"Our fumbling government's response since Beirut - during both Republican and Democratic administrations - has been to cut and run, or to flat ignore this growing threat, apparently hoping it would go away"
About this Quote
Hackworth’s line reads like a field report aimed at civilians who still think history is a talking point, not a force that punishes denial. Coming from a soldier who made a second career out of calling out brass and politicians, the sentence is less lament than indictment: “fumbling” isn’t just incompetence, it’s a pattern of self-protective decision-making dressed up as prudence.
The structure does the heavy lifting. “Since Beirut” is a blunt timestamp, invoking the 1983 Marine barracks bombing as an origin point for a new era of asymmetric violence and televised vulnerability. By pinning the argument to that trauma, Hackworth claims a long memory the political class prefers not to have. The bipartisan swipe (“both Republican and Democratic administrations”) is strategic: it disarms partisan rebuttal and frames failure as systemic, not episodic.
“Cut and run” is deliberately loaded. It echoes the Vietnam-era accusation that withdrawal is cowardice, yet he pairs it with “flat ignore,” suggesting two equally political reflexes: public retreat when costs spike, private denial when costs can be deferred. The subtext is that Washington treats threats like PR crises, manageable through optics and postponement, while adversaries treat them like campaigns, escalated through patience.
That final clause - “apparently hoping it would go away” - lands as bitter sarcasm. Hackworth isn’t arguing for endless war so much as for seriousness: strategy, follow-through, and an adult relationship with consequence. In his worldview, the real danger isn’t the “growing threat” alone; it’s a government that keeps betting on amnesia.
The structure does the heavy lifting. “Since Beirut” is a blunt timestamp, invoking the 1983 Marine barracks bombing as an origin point for a new era of asymmetric violence and televised vulnerability. By pinning the argument to that trauma, Hackworth claims a long memory the political class prefers not to have. The bipartisan swipe (“both Republican and Democratic administrations”) is strategic: it disarms partisan rebuttal and frames failure as systemic, not episodic.
“Cut and run” is deliberately loaded. It echoes the Vietnam-era accusation that withdrawal is cowardice, yet he pairs it with “flat ignore,” suggesting two equally political reflexes: public retreat when costs spike, private denial when costs can be deferred. The subtext is that Washington treats threats like PR crises, manageable through optics and postponement, while adversaries treat them like campaigns, escalated through patience.
That final clause - “apparently hoping it would go away” - lands as bitter sarcasm. Hackworth isn’t arguing for endless war so much as for seriousness: strategy, follow-through, and an adult relationship with consequence. In his worldview, the real danger isn’t the “growing threat” alone; it’s a government that keeps betting on amnesia.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by David
Add to List



