Failure Of American Military Leadership

[SASless]

Just read a book called "The Generals" written by Thomas E. Ricks (ISBN 978-1-59420-404-3)....which attempts to explain the American way of making War and the reasons for our successes and failures. It should be required reading for every Officer.

The central issue is General's should either perform or be relieved for failure to perform as they were in WWII....but not today. Failure to perform today is not punished. The explanation is what is important....and the lessons we should learn from that explanation.

A recent NYT article touches on this subject.

The Writer is the Son of a WWII General who represented the best of our Military during those days.....he was in every way a "War Fighter" and was the product of the selection system created by General George Marshall that has shaped our Army till today.

A Phony Hero for a Phony War - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/a-phony-hero-for-a-phony-war.html?_r=0)

[Old-Duffer]

SASless et al,

You might find the book "Losing Small Wars" by Frank Ledwidge ISBN 9780300182743, treads a similar path.

This book deals with British military failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and the point about removing failing generals is made in it. I have found the book a real 'eye opener' because although I knew some of the issues exposed, the depth of these and the breadth of others took me by surprise.

I believe that all Brit officers should either read it or be briefed about it. However, it makes such uncomfortable reading for the great and good, it's more likely to be banned!

Old Duffer

[Pontius Navigator]

O-D, I see there is another of his books too:

Punching-Below-Weight - How inter-service rivalry has damaged the British Armed Services.

[Al R]

However, it makes such uncomfortable reading for the great and good, it's more likely to be banned!

Old Duffer,

Too late. I think the cat's out of the bag.

http://www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/CAS%20Reading%20List%202012.pdf

[Old-Duffer]

PN and Al R,

Thank you for alerting me to another book and also the review in the CAS reading List. As it transpires, I have recently written a review of 'Losing Small Wars' and it is to be published in a journal which is fairly widely seen in the RAF and outside, so I shall be interested to see if I get any feedback. I could, of course, end up in the Tower!!

Old Duffer

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

May I recommend T.E. Ricks earlier book, 'Fiasco' about the invasion of Iraq.

[500N]

He must be talking this century as General Schwarzkopf removed
a general or two in his time.

Aren't the current crop of Colonel and General Officers just
playing the system as it is now ?

Did Petraeus not do what he was supposed to do in keeping his
casualties down and the area quiet when in command in Mosul ?

It's not his fault the orders were given to him like they were ?

[sevenstrokeroll]

one problem of the modern general is this...the modern government makes up the rules of engagement...in WW2, while I am sure there was reasonable precaution about hitting hospitals and the like...now a days you either WIN the war, or you just sort of screw around.

Gen Curtis Lemay had it right (I'll add, offer a chance to surrender) but he said ...just keep killing the enemy,it works.

But public relation s has a problem.

[green granite]

If the Russians, who couldn't give a toss about political correctness or war crimes, couldn't win in Afghanistan what makes the West think it could when it straps one hand behind the solders back, has him looking over his shoulder to ask permission to do anything in case it might be considered a war crime. If he shoots an enemy insurgent who's moved up hiding among women and children and is shooting at him the media crucify him even if he doesn't hurt anyone else.

[Lonewolf_50]

Truscott has a problem with conflating the strengths and weaknesses of a General with the political environment he is immersed in. War is a function of politics. The politics do not allow a general to act in a Pattonesque manner since about August 2003.

Truscott might remember, were he not so busy spitting bile, that Patton was relieved shortly after he took over as military governor of Germany, after the war. Why? He could not perform that mission to the satisfaction of his superiors: high command, the Pentagon, and the pols.

Patraeus wasn't in charge of the War that took Iraq down, he got put in charge of a situation a bit nastier than what Patton faced as military governor. He did a good enough job.
When your job is to polish a turd, then you make it as shiny as you can.
That, he did.

Sticking his bayonet where it didn't belong isn't really the problem. It's a distraction, and IMO, something he ought to have known better than to do.

We don't get to choose the wars we fight, nor the political requirements of those wars.

Truscott, in this case, is spitting out a load of crap.

I've studied the campaigns of Patton, and Truscott's father. Patton was a hero of mine, as a boy. Lucian Truscott earned his reputation for competence.

General officers function at the interface of politics and war, and the more stars they have, particularly since 1947 defense reorg act, the more that is true. That is what it is, whether or not L Truscott, the younger, likes it.

See the Civil War for a classic illustration of that harsh reality of the pol mil interface at the general officer level.

See Patton's relief from command as Seventh Army Commander, due to, wait for it, politics.

[SASless]

Tommy Franks screwed up two wars.....and did not get fired.

Then we have Dempsey, Casey, and Sanchez who have not lit the world up with their accomplishments....but they did not get fired.

In WWII...you performed or were gone.

We have gotten away from that standard for any number of reasons....call it politics or whatever you want....but unlike those days....Generals tend to hit their scheduled relief dates no matter what their performance is....which makes you wonder more than a bit. In the Civilian world...CEO's get cans tied to their tails if the company fails to meet expectations....why not the US Army?

[Lonewolf_50]

SAS:

Franks didn't screw up two wars all by himself. He had a hell of a lot of help from the chain of command he served, and a failure of the post conflict ops planning rigor. This is stuff Shinseki presented and that got HIM fired ... for telling the truth. (Still pisses me off, actually)

As to more people getting fired who fail, you actually won't get argument from me. Make sure you know what mission you gave them, and then tell me if they achieved it or not. That problem, the mission, was a success until about August 2003 in Iraq, when the phase II to III transition came a cropper when the UN building blew up. (Yes, I actually read the Op Plan, and in particular the Phase III and all of its Frag Orders and serials as things went on when I was in theater. Simple it wasn't. :p )

The problem of Afghanistan was exacerbated by the choice to head into Iraq, and turn Afghanistan into a Strategic Economy of Force operation for about seven years.

I won't lay that on Franks, though there is a lot about the Afghan operation that I find wrong (pre Iraq) and that Franks and his team have to answer for. (One of the issues was the striking difference between how the Special Ops folks worked among the population, and the Rangers and regular forces would do the heavy handed smash down the door thing. Sent conflicting signals, and left both sorts of operators with less to work with, in terms of local power base building. )

Beyond that, Franks did a good enough job, but nothing another general couldn't have done as well.

[SASless]

One of the points Ricks makes is Post Depuy....the US Army was all about Tactics....and Strategy was not addressed as it should be. The General's leading the Wars need to stick to Strategy and leave Tactics to the Platoon, Company, Battalion, and Brigade/Regiment Commanders.

If Franks et al, had done some serious thinking about what comes after the Tactical Defeat of the Enemy....perhaps both Wars would have turned out far different.

It is the General's job to speak frankly to the Political Leadership about such things.

When Paul Bremer fired the entire Iraqi government, military, and police....and cut off all government pensions.....you wonder things went egg shaped?

I am just a dumb assed helicopter pilot and even i can see the absolute stupidity of that kind of thinking!

The American Military is all about Hammers.....when all you have is Hammers.....then everything looks like a nail. Historically, the Army Old Boy bunch have not liked SpecOps forces and do not fully grasp what they are capable of doing....even after the early days of Afghanistan demonstrated it so well.

Nope....the Four Stars own their Wars.....and no excuses are allowed. Either they stand up to the Politicians and speak truth to power....or they stand down and retire.

Westmoreland certainly did not do that.....and I submit the latest crop of Four Stars have not done so either. Count the Dead and Maimed.....that is the price of their failures.

[500N]

OK, I'll throw a couple of things out for discussion.


Donald Rumsfeld was a PITA and caused general's more grief than needed
because he (and his deputy) thought they knew better. A good example is
the number of troops required in Iraq after getting to Baghdad.


Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy - ie all civilians - were the problem the Generals didn't need and made decisions against or opposite to what the military would have done - ie sacking everyone.

Instead of having a military head, you had two heads, which didn't agree.

Just some thoughts for discussion.