I have to love CavGuy's summation:
Quote:
Shifting a general to oversee what were really leadership (not supply) issues is far different than taking an infantryman and making him pump gas.
I think that's what several of us tried to say albeit less eloquently.
Interesting that you mention Nathaniel Greene who was indeed one of Washington's better Generals. I could say that his most successful battle at Guilford Court House was that simply because he copied another of Washington's best generals, Daniel Morgan's (arguably an even better General...) earlier and even more successful tactic at Cowpens. The interesting fact about both battles is that the Generals knew and understood the strengths and weaknesses of their various troops. I think there's a strong message in that...
I'm not a Historian but I am a student of war and an avid reader. History can teach us much, no question but one must be careful of the message one absorbs. One thing stands out over the millenia IMO. It's notable that all the good Generals understood the strengths and weaknesses of their troops and planned accordingly. They also were willing to adapt to the mores and technology of the time.
While there will always be occasional aberrations like the picture below, essentially, the use of the horse in warfare is sorta passé.
http://www.geocities.com/futuretanks/sfhorsesoldier.jpg
I'd be willing to bet big bucks that the guy shown would rebel at being told he had to go turn wrenches in the motor pool.
So, lacking a major war and a draft, is a heavy troop based CSS effort passé. All things considered, that's a good thing because the number of people who want to join the Armed Forces to do that is small and declining. Yes, some changes need to be made in the process -- and some are working; Armies change slowly -- but regression is not a good idea.
Nor is it beneficial. Getting elephants through the Alps today would arouse the Environmentalists... :D
Bofus can both agree and disagree...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
...If the awareness and perceptions are changed by the media by sensationalizing largesse of the military in Iraq they will vote and actively pursue the replacement of decision makers. Unfortunately most of the patriotic drivel engaged in by the general public stops at their wallet.
For example, I agree with that statement except for active pursuit of replacement; I think the second clause negates that; that and the "Yes but he's my SOB" mentality...
Quote:
Regardless of the pandering of the current media the American way is to hold the do'er accountable and replace the decider.
Agree that's the principle but our caste of permanently elected and quite venal and corrupt Senators and Representatives (the great majority, not all) says actual practice is quite different. I'd also suggest that the current American way is to punish the innocent all too often by enacting stupid laws and regulations in a futile and misguided effort to preclude recurrent wrongdoing -- and too frequently to promote the guilty to insure the Peter Principle is applied...
Quote:
However, I am surprised to see anybody argue that reality and the media, let alone the American public, have ever let reality intrude on perception. I am especially surprised to see anybody arguing against, "in all things public", anything but perception drives politics.
Can't speak for others but that's not at all what I'm saying. Perception does drive the train -- but the wisdom of crowds keeps it from going too fast and frequently overrides the perceptions of some. Your wallet interest also intrudes though not totally, a lot of folks will vote against their economic interests to support a firm belief. As they should.
Quote:
Didn't say I liked it but it will have to be dealt with sooner or later.
Later. Much later. It's the American way... :D