Patton would be spewing.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-19 03:53am

Just ignore the anti-war rhetoric (not the point of posting the article).

But I ask myself, where have all the good generals gone?

Can You Believe It?

Is this going to be a war or a movie set? The Pentagon has hired a Hollywood art director to create a $200,000 set where Gen. Tommy Franks can brief reporters on the war against Iraq. Altogether, according to a story appearing in The (London) Times, a reputed $1 million is being spent to convert a hangar into a high-tech center for the international news media.

OK, I'm old-fashioned. I'm a World War II brat. I'm used to American generals who slogged around in the mud, rode in tanks and waded ashore from landing craft. I know that the world I grew up in is gone with the hot-air hurricane blowing out of Washington. I know Weird World has replaced it.

But, come on, folks, a $1 million media center in the desert? A Hollywood art director? A $200,000 set so Gen. Franks will look pretty as he talks to the media types in comfortable old Qatar, far away from the guns and bombs? I don't know what else to say, except that it's flaming outrageous and a bloody awful waste of the taxpayers' money. No wonder mugging this Third World country is going to cost billions of dollars. What's scary is that if Gen. Franks' judgment on military matters is no better than his judgment on media matters, our young soldiers will be in trouble.

I've often thought that Washington, including the Pentagon, is a sort of open-air insane asylum. Here we have congressmen ordering the House cafeteria to change the name of french fries (a Belgian invention, by the way) to freedom fries. How juvenile can old men with sagging bellies and no brains get? If those nabobs worried more about the Constitution and their duty and less about what fried potatoes are called, several thousand human lives might be spared. This is a serious time and no time for adolescent sulking because an old ally doesn't want to jump off a cliff with us.

As of right now I'd swap George Bush for Jacques Chirac in a New York second and throw in Donald "Reckless Mouth" Rumsfeld as a bonus. French President Chirac might have a rascally side, but he at least has better sense than to light a match to see what's in that gasoline tank called the Middle East. I fear those "serious consequences" referred to in United Nations Resolution 1441 will apply to us as well as to Saddam Hussein. I'm a great believer in not interrupting the naps of canines, and we're about to wake up every pooch in the billion-plus Muslim world.

But those of you who like to watch reality shows will probably enjoy the set. The art director is George Allison, who did the set for ABC's "Good Morning America" show and has worked on several movies. The set was built in Chicago and reputedly packed off to the Middle East via FedEx for a shipping cost of $47,000. It will feature two podiums, five 50-inch plasma screens and two 70-inch television projection screens. Whether it will provide stadium seating and a refreshment stand, I don't know.

Of course, you won't see anything on those screens the generals don't want you to see. In fact, you won't see the set for a while. Photographs of it are forbidden. Apparently, they want to have a sort of world premiere. They might even have a red carpet for Gen. Franks, and, given the recent past, for all we know his wife might show up for the first briefing in a Hollywood gown. I wonder if they can get Billy Crystal to be the master of ceremonies?

In the meantime, of course, our sand-sucking GIs will be enduring the usual miseries of war, which, as any old soldier will tell you, never takes place in a comfortable environment with a decent climate. The Pentagon wizards are leaking the news that the war will be over in a week, thanks to their tactic of "shock and awe," which is a euphemism for the good old German blitzkrieg. I pray that for once they are right, but I wouldn't bet my retirement kitty on it. Even on movie sets, there are often accidents and unforeseen consequences.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-03-19 04:09am

*reads article* IT'S ALL GOING TO HELL, PEOPLE!

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-03-19 04:29am

I'm waiting for the War Channel.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-19 04:32am

Gandalf wrote:I'm waiting for the War Channel.

It's called CNN. Check your local listings for details.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-03-19 04:34am

OK, I'm old-fashioned. I'm a World War II brat. I'm used to American generals who slogged around in the mud, rode in tanks and waded ashore from landing craft.

First, Eisenhower wasn't wading ashore at Normandy. He was back where he could direct the war and not risk getting shot. Same with Tommy Franks. Second, modern television news places a priority on how things look. Back during WWII, people listened to radio and read newspapers to find out much of their information. This war will be covered 24-7 by television cameras, which requires a different set of rules to play by. Gen. Franks no longer had to just sound good, he has to look good.

French President Chirac might have a rascally side, but he at least has better sense than to light a match to see what's in that gasoline tank called the Middle East. I fear those "serious consequences" referred to in United Nations Resolution 1441 will apply to us as well as to Saddam Hussein. I'm a great believer in not interrupting the naps of canines, and we're about to wake up every pooch in the billion-plus Muslim world.

Translation: The author would rather keep the status quo, even though they admit the place is a dangerous mess. Well, sleeping dogs eventually wake up buddy. The longer we try and hide from these problems, the worse they will get.

In the meantime, of course, our sand-sucking GIs will be enduring the usual miseries of war, which, as any old soldier will tell you, never takes place in a comfortable environment with a decent climate. The Pentagon wizards are leaking the news that the war will be over in a week, thanks to their tactic of "shock and awe," which is a euphemism for the good old German blitzkrieg. I pray that for once they are right, but I wouldn't bet my retirement kitty on it. Even on movie sets, there are often accidents and unforeseen consequences.

War sucks, what else is new

. The pentagon planners do know the risks. However, when you're at the top, you have to show a confident face. Moping publicly about how bad things could go will only hurt morale among the public and among the troops under your command.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-03-19 04:37am

This remind anyone else of Canadian Bacon and Wag The Dog?

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-03-19 09:26am

It's all about image. Nothing else!

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-19 09:58am

There are Colonels and Generals out in Kuwait among the armor and mechanized units. Unified commanders like Tommy Franks do not fight on the front line. They are in charge of all the war, including all air, land and sea assets from all the service participating. You cannot command all this from some Bradley in the middle of the Iraqi desert.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-19 09:59am

Gandalf wrote:I'm waiting for the War Channel.

yeah, why wait for the history channel when you can just flip on the war channel!

Boba Fett · Post by **Boba Fett** » 2003-03-19 12:01pm

Gandalf wrote:This remind anyone else of Canadian Bacon and Wag The Dog?

Yes...but this time it's going to be real.

Post by **Steve** » 2003-03-19 01:02pm

Well, the title is correct. Patton believed commanders must be at the front to inspire their men.

And now, I must quote him because his name was brought up, a quote we should all remember in this day of age:

Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and the man who leads that gains the victory.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-19 01:10pm

Gandalf wrote:This remind anyone else of Canadian Bacon and Wag The Dog?

Wag The Dog was one of the main reasons why I mistrust the US government...especially because I saw that movie on Sept 10th.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-03-19 01:12pm

Ted wrote:
Gandalf wrote:This remind anyone else of Canadian Bacon and Wag The Dog?
Wag The Dog was one of the main reasons why I mistrust the US government...especially because I saw that movie on Sept 10th.

WTF?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-19 01:12pm

I don't agree with the anti-war stance of the article, but $200,000 for a briefing room is pure Pentagon gold plating. Of course, $200,000 is a flea's fart in a tornado compared to the U.S. defense budget (nevermind the entire U.S. budget), but it's the principle of the thing.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-19 01:36pm

I see bigger, by factors of a thousand, waste being reported every other day. A million dollars to convert a hanger doesnt strike me as being that much anyway.

Though with no link and no sources in the article this could just as easily be a rumor.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-19 06:33pm

Alex Moon wrote:
OK, I'm old-fashioned. I'm a World War II brat. I'm used to American generals who slogged around in the mud, rode in tanks and waded ashore from landing craft.
First, Eisenhower wasn't wading ashore at Normandy. He was back where he could direct the war and not risk getting shot.

True, but MacArthur did wade ashore at the Philippines, and he was the commander of that theater. Everything else you wrote I agree with, though. Just a little nitpick

.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-03-19 06:42pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Gandalf wrote:I'm waiting for the War Channel.
yeah, why wait for the history channel when you can just flip on the war channel!

The history channel is not trust worthy.

The Dark wrote:True, but MacArthur did wade ashore at the Philippines, and he was the commander of that theater. Everything else you wrote I agree with, though. Just a little nitpick

It was virtually a public relations stunt and it was after the landing forces had secured the beach. Just like Bradely on D-Day, Operation Overlord.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-19 06:51pm

Don't field commanders fight in the field? Isn't that why we call them 'field commanders'?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-03-19 07:01pm

Let's not forget the Marines restaging the Flag Raising at Iwo Jima. Even World War II was already being infulenced by the Media. We needed those publicity stunts, like Mac wading ashore weeks after the Phillipeans had been secured, stamping the medal's into the Doolittle bombs, etc.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-19 07:02pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Don't field commanders fight in the field? Isn't that why we call them 'field commanders'?

Above the battalion level it really doesn't matter. The theater Iraq is in for example, USCENTCOM has its headquarters and commanders in Tampa Florida. A good part of the invasion of Iraq is being controlled from a ship in the Gulf of Aden.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-19 07:06pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Let's not forget the Marines restaging the Flag Raising at Iwo Jima. Even World War II was already being infulenced by the Media. We needed those publicity stunts, like Mac wading ashore , stamping the medal's into the Doolittle bombs, etc.

The flag raising wasn't a publicity stunt. While it was redone a few hours later with a bigger flag and that is what most people have seen on film, a bigger flag was only being erected because the first one was too small to be seen by the fleet offshore. Both risings where photographed and the second one chosen later.

USMC's museum has both flags and a full explanation.

McAurther waded ashore because all the piers where in use offloading tanks and he didn't want to slow down the process. If by "weeks after the Philippians had been secured" you mean "days after the Leyte landing while the battle was still raging and Japanese reinforcements where pouring onto the Island from the rest of the chain" you'd be correct.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-03-19 07:12pm

Let 'em have their Generals Lounge. Their the ones who've got to be on their toes when the fighting starts, they should at least look good. Anyways, a single F-18 fighter jet costs way more than that, so lets not get in a tissy about something as minimal as this.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-19 07:18pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Let 'em have their Generals Lounge. Their the ones who've got to be on their toes when the fighting starts, they should at least look good. Anyways, a single F-18 fighter jet costs way more than that, so lets not get in a tissy about something as minimal as this.

A B-52H cost over 10,000 dollars per hour of flight just in fuel and maintenance. A F/A-18E/F goes for about 60 million FY98 USD. A C/D cost 39.5 million