Eilhys England

Col Hackworth (Retired) talks about how he was given one of the worst units in Vietnam and turned them from terrible apathetic soldiers with a high causuality rate to an effective unit with high esprit de corps and a lower causuality rate while actually putting a hurting on the enemy.

Gives you a on the ground perspective of what it was like in Army combat units in Vietnam. Both when it was in poor shape and after Hackworth had the unit in their best form. It's an honest look at how life was which makes it fairly graphic in parts.… (meer)

This was an adequate book with lots of great lessons and stories. I think it would have come off better had it been written about the good Colonel by someone else rather than by him. The fact that a unit's performance is a direct reflection on their commander makes it well nigh impossible for the commander in the TOC during a time of high performance to avoid coming across as a typically ambitious self-promoter of the type Hackworth himself criticizes.

I can't speak to the credibility, but the fact that all these stories of Hack's outstanding leadership are coming from his own pen or from the mouths of former subordinates speaking to him dulls the impact.

There are other weaknesses, but I think they all serve to further the narrative and get the point across. For instance, throughout the book Hackworth harshly criticizes the higher-echelon brass for their obsession with body count, yet body count and kill ratio are the very measures he uses time after time to describe his units successes under his command.

Telling, perhaps, how pervasive the pressure was for kill-count that even a man ideologically opposed to the idea and its usefulness--and an intelligent, independent man at that--was so thoroughly indoctrinated into that mode of thought.

I just think Hack would have made a better book working with a ghost writer or co-author of some standing. The book was more valuable than it seems, and I got less, I think, than I could have from it (though still a great deal) simply due to the fatigue of reading a dozen worn-out cliches and trite similes on each page.

One hell of a story, though.… (meer)

The story of how Colonel David Hackworth took the ragtag 4th Battalion/39th Infantry and completely turned it into a disciplined fighting unit. After reading General Hal Moore's "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young", and then reading this book, I can't help but compare and contrast these two books, not only for the battles they depict, but also for the difference in personalities of both the soldiers in their battalions, as well as the commanders themselves.

What struck me at first about Hackworth (who sadly passed away in 2005), is that the man pulls no punches regarding what he thinks. In my opinion, this is perhaps a weak point of his which I'll get into in a minute. "Hack" was definitely a man with serious fighting prowess, and he certainly had the medals to show for it (2 Distinguished Service Crosses, 9 silver stars, and a shit load of purple hearts, among many others). He was also not a man to be content with doing things "by-the-book", nor did he tolerate weakness from his subordinates, but rather lead from the front and demonstrated by example. Apparently, his best solution for changing how his battalion operated, was to weed out the incompetent. In a way, the transformation of his battalion is the stuff they show in films, where the new guy comes in, shakes things up, and turns the under-achievers into stars.

However, for all this man's warrior attributes and leadership qualities (both of which he has in spades), two things bothered me about Hackworth. One was that the man was extremely egotistical. So much to the point that it seems that if you didn't tune yourself to his "way" of thinking, then you were automatically a "fucking idiot" to him. This not only extended to his subordinates (which he usually fired), but also towards his superiors (although many of them were pencil-pushers who had very little clue). He didn't seem to like any ideas but his own, and he let people know that. Second, was that I got the feeling at numerous points throughout the book, that Hackworth (perhaps subconsciously), really enjoyed the killing. Now granted that he was a man in the profession of arms, but I got the sense he enjoyed not only controlling people in battle, but also being able to take the lives of other with ruthless efficiency. While these things did concern me about Hackworth's character and integrity, the points me made at the end of the book regarding leadership and micromanagement, along with warfighting, definitely made sense.

In comparing this book to "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young", it's interesting to note that the enemy, terrain, people, and battles were different, yet they both fought in the same war, but with different tactics and mindsets. Furthermore, in contrast to Hackworth's profanity filled tirades and crude language, Hal Moore seemed to have a certain eloquence to his voice. Also, it's interesting to note that both men had serious gripes about how the Army and the war was being handled, yet Moore seemed content to work around his problems and keep his men focused, whereas Hackworth always seemed to want to burn the bridge down and smear whoever he thought was responsible for the issue.

In short, I found this book to be a very interesting read, not only regarding the Vietnam War, but also about leadership and a very interesting military officer.… (meer)