This is SLIME level ‘journalism.’
Use of the word “obsession” in the headline is standard procedure for the left wing, whose longtime, tired practice is to accuse anyone who opposes them of being mentally ill.
The article does not give the name of a single general “quoted,” using the Washington Post technique of Unnamed ‘Sources.’
He’s talking about the heart of the soldier
Some in academe are too literal to be useful
Trump is exalting the winning spirit of the men.
For somebody born in 1946, Patton, MacArthur and the other generals were more of a presence than they are for those born decades later.
I get that Patton and MacArthur had judgement problems sometimes and that may be a cause for concern in Trump. I also understand that speechifying is different from making and executing real plans.
Using the term "media whores" in reference to Patton and MacArthur is offensive, though. They gave interviews, sure, and MacArthur cultivated his persona, but most of their time was spent on what mattered: winning the war.
The irony that the professor who used it certainly hasn't been shy about getting his name in the papers shouldn't be lost on readers.
Having read Patton’s book War As I Knew It, I realize it’s the historians who have a simplistic view.
Patton was the quintessential modern general, with a keen understanding of battle statistics, supply, equipment and maneuver. As well as a hell of a leader.
These men know nothing of Patton, making up drivel about “civilian casualties”. Patton is not known for that.
Nonsense.
Russia expansionism; middle east meltdown; Chinese island-building; Europe overrun. So if these experts, who are supposed to foresee and forstall all these things, are squirming at the thought of a presidential candidate who will expect 'a little less talk and a lot more action', it's a good thing.
Patton I understand. But MacArthur got caught flatfooted three times. And got his men killed each time.
Of course our Politicians in Uniform would say this.
For real.
Quite applicable in our current financial situation...
What does that even mean? Is it like "behavioral experts" who have never raised kids and only wreck them? Or "financial experts" who never predict the market or trends correctly? Those kinds of experts? Notice that the article gives no names. Just unverifiable attributions. Completely worthless
Run through honesty filter:
But I was able to find some unnamed generals who disagreed with my own likely hostile paraphrase of Trumps view of the men
The warrior spirit of US military leadership is largely dead.
Given the way he is cutting through the opposition during the primaries, may I suggest Heinz Guderian?
So, in other words, the historians say our PC crap would not allow Patton to win. Sad.
Rude crude people that take risks and get into trouble are the kind of people we need to win wars.
I recall in basic a guy was being court martialed for banging the commander’s wife. The DI said that’s the kind of guy we need in the Army because they take risks. I never fully understood this until a few years later.
I do recall when we got into fights with Marines at an NCO club once and no one cared, not a soul. It was encouraged. It’s what make people tough. I remember someone being told to go steal some steaks from a neighboring mess hall, and he did, and we had a BBQ with beer, most of the officers attended, we had a good time.
The one that takes the cake, is our section boss, a warrant officer W4, gave all his men a Christmas gift. It was in Vietnam, we had a beer party on the beach. His gift was a all paid visit to a certain type of house, for anyone that chose to accept that sort of gift.
Point being, betcha half that could not be done or encouraged today.
what a dumb post
"They were the media whores of their time," said Daniel Drezner, a professor at International politics at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University who often writes on national security.
I’m not a Trump fan but this article is a pos. Flitter should flitter.