Why would a former US Army colonel say this if it wasn't true?

Question

"Our expectations of what American military power could do were wildly exaggerated,'' said Andrew Bacevich, a former Army colonel and U.S. Military Academy professor. "We're not in control of events. We may be the most powerful nation in the world, but we don't have the ability to impose a solution on this problem.''

Quote taken from http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070319/pl_bloomberg/afuoyef67xi4_1 The rest of the article hardly paints an encouraging picture by the way.

Sadaam [sic] Lied: No, I don't have trouble finding bad news, I have trouble avoiding it. Such is the cost of living in the real world.

Nicolas, I'm unclear as to how his having retired in 1990 is relevant. Perhaps you could expand on that?

Answer 1

You can rest assured that somebody's gonna call him a lib traitor.

To me,he sounds like a man grounded in reality.

Answer 2

i believe that the Ret. Colonel is right in a way, yes we have a superior military but as in all things not one element can control the situation. other things have contributed to the problems, maybe the fact that the two different factions of Islam, being Sunni's and shitties have been fighting for 1000's of years and our young nation isn't going to change that no matter how good our military is. also add into the fact of outside forces trying to bring their own agenda's in to Iraq, its a problem that will never be solved with just military might.

Answer 3

on a tactical point they certainly gained each substantial conflict that they fought, they certainly lost a marvelous type of stripling battles (i.e a corporation or much less) there have been many battles fought have been small gadgets of people have been given ambushed by ability of the enemy and had to withdraw many times with heavy casualties. On a strategic point it must be seen the people lost maximum battles for the hassle-free reason they did no longer have the means to realize the objectives that they needed (which became the entire destruction of enemy gadgets) what befell in maximum substantial battles may be the people might inflict heavy casualties on an enemy unit however the enemy unit might nevertheless be waiting to flee and come again and proceed the combat later. those failings weren't the fault of the yank troops, who did all that became asked of them (and greater) those have been the failings on the optimal stages, the Generals in Saigon who never have been given to grips with this style fo struggling with and instead persisted to purpose and combat the conflict like they have been struggling with a classic 1st international military in a topic like WW2. and since the generals tried to combat the conflict like this the politicians then failed because of the fact to stand any risk of prevailing the style of conflict the generals have been attempting to combat the U. S. had to invade the neighbouring international places that hid the enemy, Laos and Cambodia, (i.e supply the enemy no determination - yet to would desire to come again out in finished stress and then get smashed) much greater advantageous they had to invade the centre of the subject North Vietnam - instead they did no longer something and the conflict became right into a series of further and extra pointless battles that accompanied a similar development (locate the enemy, combat the enemy, watch the enemy escape, look ahead to the enemy to come again back - then repeat) of course the biggest mistake of all became going there interior the 1st place - American troops and the wealth of a rustic sacrificed to prop up corrupt and unpopular governments in third international international places in wars that isn't end. (sound huge-unfold?)

Answer 4

that colonel retired in 1990!!!!!

he is now a Boston university professor.

He knows nothing more than anyone else on the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich

-----

wow, I show you how you are wrong, and I get 4 thumbs downs (already)

I read that story this morning, and researched the people interviewed, so I could make an informed opinion. (which is why I knew when he retired so fast) You should try that some time. You will be surprised how many articles are misleading.
---------------
---------------

You asked why he would say it if it were not TRUE!!! It is an OPINION of a professor of one of the most liberal schools in the country. He has not been in the military for over 15 years, and has no "inside" information. That is why it is relevant.

Answer 5

I wonder if he was ever in Iraq, or if he is just formulating an opinion based on the information he obtains through various media devices?

Answer 6

That senior colonel was a traitorous enemy sympathizer.

Answer 7

He was there. He saw it. He lived it. He is too noble of an American to lie about it.

Answer 8

And yet violence is down in Iraq... having a hard time finding bad news lately?

Answer 9

chain of commands

Answer 10

Thats true.