January 11, 2004
FAREWELL, COLONEL:
'Disillusioned' Col Collins to quit Army in summer (Sean Rayment, 11/01/2004, Daily Telegraph)
Colonel Tim Collins, the officer who won worldwide renown for his rousing speech on the eve of the Iraq war, has dramatically quit the Army.Col Collins, who commanded the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment during the conflict, is reported to have resigned and will leave in August because he has become disillusioned with the Army.
Although the colonel has made no official statement, his wife, Caroline, was quoted yesterday as saying: "Tim is worried that the Army is being crippled by political correctness, petty bureaucracy and the refusal of politicians who send soldiers to war to give them enough money to do their job.
"Tim is no longer convinced that the Army reflects the country with the fourth largest economy in the world. He fears it has become a cottage industry."
Mrs Collins said that an important factor in her husband's decision was the Army's failure to support him when he was wrongly accused of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
It's a very good thing that we've no longer any worthy enemies, because you have to worry about how the PC military would fare against a serious foe. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 11, 2004 7:48 AM
We should offer these fine soldiers from abroad U.S. citizenship.
Posted by: pj at January 11, 2004 11:04 AMIntersting review,even the parts you got wrong.
Posted by: M. at January 11, 2004 2:12 PMWrong?
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2004 2:18 PM"no likelihood that the United States will ever be involved in another conventional infantry or naval war."
Granted it's not conventional now,but we are at war and using grunts on the ground.
In the first place, no one could ever effectively attack the continental U.S.
Again,granted it's not conventional,but the continental US was struck.
"Second, technology has made most of the duties of the infantry and the navy obsolete."
Mogadishu?
Tora Bora?
The Sunni Triangle?
"And there are easier ways of making the other guy die than by sending ground troops to shoot him and his compatriots, one by one"
Only if we're willing to commit lot's of "collateral damage" on bystanders in the urban wars of the future.
"it was merely left to the ground troops to sweep up after the technowar had been waged and won."
Our current supremacy rests uncomfortably on one leg,air power.Any technology that counters our air power and we're like the Red Army in Afgahnistan.
This has hardly been a war (three weeks and Saddam was gone) and the Sunni Triangle affords a perfect example of what I meant--if we did start taking significant casualties we'd just MOAB the place.
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2004 3:04 PM"if we did start taking significant casualties we'd just MOAB the place"
At what price?
Technology doesn't replace grunts on the ground,UNLESS you want only one tool in your box.
And as they saw,"if you only have a hammer......"
We wouldn't care about the price, we never do. Ask anyone in Vietnam, Japan or Germany.
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2004 3:25 PMComparing Vietnam to Germany or Japan is not really accurate.The latter 2 represented total war.
We won't do that to the Sunni triangle for the simple reason that the goal would not be worth the price.
We might seal it off and let the Kurds go into a few villiages,but we would immediatly repudiate them if we got too muc bad press.
Most americans support the war,but don't actually see it as a total war,yet.They'll need to be brutilized a bit first,Im sorry to say.
Let a few bombs or,G-d forbid,suicide bombers go off in a few daycare centers,then all bets are off.
If we had real casualties we'd do it in a heartbeat.
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2004 6:19 PMIf America were persuaded (through future events) that this is a total war, Saudi Arabia would be a colony in a matter of weeks. But two things would have to happen first: the left would have to be as discredited as the left in Israel is now, and the legal foppishness about fighting a total war would have to be swept away. Finally, any consequences from our actions in fighting this total war (i.e., Chinese irritation, French delays, etc.) would either have to ignored or dealt with first ("you can have Taiwan, but we are taking out NK tomorrow").
Let's hope things don't come to this.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 11, 2004 10:59 PMSounds like the Colonel has think-tank job
lined up somewhere. Our side of the Atlantic or
his?