Posted on 04/27/2007 1:24:55 AM PDT by Cardhu
An active-duty Army officer is publishing a blistering attack on U.S. generals, saying they have botched the war in Iraq and misled Congress about the situation there.
"America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq," charges Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. "The intellectual and moral failures . . . constitute a crisis in American generals."
Yingling's comments are especially striking because his unit's performance in securing the northwestern Iraqi city of Tall Afar was cited by President Bush in a March 2006 speech and provided the model for the new security plan underway in Baghdad.
He also holds a high profile for a lieutenant colonel: He attended the Army's elite School for Advanced Military Studies and has written for one of the Army's top professional journals, Military Review.
The article, "General Failure," is to be published today in Armed Forces Journal and is posted at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com. Its appearance signals the public emergence of a split inside the military between younger, mid-career officers and the top brass.
Many majors and lieutenant colonels have privately expressed anger and frustration with the performance of Gen. Tommy R. Franks, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno and other top commanders in the war, calling them slow to grasp the realities of the war and overly optimistic in their assessments.
Some younger officers have stated privately that more generals should have been taken to task for their handling of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, news of which broke in 2004. The young officers also note that the Army's elaborate "lessons learned" process does not criticize generals and that no generals in Iraq have been replaced for poor...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Many majors and lieutenant colonels have privately expressed anger...
Some younger officers have stated privately...
“Some and many,” the usual weasel words used by the Marxist press when it’s doing a political hit job and using “some and many” to get their personal views into an editorial disguised as a news story. This story goes into my circular file.
True. He’s probably already had Bn. or Sqdn. command and may already be on the 06 list and could be headed for the War College. Unless he gets a killer OER for the XO job, he’s good to go for some time. Just a guess.
Until the U.S. DoD changes their Rules of Engagement we will never prevail.
We can NOT let terrorists hide behind women and children and execute our soldiers with impunity.
We can NOT let terrorists use mosques as ammo dumps and military headquarters.
Tell the folks at the State Dept. to sit down and shut up ANY TIME they oppose these views!
In this case it is the entire American culture which is the problem. We have lost the Warrior Spirit due to feminism, liberalism, and socialism that permeates our society. The true warriors in uniform are essentially out there all alone, hamstrung by silly feel good rules of engagement intended to satisfy the wimp American sheeple that no longer have the guts to fight and win.
The spirit of rugged individualism and self reliance hardly exists in our society. The downfall of our great Country and culture started in the 60s and is accelerating to oblivion.
Create a great day!
You have hit on something myself an another former Vet have said from the day Baghdad fell, utilize the things that got you into the city. We should be there as support, advisers, glad to read that someone else can see the forest as well.
It’s not often state that Gen. Patton was very well ‘connected’ to FDR. Patton was retained on active duty when other generals his age were retired in favor of younger men. Patton was given command of the Torch landings when there was very little in the way of armor involved.
Politics is everywhere.
A google of this Lt. Col’s name fills several pages of screen. He is “high profile” because he has gone public many, many times before saying things to embarrass his commanders. He is listed as a staff officer of various units, and a Lt. Col. should be qualified to command — but he does not seem to have been assigned to command.
Now, officers can write and speak out, but the focal question here is, could one find this many google pages for a typical Lt. Col? And let’s go a step further. Could we find this many google pages for a typical TOP RATED Lt. Col?
I am an ex Air Force officer so I don’t know Army norms, but in the AF a “fast burner” Lt. Col. will typically have a command. Perhaps a squadron if he’s really good. There is no stigma of being a “staff officer” or a “deputy commander”, but the exceptional field grade officer will be pushed harder than that.
I think this guy is a Washington Post shill. He’s manufacturing a position for himself as a future Democrat darling “Iraq veteran” they can parade about and he’s doing it with the media.
This is a bit off topic for the thread to a degree, but “Patton” the movie was not all that accurate of a potryal of the man, nothing new in Hollywood one would have to agree. It is important to note that the technical advisor for the movie was General Omar Bradley, with whom General Patton had a major falling out with as the war was winding down and after we became an occupation force in Germany. Indeed the Patton-Bradley relationship had literally turned to one of contempt and animosity that did not soften or die off with the death of General Patton.
I have taken the time to read a great deal on General Patton, and my dad knew a few officers and more than a few enlisted men who served under Patton in the 3rd and 7th Army II Corps in WWII. From this knowledge base I think it’s fair to say that Patton was easily one of the greatest combat commanders in history of warfare, certainly of modern warfare. His influence in armord warfare strategy is the bedrock of the training at Fort Knox, and the foundation of all the success American ground forces enjoyed in Gulf War I and the Invasion of Iraq. Indeed, (and perhaps this is a bit over the top but in my heart very true) when one looks at the M-1 Abrahms Main Battle Tank one can see the philosophy of Patton in everything about the tank. Speed, hard hitting weapons, relentless power, ability to attack in multiple environments are hallmark traits of Patton’s combat command.
I would encourage anyone intersted leadership and combat command philosophy to read either “War As I Kew It” or “The Undiscovered Patton to get a real sense of why his stytle of leadership and war-mindset is desparately needed, and sorely lacking in todays current situation. A great respuce for learning more about Patton is the following: http://www.pattonhq.com/
I heartily agree with your summary. I wonder if we can continue to fight wars officially with the US military. Fighting with both hands tied behind our backs doesn’t seem fair to those we ask to defend our country.
Privately funded mercenaries that don’t have to play by the rules? I know it’s kind of shocking, but it would even the playing field in fighting terrorists.
The Generals are taking orders from a group of civilians that appear to many of us to be more and more incompetent by the day.
Excellent observation, but the author decided not to gore that ox. A mistake, in my opinion, in an article filled with mistakes and misguided conclusions. Yingling misses the boat on his observations on Vietnam and his attempt to link that conflict with Iraq is dubious at best.
I think his argument would be better if he compared the civilian leadership of the Pentagon during Vietnam with that of the current era. The common thread that I see is the arrogance of the two Secretaries of Defense: McNamara and Rumsfeld. They both were the quintessential smartest guys in the room and often expressed contempt and disdain for their uniformed subordinates. In both cases, it was not until the SEC DEF was gone and his hand picked leadership team changed that needed changes were made.
McMaster rightly criticises the Joint Chiefs, and Yingling may have a point with certain of the current lot, but we have a very firm tradition of civilian leadership that allows generals to dissent in private, but demands that they publically support their civilian leaders. Couple that with Rumsfled's behavior to control the message and punish anyone who got out of line, and you have the recipe for disaster.
Time and history will not be kind to Rumsfeld and some of the generals may suffer as well, but I think that on balance this country has a far better military than they deserve and they would do well to point the finger at the politicians long before they try blaming the guys in uniform.
ping to read later.
Guess who didn’t get picked up for promotion to O-6!
Tom Ricks, the WP, and a disgruntled LTCol. Mix together and you get more anti-war BS. Just another nail in the coffin as far as the Dems are concerned. Congress has already declared the war lost essentially negating the sacrifice of our military and giving our soldiers the legacy of a defeated army.
ACR's are a bit of a unique animal, but I've noticed that often the (Brigade/Regimental) XO hasn't had a battalion command until after his tour as XO. It wouldn't surprise me if this officer's last command was at the company/troop level.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.