Replies

I am quite proud to serve as a member of America's senior service. BTW, Soldiers are not in the Army; we are the Army.

You need to read less David Hackworth and more books. BTW, he is a friend of mine and I am a friend of his. I have met him and we correspond fairly regularly. So hold off before you resort to lumping me in with the perfumed princes.

You are correct in that Parachute wings do not automatically a leader make. Neither does the Ranger tab. But I seem to know a lot of Marines who went, graduated or want to attend that course. It is an indicator. Gen. Pace probably went as a Midshipman or as a young 2nd Lt. So for his 3-weeks at Fort Benning, Georgia, 30 plus years ago, you deem him less than optimal for the position of Chairman? Your problem is not with him, it is with HQMC and Uniform Branch.

Next, you are refering to a distinguished group of officers from a day when virtually no one had civilian graduate degrees. They went to military schools, often for years and taught though. Their equivalent education was easily Masters level if not Doctoral. Patton had a personal library that would rival almost any high schools. There was even a book written about his books and reading habits. Eisenhower, a middling student at West Point, graduated first in his class at Command and General Staff School and from there his career took off.

Westmoreland was a terrible strategic leader, but he was quite a superb tactical leader if you actually go into the record (he commanded the 187th ARCT in Korea). He could not transition to the mindset required. But I can easily cite Ridgway, Taylor and Gavin to counter Westy.

As for Grant, he spent the pre-Civil War years pickling his liver as a failed businessman, not commanding troops. Now McClellan on the other hand had a quite extensive troop command resume.

I assume you meant A.A. Vandergrift, and not Vandergriff (the surname of a a less well-known, but still distinguished and well-published soldier and close friend of mine).

I admit your military experience is far greater than mine; however, actual military experience is not necessarily a prerequisite for sound decision making, as any review of history will show.

Actually, I've read only one of Col Hackworth's books, though I do peruse occasionally his web site. As for my reading habits, you know nothing, but I'll match mine against yours or anyones.

I'm certain there are a lot of Marine 2nd Lts who want to attend the infantry/ranger course at Ft Benning. However, simply because they want to go does not mean that it is wise to allow them to go. As I stated earlier, the tab/patch gathering traits of the Army have seeped over into the Marine Corps, a fact that many Marine officers - included several general officers - have noted both verbally and in print.
This sort of careerist activity may be acceptable in an institution like the Army but its fatal in a culture like the Marine Corps.

I agree that in prior years few, if any, officers had advanced civilian degrees. And I agree that many of our greatest officers were autodidacts. If these men were educated in that manner then, why is it a virtual necessity that a upwardly mobile officer attend graduate school now?
Does anyone believe that a year or two studying for an MBA will substitute for Patton's lifetime's study of military history?
My criticism of allowing officers to attend civilian graduate schools should be in no way extended to advanced schooling such as the Command and General Staff School or the Army or Navy War Colleges, etc. It is entirely proper and desirable that officers should attend these institutions.

I am not competent to judge Westmorland's actions as a tactical leader. He was and is, however, the epitome of the Army system: First Captain at West Point, all the right service schools, qualified as a paratrooper and later as a helicopter pilot, MBA from Harvard, and held the right commands. Still, his record as COMUSMACV was terrible.
If a man who is the best an institution can offer cannot succeed, how can we expect success from men who according to institutional standards do not measure up to his record?
Do you believe that Ridgway, Gavin, or Taylor could have done better in South Vietnam? If so, why?
I could be mistaken, but wasn't Maxwell Taylor close to the Kennedy family (in fact, I think one of Bobby Kennedy's sons is named after Taylor) and participated fully in policy making for our involvement in SE Asia.
If memory serves, one of them was Ambassador to South Vietnam and consequently bears a large share of the blame for the debacle.

Perhaps we should follow Lincoln's advice: find out the type of whiskey Grant drank and order it served in the cafeterias of the Pentagon.

My apologies to General A.A. Vandergrift.