Sure it's biased. I make no excuse. You might also note they were all on the winning side!Originally Posted by Firn
They are the guys that work for me, in terms of what can be learnt. Comparing Generals is essentially a fashion statement. It says far more about me, than it does the Generals.
The useful element here is finding out WHY folks think certain generals are great, not WHO!
....and I disagree with nearly every single item of that description - as would a few other denizens of this boardPetraeus: Petraeus inherited a lost cause in what has to be one of the most complex civil wars in history and implemented COIN operations that drastically reduced casualties and violence. All this while public support was on the decline and in the face of a hostile government.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Interesting, I think most of my points can be quantified with statistics, except the complexity part (subjective of course). Is your disagreement with Petraeus' involvement or that the situation has not improved? Certainly I realize the ideas are not unique to him and that many advisors took part in this strategy.
....and I disagree with nearly every single item of that description - as would a few other denizens of this board
Dude, I feel you. I respect Robert E. Lee. I wish that I was a bit more like him in some respects. I also respect Dan Marino, but how many SuperBowls did he win? I included Giap for a specific reason. He didn't win many battles, but he won two wars- one of rebellion against a foreign occupation, one against a foreign invader. Dr. Fishel is just gonna shake his head and laugh as he reads this, but I'd suggest that you take some time to read up on the eastern forms of warfare. You'll learn a lot.
Something just whizzed past my head...
Why would I shake my head and laugh? In my Capstone course on War and Conflict from ancient times... this week the class discusses Sun Tzu. I would certainly suggest that in his free time Jamey read the old Chinese dude. I agree with you about Giap.
cheers
JohnT
Sorry John. That just shows the limits of the internet. I thought that you'd laugh from the prospect of Jamey being challenged outside of the regular university instructors. Wilf, Fuchs, and myself already beat him up a bit, and he'll be smarter for it. I did not mean to imply that you had not read the eastern works.
He'll tell his friends about SWJ, and the movement will spread. We'll all be better for it.
No superbowl, but he is still considered a great QB. Seriously, yes I should probably study more of the eastern side of warfare, usually I cannot get past the whole proverbial "if your enemy is stronger than you, avoid him" this is common sense stuff. What do you suggest as a good primer?
Maybe I am a bit brainwashed, but I tend to view Vietnam as a matter of failed foreign policy. In regards to strategy, one side operated under restraints, the other did not. Tough one to call.
Actually, I am pretty much snowed in up here in DC. I saw a couple of the guys down in the lobby and they asked what I have been doing for the last couple days. When I told them I have been arguing with people on SWJ, they thought I have finally gone mad. But I told them to check it out, so maybe a few more newbies on the way.
How about some generals who’s main claim to fame (or lack thereof) was not on the battlefield but who played critical parts in their army’s successes? I’d toss out a handful from the past couple hundred years:
• Scharnhorst, or Gneisenau if you prefer, for their involvement in recreating the Prussian Army after the disaster at Jena and the ultimate defeat of the Corsican Ogre.
• Berthier (said Corsican Ogre’s chief of staff)
• John Cowans (Britain’s QMG of the Forces from 1912 through 1919 during their army’s expansion from imperial constabulary to a first-rate continental army)
• Marshall (oversaw an expansion even bigger than Cowans amongst a “few” other things).
Re: Petraeus—it’s way too early to make any call on him. We can still argue the merits of WWII commanders and are still uncovering things in the archives; give it 30 to 50 years until the historians have had a chance to rummage around in the documents and until we’ve got some temporal distance to allow for better assessments of what happened (rather than what’s still happening).
I'd start here. The Vietnam veterans will give you better advice.No superbowl, but he is still considered a great QB
Maybe I am a bit brainwashed, but I tend to view Vietnam as a matter of failed foreign policy. In regards to strategy, one side operated under restraints, the other did not. Tough one to call.
Could I ask for a clarification?
Huh? Basis for that statement?
I thought it was extraordinarily simple compared to half dozen others, not least ours -- or Viet Nam's (45 years worth...). Much less the British; Taiping; Russian...
And speaking of Veet Nam, Don't believe the myth that Giap never won any battles. He may not have been in direct command but his forces won a slew of battles with US forces and even more against the ARVN -- the ones they lost were the larger efforts where the US was able to out number the opposition temporarily. When the bad guy initiates over 75% of your force on force contacts, he is emphatically not a loser. Viet Nam was a failure of foreign policy, no question -- but the US Armed Forces did NOT do it at all well. While some US units did very well, the one year tour (Personnel Policy). our training (Training Policy) and equipment all were problematic (R&D, Procurement and sustainment policies) all meant there was no consistency in US unit performance whreas Clyde and the PAVN / NVA were remarkably consistent. Giap did a better job IMO than any US General from WW II through today.
Last edited by Ken White; 02-09-2010 at 10:30 PM. Reason: Added last para
Oh, young grasshopper...
First, as you touched a nerve, the 1985 Bears rocked. McMahon led Steve Dent, Walter Payton, and Refridgerator Perry to victory....As you study this stuff more, you'll realize that it's never about one man.
Second, that song encompasses everything. You just have to learn to listen. No worries brother. When I was your age, my only concern was rugby and women. So, you have a leg up in that department.
As for serious studies, I honestly don't know where to start....Watch We were Soldiers and read Andrew Kreprenevich's The Army and Vietnam.
Admittedly, other than Vietnam, I do not know details of the other civil wars, so I will give a few examples of what I consider complex (I just submitted a paper on sort of this same topic, maybe I will post it as well, it compares Tell Me How This Ends by Linda Robinson to Caesar Civil Wars):
An "infidel army" , that created a power vacuum now occupies the country.
The conflct between Shia and Sunni
The conflict amongst tribes and clans.
Support from Iran and Syria
Al Queda
Political mistakes along the way
Clash of cultures etc etc.
How do the others compare? When I say complex, I speak mainly of the social divides in play amongst belligerents.
Giap seems to have a pretty big following here, so I will cede this one. We will just have to agree to disagree. No worries, the great thing about a free country is we can believe what we want.
How is that more complex than, say, the Lebanese civil war? DR Congo? Sudan? Somalia? Afghanistan? Indochina (a series of linked civil wars spanning Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia)?
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Sorry, the topic is great Generals. I was using the example to make a case for Gen Petraeus, in my misguided attempt to say maybe some great Generals are serving today, premature I know, but still. Not to discount other conflicts, but if the topic is "great" generals then this is my case.
Oh young grasshopper...again
You need to read Mao. He speaks to the People Revolution. The same thing that Dave Matthews Band, Rage against the Machine, and Johnny Cash sing about. Before you take a stand, I'd suggest that you read my article, "The Break Point." It'll introduce you to Mao and an SF guy in Vietnam.Giap seems to have a pretty big following here, so I will cede this one. We will just have to agree to disagree. No worries, the great thing about a free country is we can believe what we want
Mike
Well, there are a lot of myths about Viet Nam
but don't let that bother you, seriously, you've got tons of company. There's a tremendous amount of misinformation out there about it and it was a confusing war in a confusing time. You might want to read this (LINK), it's more accurate than many of the oft touted books by Academics.and if that quote is true, was it not a bit sweeping to say that Iraq was "one of the most complex civil wars in history..." Just asking...You're the student so you can study those differences. I'd suggest that social divides are only rarely the most important aspect in the definition of 'complex' with respect to wars...How do the others compare? When I say complex, I speak mainly of the social divides in play amongst belligerents.His following here or elsewhere is not the issue -- what he accomplished should be.Giap seems to have a pretty big following here, so I will cede this one. We will just have to agree to disagree. No worries, the great thing about a free country is we can believe what we want.
Yes, we can believe what we want -- credibility is gained when one reacts to facts, not beliefs.
You've confused me -- that's easy to do, I'm old -- are you ceding on Giap or are you agreeing to disagree? I'm uneducated but I don't think one can occupy both those positions at once...
Thanks, will check it out tonight!
As I remember, the subissue that you raised was complexity of the civil war, specifically:
[Iraq] has to be one of the most complex civil wars in history
Given that, it's not yet clear to me that Petraeus was strikingly more successful, than say, Major-General Ghazi Kanaan or Paul Kagame.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks