General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"We haven't had a general in the US Army win a war...since 1945"
With exception of General Norman Schwarzkopf (1991 Gulf War), US generals haven't won a war since 1945. That is what Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson wanted to remind everyone about on Joy Reid's show this morning.
Joy was asking him about Trump's appointment of General Kelly to be White House Chief of Staff. He though Trump surrounding himself with "the current crop of generals" was "dangerous." He thinks it signals an abandonment of diplomacy. Wilkerson thought diplomacy was the only solution to the Korean crisis.
Our current crop of generals only know how to start wars. Winning them or avoiding them? Not so much.
Aristus
(66,328 posts)Four-star rank also positions one to be the target of many lucrative offers in the private sector after retirement, which itself comes with a huge pension-and-benefits package.
In Vietnam, the higher-ups began rotating young second lieutenants into and out of combat platoon posts for as little as six months at a time, in order for them to get 'combat experience' into their 201-file. As if combat experience was just a step on the ladder to star rank, political liaisonship, and a comfortable retirement, instead of being important for leading troops in combat.
Six months of combat experience is nowhere near enough time to become reasonably good at field leadership, or time enough for one's troops to trust and respect you, or to create a sense of continuity of command, which is of huge value in building confidence and morale in a combat unit.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)WWII? The war in Europe was won by the Soviets and the British; the Luftwaffe never fully recovered from their losses in the Battle of Britain, and by the time American troops deployed in North Africa the Germans had been defeated at Stalingrad and El Alamein and never advanced on any front again. The Pacific Theatre saw significant contributions from British and Anzac forces in Burma and from China, which diverted large numbers of Japanese troops from other areas. And the Gulf War? Another coalition, with the UK, France, Canada, etc. The US army only wins wars, since 1918, when 1) it fights with allies, 2) there are clear objectives and conditions for victory (WWII: unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan; Gulf War: Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, crippling Saddam's military capability). Korea ended in stalemate because "winning" would've meant all-out war with China, and using nukes (and Truman wasn't crazy); Vietnam, because it's impossible to win a "victory" against a committed insurgency; Afghanistan and Iraq, for the same reasons as Vietnam. "We're going to win the war on terror" isn't a strategy, and it doesn't provide for a clear victory condition.
Initech
(100,068 posts)They've been merely occupations. You can make the case for Korea, but that's about it. Everything else since then has just been an exercise in how America can spend trillions on the military and have all the money go to the richest among us. Since 1945 and well, since the 80s, the only time America has gone to war is for profit.
Brother Buzz
(36,422 posts)and our resident Marine veterans in the dark corner of the American legion bar continually tell me the Marines won the war in Vietnam.
briv1016
(1,570 posts)Lots of Americans dying in "conflicts" over seas since then though.