Jump to content

Talk:David Hackworth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 118.106.217.125 (talk) at 09:41, 13 February 2012 (What is this?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clean-up

This article is in need of a serious clean-up, with its NPOV statements, poor grammar, bad sentence structure. (E.g., "most patriotic American".) Jkp1187 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even in its attempt to lionize Hackworth, the text screws up. Hackworth himself would likely have disputed that he was "all infantry". (a) he was an airmobile commander in Vietnam, therefore possibly a model for Kilgore in the mind's eye of the scriptwriter, and (b) he was an airborne commander, not straight-leg infantry. Correction!

Hack was a Major in Battalion command with the 101st Airborne Divisions, Republic Of South Vietnam 1965/66
Lt Col in Battalion command in the 9th "Infantry" Division, Republic of South Vietnam. 1969

None of his positions regarding the first Iraq war, in which in Newsweek he gaudily predicted 10,000 American dead, is even touched upon.--Buckboard 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buckboard (talkcontribs). (cute addition, especially since I signed the comment using the time stamp button)

This article continues to need significant cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Aside from its POV statements, it suffers from the repeated use of jargon-ish, chatty "military" language where more appropriate terms would be more appropriate. For example, why is GEN Marshall referred to as "'SLAM' Marshall" rather than simply "GEN Marshall"? The article is not about GEN Marshall, so why is his nickname relevant? Some of the statements simply make little sense, e.g. stating that COL Hackworth took over a unit "made up largely of conscripts" and "transformed it into the counterinsurgent "Hardcore" Battalion (Recondo)". Considering that the U.S. Army in Vietnam was a draftee army, the original description as "conscripts" doesn't differentiate COL Hackworth's unit from any other in the Army. And putting together a new name from some tough-guy buzzwords like "counterinsurgent Hardcore Battalion (Recondo)" doesn't provide any evidence of increased military effectiveness. It's not even clear whose name this is -- the Army's, COL Hackworth's, or the author's.198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just less than 25% of the 2,594,000 American military personnel who served within South Vietnam's borders were draftees. The U.S. Army in Vietnam was not a draftee army, it was a volunteer army (by comparison 66% of WWII American military personnel were draftees). I assume the unit "made up largely of conscripts" was just that. Some 3,403,100 Americans served in the Southeast Asia theater of operations overall. 71.154.158.245 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock[reply]
Previous comment by Sgt. Rock is nonsense. Many who joined the US military during the Viet Nam era did so to deal with their draft issues. The US Army in the Viet Nam era was most certainly a draftee army and it drifted to a state of semi-mutiny as the war progressed. Seki1949 (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the 75% who volunteered did so to avoid being drafted? --In other words, they joined the war to avoid the war? Hmm, I'll have to think about that. And the U.S. Army was on the verge of mutiny? Sounds like you've been hanging out with too many pot-smoking hippy peaceniks. Where does this mythology of the Vietnam War come from? --Oh, that's right, Hollywood movies. Google "Vietnam War Myths" to get some straight data. 66.122.185.95 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Oliver Stone as a historical source. Please review the following Time magazine article from 1971: ARMED FORCES: Disorder in the Ranks Monday, Aug. 09, 1971 "Drugs, insubordination, racial animosities and fragging are all a part of the disintegrating discipline in the U.S. Army in Viet Nam. But exactly how bad is the situation in the ranks? According to an Army study, there may well exist such a profound crisis of discipline that the Army's ability to function is in doubt. So says an unusually revealing Army memorandum surveying military discipline in the entire Pacific Command that is currently being circulated down to the battalion level."

Seki1949 (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Newsweek fired Hackworth"

I am going to remove this phrase until someone who has knowledge of this incident can clarify a few things:

1.) Was it firing for cause or a layoff(i.e., simple failure to renew a contract.)

2.) If firing for cause, reason for the dismissal. Was it due to misconduct (or allegations thereof) in his investigation of the Navy officer mentioned? Or were there other issues?

2.) Sources for the above.

promotion dates

It would be nice if anyone could provide promotion dates. I have seen it claimed that he was the youngest O3 and the youngest O6; promotion dates would seem appropriate to help evaluation such claims. ~~

Korea chronology

Doesn't he describe his battlefield commission as occurring before the Wolfhound Raiders were formed? Harvard yarrd

I revised & extended the relevant section of article. Harvard yarrd

"No references" ?

The article has a tag: "This article does not cite any references or sources." Yet, reading the article, there are references. Much of the bio material is probably pulled from his book About Face -- at least, it agrees with it. Harvard yarrd


Whorehouse?

The bit about Hackworth running a brothel is perhaps sensationalized. At Cam Ranh Bay, for instance, the village on the peninsula was walled off (first with barbed wire, then with a welded steel wall) but girls were allowed to hang around outside the walls throughout the day to be picked up by GI's. It was an arrangement the brass thought best fit the peculiar situation. So Hackworth was probably just following Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). 66.122.185.95 (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

"and his exploits at the time were rivaled only by the loyalty of his troops and the growth in his leadership skills and style."

What the heck is this - it's supposed to be a biographical statement? I can't believe that the person who wrote this ever spent a day in military service. This is terrible writing; overwrought crap.