I would say the problem in Afghanistan is notably different from Iraq. In this case the government we left behind bolted immediately in no small part because of a peace agreement between the US and the Taliban. After that the Afghan army basically just walked away. It takes strong military leadership AND strong political leadership to win such a conflict. We never had either.
I heard from a US service member there were a lot of issues with the Afghan army that weren't being brought to attention. Between Afghan commando interpreter and US security.. things were being mandated
@@Falcrist that's not entirely accurate. The Afghan army suffered over 50000 casualties between 2014 and 2021. That's not the signs of an army afraid to fight. The army however, always had an Achilles heel. They needed us to support their logistics and maintenence. That has always been the case. When we pulled our support in May, that included all the contractors supporting their army. Their logistical system quickly collapsed and with it, their will to fight. Seeing as how they could no longer fix their equipment, get ammo or fight the way we trained them to fight, it's hard to blame them. Don't blame the Afghan army for what happened. Blame the US government. We stabbed them in the back just as we did south Vietnam.
Nathan, for me I see echoes of Hitler and Guderian. Guderian, a brilliant tactician, and Hitler, a civilian (with a military background obviously) who is fundamentally a strategist. I guess you don't find folks like Ike, or Marshall, under every stone. The tacticians need support and guidance.
... Glad he mentioned Gen. Tommy Franks. If there was a glaring "red flare" regarding the Iraq War, it was Gen. Franks decided to "retire" when U.S. troops FIRST ARRIVED in Baghdad, (also when CIA Director George Tenet decided to "Retire" when the Iraq War began).
Tom Ricks makes some very cogent and insightful points about how the modern Army general can’t win wars. IMO, what he misses is part of the flaws in the bureaucratic system that produces these generals. He hits part of it with the constant rotation of commanders, and the lack of firing, which is true but incomplete. The missing part is that generals deal in the institutional currencies of micromanagement, of knowing trivial facts that other generals don’t that can be reported in meetings with generals, and furious non-stop busy work creating initiatives and activity that have no long term value. There are way more generals than we need, and so instead of solving strategic problems they make meaningless work for everyone. No detail is too small for a general to send an email query to his/her staff on over the weekend. When a leaders mind is busy micromanaging and keeping up a furious pace of activity, they aren’t actually THINKING.
Great points. But a truly great general (of which there have been zero [ZERO] in the last 25+ years) would never allow himself (yes I said and mean HIM) to be drug down into the rabbit hole of micromanaging or drivel/ minutia.
Retired Marine Corps LtCol here, and like many retired "05s", while I did not make 06, I saw how the 06 and Flag ranks operated. Now twenty years on, I see it for what it is, and it's not a pretty picture.
@@thodan467 You need to read a little more history, they were both generals leading their respective armies, deeply concerned with the day to day conduct of their wars. You comment is just plain dumb.
A good point made was, "education does not equate to innate intelligence!" Also the lack of lifelong professional military reading is rampant across all the military Services.
Like in the rest of American society, there is strong anti-intellectual culture in the military. Admiral Zumwalt got into an argument with Henry Kissinger and at the end of the argument, Kissinger stated that anything he hates is dealing with an intellectual military person.
I really like how Tom is able to make all of this very simple and get his point across very effectively even for something as complex as the situation in Iraq
@Indispensable Strait Bah. What "nuke drop"? After watching his second video I can't say we're dealing with somebody who's elevator goes all the way to the top...
@Indispensable Strait Plus the emotional cost if losing men at the last minute. While in combat you bury emotion to so the job. The enotions come out when you are away from combat days, years later.
look at his twitter this are leftest loon has nothing to say about it. i just started listening to his stuff from years ago in the past few months he has gone off the deep end
I spent thirty years, twenty-eight days in the US Air Force. I spent 22 years overseas, eight and one half of those years deployed somewhere besides home. I have lived in eleven countries, and I have been shot at enough to be able to spend time with Army retirees for early morning breakfasts at the local McDonalds. I have great admiration for senior officers who have the moral courage to tell the truth and to adapt to circumstances in order to enable his troops to succeed in combat. With senior officers, the moral courage to do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons is far more important--and far more difficult to display--than any physical courage. That said, there are a few people with whom i have served who, if they called right now, I would drop anything I am doing and go to them. And, some are senior officers and some are enlisted men and women. It is their moral courage that I must respond to. I owe them my physical and professional life. I wish there were more of them; alas, they are few in number.
Thomas Ricks concerns are something I have heard from Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, and Lieutenant Colonels. I am amazed at how many US Army Captains have confided these same concerns to me about Generals as Thomas Ricks has adequately mentioned in this talk and several others.
i bought this book last week. as a military/history buff, it is one of the best book i;ve read. i also found out how General Marshall was doing a good job in WW2 from Washington DC and also how the Marines were doing a better than the Army in Nam
MacArthur stood up to FDR over the adoption of the new M1 Grand rifle for the US military and even used a personal slur against FDR if the M1 rifle was not adopted. FDR was enough of a man to respect MacArthur and the M1 rifle was adopted, shortly thereafter MacArthur retired and became a Field Marshal in the Phillippine military! The rest is history.
This is particularly telling now 3 years later. But I don't think it is merely a change in what Generals are like, in many ways in the US military we have gone backwards in time to a time when senior officers were not a small group of the elite best officers with 1 out of a hundred making it to the General Officer level. The army of today is an eighth the size of WWIIs army, but we have more than 3 times as many generals. And the pay scale as a comparison of average income level nationwide is much greater. Today, General Officers are effectively given positions in the same way militaries did in the time of European Empires when the jobs were given out based on who you knew. We have gone way back in time to a time before professional officership, and the result is not that surprising.
I think your assessment of the excessive number of general officers is quite correct. The drift into a corporatocracy of very high paid general officers apart from the rest of the troops needs to be a greater concern. I have considered that once reaching the O-6 Colonel level or O-7 One star level, that no further pay raises should be given. The draw then to higher general officer positions would be based more upon desire and merit to serve and fewer would stay in with other careerist concerns which are money driven. It is a thought I have had. Once reaching the 1 Star level, pay should be capped. Additional savings should be passed on to lower ranking soldiers as increased pay. If it were up to me, pay would be capped once a person reaches the O-6 Colonel level with no pay advancement for General Officer status.
@@richardherberthenkle2817 I see where you're coming from, but I actually think we should do the opposite. Pay the generals ridiculous salaries, but make sure there are never a disproportionate number of them relative to the rest of the military. IMO if there were no pay raise for becoming a general we would lose serious talent to the private sector and the revolving door between defense contractors and the military would spin that much faster.
@@richardherberthenkle2817 I agreed about the pay scale of the generals; however, it should be some pay raise for them when they make general/admiral; however, their basic pay scale is the same no matter what their general/admiral rank is. Until the mid to late 1950s, the pay scale for major general up to four-star general and those of the Navy admirals was the same no matter what rank you held. It wasn't until the mid to late 50, that the pay scale slowly but surely, became wider between the various grades of generals and the admirals. It's kind of like Star Trek the Next Generation, where the Star Fleet people don't get a salary no matter what their rank is because all their needs are being taken care of as Captain Picard told the Afro-American lady in the movie Star Trek, the First Contact.
@@zachbornstein4288 We should cut out the revolving door policy for both civilian and military people including Congress. As Ross Perot stated when he ran for president, these people need to leave Washinton D. C. and go out and get a job like the rest of America has to do. Whatever happened to do something larger for yourself and doing the job because you enjoy doing it not for the financial rewards, the power, status, and perks of the job? We need more people like Auda Abu Tayi from the movie Lawrence of Arabia in both the private and public sectors.
Dude, the US couldn't win in Afghanistan, to win you would have to destroy their way of horrible medieval life, put the taliban to the sword. It was always impossible to build a democracy there, if that was the "win" and the strategic objective. The actual battles were won at the time of invasion, easily by special forces.
@@thodan467 That's my point. But if we look at the invasion itself, and those battles, that was over pretty quickly. The grind started when politicians decided the US should stay.
The problem with Patraeus is not what he did, what would he have done to a subordinate who did the same? A somewhat typical attitude of do what I say, not what I do. And, for your information he violated the UCMJ which is breaking the law.
Had an NCO demoted for having affair outside his marriage, with whom he was physically separated for 6 months already, and recently an E-9 who was reassigned for impregnating his driver. Its very disheartening to see from the bottom.
Lower zipper failure was highly frowned upon by my Battalion Commander (US Army Engineer) in Germany. Petraeus embarrassed himself. He's human, but there has to be a consequence. And there was...although he's been restored somewhat. Making enough $$$ doing whatever he does.
@@thodan467 Conduct unbecoming of an officer. Officers are leaders and need to set an example. When you join the military, especially as an officer, you are waiving certain rights/privileges away. Also he had an affair with a reporter embedded with him who he allowed unauthorized access to secret documents. It does not take much imagination to see the various security risks in allowing your top brass to engage in affairs.
The last General with true honor and integrity was Marine Corps General Peter Pace. He was also the also the last USMC General with the courage to stand up to the politically correct bullsh*t that has infected the bloodstreams of every other career-climbing G.O and Flag Officer.
I'm an Army veteran, 1993-2008, served in Germany, Korea, Ft Sill, OK, Ft. Hood, TX and had deployments to Albania/Kosovo in 1999 and Iraq from 2004-2005 and what I saw in all of those units were officers much more concerned about their next promotion and sucking up to the commander as compared to caring about their soldiers....the "West Point Protection Society" was alive and well in the units I served in....NCOs would get slammed for any mistake or misconduct no matter how slight but if an officer did the same thing he got off scott free and of course was promoted on schedule....I only worked with a couple of officers who wanted to be in the motorpool working with the soldiers and/or being with the soldiers out in the field and training with them...those type of officers didn't last long and quickly disappeared...to be replaced by ones who never left the training room, spending all of their time in front of the computer, either being the commander's bitch or typing up "training schedules" they had zero desire to be part of.....and it really pissed us off in Iraq to see those "FOB Rat" officers who spent 99.9% of their time on the base who decided to go out on one patrol during the last days of our deployment just so they can afterward put themselves in for a Combat Action Badge even though no combat occurred while they were out there, then we had the same type officers who put themselves in for a CAB just because an insurgent fired mortar or rocket landed 300 yards from their office....they sure got the promotion points racked up during the deployment while taking near zero risk to life and limb....and it still goes on today.
20:41 - "A modern version of the 'stab in the back' ". 22:30 - "Good civil-military discourse is [...] probably one of the few leading indicators of how well a war is gonna go." 24:01 - "Saddam Hussein believed he'd won." 26:22 - "A war of inattention, [and] of casual arrogance; to think that we could go in and sort of fight a war with our left hand, without really paying much attention to it." 27:35 - "If you put eleven commanders in eleven years, what you're doing is making each of your commanders the patsy, because Afghanistan is not a place you figure out in twelve months. Even if you did, you're leaving after twelve months." 32:18 - Collapse of generalship; confusing tactical leadership with strategic leadership. 34:30 - "We really have a lot of generals who aren't generals these days. It's like a military without a head. [...] We have a lot generals who are trained, but not educated." 36:57 - "Counterinsurgency sounds like a big fancy word, that you need to speak french to understand. It's not. [...] Counterinsurgency in a nutshell: Don't create enemies." 39:08 - "Our troops were so tactically effective, that it enabled our strategic leaders to dither for years and years, because [...] we never really had losses [...] as we had in the Vietnam War." 39:48 - "Good tactics can't fix bad strategy, but they can also enable bad strategy to kind of dither along. Good strategy [...] will fix bad tactics." 42:10 - "The difference between training and education: Training prepares you for the known, education for the unknown." 44:20 - "Everybody in the army basically gets a Leavenworth education now. No one fails. It's 'Lake Wobegon' - everybody is above average." 47:34 - "You don't want a Chief of Staff who hates and loaths Washington. You want a Chief of Staff who understands: This is where the nation's business is done. And, that when Congress asks you a question, they're not messing in *_your_* business, you're messing in *_their_* business. Congress and the executive *_own_* the military *_in_* *_the_* *_name_* *_of_* *_the_* *_people_* ." 51:40 - "I think skin in the game would make a big difference, and also, *_I_* *_think_* *_it's_* *_morally_* *_reckless_* *_of_* *_this_* *_country_* *_to_* *_fight_* *_wars_* , *_without paying_* *_attention_* *_to_* *_them_* . "
Aside from the way generals and officership as a whole has become ineffective, you can’t expect them to be able to win a war that was never supposed to be won. The mission was faulty before they even got there,and winning hearts and minds won’t work if that’s the case.
Hill Center, that is one *fine* introductory caption. How I wish it might become a model for everybody posting their stuff to TH-cam. Well done and thank you!
I would love to know this gentlemen’s thoughts on how the go along to get along ethic of our current officers, flag level and lower, would fair in a shooting conflict with an adversary like China.
Flag level is where the failure is and has been. The general officers corps in the U.S. has kept their jobs, careers, benefits, and pensions will gutting the enlisted ranks of this country for decades. Enlisted ranks get Rif'd, but generals still keep positions and perks. I don't believe China would risk a war with the U.S.. They might risk war with Taiwan though understanding that we probably won't come to their aid.
Given the events happening in Afghanistan circa August 29, 2021, every Service College and Senior Service School and War College drastically needs to have its entire curriculum radically re-designed! The wars of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan - have clearly failed to be absorbed by the national military establishment!
The establishment and senior leadership refuses to believe that we LOST. No no.. it was the draftees, it was the politicians, it was the guerrilla tactics, "the enemy doesn't fight fair on our level.." well duh. These people aren't stupid and saw what happened to Saddam's Army in 1991. Not even the Russians or Chinese would fight us "fairly". I'm a junior officer and most of my senior leaders are borderline incompetent or idiots. They are great with Army buzzwords, looking good on paper, but obviously lack sophistication or independent thought. Hell my BDE commander made a point out of how he doesn't read and how his run time is great leadership... these guys are gonna get us killed, all we can hope for is that the Air Force doesn't lose air superiority or we're really fucked.
@@EntertaningAmerica Well, then the American military better learn from the Germans, the North Koreans, the Communist Chinese army, and the North Vietnamese army about how to fight without any kind of air superiority.
Spot on. Reflection of our political leadership in decline. We are led by politicians who do as I say not as I do! Headed for failure. Nobody takes responsibility for their mistakes anymore....
Outstanding! Thanks. However, you should see this, from the bottom up. For instance, an E3, with no power, holding down the job of an E7, managing armories, without equal pay, while repeatedly taking the blame, for the dereliction-of-duty of "superiors!"
I am an E3 medic doing COVID response in Korea, and i can attest to this. Very much a "leave you alone without assistance until you fail, then point out every inconsistency we can find, and say how much we do for you" attitude from senior personnel.
@@devinpoissenot3184 That is for sure. They leave you out to dry and all this talk they fed to you about being a band of brothers, unit cohesion, comradeship, and esprit de corps was a bunch of garbage. It is one of many reasons why the military lost in Vietnam.
ROGER THAT! It even happens in the Air Force (which is generally rather professional and pleasant to work in). My Armybros always had it worse and got the shite end of the stick. Thanks for what you do from someone who knows.
33:40 Dear me, that sounds like a quote I read once about the German Heer in WWII: If you win all the firefights you win the war. Not sure if it is a valid quote, but.....well? The Germans were in a strategic black hole in WWII. They spent the years between the world wars becoming excellent technicians (except for logistics, mind you), but for whatever reason had no idea what to do with it it in the long run. Keep in mind they had just lost a war... Heinz Guderian is, admittedly, not the most honest source for WWII, but I understand that the following happened. The breakthrough was done in France, and Hitler arrived for a briefing. The generals described the breakthrough and the current situation. Hitler asked, "So what will we do next?" Guderian said, that was the first time anyone had asked that question. Not a good sign when Hitler asks that question. Kinda starting to sound familiar....
Well, Clifford Clark, Secretary of Defense, during the Vietnam War, asks his generals what was the plan to win the war, and the only answer they gave was if they killed enough enemy soldiers, Hanoi would quit fighting. Clark at that point turned against the war after hearing that statement.
The strategic thinking was not very developed in Prussia and Germany for a very simple reason. If it would be needed the situation would be dire, both states ´d never the ressources to fight a strategic war with reasonable chances of success. Then the strategic guidance from the Gröfaz and the High Command was sorely missing. What should division commanders do then?
@@gunthervonhoffman6453 Dear Lord....you realize that is no different than Haig;s tactics in 1916-17 against the Germans? "Well, we are taking losses, but the Boche are running out of troops." Except they were NOT running out of troops. As John Mosier details in "The Myth of the Great War," based on actual, official German casualty lists, they were losing WAY fewer troops than the Allies (especially the British) estimated. . They were able to come up with a half-million troops to knock Romania out of the war, and shortly thereafter Russia. They and the Austrians came up with armies to effectively knock Italy out of the war. And that was the same problem in Vietnam. The belief that the North Vietnamese would have to end the way because of casualties was total BS. Did they suffer heavy casualties? Certainly. Was US firepower dangerous. Indeed. But it was a North Vietnamese tank that captured the presidential palace in Saigon, not a South Vietnamese tank that captured the presidential palace in Hanoi. And now we have Afghanistan......
@@jayfelsberg1931 Yes and No about Italy being knocked out of the war. If they were really knocked out of the war, the Italian government would have sued for peace and withdrew from the war. If it wasn't for changes in the Italian military top leadership and Allied military assistance, Italy would have quit the war. Overwhelmingly, American wars have always been a war of attrition of wearing down the enemy in order to defeat them with some exceptions. Geronimo had very few men; however, the US army couldn't seem to track him down and engage him in a pitched battle in order to beat him. It took 3 wars to beat the Seminole Indians and the Second Seminole War was the longest one that lasted 7 years. The British always greatly outnumber the Germans in the air and on the ground during the North Africa campaign while interdicting the Axis air and naval supply lines to Rommel; however, the Germans still manage to keep on fighting and in many cases, inflicted more casualties on the British even at El Alamein. Unlike the earlier Union generals who retreated after getting beaten by Robert E. Lee, US Grant just kept moving forward and worn down the Confederate Army in the East even though he was taking heavy casualties. Yes, the North Vietnamese were willing to take casualties; however, they were totally committed to freeing their entire country including South Vietnam. After the war, one American officer told a North Vietnamese official how the US was killing 10 NVA for every American dead, and the official stated that it didn't matter since they were going to win the war.
You could write a whole second volume just on 2001-2021 and how the generals broke into 4 factions: The Woke, The MAGA, the corporatists, and smallest of all, successful
Conforming to the conditions of ticket-punching careerism rather initiative, professional zeal, and practical effectiveness seems to be an endemic problem in the officer corps of the U.S. Army at least and possibly the other U.S. armed forces as well.
I left the Army as a CPT, so not as high up as Tom may have his sights on...but to fire someone is hard. And unfortunately, I met a LOT of officers and NCOs who would rather just let poor leadership slide and let someone else deal with it instead of taking the hard step to get rid of them.
These same officers and NCOs would also deal with problems that occurred on their bases and hope that they would not blow up in their faces by the time they were ready to go to their next assignment.
"Thank you for having I here" .... no "Thank you for having Tom and I here" ... no "Thank you for having me here" ... yes! "Thank you for having Tom and me here" ... yes. People, get this straight. A person looks less intelligent when they can't get the subject/object thing straightened out.
Since "The Gulf War" of 1990-91 was never ended with the peace treaty, only a cease fire, that means that the 2003 invasion, contrary to critics' claims, was merely resumption of high tempo combat operations in a war which was still ongoing.
All these fine books written about our generals and the decline of our military. I’ve yet to see anyone address the issue of the senior enlisted. That being the issue of what E8-E9 paygrades that were initiated in the 50’s, as well the implementation of high year tenure of the mid 80’s. Once upon a time it was common for a SGTMJ to physically tighten up a young officer. No one seems to see the significance of the senior enlisted over the molding years of officers before they become field/flag grade.
Excellent interview. And I wholly agree on the point about the draft - if military service wasn’t largely confined to a small minority (disproportionately drawn from lower income groups), the people would hold their politicians to greater account over the forever wars they have sought to fight over the last 30 year or so. There’s nothing the neocons would fear more than a draft being reinstated.
Thanks so much for having 'Tom and me' here, not 'Tom and I'. It is called objective case. If you don't believe it just remove Tom from the sentence, and she would have said, "Thanks so much for having I here." And she is an editor.
The ironies.. He obviously considers David Petraeus very bright and a very good general, but he knocks Ft. Leavenworth. David Petraeus went to the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In fact he was the top graduate of his class and won the George C. Marshall award. From late 2005 through February 2007, Petraeus served as commanding general of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (CAC) located there. As commander of CAC, Petraeus was responsible for oversight of the Command and General Staff College and seventeen other schools, centers, and training programs as well as for developing the Army's doctrinal manuals, training the Army's officers, and supervising the Army's center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned. He's the one who thought up the counterinsurgency manual. The problem with counterinsurgency is that it takes a long time to win battles this way. The Brits did it and so did the French. But as a country we don't do that because we like our wars like WWII. Go in, level the place, declare victory and leave.
There are tactical, operational and strategic levels of land operations of warfare and very few military personnel possess the traits to be excellent at all three levels! Thus the progress our challenges and failures in Afghanistan & Iraq.
What do generals do but give each other medals? A lot of first class officers who are swimming against the flow. It used to be the motto "Get your ticket punched and move on.".
This rot begins under Carter; when the operation (Operation Desert One) to rescue the hostages was such an abject failure due to staff and command failures to plan. Afterwards, the officer in charge, General Starry, was promoted and given a prestigious command.
Hello Stewart. I know what you mean, but do you really think it started with Carter? What about Westie in Vietnam? Wasn't that the same sort of thing? The rot was there already. I have nothing against Westerland per se. Vietnam was a strategic failure beyond the kin of generals.
Dear Daddy Stewart, yes, I remember that vividly the burnt rotor blades and silhouettes of the helicopters in the sand. The defense forces were a shambles then as they generally are during a Democrat Administration. They always tend to neglect defense needs.
Shame!, I’m not Americanor military..., but have learnt a lot of the history of the worlds conflicts... (still learning).. & I listen to this and I just feel so sadly/ even grieving for the “US Soldier/ Sailor”.... 53 years.., I have watch so much American blood spilt, some in amazing eats of selflessness that have brought peace.., but just so so much of it wasted..., man it’s hard to listen to the truth this man speaks... 🌹🙏🇺🇸🇳🇿
11:06 "The message people will take away is you can be mediocre as long as you keep your pants on. Personal behaviours will be monitored and have great consequences. But public execution of your duties --we won't measure or hold you accountable on, partly because as a system we don't know how to do that anymore." A trend representative of US political institutions as a whole. Competency takes a backseat to maintaining a good public image.
The top senior NCO leadership is no better than the generals. Many of them play politics to get to the top and let their rank go to their heads. You had a scandal some years ago, where it was discovered that the Chief Pretty Officer promotion board was fixed. One of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy had to crack down on his fellow chief pretty officers because many of them thought that just because they were chief pretty officers, they could do anything they wanted and get away with it and the people underneath their command couldn't do a thing about it. Another Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy had to leave because he had created a toxic atmosphere among his enlisted staff. He acted like he was an admiral because he wanted certain things like his own private military jet, his own private military car with a chauffeur, wanted people to pick up his laundry, etc. His staff would point out why he couldn't have these things or do things that violated federal law and military regulations and he would lose his temper and chew out his staff. His staff also stated that he wasn't a thinker and sat on his butt and did do anything. In the movie Invisible War about systematic rape in the military, many rape victims had complained to their officers and NCOs about them being raped, but the officers and NCOs either didn't do a thing about it or they kicked the rape victims out of the military. Some of the rapists were the rape victims' immediate superiors which didn't help out the victims. Wouldn't be surprised if some of the rapists are generals/or top-ranking sergeants/petty officers. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation had to go after NCOs who violated the separation of church and state. If there are too many generals, then you can say that about having too many top NCOs/Chief Petty Officers. Billy Mitchel and Claire Chennault were truth-tellers; however, both were forced to leave the service. It took a war to validate Claire Chenault's fighter plane theories. The military never cultivates let alone encourages truth-tellers and moral courage. If they had the moral courage and were truth-tellers a long, long, long time ago, we would have either won the war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan earlier or would have not gone into those countries in the first place, or would have gotten out a lot earlier plus the generals would have resigned en masse to voice their opposition in going to war in those countries in the first place. Finally, in the military, the moment you go to the military academies, go to basic training as an enlisted person, go to ROTC at a college, or one of the many military academies across the USA, one of the first things they drill into your head is: 1) who told you to think? ; 2) you are not paid to think, and 3) your drill instructor/older cadet tells you that from now on he/she will do the thinking for you. That's is why you don't have officers, NCOs, and enlisted personnel who show no initiative or original thinking because they were not allowed to do so right from the start. The things that Scott stated about the generals can be said for CEOs. The CEOs are incapable of making products and services without killing or injuring people. They don't care about what they do to society or to their companies, expect the public to subsidize their losses while they keep all the money and wage a ruthless, relentless war against good government, against workers, against unions, and against corporate whistleblowers.
George Marshall was a hero here in Europe in the past. Now only for people who know their history. He kind of kick-started Europe's economy after WWII. The Marshall plan is taught in school - if the school tells it's pupils of the Cold War. If Marshall didn't become Secretary of State in the USA Europe's future would be quite darker. Edit: In Denmark we have just what Tom Ricks said about the draft: We have a draft, but it's a lottery to get in.
It's interesting how he describes Colin Powell. (47:08) "Powell scared American politicians both of both parties bying this politically independent uh chairman of the Joint Chiefs the senior military officer in the country " In Robert Draper's book about the start of the the Iraq war, he was described as a guy who although he had been independent, politically, when it came to brass tacks, once he was head of the State Department, he was basically a go- along to get along type of guy who had achieved his rank because he hadn't been willing to rock the boat.
Retired with twenty-two years. Would I recommend young people to join today? No. Leadership at the top is abysmal and doesn't give a shit about Private Rudy.
He's incentives for the reintroduction of selective service are fascinating. Proper old School Rome stuff, take care of the state and the state will take care of you.
The problem isn't the generals, the problem is how you are fighting wars. The biggest problem is you constantly try to fight a clean war. In WW2 you fought the ideology of Nazism, you destroyed entire cities, armies and bombed civilians, you banned the ideology. In the War on Terror Islam was at war with you, you didn't destroy Islam, instead you sent troops out to walk around and be nice to people. As soon as they said we are not at war with Islam the war was lost. The Afghans, The Pakistanis and the Saudis all hate you, they aren't your friends, they never will be and will work behind your back to destroy you. Take off the rose tinted freedom glasses and fight a war like it's supposed to be fought. Destroy the ideology which is trying to destroy you.
Geneva Conventions vs Total War. If you are a weak combatant, you like it when the other guy follows the Geneva Conventions. If you are a strong combatant, the Geneva Conventions is why you can't crush your enemy to force their unconditional surrender.
29:00 That is just so true. To this day no foreign military has even put in a formal request for information of the Soviet military campaign in Afghanistan. Just think about it. In the early 2000s relationships between Esat and West were kinda okish. You could have just asked them about shit like this. But this is typical western arrogance, why ask the russians, they lost... Duhh, bet they lost for a reason. 1st part of this could be BS, iI have no way to research this. Got it from an Interview with a well reputed german journalist who covered stuff like this very well.
Several things should be pointed out here. This interview didn’t age particularly well. It should be said that Tom Ricks is a friend of David Petraeus. That's why he defended him. And the affair with Paula Broadwell likely started when both were in Afghanistan, according to Sarah Chayes, who wrote about it in an article called Paula and David in Foreign Affairs. What it does show is that David Petraeus didn't have his eye on the ball all the while he was in Afghanistan. Ricks takes issue with the military dismissing upper-level generals for personal indiscretions, disregarding the fact that a. this is military law, and b. this also applies to the enlisted ranks, and what has to apply to the low must also apply to the high. To do otherwise is to have really poor. As Paul Yingling so rightly pointed out, a private who loses his rifle suffers worse consequences than a general who loses a war. That is in fact the biggest problem with the military. The final chapter was saved for David Petraeus, whose resignation from his post as head of the CIA, after revealing as he resigned that he had been very foolish and had had an affair caused a scandal. David Petraeus is quite well acquainted with the author, to the point that the author uses sections from his former book about Petraeus and Iraq, "The Gamble”. Published in 2009, it was about David Petraeus and the Iraq war and is used to foot note this chapter. Some academics would have trouble with using a prior book to footnote a second book, but this is not a book targeted at academics. He skips over and is not in this writer’s opinion sufficiently critical of David Petraeus’ term in the military, his strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan, which included paying Iraqis to not shoot American soldiers. time.com/archive/6944969/in-iraq-former-enemies-on-the-us-payroll/) It was in effect a bribe, a strategy which as any policeman will tell you is doomed to failure, since you must always pay and can never really stop. The instant you stop, whoever you’re trying to bribe to stop, will restart whatever behavior it was that started the bribe. This is exactly what happened in Iraq. The violence began to ramp up again, when the US stopped the policy of handing over stacks of crisp brand new $100 bills to these men. These men along with left over bits of the laid off, dismissed Iraqi army, who had been allowed to leave with their weapons, would wind up morphing into Al Qaeda in Iraq and then into ISIS. David Petraeus was also responsible for training the Iraqi army. This is the same Iraqi army that collapsed under pressure from ISIS, and left both their uniforms and weapons on the battlefield. He was however, very, very skilled at dealing with the press, succeeding in winding up on the cover of Newsweek, when he was only a two-star general instead of the man who was actually commanding the army in Iraq at the time. Lt. General George Casey. Prior to the scandal, he had had a reputation as a warrior, soldier-scholar who had a PhD from Princeton and had authored the Army’s manual on counter-insurgency. In fact, prior to being forced to step down as head of the CIA, Petraeus had seemed on course to be president, and while he had had his critics, most of them had by and large been ignored with the exception of MoveOn.org who bought an ad in 2007 that called him, General Betrayus, resulting in pretty extensive backlash. The only question was- which party would get him to run for president. That all ended however on November 9, 2012, when he resigned from his post as head of the CIA. As a result, this book, will have one rather interesting and notable distinction that the author surely didn’t intend. This book was published 13 days before David Petraeus resigned in disgrace from the CIA, hoping to forestall a growing scandal that initially, was all about the fact that his biographer also happened to be the retired Army general’s mistress. The scandal, continued to simmer just beneath the headlines with stories that the FBI continued to investigate Petraeus for a couple of years coming forth, like oil from a sunken ship, including a report that the FBI had questioned him at his house. However, it turned very serious, when in January, 2015, news broke that retired four-star general David Petraeus was being indicted for turning over classified materials to his biographer/mistress. These were materials over and above the hundreds of pages that were initially found on Broadwell’s computer that was taken from her house in an FBI search in November, 2012. The material in question turned out to be 8 small black notes books full of top-secret information, including but not limited to the names and identities of top-secret operatives. David Petraeus wound up pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges, getting probation and paying a $100,000 fine, something which many people inside and outside the military thought should have been a stiffer sentence for what he admitted he had done. Initially, he had also lied to the FBI, about having given Paula Broadwell classified material, but since that interview was not recorded, they couldn’t charge him with lying to the FBI. As a result, FBI interviews are now recorded. It put a different sort of ending on the up to now highly decorated career of the general who had graduated West Point, married a four star general’s daughter, managed to avoid combat, served several times as an aid to four star generals, parlaying that into a career which lead him into the top ranks of generalship, and despite his lack of combat, still managed to craft an image of himself, through assiduous relationship building with the press, of a soldier, scholar- warrior and independent thinker. Now the Army at this point in time seemed to be heading away from counter insurgency and back to conventional force that uses main battle tanks. However, that was before the Ukraine war and massive use of drones made tanks sitting ducks.
3:27 Absolutely wrong. General Petraeus was married at the time of his affair to his wife, Holly. He married Holly in 1974, and is indeed still married (to her credit). A marital affair IS illegal as it is in direct violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (no. 99. Extramarital sexual conduct). An extra marital affair is NOT a personal matter. it is a violation of good order and discipline let alone personal integrity and honor. Spouses matter in the military. Betraying them is a serious offense in the eyes of God (remember the sixth commandment?) If you cannot be honorable in your personal affairs, you shouldn't be in charge of troops. Semper Fi.
"or, he would have to lie and he didn't want to do either." On the contrary, Patraeus had no problem lying when he was cheating on his wife. I wouldn't have cared what he did, but his bad decisions had impacts beyond his zipper.
I AM not american but in My opinion is that back in the days of the WW2 Many wealth american served in the armed forces sons of powerful people FDR sons , Kennedy brothers just to Say an exemple but i don't think that is the case today Even presidents served in their youth Truman served in ww1 eisenhower of course Kennedy , Johnson , Nixon , Ford , cárter , Bush 1 all served in the armed forces so Even when they were at civilian control the POTUS had some of experience in the armed forces nowdays probably You can't question a general because You as a commander in chief who has never Been involved in the armed forces can not judge mérit so You let them be because they are experts and You have take their Word
Just for reference, Soviet fought enemy armed with fuckload of MANPADs, they couldn`t land the transport plane in Bagram without some remarkable aerobatics involved.
If I - as a non native speaker - got it right, as little as 16 out of 155 generals were fired (within 90 days) in WWII. This is only 10%. There may be plenty of reasons why this happened back in those days and not after WWII, most notably the changed nature of warfare itself and its duration, not to mention the different political environments in which aggressions and invasions happened. Moreover this talkative author never defines the meaning of 'being successful at war' nor proofs (how, if you don't know what you have to proove?) that US was 'less successful' during some (all? which ones?) conflicts after WWII. US and the whole western world is in decline because our grand strategy was completely wrong and the enemy is smarter than us. Reality is simply catching up with us, lies tellers to ourselves and the rest of the world for decades. Writing and talking like art critics who cannot hold a pencil in their fingers, nor get a single note out of an instrument. Send him to Afga and let's see what happens and fire all generals listening to this thing.
The danger of today's US Flag officers is that they are 'templated' that is, ticket-punching assignments of ever-increasing responsibilities until they each ultimately reach a Peter-Principle in which an ultimate state of incompetence of the wrong-person, for the wrong-position is realized. There are few, if any, extemporaneous or eclectic Flag officers! The mantra of Command, Command and more Command assignments may be well for some classical warfare assignments, however, it is a short-sighted and disastrous formula for counter-insurgency warfare or technical-scientific application operations! Remember that neither Marshall or Eisenhower possessed a wealth of classical operational military unit command assignments prior to their Flag-rank selection.
Essentially and in short, the author is trying to state in a long -winded fashion that character and personality do matter for military (and corporate, political and religious professions) success! You can't fake characters personality for any appreciable period of time.
It is completely nonsense to say Patton was only good at chasing. The first battle Patton fought in Africa was not chasing; Sicily was not chasing, Normandy was not chasing, Bulge was not chasing. All they were breakthrough. Actually, without Patton, Eisenhower and Bradley could not had won a single campaign!
The US military is NOT about defending the United States and hasn't been since the end of the war of 1812. It has been about extending empire and ultimately having the new world order coalesce around it. The Soviets were clearly supported by the west after the revolution and during WW2, they had little ability to build a war machine after the Stalin purges. Ricks is correct in asserting the decline in military leadership however. The generals are now nothing more than risk averse politicians whose primary goal is to advance their careers. General Smedley Butler said it best eighty plus years ago: "war is a racket".
Oh this has aged beautifully
Agreed
I would say the problem in Afghanistan is notably different from Iraq. In this case the government we left behind bolted immediately in no small part because of a peace agreement between the US and the Taliban. After that the Afghan army basically just walked away.
It takes strong military leadership AND strong political leadership to win such a conflict. We never had either.
I heard from a US service member there were a lot of issues with the Afghan army that weren't being brought to attention. Between Afghan commando interpreter and US security.. things were being mandated
@@Falcrist that's not entirely accurate. The Afghan army suffered over 50000 casualties between 2014 and 2021. That's not the signs of an army afraid to fight. The army however, always had an Achilles heel. They needed us to support their logistics and maintenence. That has always been the case. When we pulled our support in May, that included all the contractors supporting their army. Their logistical system quickly collapsed and with it, their will to fight. Seeing as how they could no longer fix their equipment, get ammo or fight the way we trained them to fight, it's hard to blame them.
Don't blame the Afghan army for what happened. Blame the US government. We stabbed them in the back just as we did south Vietnam.
@@tormagnus6774 It's not just that the US left. Afghani leadership fled as well.
Boy this aged like fine wine.
So many should be fired...
His book is excellent. Would love to have seen it extended to today.
Nathan, for me I see echoes of Hitler and Guderian. Guderian, a brilliant tactician, and Hitler, a civilian (with a military background obviously) who is fundamentally a strategist. I guess you don't find folks like Ike, or Marshall, under every stone. The tacticians need support and guidance.
... Glad he mentioned Gen. Tommy Franks. If there was a glaring "red flare" regarding the Iraq War, it was Gen. Franks decided to "retire" when U.S. troops FIRST ARRIVED in Baghdad, (also when CIA Director George Tenet decided to "Retire" when the Iraq War began).
Tom Ricks makes some very cogent and insightful points about how the modern Army general can’t win wars. IMO, what he misses is part of the flaws in the bureaucratic system that produces these generals. He hits part of it with the constant rotation of commanders, and the lack of firing, which is true but incomplete. The missing part is that generals deal in the institutional currencies of micromanagement, of knowing trivial facts that other generals don’t that can be reported in meetings with generals, and furious non-stop busy work creating initiatives and activity that have no long term value. There are way more generals than we need, and so instead of solving strategic problems they make meaningless work for everyone. No detail is too small for a general to send an email query to his/her staff on over the weekend.
When a leaders mind is busy micromanaging and keeping up a furious pace of activity, they aren’t actually THINKING.
Great points. But a truly great general (of which there have been zero [ZERO] in the last 25+ years) would never allow himself (yes I said and mean HIM) to be drug down into the rabbit hole of micromanaging or drivel/ minutia.
@@tegbolddos good point.
@The Wraith
Alexander the great and Dschnghis Khan weren´t military leaders
Retired Marine Corps LtCol here, and like many retired "05s", while I did not make 06, I saw how the 06 and Flag ranks operated. Now twenty years on, I see it for what it is, and it's not a pretty picture.
@@thodan467 You need to read a little more history, they were both generals leading their respective armies, deeply concerned with the day to day conduct of their wars.
You comment is just plain dumb.
A good point made was, "education does not equate to innate intelligence!" Also the lack of lifelong professional military reading is rampant across all the military Services.
Like in the rest of American society, there is strong anti-intellectual culture in the military. Admiral Zumwalt got into an argument with Henry Kissinger and at the end of the argument, Kissinger stated that anything he hates is dealing with an intellectual military person.
that's interesting because one of the people he wasn't critical of was David Petraeus who has a masters and a doctorate from Princeton.
I really like how Tom is able to make all of this very simple and get his point across very effectively even for something as complex as the situation in Iraq
Not sure if that's a good thing
I would like to know his thoughts on the Afghanistan debacle happening now.
@Indispensable Strait Bah. What "nuke drop"? After watching his second video I can't say we're dealing with somebody who's elevator goes all the way to the top...
@Indispensable Strait 0311 USMC mid 70's. SFMF. Can't get much more basic than that...
You can see HR McMaster's take over at The Hoover Institution's channel.
@Indispensable Strait Plus the emotional cost if losing men at the last minute. While in combat you bury emotion to so the job. The enotions come out when you are away from combat days, years later.
look at his twitter this are leftest loon has nothing to say about it. i just started listening to his stuff from years ago in the past few months he has gone off the deep end
I spent thirty years, twenty-eight days in the US Air Force. I spent 22 years overseas, eight and one half of those years deployed somewhere besides home. I have lived in eleven countries, and I have been shot at enough to be able to spend time with Army retirees for early morning breakfasts at the local McDonalds. I have great admiration for senior officers who have the moral courage to tell the truth and to adapt to circumstances in order to enable his troops to succeed in combat. With senior officers, the moral courage to do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons is far more important--and far more difficult to display--than any physical courage. That said, there are a few people with whom i have served who, if they called right now, I would drop anything I am doing and go to them. And, some are senior officers and some are enlisted men and women. It is their moral courage that I must respond to. I owe them my physical and professional life. I wish there were more of them; alas, they are few in number.
Thomas Ricks concerns are something I have heard from Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, and Lieutenant Colonels. I am amazed at how many US Army Captains have confided these same concerns to me about Generals as Thomas Ricks has adequately mentioned in this talk and several others.
i bought this book last week. as a military/history buff, it is one of the best book i;ve read. i also found out how General Marshall was doing a good job in WW2 from Washington DC and also how the Marines were doing a better than the Army in Nam
MacArthur stood up to FDR over the adoption of the new M1 Grand rifle for the US military and even used a personal slur against FDR if the M1 rifle was not adopted. FDR was enough of a man to respect MacArthur and the M1 rifle was adopted, shortly thereafter MacArthur retired and became a Field Marshal in the Phillippine military! The rest is history.
Indeed. An excellent example of a general doing his job!
This video has ages really well.
More relevant now than ever.
This is particularly telling now 3 years later. But I don't think it is merely a change in what Generals are like, in many ways in the US military we have gone backwards in time to a time when senior officers were not a small group of the elite best officers with 1 out of a hundred making it to the General Officer level. The army of today is an eighth the size of WWIIs army, but we have more than 3 times as many generals. And the pay scale as a comparison of average income level nationwide is much greater. Today, General Officers are effectively given positions in the same way militaries did in the time of European Empires when the jobs were given out based on who you knew. We have gone way back in time to a time before professional officership, and the result is not that surprising.
I think your assessment of the excessive number of general officers is quite correct. The drift into a corporatocracy of very high paid general officers apart from the rest of the troops needs to be a greater concern. I have considered that once reaching the O-6 Colonel level or O-7 One star level, that no further pay raises should be given. The draw then to higher general officer positions would be based more upon desire and merit to serve and fewer would stay in with other careerist concerns which are money driven. It is a thought I have had. Once reaching the 1 Star level, pay should be capped. Additional savings should be passed on to lower ranking soldiers as increased pay. If it were up to me, pay would be capped once a person reaches the O-6 Colonel level with no pay advancement for General Officer status.
@@richardherberthenkle2817 I see where you're coming from, but I actually think we should do the opposite. Pay the generals ridiculous salaries, but make sure there are never a disproportionate number of them relative to the rest of the military. IMO if there were no pay raise for becoming a general we would lose serious talent to the private sector and the revolving door between defense contractors and the military would spin that much faster.
@@richardherberthenkle2817 I agreed about the pay scale of the generals; however, it should be some pay raise for them when they make general/admiral; however, their basic pay scale is the same no matter what their general/admiral rank is. Until the mid to late 1950s, the pay scale for major general up to four-star general and those of the Navy admirals was the same no matter what rank you held. It wasn't until the mid to late 50, that the pay scale slowly but surely, became wider between the various grades of generals and the admirals. It's kind of like Star Trek the Next Generation, where the Star Fleet people don't get a salary no matter what their rank is because all their needs are being taken care of as Captain Picard told the Afro-American lady in the movie Star Trek, the First Contact.
@@zachbornstein4288 We should cut out the revolving door policy for both civilian and military people including Congress. As Ross Perot stated when he ran for president, these people need to leave Washinton D. C. and go out and get a job like the rest of America has to do. Whatever happened to do something larger for yourself and doing the job because you enjoy doing it not for the financial rewards, the power, status, and perks of the job? We need more people like Auda Abu Tayi from the movie Lawrence of Arabia in both the private and public sectors.
Who, if anyone, will be held accountable for Afghanistan? It’d be great if this lecture was updated.
Dude, the US couldn't win in Afghanistan, to win you would have to destroy their way of horrible medieval life, put the taliban to the sword. It was always impossible to build a democracy there, if that was the "win" and the strategic objective. The actual battles were won at the time of invasion, easily by special forces.
@@GabrielNicho
Battles won that don´t help win the war count for nothing, you could win to defeat in this way
@@thodan467 That's my point. But if we look at the invasion itself, and those battles, that was over pretty quickly. The grind started when politicians decided the US should stay.
@@GabrielNicho
No, the grind stared when politicians didn´t prepare for what doing after the conquest
@@thodan467 How is that different from what I just wrote?
The problem with Patraeus is not what he did, what would he have done to a subordinate who did the same? A somewhat typical attitude of do what I say, not what I do. And, for your information he violated the UCMJ which is breaking the law.
Had an NCO demoted for having affair outside his marriage, with whom he was physically separated for 6 months already, and recently an E-9 who was reassigned for impregnating his driver.
Its very disheartening to see from the bottom.
Lower zipper failure was highly frowned upon by my Battalion Commander (US Army Engineer) in Germany. Petraeus embarrassed himself. He's human, but there has to be a consequence. And there was...although he's been restored somewhat. Making enough $$$ doing whatever he does.
That's right. Different spanks for different ranks.
can someobe please explain me why that should by the armys business?
@@thodan467 Conduct unbecoming of an officer. Officers are leaders and need to set an example. When you join the military, especially as an officer, you are waiving certain rights/privileges away. Also he had an affair with a reporter embedded with him who he allowed unauthorized access to secret documents. It does not take much imagination to see the various security risks in allowing your top brass to engage in affairs.
The last General with true honor and integrity was Marine Corps General Peter Pace. He was also the also the last USMC General with the courage to stand up to the politically correct bullsh*t that has infected the bloodstreams of every other career-climbing G.O and Flag Officer.
Dragan
Tell me what a general does to get the title of politically correct?
Very interesting but no mention of war being for the military contractors and defense industry, or the jobs officers get in those industries.
I'm an Army veteran, 1993-2008, served in Germany, Korea, Ft Sill, OK, Ft. Hood, TX and had deployments to Albania/Kosovo in 1999 and Iraq from 2004-2005 and what I saw in all of those units were officers much more concerned about their next promotion and sucking up to the commander as compared to caring about their soldiers....the "West Point Protection Society" was alive and well in the units I served in....NCOs would get slammed for any mistake or misconduct no matter how slight but if an officer did the same thing he got off scott free and of course was promoted on schedule....I only worked with a couple of officers who wanted to be in the motorpool working with the soldiers and/or being with the soldiers out in the field and training with them...those type of officers didn't last long and quickly disappeared...to be replaced by ones who never left the training room, spending all of their time in front of the computer, either being the commander's bitch or typing up "training schedules" they had zero desire to be part of.....and it really pissed us off in Iraq to see those "FOB Rat" officers who spent 99.9% of their time on the base who decided to go out on one patrol during the last days of our deployment just so they can afterward put themselves in for a Combat Action Badge even though no combat occurred while they were out there, then we had the same type officers who put themselves in for a CAB just because an insurgent fired mortar or rocket landed 300 yards from their office....they sure got the promotion points racked up during the deployment while taking near zero risk to life and limb....and it still goes on today.
This guy needs to giving a lecture to DC right now
20:41 - "A modern version of the 'stab in the back' ".
22:30 - "Good civil-military discourse is [...] probably one of the few leading indicators of how well a war is gonna go."
24:01 - "Saddam Hussein believed he'd won."
26:22 - "A war of inattention, [and] of casual arrogance; to think that we could go in and sort of fight a war with our left hand, without really paying much attention to it."
27:35 - "If you put eleven commanders in eleven years, what you're doing is making each of your commanders the patsy, because Afghanistan is not a place you figure out in twelve months. Even if you did, you're leaving after twelve months."
32:18 - Collapse of generalship; confusing tactical leadership with strategic leadership.
34:30 - "We really have a lot of generals who aren't generals these days. It's like a military without a head. [...] We have a lot generals who are trained, but not educated."
36:57 - "Counterinsurgency sounds like a big fancy word, that you need to speak french to understand. It's not. [...] Counterinsurgency in a nutshell: Don't create enemies."
39:08 - "Our troops were so tactically effective, that it enabled our strategic leaders to dither for years and years, because [...] we never really had losses [...] as we had in the Vietnam War."
39:48 - "Good tactics can't fix bad strategy, but they can also enable bad strategy to kind of dither along. Good strategy [...] will fix bad tactics."
42:10 - "The difference between training and education: Training prepares you for the known, education for the unknown."
44:20 - "Everybody in the army basically gets a Leavenworth education now. No one fails. It's 'Lake Wobegon' - everybody is above average."
47:34 - "You don't want a Chief of Staff who hates and loaths Washington. You want a Chief of Staff who understands: This is where the nation's business is done. And, that when Congress asks you a question, they're not messing in *_your_* business, you're messing in *_their_* business. Congress and the executive *_own_* the military *_in_* *_the_* *_name_* *_of_* *_the_* *_people_* ."
51:40 - "I think skin in the game would make a big difference, and also, *_I_* *_think_* *_it's_* *_morally_* *_reckless_* *_of_* *_this_* *_country_* *_to_* *_fight_* *_wars_* , *_without paying_* *_attention_* *_to_* *_them_* . "
Aside from the way generals and officership as a whole has become ineffective, you can’t expect them to be able to win a war that was never supposed to be won. The mission was faulty before they even got there,and winning hearts and minds won’t work if that’s the case.
Hill Center, that is one *fine* introductory caption. How I wish it might become a model for everybody posting their stuff to TH-cam. Well done and thank you!
I would love to know this gentlemen’s thoughts on how the go along to get along ethic of our current officers, flag level and lower, would fair in a shooting conflict with an adversary like China.
he is part of the system. he does not want to stop the war and the corruption. he analyzes the system and wants to improve the military effectiveness.
Flag level is where the failure is and has been. The general officers corps in the U.S. has kept their jobs, careers, benefits, and pensions will gutting the enlisted ranks of this country for decades. Enlisted ranks get Rif'd, but generals still keep positions and perks. I don't believe China would risk a war with the U.S.. They might risk war with Taiwan though understanding that we probably won't come to their aid.
Given the events happening in Afghanistan circa August 29, 2021, every Service College and Senior Service School and War College drastically needs to have its entire curriculum radically re-designed! The wars of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan - have clearly failed to be absorbed by the national military establishment!
I pray they learn the right lessons. I used to think these folks knew their Sun Tzu; clearly the decision makers weren’t applying it.
The establishment and senior leadership refuses to believe that we LOST. No no.. it was the draftees, it was the politicians, it was the guerrilla tactics, "the enemy doesn't fight fair on our level.." well duh. These people aren't stupid and saw what happened to Saddam's Army in 1991. Not even the Russians or Chinese would fight us "fairly". I'm a junior officer and most of my senior leaders are borderline incompetent or idiots. They are great with Army buzzwords, looking good on paper, but obviously lack sophistication or independent thought. Hell my BDE commander made a point out of how he doesn't read and how his run time is great leadership... these guys are gonna get us killed, all we can hope for is that the Air Force doesn't lose air superiority or we're really fucked.
@@EntertaningAmerica Well, then the American military better learn from the Germans, the North Koreans, the Communist Chinese army, and the North Vietnamese army about how to fight without any kind of air superiority.
Its amazing to me how far it got
Spot on. Reflection of our political leadership in decline. We are led by politicians who do as I say not as I do! Headed for failure. Nobody takes responsibility for their mistakes anymore....
Like a great Sicilian once said "the biggest blunder is to get involved in a land war in Asia."
Nobody knows who is the original author of that quote.
@@kafon6368 Vizzini?
Outstanding! Thanks.
However, you should see this, from the bottom up.
For instance, an E3, with no power, holding down the job of an E7, managing armories, without equal pay, while repeatedly taking the blame, for the dereliction-of-duty of "superiors!"
I am an E3 medic doing COVID response in Korea, and i can attest to this.
Very much a "leave you alone without assistance until you fail, then point out every inconsistency we can find, and say how much we do for you" attitude from senior personnel.
@@devinpoissenot3184 That is for sure. They leave you out to dry and all this talk they fed to you about being a band of brothers, unit cohesion, comradeship, and esprit de corps was a bunch of garbage. It is one of many reasons why the military lost in Vietnam.
ROGER THAT! It even happens in the Air Force (which is generally rather professional and pleasant to work in). My Armybros always had it worse and got the shite end of the stick. Thanks for what you do from someone who knows.
Watching this in 2023... the relevance is crazy
33:40 Dear me, that sounds like a quote I read once about the German Heer in WWII: If you win all the firefights you win the war. Not sure if it is a valid quote, but.....well?
The Germans were in a strategic black hole in WWII. They spent the years between the world wars becoming excellent technicians (except for logistics, mind you), but for whatever reason had no idea what to do with it it in the long run. Keep in mind they had just lost a war...
Heinz Guderian is, admittedly, not the most honest source for WWII, but I understand that the following happened. The breakthrough was done in France, and Hitler arrived for a briefing. The generals described the breakthrough and the current situation. Hitler asked, "So what will we do next?" Guderian said, that was the first time anyone had asked that question. Not a good sign when Hitler asks that question.
Kinda starting to sound familiar....
Well, Clifford Clark, Secretary of Defense, during the Vietnam War, asks his generals what was the plan to win the war, and the only answer they gave was if they killed enough enemy soldiers, Hanoi would quit fighting. Clark at that point turned against the war after hearing that statement.
The strategic thinking was not very developed in Prussia and Germany for a very simple reason.
If it would be needed the situation would be dire, both states ´d never the ressources to fight a strategic war with reasonable chances of success.
Then the strategic guidance from the Gröfaz and the High Command was sorely missing.
What should division commanders do then?
@@gunthervonhoffman6453 Dear Lord....you realize that is no different than Haig;s tactics in 1916-17 against the Germans? "Well, we are taking losses, but the Boche are running out of troops." Except they were NOT running out of troops. As John Mosier details in "The Myth of the Great War," based on actual, official German casualty lists, they were losing WAY fewer troops than the Allies (especially the British) estimated. . They were able to come up with a half-million troops to knock Romania out of the war, and shortly thereafter Russia. They and the Austrians came up with armies to effectively knock Italy out of the war.
And that was the same problem in Vietnam. The belief that the North Vietnamese would have to end the way because of casualties was total BS. Did they suffer heavy casualties? Certainly. Was US firepower dangerous. Indeed. But it was a North Vietnamese tank that captured the presidential palace in Saigon, not a South Vietnamese tank that captured the presidential palace in Hanoi.
And now we have Afghanistan......
@@jayfelsberg1931 Yes and No about Italy being knocked out of the war. If they were really knocked out of the war, the Italian government would have sued for peace and withdrew from the war. If it wasn't for changes in the Italian military top leadership and Allied military assistance, Italy would have quit the war.
Overwhelmingly, American wars have always been a war of attrition of wearing down the enemy in order to defeat them with some exceptions. Geronimo had very few men; however, the US army couldn't seem to track him down and engage him in a pitched battle in order to beat him. It took 3 wars to beat the Seminole Indians and the Second Seminole War was the longest one that lasted 7 years. The British always greatly outnumber the Germans in the air and on the ground during the North Africa campaign while interdicting the Axis air and naval supply lines to Rommel; however, the Germans still manage to keep on fighting and in many cases, inflicted more casualties on the British even at El Alamein.
Unlike the earlier Union generals who retreated after getting beaten by Robert E. Lee, US Grant just kept moving forward and worn down the Confederate Army in the East even though he was taking heavy casualties.
Yes, the North Vietnamese were willing to take casualties; however, they were totally committed to freeing their entire country including South Vietnam. After the war, one American officer told a North Vietnamese official how the US was killing 10 NVA for every American dead, and the official stated that it didn't matter since they were going to win the war.
This speech is more timely than ever with the collapse of Afghanistan and woke generals like Milley who like CRT
You could write a whole second volume just on 2001-2021 and how the generals broke into 4 factions: The Woke, The MAGA, the corporatists, and smallest of all, successful
@@Tadicuslegion78 Yes, you could.
I had PRIVATES that were SMARTER than Today's GENERALS
Conforming to the conditions of ticket-punching careerism rather initiative, professional zeal, and practical effectiveness seems to be an endemic problem in the officer corps of the U.S. Army at least and possibly the other U.S. armed forces as well.
I left the Army as a CPT, so not as high up as Tom may have his sights on...but to fire someone is hard. And unfortunately, I met a LOT of officers and NCOs who would rather just let poor leadership slide and let someone else deal with it instead of taking the hard step to get rid of them.
These same officers and NCOs would also deal with problems that occurred on their bases and hope that they would not blow up in their faces by the time they were ready to go to their next assignment.
Gen. Westmorland was rewarded for the Vietnam debacle by being promoted Chief of Staff.
A political move for a politician (Westmorland).
"Thank you for having I here" .... no
"Thank you for having Tom and I here" ... no
"Thank you for having me here" ... yes!
"Thank you for having Tom and me here" ... yes.
People, get this straight. A person looks less intelligent when they can't get the subject/object thing straightened out.
I've actually read this book and recommend it.
Since "The Gulf War" of 1990-91 was never ended with the peace treaty, only a cease fire, that means that the 2003 invasion, contrary to critics' claims, was merely resumption of high tempo combat operations in a war which was still ongoing.
All these fine books written about our generals and the decline of our military. I’ve yet to see anyone address the issue of the senior enlisted. That being the issue of what E8-E9 paygrades that were initiated in the 50’s, as well the implementation of high year tenure of the mid 80’s. Once upon a time it was common for a SGTMJ to physically tighten up a young officer. No one seems to see the significance of the senior enlisted over the molding years of officers before they become field/flag grade.
Excellent interview. And I wholly agree on the point about the draft - if military service wasn’t largely confined to a small minority (disproportionately drawn from lower income groups), the people would hold their politicians to greater account over the forever wars they have sought to fight over the last 30 year or so. There’s nothing the neocons would fear more than a draft being reinstated.
Thanks so much for having 'Tom and me' here, not 'Tom and I'. It is called objective case. If you don't believe it just remove Tom from the sentence, and she would have said, "Thanks so much for having I here." And she is an editor.
The ironies.. He obviously considers David Petraeus very bright and a very good general, but he knocks Ft. Leavenworth. David Petraeus went to the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In fact he was the top graduate of his class and won the George C. Marshall award. From late 2005 through February 2007, Petraeus served as commanding general of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (CAC) located there. As commander of CAC, Petraeus was responsible for oversight of the Command and General Staff College and seventeen other schools, centers, and training programs as well as for developing the Army's doctrinal manuals, training the Army's officers, and supervising the Army's center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned. He's the one who thought up the counterinsurgency manual. The problem with counterinsurgency is that it takes a long time to win battles this way. The Brits did it and so did the French. But as a country we don't do that because we like our wars like WWII. Go in, level the place, declare victory and leave.
Finally, I understand why Mark Milley was put in charge.
I like this guy ans what he is saying..a disabled US Army Veteran...
thankyou for constructive content.
He's right, you know.
excellent talk with some very revelant points on the american army leadership and perhaps public service :)
#TomRicks a great reporter and expert on the #AmericanMilitary
There is still too much work left to do
There are tactical, operational and strategic levels of land operations of warfare and very few military personnel possess the traits to be excellent at all three levels! Thus the progress our challenges and failures in Afghanistan & Iraq.
What do generals do but give each other medals? A lot of first class officers who are swimming against the flow. It used to be the motto "Get your ticket punched and move on.".
Ticket punching is still the game plan...
This rot begins under Carter; when the operation (Operation Desert One) to rescue the hostages was such an abject failure due to staff and command failures to plan. Afterwards, the officer in charge, General Starry, was promoted and given a prestigious command.
Hello Stewart. I know what you mean, but do you really think it started with Carter? What about Westie in Vietnam? Wasn't that the same sort of thing? The rot was there already. I have nothing against Westerland per se. Vietnam was a strategic failure beyond the kin of generals.
Dear Daddy Stewart, yes, I remember that vividly the burnt rotor blades and silhouettes of the helicopters in the sand. The defense forces were a shambles then as they generally are during a Democrat Administration. They always tend to neglect defense needs.
Nothing to do with the USA overthrowing the elected government in Iran in 1953...always the victims...
@@dexstewart2450 and Britain too. Yes, Mossadegh in '53!
Fascinating . . . treating Iraqi POWS better then American prisoners.
Right. Corruption is educating.
Shame!, I’m not Americanor military..., but have learnt a lot of the history of the worlds conflicts... (still learning).. & I listen to this and I just feel so sadly/ even grieving for the “US Soldier/ Sailor”.... 53 years.., I have watch so much American blood spilt, some in amazing eats of selflessness that have brought peace.., but just so so much of it wasted..., man it’s hard to listen to the truth this man speaks... 🌹🙏🇺🇸🇳🇿
they speak fellow as I, i think i might have met tom once, he seems so familiar seems like a cool dude
Looks like I need to buy some books
Interesting how these principles work in many areas such as business and football or life in general.
Firing squads for Secretary of Defense, General Milley
and head of CIA and Secretary of State ( little guy with squeaky voice )
11:06 "The message people will take away is you can be mediocre as long as you keep your pants on. Personal behaviours will be monitored and have great consequences. But public execution of your duties --we won't measure or hold you accountable on, partly because as a system we don't know how to do that anymore."
A trend representative of US political institutions as a whole. Competency takes a backseat to maintaining a good public image.
The top senior NCO leadership is no better than the generals. Many of them play politics to get to the top and let their rank go to their heads. You had a scandal some years ago, where it was discovered that the Chief Pretty Officer promotion board was fixed. One of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy had to crack down on his fellow chief pretty officers because many of them thought that just because they were chief pretty officers, they could do anything they wanted and get away with it and the people underneath their command couldn't do a thing about it.
Another Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy had to leave because he had created a toxic atmosphere among his enlisted staff. He acted like he was an admiral because he wanted certain things like his own private military jet, his own private military car with a chauffeur, wanted people to pick up his laundry, etc. His staff would point out why he couldn't have these things or do things that violated federal law and military regulations and he would lose his temper and chew out his staff. His staff also stated that he wasn't a thinker and sat on his butt and did do anything.
In the movie Invisible War about systematic rape in the military, many rape victims had complained to their officers and NCOs about them being raped, but the officers and NCOs either didn't do a thing about it or they kicked the rape victims out of the military. Some of the rapists were the rape victims' immediate superiors which didn't help out the victims. Wouldn't be surprised if some of the rapists are generals/or top-ranking sergeants/petty officers.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation had to go after NCOs who violated the separation of church and state.
If there are too many generals, then you can say that about having too many top NCOs/Chief Petty Officers.
Billy Mitchel and Claire Chennault were truth-tellers; however, both were forced to leave the service. It took a war to validate Claire Chenault's fighter plane theories. The military never cultivates let alone encourages truth-tellers and moral courage. If they had the moral courage and were truth-tellers a long, long, long time ago, we would have either won the war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan earlier or would have not gone into those countries in the first place, or would have gotten out a lot earlier plus the generals would have resigned en masse to voice their opposition in going to war in those countries in the first place. Finally, in the military, the moment you go to the military academies, go to basic training as an enlisted person, go to ROTC at a college, or one of the many military academies across the USA, one of the first things they drill into your head is: 1) who told you to think? ; 2) you are not paid to think, and 3) your drill instructor/older cadet tells you that from now on he/she will do the thinking for you. That's is why you don't have officers, NCOs, and enlisted personnel who show no initiative or original thinking because they were not allowed to do so right from the start.
The things that Scott stated about the generals can be said for CEOs. The CEOs are incapable of making products and services without killing or injuring people. They don't care about what they do to society or to their companies, expect the public to subsidize their losses while they keep all the money and wage a ruthless, relentless war against good government, against workers, against unions, and against corporate whistleblowers.
This IS the Federal Government currently.
28:20 good piece of advice. After all these years general Gromov was proven more than right.
What General gave away Bagram Airbase
before anyone left ? Hahahaha !
General Disregard
He might have been talking about electricians at 13:44
DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY! Not anymore! "Friend or Foe, pass the dough".
Norman Schwarzkopf is missed now
George Marshall was a hero here in Europe in the past. Now only for people who know their history. He kind of kick-started Europe's economy after WWII. The Marshall plan is taught in school - if the school tells it's pupils of the Cold War. If Marshall didn't become Secretary of State in the USA Europe's future would be quite darker.
Edit:
In Denmark we have just what Tom Ricks said about the draft: We have a draft, but it's a lottery to get in.
It's interesting how he describes Colin Powell. (47:08) "Powell scared American politicians both of both parties bying this politically independent uh chairman of the Joint Chiefs the senior military officer in the country " In Robert Draper's book about the start of the the Iraq war, he was described as a guy who although he had been independent, politically, when it came to brass tacks, once he was head of the State Department, he was basically a go- along to get along type of guy who had achieved his rank because he hadn't been willing to rock the boat.
Retired with twenty-two years. Would I recommend young people to join today? No. Leadership at the top is abysmal and doesn't give a shit about Private Rudy.
Think about it.
When has American military had good leadership?
He's incentives for the reintroduction of selective service are fascinating. Proper old School Rome stuff, take care of the state and the state will take care of you.
The problem isn't the generals, the problem is how you are fighting wars. The biggest problem is you constantly try to fight a clean war. In WW2 you fought the ideology of Nazism, you destroyed entire cities, armies and bombed civilians, you banned the ideology. In the War on Terror Islam was at war with you, you didn't destroy Islam, instead you sent troops out to walk around and be nice to people. As soon as they said we are not at war with Islam the war was lost.
The Afghans, The Pakistanis and the Saudis all hate you, they aren't your friends, they never will be and will work behind your back to destroy you. Take off the rose tinted freedom glasses and fight a war like it's supposed to be fought. Destroy the ideology which is trying to destroy you.
Geneva Conventions vs Total War.
If you are a weak combatant, you like it when the other guy follows the Geneva Conventions.
If you are a strong combatant, the Geneva Conventions is why you can't crush your enemy to force their unconditional surrender.
29:00
That is just so true. To this day no foreign military has even put in a formal request for information of the Soviet military campaign in Afghanistan. Just think about it. In the early 2000s relationships between Esat and West were kinda okish. You could have just asked them about shit like this. But this is typical western arrogance, why ask the russians, they lost...
Duhh, bet they lost for a reason.
1st part of this could be BS, iI have no way to research this. Got it from an Interview with a well reputed german journalist who covered stuff like this very well.
You need to just look at the generals assigned to AFghanistan over the past 20 years!
Several things should be pointed out here. This interview didn’t age particularly well. It should be said that Tom Ricks is a friend of David Petraeus. That's why he defended him. And the affair with Paula Broadwell likely started when both were in Afghanistan, according to Sarah Chayes, who wrote about it in an article called Paula and David in Foreign Affairs. What it does show is that David Petraeus didn't have his eye on the ball all the while he was in Afghanistan.
Ricks takes issue with the military dismissing upper-level generals for personal indiscretions, disregarding the fact that a. this is military law, and b. this also applies to the enlisted ranks, and what has to apply to the low must also apply to the high. To do otherwise is to have really poor. As Paul Yingling so rightly pointed out, a private who loses his rifle suffers worse consequences than a general who loses a war. That is in fact the biggest problem with the military.
The final chapter was saved for David Petraeus, whose resignation from his post as head of the CIA, after revealing as he resigned that he had been very foolish and had had an affair caused a scandal. David Petraeus is quite well acquainted with the author, to the point that the author uses sections from his former book about Petraeus and Iraq, "The Gamble”. Published in 2009, it was about David Petraeus and the Iraq war and is used to foot note this chapter. Some academics would have trouble with using a prior book to footnote a second book, but this is not a book targeted at academics.
He skips over and is not in this writer’s opinion sufficiently critical of David Petraeus’ term in the military, his strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan, which included paying Iraqis to not shoot American soldiers. time.com/archive/6944969/in-iraq-former-enemies-on-the-us-payroll/) It was in effect a bribe, a strategy which as any policeman will tell you is doomed to failure, since you must always pay and can never really stop. The instant you stop, whoever you’re trying to bribe to stop, will restart whatever behavior it was that started the bribe. This is exactly what happened in Iraq. The violence began to ramp up again, when the US stopped the policy of handing over stacks of crisp brand new $100 bills to these men. These men along with left over bits of the laid off, dismissed Iraqi army, who had been allowed to leave with their weapons, would wind up morphing into Al Qaeda in Iraq and then into ISIS. David Petraeus was also responsible for training the Iraqi army. This is the same Iraqi army that collapsed under pressure from ISIS, and left both their uniforms and weapons on the battlefield. He was however, very, very skilled at dealing with the press, succeeding in winding up on the cover of Newsweek, when he was only a two-star general instead of the man who was actually commanding the army in Iraq at the time. Lt. General George Casey. Prior to the scandal, he had had a reputation as a warrior, soldier-scholar who had a PhD from Princeton and had authored the Army’s manual on counter-insurgency. In fact, prior to being forced to step down as head of the CIA, Petraeus had seemed on course to be president, and while he had had his critics, most of them had by and large been ignored with the exception of MoveOn.org who bought an ad in 2007 that called him, General Betrayus, resulting in pretty extensive backlash. The only question was- which party would get him to run for president. That all ended however on November 9, 2012, when he resigned from his post as head of the CIA. As a result, this book, will have one rather interesting and notable distinction that the author surely didn’t intend. This book was published 13 days before David Petraeus resigned in disgrace from the CIA, hoping to forestall a growing scandal that initially, was all about the fact that his biographer also happened to be the retired Army general’s mistress. The scandal, continued to simmer just beneath the headlines with stories that the FBI continued to investigate Petraeus for a couple of years coming forth, like oil from a sunken ship, including a report that the FBI had questioned him at his house. However, it turned very serious, when in January, 2015, news broke that retired four-star general David Petraeus was being indicted for turning over classified materials to his biographer/mistress. These were materials over and above the hundreds of pages that were initially found on Broadwell’s computer that was taken from her house in an FBI search in November, 2012. The material in question turned out to be 8 small black notes books full of top-secret information, including but not limited to the names and identities of top-secret operatives. David Petraeus wound up pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges, getting probation and paying a $100,000 fine, something which many people inside and outside the military thought should have been a stiffer sentence for what he admitted he had done. Initially, he had also lied to the FBI, about having given Paula Broadwell classified material, but since that interview was not recorded, they couldn’t charge him with lying to the FBI. As a result, FBI interviews are now recorded. It put a different sort of ending on the up to now highly decorated career of the general who had graduated West Point, married a four star general’s daughter, managed to avoid combat, served several times as an aid to four star generals, parlaying that into a career which lead him into the top ranks of generalship, and despite his lack of combat, still managed to craft an image of himself, through assiduous relationship building with the press, of a soldier, scholar- warrior and independent thinker. Now the Army at this point in time seemed to be heading away from counter insurgency and back to conventional force that uses main battle tanks. However, that was before the Ukraine war and massive use of drones made tanks sitting ducks.
3:27 Absolutely wrong. General Petraeus was married at the time of his affair to his wife, Holly. He married Holly in 1974, and is indeed still married (to her credit). A marital affair IS illegal as it is in direct violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (no. 99. Extramarital sexual conduct). An extra marital affair is NOT a personal matter. it is a violation of good order and discipline let alone personal integrity and honor. Spouses matter in the military. Betraying them is a serious offense in the eyes of God (remember the sixth commandment?) If you cannot be honorable in your personal affairs, you shouldn't be in charge of troops. Semper Fi.
Yup, it is all about different spanks for different ranks.
The Secretary of State Colin Powell REPEATEDLY warned that we would be in Iraq and Afghanistan for AT LEAST 20 years - repeatedly.
"or, he would have to lie and he didn't want to do either." On the contrary, Patraeus had no problem lying when he was cheating on his wife. I wouldn't have cared what he did, but his bad decisions had impacts beyond his zipper.
I AM not american but in My opinion is that back in the days of the WW2 Many wealth american served in the armed forces sons of powerful people FDR sons , Kennedy brothers just to Say an exemple but i don't think that is the case today Even presidents served in their youth Truman served in ww1 eisenhower of course Kennedy , Johnson , Nixon , Ford , cárter , Bush 1 all served in the armed forces so Even when they were at civilian control the POTUS had some of experience in the armed forces nowdays probably You can't question a general because You as a commander in chief who has never Been involved in the armed forces can not judge mérit so You let them be because they are experts and You have take their Word
Just for reference, Soviet fought enemy armed with fuckload of MANPADs, they couldn`t land the transport plane in Bagram without some remarkable aerobatics involved.
Generals making more uniform changes in 20 years and were flush with free money bought a bunch of toys. What war?
If I - as a non native speaker - got it right, as little as 16 out of 155 generals were fired (within 90 days) in WWII. This is only 10%. There may be plenty of reasons why this happened back in those days and not after WWII, most notably the changed nature of warfare itself and its duration, not to mention the different political environments in which aggressions and invasions happened.
Moreover this talkative author never defines the meaning of 'being successful at war' nor proofs (how, if you don't know what you have to proove?) that US was 'less successful' during some (all? which ones?) conflicts after WWII.
US and the whole western world is in decline because our grand strategy was completely wrong and the enemy is smarter than us. Reality is simply catching up with us, lies tellers to ourselves and the rest of the world for decades.
Writing and talking like art critics who cannot hold a pencil in their fingers, nor get a single note out of an instrument. Send him to Afga and let's see what happens and fire all generals listening to this thing.
The danger of today's US Flag officers is that they are 'templated' that is, ticket-punching assignments of ever-increasing responsibilities until they each ultimately reach a Peter-Principle in which an ultimate state of incompetence of the wrong-person, for the wrong-position is realized. There are few, if any, extemporaneous or eclectic Flag officers! The mantra of Command, Command and more Command assignments may be well for some classical warfare assignments, however, it is a short-sighted and disastrous formula for counter-insurgency warfare or technical-scientific application operations! Remember that neither Marshall or Eisenhower possessed a wealth of classical operational military unit command assignments prior to their Flag-rank selection.
Ticket punching has been that way since the end of World War II and the Vietnam War really exposed it.
My marine son fought on Iraq ...refuses to discuss the events there and we talk about everything m
Hehehe … Secretary of Defense Austin ? Hahahaha !
‘ Nope, we can’t do that ! ‘ Hahahaha !
Where is the faction?😊
Essentially and in short, the author is trying to state in a long -winded fashion that character and personality do matter for military (and corporate, political and religious professions) success! You can't fake characters personality for any appreciable period of time.
Having an affair is the only thing that gets a general relieved now a days.
Its an absurd guess for sobriety 😊
It is completely nonsense to say Patton was only good at chasing. The first battle Patton fought in Africa was not chasing; Sicily was not chasing, Normandy was not chasing, Bulge was not chasing. All they were breakthrough. Actually, without Patton, Eisenhower and Bradley could not had won a single campaign!
When I saw how the politian refuse the request of the Generals for their mission and send the troops to suside missions
Some people forget that the military can never expect or demand to get all their wishes fulfilled
Prescient
this guy: Quotes the title
me: ya think
The US military is NOT about defending the United States and hasn't been since the end of the war of 1812. It has been about extending empire and ultimately having the new world order coalesce around it. The Soviets were clearly supported by the west after the revolution and during WW2, they had little ability to build a war machine after the Stalin purges. Ricks is correct in asserting the decline in military leadership however. The generals are now nothing more than risk averse politicians whose primary goal is to advance their careers. General Smedley Butler said it best eighty plus years ago: "war is a racket".
The generals come by it honestly....the only thing American Officers are worried about is their OER....from butter bar on up
Our 'Woke' military not only lost a war to 7th century goat herders but also left them as the best equipped terrorist army in the world.
Ummm. the Commander in Cheif was an EX Community Organizer in 2012...