Do We Still Have Grants and Shermans?

Prime ^ | May 22, 2008 | Victor Davis Hanson

[moderatewolverine]

Who becomes a general — and why — tells us a lot about whether our military is on the right or wrong track. The annual spring list of Army colonels promoted to brigadier generals will be shortly released. Already, rumors suggest that this year, unlike in the recent past, a number of maverick officers who have distinguished themselves fighting — and usually defeating — insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq will be chosen.

For example, scholar-soldier Col. H. R. McMaster, Special Forces Col. Ken Tovo, and Col. Sean MacFarland — all of whom helped turn Sunni insurgents into allies — could, and should, make the cut.

These three colonels have had decorated careers in Iraq mastering the complexities of working with Iraqi forces in hunting down terrorists and insurgents. And they — like David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq — in the past have not always reflected the Army establishment in Washington. Their unconventional views about counterinsurgency warfare do not hinge on high-tech weaponry, tanks, artillery, and rapid massed advance.

But most wars are rarely fought as planned. During the fighting, those who adjust most quickly to the unexpected tend to be successful. And in almost all of America’s past conflicts, our top commanders on the eve of war were not those who finished it.

[PurpleMan]

Just because mssers McMaster, Tovo, and MacFarland have not yet been selected does not mean there are not those out there who are selected.

VDH is obviously lobbying for some soldier-scholar compatriots.

[RJS1950]

We do but very few of the competent officers are willing to put up with the ass kissing politics and backstabbing that it usually takes to attain star ranks.

Grant was a disgraced captain at the start of the war and the political generals and politicians did their best to keep Grant and Sherman out of the army and command. It took a war to eventually move them to a position where they could make a difference. Generals like McClelland (the McArthur of his time) prolonged the war and caused more troops to die while keeping leaders like Grant and Sherman out.

It has only become worse in modern times.

[Nam Vet]

Thanks for the insight. It's appreciated.

Nam Vet

[Wavrnr10]

We have them....but the wars they fight in are too different to compare. If you send a general on a Sherman march In Iraq, every soldier under him would be brought up on war crime charges and found guilty. Much like in the movie The Patriot, when wars are fought with hand tying rules, it’s the ones with their hands tied that suffer the most.

[PLMerite]

“General Grant was different than others, he was willing to keep ordering his men into battle, even after thousands of deaths and maiming injuries, he kept pushing them forward at the enemy.”

Grant knew that he had a much larger base of men and material than Lee, thus he was not averse to using them. I think it was Shelby Foote who said that the North fought the war with just one hand.

[SampleMan]

He was just an aging Captain engineer building forts before the Mexican War. He had been passed over many times.

Excellent point.

[SampleMan]

With rare exception, the Generals you have at the beginning of a war are average at best. Naval Admirals appear to be an exception, but I wouldn't argue that is still the case.

The only way to find the best leaders is to fire the bad ones and only stop when you get a good one. Beyond battle field success, mankind does not appear to have ever been able to devise a system that consistently produced master leadership.

Frankly, I think the real warriors get bored to tears during peace time and perform mediocre in what they consider to be unimportant tasks. They aren't necessarily winners in other fields or peace time drudgery, but when it comes to battle their eyes light up and they feel their calling. Certainly that's been my observation.

[neverdem]

bump & a ping

[Enchante]

Thank you for the info and insights - that is very helpful to all of us who are trying to evaluate VDH’s column.

[Enchante]

I know someone who is a big Civil War buff (I’m not particularly) who argues that Grant has gotten a really unfair rap on the “butcher” charge and that when you analyze all of the battles and casualty figures as percentages, etc. that Grant comes off just as well (maybe badly, depending upon your views) as Lee, a bit better in fact, and that Lee has simply enjoyed better PR.

Anyone know where to find that argument or the relevant stats? I know I’ve seen it before in an email years ago, I’ll try to find out more.....

[Dinsdale]

Both Grant and Sherman were fighting during a period of technical change in warfare.

They fought like their muskets had an effective range of 100 yards.

Their muskets and mini-balls actually had an effective range of 200-300 yards.

This combination led to wholesale slaughter that can only be attributed (in 20/20 hindsight) to both sides military leaders failure to recognize that war had changed.

Grant deserves to be called a butcher. He just had more cannon fodder then Lee and a willingness to ‘spend it’.

Lee on the other hand doesn’t deserve the praise he gets. Granting he was tactically a genius that doesn’t give him a pass on his lack of insight into the effective range issue. He could have blitzed Washington DC.

[C19fan]

I am not one to disagree with VDH but he seems to give a hard time to Rosecrans. He was able to advance from Nashville to Chattanooga by continously outflanking the Confederate forces. Although I suppose that could be a negative since he did not physically destroy the Confederate army like Grant was eventually able to do with Lee. Of course Rosecrans deserved to be sacked after Chickamauga.

[af_vet_rr]

He is called a butcher and yet while Grant commanded army-sized units longer than Lee did, Lee had more of his men killed and wounded under his command then Grant did. Lee has the better PR I guess.

When you play a numbers game like Lee and Grant did, and your playing on the same ground using the same tactics, the guy with a lot more troops (and who is willing to expend them as needed) is going to kick your butt. As far as PR, the image of both men was cultivated during and immediately after the war - Lee was supposed to be the prim and proper Southern gentleman, Grant the pugnacious task master that tended to have a more blunt view of things.

[af_vet_rr]

We have them....but the wars they fight in are too different to compare. If you send a general on a Sherman march In Iraq, every soldier under him would be brought up on war crime charges and found guilty.

Sherman proved in his writings both before the Civil War and after, that he understood warfare in a very unique way that few others do, and that has proven to be timeless - Hap Arnold and others in the US Army Air Forces were using Sherman's tactics against the Japanese.

He would have known how to deal with Ho Chi Minh. He would have felt at home in the first Gulf War in '91, or going after the Taliban in 2001.

If anything, he would have had an understanding of how to fight the Taliban and other radical groups that few of people do today - In his memoirs, he said:

My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." .

Just swap the word "rebel" with the word "Taliban".

Sherman not only understood the little picture and how to get into the head of the individual enemy soldiers they faced, but he understood the bigger picture as well - look at what he said in December of 1860 (before the war started):

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail

[af_vet_rr]

Lee on the other hand doesn’t deserve the praise he gets. Granting he was tactically a genius that doesn’t give him a pass on his lack of insight into the effective range issue. He could have blitzed Washington DC.

Lee blew it several times, but he was able to adjust his ways, although it was way too late and way too many of his men had to die before he did. What he started to do at the end of the war in regards to trench warfare would be seen again in France in the first World War. Unfortunately trench warfare itself is a horrible way to fight and die, but he was recognized for his contributions (and it was not due to any kind of tactical genius of his, but more to his engineering and analytical side).

[Philly Nomad]

Oh, if you close your hippie eyes and really wish, someday there will be a war where nobody gets killed.

[T-Bird45]

Appreciate your comments and insight on the current state of the Army promotion system for the upper echelons. I have enjoyed the various appearances of HRM on History Channel, etc. and have found his commentary to be on target. It would be a shame if he were not to make flag rank for the exact reasons you and VDH have written.

I would like to know how HRM remains on AD if he has been passed over for O-7 twice — used to be two strikes and you were out. Has that changed?

[PsyOp]

Excellent analysis. IQ tests should count as much as PT tests. Too often its the guy who can run 10 miles, as opposed to the guy who can figure out how to get there without the effort, who gets the promotion.

[WVKayaker]

Grant is still around!

[BroJoeK]

"Anyone know where to find that argument or the relevant stats?"

Check out these stats...

Civil War Battle Statistics

Note that at Gettysburg, where Lee was on offense, southern casualties were higher.

At, say, Cold Harbor, where Grant was on offense, northern casualties were much higher.