…it is hard to imagine the Civil War having been won without Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan–or World War II without Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, Arnold, LeMay, Nimitz, Halsey, and all the other senior generals and admirals.
Likewise it is hard to imagine the War on Terror having been waged without four-star commanders such as David Petraeus, Stanley McChrystal, John Allen, and James Mattis.
We should look at Canada with all the stupid charges brought against a large assortment of soldiers in Afghanistan. The whole system would be better off if there were a few more winks and nods and a few less convictions. Things don’t always go well in war but blame the other guys, not our guys. We didn’t start it, just trying to finish it. If some general can get himself laid amid war, all the more power to him.
Most of these guys (Generals) are part of the power structure. When they gain a wide popularity with their troops and the public they instantly become political liabilities and competitors to the ruling elites and the knives come out – that’s how generals fade away (political scapegoating) – like MacArthur, Patton, Harris, Smedley Butler, etc., – empire politics never change whether its Rome, British or American.
Scar and Occam, well said. Wars are a dirty business and are not won by boy scouts or social workers.
Not necessarily so, Occam.
Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf, for example, told the pencil necks in Washington to keep their slimey political hands off his war or he would retire and any chit that started flying – well, it would land exactly where it should! He made it clear that he would not be party to another fiasco like Viet Nam – and the liberal scum back at home wisely kept their hands to themselves and their yaps relatively shut!
The ‘war on terror’ is a misnomer; it is my scholarly opinion that this so-called ‘war’ has yet to be seriously waged. If we ever DO get serious about making war on terror, we will cut men like Saddam and Osama off at the ankles before those animals can commit their atrocities, and we will laugh derisively at the moslem animals when they screech in outrage over it.
It is time to give some a-holes the jihand they have been yodelling for in my scholarly opinion.
Can’t wait for the first multicultural, egalitarian, transgendered, metrosexual military leader.
His/her/it’s first major military decision will be to unionize the armed forces.
He’s being groomed by SIEU as we speak.
I’d follow Petreaus into hell, as long as I could kick his azz all the way there.
America has the talent she needs to succeed.
Now, if the Obama administration would only stop subverting success.
Yep….In the post WW2 period the US and USSR presided over the break up of the colonial empires…..except for the Russian Empire.
Being on the western edge of Asia, Russia alone among the European Powers of the Time did not have to embark in ships to acquire an empire….just march. The Russian Empire remained intact until 1991….
Like the process, you referred to Eisenhower was the exception that made the rule…a contemporary Caesar.
In the USSR, even prior to the very end in Berlin, Stalin sought to sideline Marshall Zuchov….among other things, by literally having him race with another Marshall to take Berlin…a situation where there was more combat between the competing Soviet formations than with the vestiges of the Whermacht (suppressed).
In the immediate post war period, Zukov was in great peril, because Stalin envied his popularity and feared him as a political rival.
Capcha relys on sight reading…without corrective lenses…
It is important to understand that large military organizations
and those who command them have often wound up in situations not
remotely related to their competence, background, or even useful
authority. Once the enemy goes to ground, a vast array of bureaucrats,
each group with their own baliwick, and often working at cross purposes,
come on stage and seize defeat from the jaws of victory. The District
Officer system perfected over 2oo odd years by the British in Asia to
react quickly and frugally to public danger and grievances among both the
defeated and the yet wary has no place in the grand designs. This leads to
farces where delay and infighting leads to almost nothing in the way of
progress being made or even giving the impression getting anything useful
done is impossible.
scar, even before there were so many women in the forces, a general could “get himself laid amid war. They are not lacking in power.
I respect Max Boot a lot, but he overlooks all of the failed generals in all of those wars. To assume that there aren’t quality replacements for Petraeus et al would be incorrect.
And yes., times are different from previous conflicts – standards were different: Patton and MacArthur were born into the military; part of the military and political aristocracy – that – thankfully – doesn’t happen hardly at all any more.
Nor are they won if you end up becoming what you were trying to fight against.
Obumbles has been cleaning house, he is in need of some YES men, those who can think for themselves need not apply!!!
we have entered a new phase of military failures, lead by the OWN!
For every MacKenzie or Hilier, there’s a few dozen Boyles and De Chastelaines….
MacArthur became incredibly unpopular when he wanted out-and-out warfare against the North Koreans. Not much has changed. We haven’t the will to win a war anymore.
MacArthur wanted to go beyond the N.Koreans and into China. That was what was so unpopular, particularly with his Commander-in-Chief. MacArthur was a talented general, but not perfect. And he would no more have tolerated one of his talented subordinates challenging his authority than Truman tolerated it from MacArthur.
Was it really MacArthur who won the war in the Pacific? More along the lines of American naval and air power. I don’t necessarily suggest he was great simply that the theatre did not support great ground warfare. Truthfully cannot remember if it was MacArthur who came up with the island hopping idea. The sea landing in Korea was a genius move for sure.
Ironically McArthur’s amphibious landing at Inchon was predicted by a Nork strategist long prior to the Pusan breakout.
Inchon was one of only 2-3 ports available anywhere in South Korea….an attack there was suppremely logical and predicatable.
But did the Nork high ups listen?…Nah…