You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front
Ex-Military Brass Criticize Strategy
2003-03-27
Since publicly questioning whether the Pentagon committed enough force to Iraq on NBC News, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said he's received waves of supportive e-mails from active and retired military people. Is it just me, or does he sound like Jimmy Stewart?
He also knows he's infuriated some top brass, and ignited a debate over the roles of the dozens of former officers now earning paychecks from media organizations to explain war to the uninitiated. They've become fixtures on television during the past week, standing over maps of Iraq with pointers, explaining military terminology and speculating about battle strategy. McCaffrey and former Desert Storm commander Norman Schwarzkopf have given NBC and MSNBC star power, with a deep bench including former nuclear weapons inspector David Kay. ABC News has recently retired experts like Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and Gen. Charles Horner. CBS has former NATO commander Gen. William "Buck" Kernan and Gen. Joseph Ralston. Gravel-voiced counterterrorist expert Lt. Col. Bill Cowan appears on Fox News Channel. CNN's prime-time star is former Gen. Wesley Clark, who directed NATO forces in Kosovo.
And want to be Prez.
"Every general who ever worked for me is now on some network commenting on the daily battle," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.
Guess it's more rewarding than shuffleboard to canasta. And I'll admit, if somebody offered me lotsa money, I'd rattle on for as long as they wanted, giving my opinion, whether I knew the details or not...
The combative McCaffrey, on the "Today" show on Tuesday, bristled when host Katie Couric referred to "armchair generals."
[Insert blonde joke here]
"Remember, Katie, I'm not an armchair general," he said. "I've had three combat tours and been wounded three times."
A similar cookie-cutter blonde — I think it was Cokie Roberts — was stoopid enough to try and take on Schwartzkopf the same way, while GWI was under way.
"Our primary loyalty is to the armed forces, there's no question — not to the channels we're with or the administration," McCaffrey said.
What was that about "Duty, Honor, Country"?
Yet some of the criticism has gotten under the skin of war supporters. Retired Rear Adm. Stephen Baker, who works at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington-based think tank, said the commentators shouldn't question the war plans. Ralston said he believes his role as a CBS analyst is to explain the issues but not give his opinions. The active-duty officials formulating the war plan are privy to more information than retired officers, he said. "I think it's being a little bit presumptuous to think we can sit here in an air-conditioned office with the limited amount of information we've got and make some pronouncements that General (Tommy) Franks is all screwed up on this and not doing it right," Ralston said. "I just think it's wrong."
And I agree with him, despite the fact that I occasionally thing Franks is doing something wrong...
Col. Jay DeFrank, director of press operations at the Department of Defense said he expects retired officials to have different points of view. "An informed debate is a foundation of democracy," he said.
Can't we put the platitudes on hold, just for a little while? They're all worn out by now...
In general, the retired officials perform a great service, he said. The Pentagon plainly doesn't object to having its friends explain things on TV. CBS' Kernan, who retired only last year, said he didn't consider becoming a television analyst until his friend, Iraq war commander Franks, suggested it.
Suggested it to Kernan, or CBS?
Clark said he doesn't measure his performance on whether he supports or opposes a particular Pentagon line. But how it plays in Iowa and New Hampshire. "It's possible to be objective and still be loyal to the people and organizations that you love," he said.
Yechhhh. Another platitude...
McCaffrey said his distance from the military — he's been retired for seven years — may give him an independence that more recent retirees lack. He didn't work on the current war plans and wasn't appointed to jobs by people who put them in place. Former U.S. Army Gen. John N. Abrams, an analyst for The Associated Press, said he considered McCaffrey a credible source. Abrams also believes that more personnel should have been committed to the war effort. "We've all been very supportive," Abrams said. "But I think there's a concern that's growing about how optimistic (the military's) assumptions were."
Franks isn't God, and I don't believe he's Schwartzkopf, either. But he's also the one with the access to the data on which to make the real decisions. The rest of us, whether it's the retired generals, the airheads like Katie, or Rantburg participants, have to make do with whatever other information's available. A body can be knowledgeable in a particular subject area, but it's still overall knowledge, not detailed, unless you're sitting in the TOC with all the feeds on.
Posted by:Penguin

#8  "Dear Barry -

How's that drug war thing going?

Love
The Real Generals"
Posted by: mojo   2003-03-28 00:19:14  

#7  Read this somewhere else, but it makes a lot of sense: There's only so much room in Kuwait, and we were only 'allowed' to use a small bit of it. The number of troops we had filled the place up and overflowed a bit. Once the war started, we began pushing in additional units as fast as the situation allowed us. So maybe Franks was acting on the knowledge that he didn't have room for any more troops, and had to phase in additional forces. We now see units parachuting in where the 4ID was supposed to go, and some kind of military buildup opposite Jordan in the western desert. Once again, the 'talking heads' missed a major clue, and started talking before they engaged their thinking process.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-03-27 22:46:27  

#6  Yeah, this hearts & minds stuff is BS. They hate us, they'll always hate us. 99% of the media will take all actions by the US in the worst possible light, and ignore any wrong doing by Iraq (or anyone besides the US). So this is really doing no one any favors.

Posted by: Jeremy   2003-03-27 14:19:19  

#5  kgb:
Surely you concede that the prohibition against attacking snipers who have taken up in civilian housing, has increased Iraqi morale. The restraint at Umm Qasr is being treated in the Muslim media (and apologists), as a "heroic" stand that caused Coalition forces to become "bogged down."

Listen to Captain David Waldron (US 3rd Division): "We don't want to hurt people if we can avoid it, but now it has got to be that if you have got a weapon, you have become an Iraqi soldier and we can kill you. This rules of engagement crap is making me lose men." (Oliver Poole, London Telegraph)

The Saddamites' dirty-war tactics have been effective. "Hearts and minds" strategies failed in Vietnam and should be second-guessed here.
Posted by: Anonon   2003-03-27 13:05:11  

#4  Mac Thomas has a very helpful take on this second-guessing here. This is the first paragraph:
Patience
The main thing remains the main thing.
The war is only a week old, and already the second guessing has begun. The press, having for all intents and purposes claimed victory after the first two days of the conflict, seemed ready to surrender to the Iraqis after the setbacks of Sunday. You'd think it was 1861 or early 1942, dark periods indeed in American military history.

He goes on to comment on the perspectives of some his favorite generals.
Posted by: kgb   2003-03-27 11:36:36  

#3  It still comes down to second-guessing, and there's no penalty for being wrong. These guys should know better. Bet there may be some "reductions in rank" once this whole war is over. Wesley Clark has proven that he's a real toad, and has absolutely no chance to become president of anything, not even "Main Street, Disneyland".
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-03-27 09:43:55  

#2  Of course none of them have access to the actual OPLAN and know nothing of its flow or phaselines. Even I can detect that there are units which are in country and not accounted for, so stuff is going on we can not see. This is the classical 'fog of war' of which CENTCOM has far more resources to see through than any of the talking heads regardless of their employment background. It would have been far more effective, IMHO, to have retired historians from the Center for Military History or the history dept. of West Point to do the color commentary and fill the air time than many of these technicians. They can set the parameters to the media wanks 'setbacks' with the "as compared to what" reply.

BTW, the lower ranking officers are being misused to discuss operational issues when they should be employed to address the human element at the grunt level. That's where they can add something to the flow of information to a public which is generally ignorant of what it means to soldier.
Posted by: Don   2003-03-27 08:36:08  

#1  As a rule, more people is always better. These guys aren't demonstrating any tactical brilliance by stating the obvious.

McCaffrey is working under the burden of having to defend his legacy from Gulf I. I am among several bloggers who have pointed out that a successful Gulf II eclipses Gulf I pretty well.

As for commentators with retired ranks below one star. All these guys were passed over by the selection board. They lacked what it took for promotion to a higher rank. Some was political, but most was an inability to think strategicly, to plan effectively, to be a more well-rounded warrior and a good manager.

I laugh at the captains that are being used as commentators. They might as well be doing man-in-the-street interviews.
Posted by: Chuck   2003-03-27 07:45:24  

00:00