Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or

[daftandbarmy]

Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan

Thomas E. Ricks is a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). Concurrently with his duties at CNAS, Ricks writes an online blog for ForeignPolicy.com called, "The Best Defense," serves as contributing editor for Foreign Policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxZWxxZ2JGE

 

[tomahawk6]

I oppose his opinion.Desert Storm was a classic case of shock and awe and ditto with Iraq. Afghanistan is a work in progress. The big difference is the time period.The public was all about winning at any cost.Not the same in Vietnam.The left tried to oppose the war in Iraq but with an all volunteer force they couldn't muster the support they got during Vietnam.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I oppose his opinion.Desert Storm was a classic case of shock and awe and ditto with Iraq.  . . .

Did you watch it?

I recall watching this a while back (maybe a couple of months or so).  I quickly went through it again to refresh my memory and immediately came to the same impression as I formed before.  His discussion did not fit the title of the topic or at least not what I expected.  While he does single out by name some WW2 era GOs (a few of the standard well known ones) and discussed circumstances of their generalship, it is more "gossipy" that I would have expected.  Mentioning only in passing the combat records, it seems to focus more on the personality conflicts (or compatibilities) that they had with fellow or higher commanders and how that played into being given opportunities to lead formations in war.

It is much the same with latter day commanders, though I did get the feeling that he did like "name dropping" when discussing some of the generals who served in the theatres that are still ongoing.

It was okay though, but if someone was looking for an in-depth discussion about strategic generalship in the mid to late 20th century in comparison to the early 21st century, find a book.  Oh, the takeaway point is that if generals didn't meet expectations during WW2, they were fired but that didn't necessarily end their wartime careers.  Nowadays, few are fired.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . but if someone was looking for an in-depth discussion about strategic generalship in the mid to late 20th century in comparison to the early 21st century, find a book.  . . .

And here's a book The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today  by Thomas E. Ricks.

http://nation.time.com/2012/10/29/generally-mediocre/

I haven't read it yet, but it will be on my list of ones to find.

 

[tomahawk6]

Ricks is an idiot save your money maybe it will be at the library ?

 

[winnipegoo7]

I oppose his opinion.Desert Storm was a classic case of shock and awe and ditto with Iraq. Afghanistan is a work in progress. The big difference is the time period.The public was all about winning at any cost.Not the same in Vietnam.The left tried to oppose the war in Iraq but with an all volunteer force they couldn't muster the support they got during Vietnam.

+1