Who are the great generals?

[Fred III]

Previous comments have Zinni on peoples' lists. I'd concur and think that if we had him there instead of Franks, it would be a very different ball game now.

All this is a fun parlor game, but the real issue Yingling's article got me thinking about is why, with all our professional education, service Academies, and other "challenges" and "opportunities" do we have so precious few around like these today?

Jayhawker—

I completely agree with your comment about Zinni versus Franks. Just thinking about it is enough to cause “shorter teeth syndrome.”

As for your second point, I think there are a couple of issues. First of all, I believe the system discourages it and the “system” is part of society. For the last 40 years we have been living in a society that revels in constantly lowering the bar—for everything. I think the potentially great generals are present—Petraeus may be one, though I believe it is way too early to tell... and... we may never find out anyway—but the “corporate” mentality of the military tends to keep people in the pack. I suspect, however, that it has always been that way. And it fits with what we want. We boost the underachiever at the expense of those who excel; we always do, even in schools. Instead of spending money to move smarter ones further ahead, we spend the money trying to make the slower ones equal, wondering why they can’t be just as intelligent. All sorts of things fall to the wayside: discipline, manners, dedication. I believe the quality is there; I just do not believe there is sufficient reason for “society” to call on it. Plus, the risks of “labeling” are too great. The Curtis LeMay discussion is a good, early example. You have a WWII genius denigrated and smoked into obscurity because of a remark (that was probably correct, but poorly timed). How about if Ike or MacArthur made such a comment in 1944?

WWII was a catastrophe of a magnitude we will probably never see again. Today’s “war on terror” has become an exercise in face-saving. If it weren’t, we would be winning it. You wouldn’t have generals hauled before congressional idiots who know as much about what should be done—militarily—in Iraq and Afghanistan as my Yorkie. Yet it doesn’t appear to me we have enough backbone to scream to someone about how this thing can be won. It took 3 1/2 years from entry to exit for the U. S. commitment in WWII... and now? Yet you cannot say “draft,” you cannot scream “quadruple the troops!,” you cannot raid Pakistan to clean this modern-day Hammurabi and his bad-haired hash-heads out of their yurts…. No, none of this is the “correct” thing to do. We are entirely too collegial, not only amongst ourselves, but with everyone else. The only problem with that is if we do not take care of ourselves, no one else will chip in to help. Look at the tepid commitment—everywhere. What does Bush call it? The “coalition of the willing” or some such up-chuck. I almost hate to say it, but sometimes I think the only thing that will help will be more 9/11’s, then maybe you will have some leadership step forward that will not care so much about their next star or pip or the “minority” vote or the belly-aching of the great unwashed troglodytes holed-up somewhere in some unpronounceable desert. Waziristan? Sounds like something out of “The Mouse That Roared.” We don’t need great generals today; we’re fighting this so-called war from the shopping malls. How about another hair salon? Anyone for another housing development? Ho-hum! Except, of course, to those who serve; except, of course, to those who bury… but what the hell… that doesn’t affect Americans now, does it? “Quick, Mr.-Man-On-The-Street, point out Iraq on this map! How about Tajikistan!” “Huh?”

Remember, no one knew who the great generals were before WWII. Who was it, Sir Basil Liddell Hart? who proclaimed the German generals of WWII the greatest assemblage of military genius the world has ever known [paraphrased] and then went on to say that America produced a surprising number of very fine generals of its own—at just the right time. Uh-huh!

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Jayhawker]

Fred,

Warning: This post's coherence is threatened due to a long day writing about French communists.

When I think of what people like Ike and U. S. Grant did, before their war came along that gave them their chance to show their stuff, it seems it was all happenstance. Grant even left the Army! Ike was puttin' in his retirement papers or nearly. They'd both been to West Point, and Ike had been to CGSC at Ft Leavenworth, but where did they learn the skills they put in use? Ike only had a command for a brief time, and missed combat in WWI. Grant at least had Mexico. I haven't looked at this closely, but it seems they both enjoyed their time in the Army when working for people who let them use their imagination to think and solve problems and when it went bad, they didn't get fired for their efforts. So perhaps it comes down to practicing how to think on your own. Being pragmatic, practical and understanding the reality in which you find yourself.

Anyway, our post WWII organization men, which I think one would have to included Ike in that mindset, sought to create organizations that would produce leaders. However they underestimated the power of organizations to do what we create them to do, which is create a false situation that only stagnates over time. Nor will they do what the nation needs them to do unless Pearl Harbor happens. I had thought Sept 11th would serve to be another Pearl Harbor, but even Stimson and Knox were nervous about how long the American people could last when they saw Navy war plans running the war out until 1947! (Can you say island hopping? Yeah, that sounds better than 1947!)

We need a Donovan (of OSS fame) coupled with a Wendell Willkie who ran an internationalist foreign policy vs the isolationists in his own party that took the wind out of the sails of the opposition on that issue giving FDR a longer leash. Instead we have Chertoff and Grandma Nancy.

By the way, if the list had gone to 11, I'd put Donovan there.

[Fred III]

Sorry, Jayhawker. I had answered your post, but it appears this darned system "whacked" it. It got lost when I hit the "submit" button. I will try again later.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Fred III]

Jayhawker—

Back for another try!

I started out by complimenting you on your post and wondering how in heaven’s name anyone could survive a day with French communism!

Anyway, while I take some exception to your top-11 list, I totally agree with your contention about Ike and Grant. The problem, I believe, however, is systemic and I think has always existed in this country. It is more societal than endemic to our military and I think it permeates almost every aspect of our lives. While I am not a sociologist or anthropologist, I see it as the “cover-your-butt” syndrome where someone has to be blamed and it damned well better not be me! This is one of the reasons I harp about the “corporate” mentality of our army and not in merely its structure or organization. I often wonder why we need to send officers to Harvard for an MBA or to some other school for some equally un-military education. But “blame” is the game and too often the consequences are too harsh for the wrong, so it always becomes someone else’s fault. “Responsibility” has become a dirty word, despite all the preaching. The problem is, there is always someone in the wings waiting to jump into the void… and often for the wrong reasons and this is most prevalent in the corporate world and in the political arena.

I’ll give you an example. Some time ago there was some sort of muck-up with the airlines. You know, the typical: late planes; no one allowed off; and the rest. The only guy to step forward—and maybe because his was the only airline, I don’t quite remember—was the CEO of Jet Blue. He took full responsibility. I was stunned when I heard him. So the problem was fixed. (And I think he lost his job!) Yet people, rather than applaud the man for his veracity, swore they would never fly Jet Blue again, despite the supposed “fixing.” What if the guy lied and blamed the FAA or the airports or someone else? Would that have kept the sclerotic customers?

Now here is the other side of the coin and the side we seem to be the most comfortable with. There is a real storm brewing about the cholesterol drugs Vytorin and Zetia and their makers, Schering and Merck. It’s already hit the fan because there are accusations about a report being delayed, downplayed, and the drugs largely ineffective if not contributory. The blame game is about to begin and fingers will start pointing at everyone but those really responsible. It’s the American way and enough blame will be disseminated so no one will have to take too big a hit. It’s always the other guy’s fault. Well, this is the same attitude that permeates the military, but I think it always has and so I have to believe the talent is there, it is just hidden. The problem is, will we ever see it? Will anyone ever scream loudly enough? I realize civilian control is paramount, but that is the president, not the hacks in defense. Oh, I know, chain-of-command and all that, but somewhere in there is a constitutional question that is eminently solvable. And if the clowns who protect Bush would do their job properly, we would find out if Bush is the problem (yes!) or he is just keeping his head in the sand (yes, too!)—which I guess is the problem, anyway.

The problem with an event like 9/11 is that the whole thing was too regionalized. I don’t mean that comment to be crude or flippant, but I think it is reality and the now-perceived threat is a zillion miles away. The screaming has died down and what is paramount now is the money and the shunting of responsibility. Also, the perception of success. Take this to the bank: success will be touted from now until inauguration day. That way, when reality hits, someone else can take the blame. And if success turns out to be real (don’t hold your breath!) the credit can be taken by the current incumbent. Ah-h-h, legacy!

I often wonder what it would have been like if Westmoreland had been replaced by DePuy and DePuy had been told, “Win the war.” Or is that unfair? Would the “rules” have been changed?

Maybe it’s just my 67-year old cynicism, but… take heart. The good guys are already there. They are just waiting for the disaster to strike. That’s when they will overcome the system.

Best wishes,
Fred.