In the past, attempts to downplay his claim of being America's most decorated soldier (which I will concede may seem to be just shameless self-advertising than a reflection of his military record, until you study his record) -- see this slate article and free republic post.
But we are reminded that his name was submitted for the Medal of Honor 3 times, and given the controversy surrounding the end of his career in the US Army, will he ever be awarded one? What's more important, receiving the award or doing what merits one?
How was primarily responsible for the trumpeting of that title, Col. Hackworth or his publicists? (Consider what he did with his medals upon leaving the army.) It seems to me to be a part of the marketing of Col. Hackworth as a soldier and expert in military affairs, an attempt to establish his credibility with the American public. One may disagree with his various opinions about the Pentagon, American wars, the state of the US Army, domestic security, terrorist threats, and so on, but can he deny that Hackworth was a good soldier leader of men? As far as I'm concerned, those in the MSM who have not served have no standing to judge him on this score. As for his critics who are or have been in the US military -- how much of their criticism was due to his personality and the way he said things, rather than the substance of what he said? (I'm not including those who were critical because he was a threat to their interests.)
A blog post on Col. Hackworth by Clyde McDonnell.
An online petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment