Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 01:35 PM Jul 2017

"We haven't had a general in the US Army win a war...since 1945"

With exception of General Norman Schwarzkopf (1991 Gulf War), US generals haven't won a war since 1945. That is what Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson wanted to remind everyone about on Joy Reid's show this morning.

Joy was asking him about Trump's appointment of General Kelly to be White House Chief of Staff. He though Trump surrounding himself with "the current crop of generals" was "dangerous." He thinks it signals an abandonment of diplomacy. Wilkerson thought diplomacy was the only solution to the Korean crisis.

Our current crop of generals only know how to start wars. Winning them or avoiding them? Not so much.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"We haven't had a general in the US Army win a war...since 1945" (Original Post) SunSeeker Jul 2017 OP
General has become purely a political position. Aristus Jul 2017 #1
Not sure we've had a war that was truly necessary since 1945. Hoyt Jul 2017 #2
Both of those examples? Multinational coalition. Spider Jerusalem Jul 2017 #3
Because we haven't had any wars with clear goals and objectives since 1945. Initech Jul 2017 #4
But Kelly is a Marine General, so he's got that going for him... Brother Buzz Jul 2017 #5
Legally speaking congress has not declared war since 1941. briv1016 Jul 2017 #6

Aristus

(66,087 posts)
1. General has become purely a political position.
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 01:43 PM
Jul 2017

Four-star rank also positions one to be the target of many lucrative offers in the private sector after retirement, which itself comes with a huge pension-and-benefits package.

In Vietnam, the higher-ups began rotating young second lieutenants into and out of combat platoon posts for as little as six months at a time, in order for them to get 'combat experience' into their 201-file. As if combat experience was just a step on the ladder to star rank, political liaisonship, and a comfortable retirement, instead of being important for leading troops in combat.

Six months of combat experience is nowhere near enough time to become reasonably good at field leadership, or time enough for one's troops to trust and respect you, or to create a sense of continuity of command, which is of huge value in building confidence and morale in a combat unit.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
3. Both of those examples? Multinational coalition.
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 04:23 PM
Jul 2017

WWII? The war in Europe was won by the Soviets and the British; the Luftwaffe never fully recovered from their losses in the Battle of Britain, and by the time American troops deployed in North Africa the Germans had been defeated at Stalingrad and El Alamein and never advanced on any front again. The Pacific Theatre saw significant contributions from British and Anzac forces in Burma and from China, which diverted large numbers of Japanese troops from other areas. And the Gulf War? Another coalition, with the UK, France, Canada, etc. The US army only wins wars, since 1918, when 1) it fights with allies, 2) there are clear objectives and conditions for victory (WWII: unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan; Gulf War: Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, crippling Saddam's military capability). Korea ended in stalemate because "winning" would've meant all-out war with China, and using nukes (and Truman wasn't crazy); Vietnam, because it's impossible to win a "victory" against a committed insurgency; Afghanistan and Iraq, for the same reasons as Vietnam. "We're going to win the war on terror" isn't a strategy, and it doesn't provide for a clear victory condition.

Initech

(99,912 posts)
4. Because we haven't had any wars with clear goals and objectives since 1945.
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 04:29 PM
Jul 2017

They've been merely occupations. You can make the case for Korea, but that's about it. Everything else since then has just been an exercise in how America can spend trillions on the military and have all the money go to the richest among us. Since 1945 and well, since the 80s, the only time America has gone to war is for profit.

Brother Buzz

(36,212 posts)
5. But Kelly is a Marine General, so he's got that going for him...
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 04:42 PM
Jul 2017

and our resident Marine veterans in the dark corner of the American legion bar continually tell me the Marines won the war in Vietnam.

briv1016

(1,570 posts)
6. Legally speaking congress has not declared war since 1941.
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 05:11 PM
Jul 2017

Lots of Americans dying in "conflicts" over seas since then though.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"We haven't had a general...