'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Mar 26, 2006.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for "Inside Delta Force" (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for "The Unit," CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against "American Idol," "The Unit" shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.

    Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.

    We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of "The Unit."

    Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

    A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

    We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

    Q: What is the cost to our country?

    Rest of transcript here.
     
  2. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for sharing this story, again, Poncho! Here are my comments, again:

    CSM Haney is a former professional soldier who provided a life time of service to this nation and some of those years were during some very difficult and evolutionary times for the military. He's completely entitled to his opinions as is any one else. He can certainly speak with credibility about those things he experienced as could many others. There's a whole lot of history behind his story! I respect men like this a great deal.

    Present USSOCOM leaders - who aren't writing books or starting television series - have fully accepted the challenges given them and will carry them out as a part of the total military force just like CSM Haney, and his fellow soldier of his time, did. USSOCOM, and it's subordinate commands are not an army - meaning, in this case, all the services - within an army but an integral part of the whole that puts forth its resources in ways that support the missions given it. They are active right now in the war on terrorism doing the things they do best but they can't do it all by themselves. They, like every other component, support one another for the total mission.

    The military doesn't decide national policy - it's executes it. The military's duty is often to do the "impossible". They figure out how to get done what the President wants done. The President is the Commander in Chief and he represents the will of the people.

    Many believe the military is stretched and from my own armchair view it sure seems that way at times. A lot of troops are on their third deployment. Yet, in every way that's been the case. We've always been caught short, surprised, and failed some before we succeeded. Some past deployments were for the duration of the war and lasted longer than this one has. One thing - one of many - that makes America's fighting forces the best is their resourcefulness to innovate, adapt, preserver, etc. when the challenge is difficult and seemingly impossible. They've always managed to meet those challenges even if after some temporary set backs. This trait is extant in all areas of all services and not something possessed merely by one small group of it.

    There's no such thing as one solution for every fight. Forces are tailored to the fight based on what's needed and what's available. Right now the mission on Iraq seems heavily focused on training and supporting the Iraqi police and military forces as they assume the primary role for security and defense of their country. This isn't easy work for a fighting force but they're doing a great job of it from top to bottom. All this is what senior leaders - far above even men like CSM Haney - get paid to do figure out how to do and, when exceptions here and there, they've done a fine job of it over the course of our nation's history. Others talk about it while they get the job done. I respect men and women like this a great deal.

    Events in Iraq has there ups and downs but, overall, there's been a lot of very positive progress made in that country. No one can say for certain exactly how it will all end up. I hope and pray the predictions of some that it will disintegrate to civil war do not come true. A big part of what happens will depend, not on us, but on what Iraqis do with the opportunity given to them by our efforts and theirs combined thus far. It's a difficult time for them yet, potentially, the beginning of a much better era than they've known for generations. Many of them want representative government and civil order to prevail over tyranny and terrorism. Despite the daily bad news a lot of good things are happening in Iraq. We can thank a lot of people for that not the least of whom are our own troops and their leaders.

    We just need to hang with the challenge just like we expect - and demand - that our military do.
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am having a hard time believing that this retired command sergeant major was a founding member of the Delta Force or is even writing the truth.

    If it were true, the U.S. Army would have his strung up by the toes. ...retired or not.

    Delta operations are not only classified, but they are also compartmentalized and OPSEC (operational security) would also be violated by this guy.

    If he IS writing the truth, he shouldn't be.
     
  4. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good points, Phillip!

    The last I heard, the US Army still does not officially comment about this unit nor do they even formally confirm it's existence as the "Delta Force". We'd be smart to continue keeping the important details our counter terrorism operations classified.

    COL Charlie Beckwith, a true hero of Viet Nam war fame, is credited with being the first commander of this unit in the late 1970's. Obviously, anyone that's been to Ft. Bragg and knows of Charlie's Chicken Farm also knows there's something going on there! Beckwith, by the way, wrote a very interesting and reputable book on "Delta Force" published several years ago. There are plenty of people around that have been involved, to one degree or another, with various aspects of our special operations forces.

    Stuff like this is always intriguing to folks and makes for exciting books and movies. It sells and more so if a bit of controversy is thrown into the mix. I don't think former CSM Haney is going to release anything classified in his work - that wouldn't be very smart - but I do think he's going to maximize the story for profit. That's what the entertainment business is all about. It can be built around fact but it will be altered to meet the market demands or it will get cut. I take it in accordingly.
     
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    But have you noticed that people who've actually been in combat, tend to think very poorly of Bush's performance as Commander-in-chief?

    It's not just because he dodged serving in combat, and went AWOL. It's because he's not doing a competent job. And they know it from experience.

    It's why Bush has surrounded himself with people who found ways to avoid serving.
     
  6. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, but don't forget the Hack. He also thought the war in Iraq was a wrong move - so much so, that he left consulting for Fox News. I will NEVER forget the Hack. I admired him for years.

    http://www.hackworth.com/
     
  7. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, having been in combat, I haven't noticed that because there's no such parallel.

    There are different political opinions among soldiers and ex-soldiers just as in any other sector of our society. They're not all of one mindless following. I have noted that many veterans and many active duty military do support the cause for which we're fighting while some do not. Some do not but still do, or did, what their country called on them to do for them. They do understand what it takes to get the job done whether they understand, care about, or agree with the decisions leading to their commitment to fight or any politics behind it.

    Also, once again, the President did serve his country in the military regardless whether he was in combat or not and there is no record of him ever being charged with being AWOL.
     
  8. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are always a ***FEW*** malcontents in any group. Including the military.

    No one likes to go into Combat...

    It's not fun...

    It's dangerous...

    But, when you take the Oath you know it's something, God Forbid, that might happen...

    But, even with the large numbers of troops coming home, in theater, and even wounded the vast majority support both the cause and the commander-in-chief...

    Anyone can seem to be an majority with the full force of a Bush-Hating Liberal Media backing them up...

    Has Bush done everything right? By no means!

    Mistakes have been made logistically.

    And, politically...

    The biggest mistake?

    Not going in, *initially*, as an occupation force until the potential insurgeants were rooted out...

    This was a stupid and purely political decision.

    A deadly and costly one...

    Now, we *are* behind the power curve, for the moment...

    But, if we pray for Bush and the Military commanders to be given insight and Spiritual Guidance it will get better...

    Consider:
    2 Kings 6:12 "None of us, my lord the king," said one of his officers, "but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the very words you speak in your bedroom."

    Read the whole story... It's real comical in a way. [​IMG]

    But, can't God 'coincidently guide the intelligence gathering to give us better heads up?

    *IF* we pray for it?

    Mike Sr.
     
  9. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Mistakes or policy? Again, the CFR has been calling for a Three State Solution for Iraq for some time. CFR members have made up the bulk of advisors to the last four administrations. Which may explain the continuity of what we see as "bad policy or mistakes". What better way to achieve their "solution" than to let (or help) Iraq break down into civil war and then act like the "good guys" by splitting it up into three states?

    And so the next administration after Bush comes in complete with the same CFR advisors and says...

    "Oops, Bush, Rumsfeld and the neocons had good intentions but made what we feel were some serious mistakes and now regretably and with much heaviness in our hearts we feel we have to divide Iraq along ethnic and religious lines for the sake of peace and security".
     
  10. emeraldctyangel

    emeraldctyangel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. Deltas dont talk about it.
     
  11. emeraldctyangel

    emeraldctyangel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Odd. Those members of 1/3 Mar Div who fought in the battle of Fallujah dont say that at all. Are you talking to those "military members" who served as supply clerks in New Jersey or something?

    Most of us in the military have a working knowledge of the UCMJ never thought for a second that the President was AWOL. And an entire generation of veterans didnt see combat. Are you begrudging their status?
     
  12. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    You bring up an interesting point Galatian. Here is one combat veteran who thinks Bush has done well as Commander-in-chief. Of course I do not agree with everything he had done, but I would certainly rate him good or better. Compared to his predecessor I would rate him outstanding.

    Combat veterans are a pretty big group and include all kinds of people. My own former commander General Barry McCaffrey was a huge disappointment to me as a part of the Clinton administration (but I knew he was liberal democrat even while we were still in). What I think is that when the liberal press gets their hands on a combat veteral who disagrees with the president they give him so much press that it seems like there are a lot more of them. Remember Kerry before the Senate in 71?

    Lets do a poll on this. I will start it.

    [ March 31, 2006, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: North Carolina Tentmaker ]
     
  13. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me see if I can explain this one more time so that it can be understood clearly.

    If you did ANYTHING in the military that was even HALF-WAY considered "special-ops", or even the lowest level classified---you do NOT write books about it....you do NOT talk about it......you do NOT brag about it in any way.

    If you do, then you would NOT be considered a professional or have any ccredibility.

    Remember one thing. If you claim that you worked for this or that group while in the Army or Air Force; who is going to argue with you? I could claim that I was the Head Honcho of black-ops and there will be no argument from the government (unless I really was the Head-honcho of black-ops-in which case -- well, its just not done).

    Get it?

    In reality, there is no such thing as a credible military consultant.

    Anybody who really "knows" cannot talk about it.

    The rest can make it up and nobody will argue with them because disinformation is the best operational security there is.

    Remember when everybody claimed that Tom Clancy was such a wonderful military writer because he knew all this "secret" stuff? He was just a good researcher and had a subscription to Jane's Defense Weekly.
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Talk about rationalizations...

    If a veteran criticizes Bush, that means he doesn't have any credibility, or so the few diehard Bushistas would have it.

    Yes, Lady Eagle, I admired Hack myself, and I miss his commentary.

    The guys who found ways to avoid combat see a kindred spirit in Bush. It's not surprising that the men who did their duty don't care much for him.

    That kind of patriotism is out of style these days. When's the last time we had a president who was a combat veteran?

    JFK.
     
  16. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not rationalizations...

    Military Law...

    And, trust me... You really don't want Special Ops types upset with you in a *real* way...

    The least that would happen is to be recalled to active duty and placed under Military Arrest...

    Just because someone becomes a civilian doesn't mean they can now talk openly...

    "Need to Know"; "Compartmentalised"; and "Not Automatically Declassified after 12 Years" ae all labels that can get even a Civilian 20 years in Levenworth...

    It isn't an issue of embarrasing the President... The issue is revealing Methods, Actions, and Operatives...

    You'd probably feel better if you had all that information...

    But, what would you do with it?

    And, could we ever score another victory if our enemies knew and killed all our operatives?

    .....
    Combat Veteran as President?
    So, you think someone like a Kerry who gave actual aid and comfort to the enemy would have been a better choice?

    Other choices?
    Or, an Al Gore who would have blamed 911 on the environment?

    In most cases Hack gave some rather circumspect commentary.

    But, almost all of what he said could have been deduced by any sane former Military Type...

    Doesn't even have to be Special Ops...

    Especially one with the contacts in the media he had access to...

    The fact that he stopped thinking with his brain and patriotic heart and started using his emotions doesn't make him "credible" any more...

    Mike Sr.
     
  17. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Barbarian notes that Bushistas rationalize that any veteran who criticizes Bush is not credible)

    Yep. Rationalizations. Why is it always the combat veterans who are disgusted with Bush? Do you think any of them were really fooled by his AWOL explanations?

    UCMJ? Don't try to BS a veteran, OK? Cite me the section, and then show that it applies in this case. You might learn something.

    You got within shouting distance of one, once? I served with them in several places. And I never knew one who was less than 100% professional, which means that they don't beat up people for personal reasons. Unless they were ordered to make it so, you'd never know they were dangerous. They aren't misfits or psychopaths. Those guys get weeded out, because they are unreliable and likely to get our own people killed.

    Assuming that they actually broke some law, and that they have not completed their reserve requirements. You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

    Show me that it applies here. You might learn something.

    You mean like outing a CIA agent? That embarassed the president.

    You'd have to ask Karl Rove about that. Bush seems to think that kind of thing is perfectly O.K.

    JFK was the last one.

    I don't think that the enemy thought that getting their collective butt kicked was "aid and comfort." In fact, there is considerable evidence that they resented him doing it, including a few holes in Kerry himself.

    If you're dumb enough to think Kerry's opposition to the war after he realized what it was doing to America constitutes "aid and comfort" to the enemy, there isn't much anyone can do to help you.

    "Aid and comfort" would be something like revealing the identity of one of our CIA agents, or going AWOL. (although even the latter isn't technically "aid and comfort") Shooting up enemy units would be considered serving one's country. At least people used to see it that way.

    Your position on the issue is at least more understandable now.

    You honest to God believe he said that?

    He reamed the incompetents mercilessly. And not just Republicans. He had special contempt for Rumsfeld, for good reason.

    Bingo. Which is why the clowns in the Bush administration never got it. And why over a thousand troops had to die for nothing.
     
  18. emeraldctyangel

    emeraldctyangel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone must have pulled the wool over your eyes you in History class (or military history and tradition, that all of us who went to boot camp were taught).

    Try George H. Bush, 41st President of the United States. Also in the Navy.

    Special forces personnel who write books and make websites on their dealings while active duty are either nutty or looking for a way for the military to cut all ties with them.
     
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    No, having been in combat, I haven't noticed that because there's no such parallel.

    There are different political opinions among soldiers and ex-soldiers just as in any other sector of our society. They're not all of one mindless following. I have noted that many veterans and many active duty military do support the cause for which we're fighting while some do not. Some do not but still do, or did, what their country called on them to do for them. They do understand what it takes to get the job done whether they understand, care about, or agree with the decisions leading to their commitment to fight or any politics behind it.

    </font>[/QUOTE]I second your observation.
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    No, having been in combat, I haven't noticed that because there's no such parallel.

    There are different political opinions among soldiers and ex-soldiers just as in any other sector of our society. They're not all of one mindless following. I have noted that many veterans and many active duty military do support the cause for which we're fighting while some do not. Some do not but still do, or did, what their country called on them to do for them. They do understand what it takes to get the job done whether they understand, care about, or agree with the decisions leading to their commitment to fight or any politics behind it.

    </font>[/QUOTE]I second your observation, Dragoon.
    </font>[/QUOTE]
     

Share This Page

Loading...