Posted on 11/19/2012 6:06:56 AM PST by Zakeet
Fastidiousness is never a good sign in a general officer. Though strutting military peacocks go back to Alexander’s time, our first was MacArthur, who seemed at times to care more about how much gold braid decorated the brim of his cap than he did about how many bodies he left on beachheads across the Pacific. Next came Westmoreland, with his starched fatigues in Vietnam. In our time, Gen. David H. Petraeus has set the bar high. Never has so much beribboned finery decorated a general’s uniform since Al Haig passed through the sally ports of West Point on his way to the White House.
“What’s wrong with a general looking good?” you may wonder. I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he’s not doing his job, which is supposed to be leading soldiers in combat and winning wars — something we, and our generals, stopped doing about the time that MacArthur gold-braided his way around the stalemated Korean War.
And now comes “Dave” Petraeus, and the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. No matter how good he looked in his biographer-mistress’s book, it doesn’t make up for the fact that we failed to conquer the countries we invaded, and ended up occupying undefeated nations.
The genius of General Petraeus was to recognize early on that the war he had been sent to fight in Iraq wasn’t a real war at all. This is what the public and the news media — lamenting the fall of the brilliant hero undone by a tawdry affair — have failed to see. He wasn’t the military magician portrayed in the press; he was a self-constructed hologram, emitting an aura of preening heroism for the ever eager cameras.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Never has so much beribboned finery decorated a general’s uniform since Al Haig passed through the sally ports of West Point on his way to the White House.
I beg to differ: Gen Wesley Clark is the worst in the last 40 years.
As conservatives we should insist that all war efforts get a proper Constitutional Declaration from Congress. Then we would not have to defend them against absurd attacks.
'Ol Lucian IV is a piece of work - according to his bio, he wrote an article for the Village Voice, exposing heroin use in the unit he belonged to at the time (1970). Let's put this in perspective: if he, as a 2nd Lieutenant knew of specific evidence that soldiers were selling, buying, or using illegal drugs, it was his responsibility to report that use to his criminal investigative agencies. Instead, he chose to "expose" the army during the height of the Vietnam War in a gay/Communist rag that was dedicated to supporting the VC/NVA at the time. Then, horror of horrors, he was "threatened" with orders to Vietnam - which is where any real officer would want to go, since that is where the "rubber met the road", so to speak - but he resigned instead.
Now this disgrace to his uniform and his family history is attacking Gen Petraeus and Gen MacArthur all in one package. Whatever their individual flaws, neither of those gentlemen turned down orders to combat and they both served with distinction in war.
Unbelieveable. But it is the New York Times, after all.
Actually, we were loaded with cowards who found every slimy way possible to avoid combat. "The most courageous act" is to volunteer to lead men in combat - as your training was designed to do - and not make someone else do it in your place.
You used the quote about Patton and then proceeded to talk about what MacArthur did. MacArthur did not like Patton. It seems rather bizarre for you to try damning Patton for the things done by MacArthur.
MacArthur has many errors to answer for in his career, but it should also be recognized and acknowledged that he did much to minimize casualties during WWII. That is one redeeming virtue shared by Patton and MacArthur, they eschewed conentional tactics to overcome the enemy with far fewercasualties than less competent generals and admirals.
It is also little recognized that MacArthur may have been able to win the Philippine Defensive Campaign if Eisenhower had not persuaded the Army to abandon the Philippines. The Japanese offensive in Bataan had failed, causing the transfer of major forces from French Indochina to resume the offensive. These Japanese reinforcements also were failing. With even a modeest reinforcement, food, medicine, and other support, the whole Japanese offensive into Indonesia and the Solomons may have been derailed and those costly counter-offensives have been made unnecessary.
Am I the only one who is disgusted by how the Benghazi failure to come to the aid of fine men who fought for their lives for 7+ hrs is being ignored. Maybe I missed it, but do we know who refused to send help to Woods & Doherty?
It started in Korea when Truman “relieved” MacArthur who wanted to “win” that war.
British spy Maclean told the Russians that Truman wasn’t going to allow MacArthur to use atomic weapons if China crossed the Yalu, as Mac wanted. Russian, duly informed, gave the “go ahead” to China. That’s the story of Korea
As long as this has drug on, it’s clear it should have received a full declaration of war. It’s far beyond what one would expect of a reprisal. Reprisals aren’t necessarily quick, but they’re certainly not extended. I’ve long maintained — even at the outset — that this should have been a reprisal and exit.
At the same time, despite the proper declarations, paperwork, speeches, etc. in the hallowed halls of the talkers club on capitol hill, we have thousands dead.
We don’t besmirch them by asserting after all that blood and anguish that it was “phony”. Moreover, the troops themselves know an idiot when they hear one. Those who fought know damn well that they were getting shot at.
We do know. We know it was the situation room of the White House, because we now have an email in which a terrorist attack is acknowledged.
Despite the president’s protestations that he gave quick instructions to provide relief to Doherty/Woods/Ambassador, we also know that Obama personally, by his own words last week, sent Rice out to spread the video trailer nonsense.
Timeline:
1. Obama knows in real time to give orders to rescue our people.
2. Obama knows terrorist attack is taking place real time
3a. Obama knows his orders not carried out
3b. Obama sends Rice out to complain about a movie trailer
4. Obama himself complains at UN about a movie trailer
Putting those together, we realize that the Leader did not practice the simple rule of following up and tracking his own orders.
Therefore, Obama is responsible for the deaths of Doherty & Woods
“...MacArthur is easily the most overrated general in US history...”
Nonsense! The record proves otherwise.
MacArthur was kind to Ridgeway in his writings while Ridgeway dumped on MacArthur but note Ridgeway made statements like “The Korean War would be the last fought completely without nuclear weapons”.
We need generals who risk being fired rather than careerists who glide along in Vietnam-like situations as decisive action gets lost to good staff work and routines.
Yes, there were many characters who looked to avoid combat. There was nothing in the linked article to indicate Lt. Truscott took any action or had any desire whatsoever to avoid a lawful order for a combat assignment. Until and unless you can demonstrate Lt. Truscott refused a “lawful” order for a combat assignment to Vietnam, you will be wrongfully and disgracefully smearing his reputation in that one regard. However much we may dislike the messanger for other reasons, it should be recognized when the accusations do not conform with the evidence.
Truscott’s criticism of MacArthur in regard to casualties is a half-truth that amounts to deception and a lie.
Anyone’s criticism of Truscott for refusing an unlawful order may be an even worse half-truth and a lie if and when Truscott never refused a lawful order for a combat assignment to Vietnam.
Within 17 minutes of the start of the attack, AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham, who happens to be visiting Washington and was in the Pentagon that day, redirects an unarmed, unmanned drone to Benghazi.
PANETTA AND DEMPSEY ARE ALERTED 50 MINUTES AFTER ATTACK
At 10:32 p.m. (4:32 p.m. in Washington), 50 minutes after the incident began, the National Military Command Center, which is the operations center at the Pentagon where Ham is overseeing the operation, notifies Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.
(snip)
At 5 p.m. in Washington, D.C. (11 p.m. in Libya), nearly an hour and a half after the attack began, according to the Pentagon’s timeline, “Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey attend a previously scheduled meeting with the President at the White House.”
Panetta and Dempsey leave the Whitehouse and return to the Pentagon for a meeting with General Ham from 6pm to 8pm.
Rep. John Chaffetz R-UT has said on TV(there is a Youtube video/Fox News) that he has met with General Carter Ham in person and found out that:
1- There were assets in the area
2- They had “proximity”
3- Gen. Ham was never given a directive to use them
In MacArthur's day America stood pretty much as one nation....today even our history books are fractured and 'modern' authors tend to demean both men and their military achievements. War is beyond horrible, almost unthinkable however that doesn't give anyone the right to fictionalize as to what happened through personnel opinion. Audie Murphy, Sgt. York, General MacArthur and countless others were bigger than life heroes. Leave it at that.
This is the key point that the Pubs should be talking about. Everything else gets lost in the "white noise".
We had Americans fighting for their lives. Obama could have sent help. Obama says he told his NSA to "keep them safe". Why weren't they helped?
America doesn’t conquer....we free people......
I understand where you’re coming from, but its a naive viewpoint. The people we conquer, or their children, may actually be glad years later, but certainly don’t want to lose during the actual war.
Ultimately, its the loser who decides that the war is over because they’ve been decisively crushed. I can’t think of any examples in history that prove otherwise. Ceasefires often solve little and leave the real problems to be resolved on the battlefield another day.
FMCDH(BITS)
Top AFRICOM Leader General Carter Ham Was Never Ordered to Save US Men in Benghazi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4W1LDSs5X4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Chaffetz: The Truth About Libya Security, Benghazi on US Diplomats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OxjDOHmAtg
Thank you for the informative post.
My frustration is that the Pubs are falling into the same trap as the "conservative" media in talking about sex and public statements rather than who failed to send aid to our guys. I don't believe a majority of Americans are going to get outraged because obama surrogates lied to the media to help him get re-elected.
If the Pubs would just refocus the debate to who failed to give Gen. Ham the go ahead we would see a majority of Americans looking for "heads to roll". Pubs should be attacking obama everyday as "failure in chief".
People from the South old enough to have been taught excellent history about the War of Northern Aggression or the War of Tariffs before it became known as ‘The Civil War’ have a pretty good idea of how both sides dealt with that period. As for Germany or Japan, as targets of their aggression, we won and we didn’t occupy; we have rebuilt where we can and could over the years....name me one other country that does that.
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.