Who are the great generals?

[Ken White]

work but what the heck.

All this time I thought being secure entailed firepower and a tight perimeter or rapid movement and battlefield agility...

Uh, well, meditating is okay and I know all you US-B folks are into it but I met a RAND analyst at a conference long ago who had an MS from there and she could meditate over more bourbon than most. Far more. As she said, her meditation enhancement potion of second choice avoided problems on tests.

(I didn't ask what the first choice was )

How, in the 80s with teenagers did I miss the Night Rangers? Though it took me years after those days to appreciate Dire Straits, come to think of it. I'll have to research that with my Music and Pop Culture Advisory Committee who have obviously let me down...

[Gian P Gentile]

...All this time I thought being secure entailed firepower and a tight perimeter or rapid movement and battlefield agility...
How, in the 80s with teenagers did I miss the Night Rangers?

Agree about security although some would argue that you need to become one with the people and protect yourself less and that is how to become secure; you are an old knuckle-dragging fuddy-duddy if you think you need firepower and maneuver to secure yourself. AGAIN, PUN INTENDED HERE.

Dont worry about missing Night Ranger in the 80s. I had teenagers in the early years of the new millennium and i missed the Deftones.

gian

ps; Ken, it is actually Night Ranger (singular); I guess the old infantryman in you just wont die!!

[Ken White]

Smart enough to know when people do not want and have no intention of allowing me to become one with them but willing to take advantage of their inherent politeness when offered? Check.

Follower of the 21st Marine Rule of Combat ("Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet")? Check.

Calluses on knuckles from dragging on ground? Check.

Re: the p.s. -- as Martha Stewart usedta say; "... and this is a good thing..."

[Gian P Gentile]

Smart enough to know when people do not want and have no intention of allowing me to become one with them but willing to take advantage of their inherent politeness when offered? Check.

Follower of the 21st Marine Rule of Combat ("Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet")? Check.

Calluses on knuckles from dragging on ground? Check.

Re: the p.s. -- as Martha Stewart usedta say; "... and this is a good thing..."

Ken:

Right to all and thanks. As always, enjoyed the discussion with you.

v/r

gian

[wm]

How, in the 80s with teenagers did I miss the Night Rangers? Though it took me years after those days to appreciate Dire Straits, come to think of it. I'll have to research that with my Music and Pop Culture Advisory Committee who have obviously let me down...

Ken,
Gian knows his Night Ranger 'cause he's a Bay Area boy. Night Ranger was a SF hard rock band with some national appeal. If you want to double dip on your early "Big 80s" nostalgia, you could watch the movie Sixteen Candles and hear Night Ranger's "Rumours in the Air" on the soundtrack.
(I hope you have strong control of your gag reflex--pardon the offense to any Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall fans out there) If I were you, I'd stick with Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits.

[Ken White]

Ken,
Gian knows his Night Ranger 'cause he's a Bay Area boy. Night Ranger was a SF hard rock band with some national appeal. If you want to double dip on your early "Big 80s" nostalgia, you could watch the movie Sixteen Candles and hear Night Ranger's "Rumours in the Air" on the soundtrack.
(I hope you have strong control of your gag reflex--pardon the offense to any Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall fans out there) If I were you, I'd stick with Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits.

Pop Culture and Music Advisory Committee -- I do recall watching bits of Sixteen Candles back in the day, on TV. The PCMAC were too cheap to spend $$ on movies and thus monopolized the tube for their cinema...

Hmmm. That may be why I almost never watch TV.

[Norfolk]

Well, if we're still in the eighties time warp here (admittedly a decade I rather preferred to the two since, and don't even get me started on the seventies), how 'bout the Greatest Generals of the 1980's?

For non-fictional generals, I propose Major-General Sir Julian Thompson for his leadership (as a Brigadier of course) of 3 Commando Brigade in the Falklands. Especially after the loss of most of his helicopter lift, forcing his Brigade to campaign almost entirely on foot and in the midst of a rather difficult supply situation.

I'll leave the fictional ones to the Pop Culture Pros.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

I'm going to break out some Duran Duran just for a dose of nostalgia.

I think Norfolk has a stumper category.

[Gian P Gentile]

....how 'bout the Greatest Generals of the 1980's?

For non-fictional generals, I propose Major-General Sir Julian Thompson for his leadership (as a Brigadier of course) of 3 Commando Brigade in the Falklands. Especially after the loss of most of his helicopter lift, forcing his Brigade to campaign almost entirely on foot and in the midst of a rather difficult supply situation.

I'll leave the fictional ones to the Pop Culture Pros.

I hadn't thought about generalship in the 80s; I like Norfolk's nomination of Thompson in the Falklands; tough fight requiring sound leaders. I also thought perhaps of the American General Don Staary for his role in the development of FM3-0, Airland Battle.

For pop-fictional generals of the 80s how about General Barnicke from the cult classic movie "Stripes?" I think he owes me money.

gg

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

That's a fact, Jack!

Then there's the unflappable General Jack Beringer from Wargames: "Flush the bombers, get the subs in launch mode. We are at DEFCON 1."

[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.

[Tempest1991]

O.K don't shoot down this addition to the list too quickly but i'd like to make it

David Stirling.

I know he wasn't an actual general by rank but he did command an unit during the Africa campaign of WW2 that chose their own targets and so it was him, with help from his subordinates, that decdied where to take risks.

Also he showed considerable abilty to adapt as after Op Squatter went completely wrong he understood that it was time to change tactics and start to use the LRDG (Long Range desert Group, i think, can't be sure right now) to ferry his men to their targets.

Also the unit he created was credited with disabling more Axis aircraft over a 6 month period than the entire Allied air force in the area. Stirling took his orginial idea and created a unit that is commonally accepted to be the best special forces unit in the world.

oh and Sabutai obviously.

Scott.

P.S if any of these facts are wrong i apoligise.

[LetUsHavePeace]

To appreciate what Ike and Grant accomplished, you have to know how much direct experience they had with logistics. It explains why Eisenhower was chosen to command the largest seaborne invasion of all time and why Grant was able to defeat every Confederate Army that he faced. Eisenhower commanded the first transcontinental truck convoy - what was literally the motorized equivalent of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Grant was a teamster by the time he was 9; by 12 he was making overnight deliveries for the family tannery and being sent alone to do horse buying. (One of Grant's favorite jokes on himself was the story he told about his first negotiation with a man who wanted to sell a horse. "I told the man that my father had said that I was to offer $12 and if he wouldn't take it, I was to pay $14. I paid $14.") In the Mexican War Grant literally had to sneak forward to join the actual fighting because he had been assigned to supply - not as punishment but as an acknowledgement of his ability to get the job done.
An earlier post suggested that Ike and Grant "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." That was not true about Grant. He had to quit the Army because he was threatened with a court martial if he did not resign - allegedly for being drunk but, in truth, for repeatedly trying to do something about the shabby state of the enlisted men's quarters. Eisenhower did not "get fired" but he spent nearly two decades wishing that he could quit. He found working for MacArthur so maddening that it drove him to develop his 2-pack a day smoking habit. When he was on Staff in D.C., he read all of Zane Grey's novels - TWICE - while waiting for something to do. Ike stayed because he felt he had no choice - he had to support his family. Grant left for the same reason; he could not make enough in the Army to have his family with him.
Both men were constitutionally incapable of taking much crap. That was the key to their eventual success, but it made neither man's career easy.

[Ceaser]

I would say some of the best generals of all time would be
Alexander the Great
Napoleon
Julius Caesar
Hitler
Eisenhower
Robert E. Lee
Sun Tzu
Hannibal

[jmm99]

You might want to introduce yourself - perhaps here.

And check your spelling on my fellow lawyer, Julius Caesar.

I'd vote for a person from the Reindeer People, trained as a blacksmith, whose name is variously spelled. Richard Gabriel uses Subotai (good recent 2006 book on his campaigns); Wiki has him Subutai. Best of the best for conventional mobile warfare.

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

I would say some of the best generals of all time would be
Alexander the Great
Napoleon
Julius Ceaser
Hitler
Eisenhower
Robert E. Lee
Sun Tzu
Hannibal

I have doubts about Alexander. His methods were rather primitive, he just had the right army to succeed and had a galactic coward as chief opponent.

Napoleon - OK. He's along with Caesar someone who skipped the "the Great" honorific and instead made it to a synonym (although a rather short-lived one).

Hitler? Sorry, but I'm certainly a better general than him. His detail memory was great (no wonder - he was pumped with drugs), that's about it. The genius was Manstein and Manstein had the luck of being part of a competent army that was backed by the No2 industrialized economy and he had people like Guderian who prepared a lot.

Eisenhower? Well, I personally consider his art equal to the managing capabilities of a Rotterdam harbour manager. He was able to move huge quantities of supplies around with an appropriate managing organization.

Lee? It always looked to me as if Lee was at most comparable to Hannibal - great success only as long as the enemy generals were inept.

Sun Tzu?
We don't even know for sure whether he ever lived or ever was in command of more than servants. Maybe "his" work is just a compilation.

Hannibal
Mentioned previously; no great success without inept enemy leadership. His Zama battle order was very unimaginative.


Maybe we should ditch the Western-centric views a bit.

How about some Mongol leaders? One of them rose from a clan leader to master of much of Asia IIRC.

Or Timur the Great anyone?

Manstein?

I'm sure the Indians had many great generals as well. Some Indian military history would be nice. It's a blank spot in my memory.

Pompey? His anti-piracy campaign should embarrass our navies.

Belisarius?

Epaminondas?

[William F. Owen]

I would say some of the best generals of all time would be
Alexander the Great
Napoleon
Julius Ceaser
Hitler
Eisenhower
Robert E. Lee
Sun Tzu
Hannibal

OK, but why?

Napoleon - Really? Won a lot of battles but ensured his own demise by failing to understand to what purpose war was is suppose to serve? Good tactician, very poor strategist.

Hitler - understood little about the use of war a political instrument, and was a very poor strategist. He was also an idiotic tactician.

Robert E. Lee - and compared to Sherman or Grant?

Sun Tzu - if he existed, and if what is said is true.

Hannibal Huh? Hannibal the idiot? This was a man who could not stop Rome generating armies and, like Napoleon, lost because he did not understand the political nature of his endeavour.