutionary. Inchon waz a gamble on MacArthur'z part, and, an effective one in termz of the goal he waz trying to accomplish.

Island hopping was a solution to an obvious problem. Actually Columbus did quite a bit of "Island Hopping" to slaughter the natives. And many would disagree that it was Mac's idea alone. But Inchon was pretty much Mac's idea, though it was a long shot, it took quite a bit of wrangling to get the Joint Chiefs to join up.

Graceful wrote:
The spy waz captured in the area which waz to be the fake landing zone.

Actually, wasn't it an operation by British intelligence to create a fake British intelligence officer plant his body off the coast of Spain with the Allied invasion plan that named a false invasion point? I remember a History Channel special about that.

Dirt Poor wrote:
I know the Civil War pretty well but I cannot call anyone that lines their troops up in a row to shoot at each other a great anything regardless if it was the style at the time or not. Even the colonists during the start of the revolutionary war where smart enough to hide behind something and shoot

Actually DP, in the Civil War we see the actual introduction of trench warfare, not in the Great War as most believe. Many people see the Civil War as the end of the "cult of the offensive" except Europe was late at realizing it, hence the heavy losses of WWI.

Graceful wrote:
Actually, no. In termz of the political side of the war, hiz brushez with china were unwarranted and dangerous. However, he waz fighting Chineze forcez who had crossed over into Korea, and waz already at a state of undeclared war with the country. I don't see how driving them back to their own borderz would be a bauble.

There is disagreement as to when the Chinese actually crossed the border into N. Korea. Some believe that they did it before UN forces moved North across the 38th, others suggest that it was after. Mac can be blamed for the assaults North before engaging Chinese soldiers, when he ordered frontal assaults on heavily defended mountain positions. Though they were victorious assaults, victory could have been achieved by bypassing these positions making them untenable.

I'll stop here and take a breath....

[GuerillaChiken]

To continue the discussion on Mac, talking of political scope, this is wear Mac failed. He underestimated the desire of the Chinese to keep a buffer between the now Western looking Japanese. A unified and pro western Korea was not an option for the Chinese. Though this does not fall entirely on Mac's shoulders it does add to his mistakes in the invasion of the North, diminishing his stance as a great "captain of men"


Hmm.. I guess that is all I wanted to comment on now....
OH!

Pherd wrote:
Well, I get the impression 'Rilla can hold his own where history of warfare is concerned but damn...

LOL I fookin better be able to I am getting my Master's in it!

Pherd wrote again:
you ladies just got ten times sexier than you already were.

Ain't that the truth.... :assshaking:

Innocent you would happen to be a Daughter of the Confederacy would you?


BAWK!!!!

[Anonymous]

Yes, but I cheated. I used an adoption in the family to link myself, and not through Thomas Jackson's family. I had to go a different route because I couldn't prove that lineage satisfactorily (birth/death certificates required). I was born in France. :(

[DirtPoorChiken]

Graceful wrote:
[quote]Actually DP, in the Civil War we see the actual introduction of trench warfare, not in the Great War as most believe. Many people see the Civil War as the end of the "cult of the offensive" except Europe was late at realizing it, hence the heavy losses of WWI.


Pitting two static defenses against each other is a sure fire way of getting a really high body count which I guess is why more Americans died in that war than in all the wars since combined.

[Papa Theif]

Actually one of the reasons casualties were so high in the Civil War was lack of medical assistance. Not to mention the medical assistance that was there often killed you as saved you. The ration was something like every 1 doctor there was 100 wounded.

Shot ball usually didn't shoot clean through a person, so you had lead poisoning. If it hit bone, it shattered the bone and little chunks dug into your flesh. Then gangreen set in and if the body part wasn't amputated; you were dead.

[GuerillaChiken]

Oh, medical science hadn't changed much from the Medieval times, except, I think it might have gotten worse...CHOP, SAW, SEW ewwwww.

I wrote a paper at the Univ. about the changes in warfare from about the time or before the Civil War in the US to the Great War. Mostly it was about how the changes in technology shifted the balance of power to the defense from the offense.
Rifles, Machine guns, improvement in artillery gave the static defense a huge advantage over the periods Offensive weapons, cavalry and infantry charges/maneuvers. Cept for the Europeans, who were used to short campaigns, a few months at most, these changes weren't noticed, hence the slaughter of the Great War. Then toward the end of the war, you have advanced tactics being used by German infantry, then the introduction of tanks, and to a lesser extent aircraft. These new changes, though having a somewhat limited effect on that War, would be seen in future wars, giving the advantage back to the Offensive. Once again...the French, English, Americans, and Russians don't notice this change until later, and pay for it dearly.

[Anonymous]

Some did. This iz why the Japaneze feared MacArthur the same way the Germanz feared Patton.

MacArthur retreated to Australia when he fled Manilla. The Japaneze high command knew that they could not mount an offensive on Australia for a while, but were preparing for it. Their main concern waz that MacArthur would attack before they were ready to attack him. This waz true and the battle for Australia waz fought on MacArthur'z termz, giving him a great victory and starting the Island Hopping offensive.

However, the fight in North Africa had different twistz. At a time when Rommel waz made to return to Berlin for "rest" and the Afrika Corps waz given a new commander who did not seek the initiative in such a manner, the British turned and made their stand at El Alamein, which waz a good spot for defending against the tankz that were part of the Afrika Corps.

Becauze they had chozen their defensive spot wizely, and becauze the Afrika Corps waz not receiving the proper suppliez and did not have the initiative, the gamble worked and the defensive stance gave the initiative to the allied forcez.

At the Alamo, a very important lesson waz learned for the period by the Texans. When faced by numberz so vastly superior, it iz important to chooze your spotz and fight offensively. You could call this a guerilla style of fighting, but Houston didn't catch on to that point.

Houston choze hiz spot and stole the initiative from the Mexicanz, routing a vastly superior army (even if their musketz weren't nearly az good az ourz) in 20 minutez.

All this sayz is that time and time again, no matter the technology, tacticz have proven to be able to overcome the situation. Adaptation iz required.

MacArthur fought the idea of the 38th Parallel so fiercely not becauze he didn't think the Chineze would fight him, which they already were, but becauze he did not want to hand the North Koreanz the initiative. He understood very clearly that the initiative iz one of the keyz to the victory of any army.

He suffered great lossez defending at the deadfall becauze he waz stretched out along a thin line that he could not let the enemy cross and that the enemy knew he would not cross. The enemy simply backed up after each battle and hit hiz thin linez elsewhere, which gave them distinct advantagez until the time when the US could group up and be able to defend that pozition. He would then back up and strike somewhere else once the US linez thinned themselvez back out.

The same thing waz happening in Viet Nam. There were no battle linez and the Viet Cong were uzing the border with Cambodia to be able to chooze their spotz and hold the initiative. We did not have superior intelligence becauze there were Viet Cong mixed in with the general population giving the enemy exact troop dispozitionz, allowing the Viet Cong to uze guerilla warfare very well.

This meant that even though the US won every major battle of that war, they were never able to hold the initiative, giving the advantage to the Viet Cong.

Rommel waz stationed in Paris prior to D-Day, and waz or certain that the allied invazion would defeat any defensez he built becauze hiz army would not have the initiative in that battle. He pled with German high command for more troopz and suppliez, but knew that no matter which landing spot the alliez uzed, and becauze he could only cover one or the other with a halfway satisfactory force, German forcez were doomed to failure.

[GuerillaChiken]

Graceful wrote:
MacArthur fought the idea of the 38th Parallel so fiercely not becauze he didn't think the Chineze would fight him, which they already were, but becauze he did not want to hand the North Koreanz the initiative. He understood very clearly that the initiative iz one of the keyz to the victory of any army.


Mac, by ordering frontal assaults while he had the mobile capability did give the initiative to the NKs, or at the very least gave it up. And he did have the capability and the option to bypass these fortifications in more effective assault. His superiors saw this but b/c of his success at Inchon were unwilling to challenge him again. This makes him an arrogant and blind commander. While bleeding his men against heavily defended high ground, he gave the enemy a better chance at victory.

[DirtPoorChiken]

Let’s face it though, both Germany (twice WWI, WWII) and the Confederacy both lost for the same simple reason… Heavy industry. The North had it in the Civil war, and America had in both world wars. With almost unlimited resources and factories that where basically untouchable it was only a matter of time. Hitler knew it, Lee knew it, Rommel Knew it, Yamamato knew it… Talk about living in denial… :D

Ok I have degenerated into a “The USA kicks ass” speech. :D

[AddictChiken]

That is an essential element, one we certainly see reflected in succesful tactics in the RTS games we play.

[GuerillaChiken]

DP Wrote:
The North had it in the Civil war,

The south early in the war, had far superior rifleman and generals, but the highest leadership would not set its best dog loose on the North. There is a statistic that Southern riflemen were more accurate by a factor of 2 to 1, forgive me for not having the source, I can find it if you like. Jeff Davis and his highest Generals insisted on defending Richmond, while Stonewall Jackson insisted that he could defeat the North in one attack to the North. Even anti-confederate historians believe this to be true. The North lacked the imagination early in the war to defend against a well thought out attack. But you are right, the nature of Northern existence, Industrial/Immigrant , vs that of the Southern existence, Slavery/Agriculture ensured that the North would win a prolonged war. But it is important to remember the conflicts of the time were fairly short. European campaigns lasted only a few months or weeks, hell even days. Industry was irrelevant in most of these combats. Superior tactics and grande strategy and tenacious courage gave peeps like the Prussians incredibly easy victories.

BAWK!

[DirtPoorChiken]

Well another issue that severely hamstringed the south was that they did not want to take over the North. They just wanted independence from the Union. It is much easier to kill someone than to convince them to leave you alone. I think that the leaders of the confederacy had it in their mind that if the bloodied the North bad enough, often enough, that Lincoln would sue for peace and there would just be two countries.

Of course that is probably just my take on it, and let's face it what the hell do I know :D

[Incantation]

ever watch the movie Gods and Generals?

[bonnet|chiken]

Gracefull, your argument though well structured misses one key fact that you may have failed to overlook. Having a much too large ego does not subtract from your ability as a general. It may make you perform some critical attempts, but his tactics and strategys where ingenuos. Pattin was smaart and created many of the idoms by which the modenr military resides. Just for a recent one, "Let the enemy worry about his flank's"

[GuerillaChiken]

DP, you are absolutely right, but "independence" isn't all they wanted. They wanted the continuation of slavery, "states rights" was hardly an issue, I can provide a source for that if you like. My argument about Jackson still fits into that analysis though. Jackson, being a superior military leader, saw the need to break the enemy on his own turf rather than hunker down and wait for the onslaught.

bonnet: Mac's ego got him fired, not too effective a leader from the sidelines. Mac's ego kept him from executing the invasion of NK properly, and cost many thousands of UN soldiers lives.