Hack's got impeccable credentials as a guy in the field, but from the times I've seen him he strikes as well out of his depth in discussing larger strategic or foreign policy questions... not necessarily saying what he says is wrong, just that I wouldn't let his medals lend his advice greater authority than it deserves on the merits....that piece, which I've seen before (it's been circulating), has some interesting and valid points, though...
tb,
do you realize that Hack did not write the letter you are critiquing?
clearly you have a beef with the guy.
i will say this about Hack...every soldier who ever served in his shadow respects every bone in his body and every word he utters and not because he has a few medals...hell we have tens of thousands of vets with a chest full of medals.
Hack is respected because of his integrity, complete openness in reporting and his use of sources that have been there, done that and wear the t-shirt.
you suggest we should not give his advice merits...Hack's method of digging for data enabled him to identify our RVN policy as hopelessly flawed in 1966. too bad the policy wonks didn't give his advice due back then. if they had, over 50,000 Americans would not have perished.
i disagree with your assessment of Hack...i believe he possesses the precise credentials that we need.
Hack has been there, makes the correct calls in tactical situations, identifies flawed strategy, and makes suggestions honed from years of world-wide experience.
who would you have us listen too? policy wonks with a few years "experience" in cambridge coffee houses and bars, who have visited the WTC in the past 3 weeks. the instant experts who are flooding the bookstores with their sage advice.
give me the guy with field experience...the guy who has a long track record of making perfect calls when they really count.
uw |
