What does it take to be a general?
Not too many people ever think about that. Once you do start thinking of it, a lot of things can come to mind, but one of them that usually doesn't is actually the most important quality in a general: courage.
We don't often think in terms of a general and courage. Oh, we expect that they are brave enough as far as it goes, but a general doesn't actually lead his men into battle these days...the general is going to show up on the battlefield the day after the battle, in spotless uniform, to brief reporters about what lower ranking men had done the day before. But being a general requires more courage, in a very real sense, than being a soldier at the front lines of the war.
Imagine youself suddenly transformed into a general in command of an army which has just received an order from the President to attack a particular enemy. Think about all the things you are responsible for - such a responsibility is overwhelming. Even if you win the battle, a very large number of the men and women you command will not survive...there is no way to escape the fact that those dead will have gone into battle on your orders, carrying out your plan. You'll spend the rest of your life, even if it is a victory, wondering if a better plan might have resulted in fewer deaths. It is a crushing burden, and not all men who have the rank of general can do it.
History is littered with generals who seemed to have all it took to be a great captain of war - but when the test came, they flunked. In American history, the most devastating example of this was General McClellan during the Civil War. Quite simply, he was afraid to fight - not afraid on his own part (his personal courage was unquestionable), but afraid to risk his army in battle...risk the lives of the men who, to his credit, he cared about. A fine and noble sentiment, but it resulted in the war dragging out longer than it had to, and thus far more of his beloved soldiers wound up dead than would have had he just gone straight at the enemy right from the start.
Generals such as McClellan always find reasons for their failures in the field - their troops weren't properly equipped; there weren't enough troops; too many/too few were sent too early/too late; the President interefered too much; the Secretary of Defense didn't know his job; the enemy was stronger than expected; the strategy the President choose was not the proper one....a cursory look at the complaints these ex-generals have about this war show that the whole litany of complaints has been lodged...and yet other generals are still at it in Iraq and Afghanistan, and much success has been accomplished.
I don't fault these ex-generals - I cannot imagine the pressures they had and the crushing responsibility they labored under. Still, I cannot help but say that it is better they are out - if they can't take the strain of war - all of it, including taking orders that you think not the best - then its best to be well out of it. Not everyone is cut out to lead men into battlle. Indeed, only a comparitive few in history have that supreme ability to be a successful general in war.
These ex-generals did well by their country with the gifts they had. The only regret I have is that they didn't have one other vital gift of a general - the ability to know when to speak, and when to remain silent. The war strategy is set, President Bush is in command and the task will be carried out - ex-military carping from the sidelines won't change this, and it may actually make the effort harder.
Posted by Mark Noonan at April 28, 2006 10:07 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/president.cgi/7034
Comments
Mark,
These brave generals you speak of were ignored by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld when told they would not have enough troops on the ground to manage the peace. History has proven the generals to be correct and the president and secretary to be incompetent.
More than 2,300 American troops have given their lives needlessly because these brave generals were ignored. How many more Americans are you willing to let die? A thousand? Ten Thousand?
Every word you post in this blog in defense of this administration’s failed Iraq policy prolongs the suffering, and leads to the death of another brave American.
What kind of ghoul are you?
Posted by: mike h at April 28, 2006 01:01 PM
Mark, I appreciate your piercing thoughts on a very difficult subject. Keep thinking, keep writing.
Posted by: Maewynia at April 28, 2006 02:28 PM
Mr. Noonan,
Do you really believe that these generals are going to make it harder fort the soldiers in the field than the administration has with its "thousands of tactical mistakes"?
These Generals, like Jack Murtha, have credentials that are a little difficult to tackle, as the no one from the Republican side has yet questioned their patriotism or brought up their service records to prove they're merely disgruntled employees. I suppose the adminstration wanted to avoid another Jack Murtha situation where they end having to call someone a great patriot after trying to lump him with Micheal Moore.
These Generals believed in their mission which was to topple Saddam. No one in the adminstration, as General Zinni has said, talked about the "O" word:occupation. No plans were made for period after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech.
Paul Wolfowitz testified in february 2003 that containing Saddam from 1991 to 2003 had 30 billion, and that oil revenues would finance Iraqs reconstruction after Saddam was taken out.
No one contemplated our spending another 3 years, 350 billion, amd 2100 lives (and counting) to get an Iraqi government in place that...well we're waiting. How much longer, how many more "Tactical mistakes", how many more "Future Presidents", how many more billions in Treasuries will the Chinese have to buy for the war US citizens refuse to pay for, how many more lives will be lost?
As the Zogby poll of American troops showed, most of them over there think they have doen all they can and that it's time for the Iraqis to stand on their own.
The thrust of what the Generals are saying is that the mission might be alot closer to completion if the president had committed several hundred thousands more to the reconstruction of Iraq than he did. If things are hard for the troops in Iraq, its not the fault of Generals who see the well being of their men subverted to the political fortunes of the President, and the party he serves.
It's time for Bush to get honest, send in the troops necessary to finsh the job, and raise the taxes necessary to pay for it.
We can't remain tied down in Iraq, with a coming confrontation with Iran looming. They've got 80 million people, and the ability to produce nukes. We've got to get ready for it.
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer at April 28, 2006 02:40 PM
Fine note on the Generals. But it's important to note more specifically what the Generals think the mistakes are ... and it's not so easy. One didn't want to go into Iraq at all, others allude to mistakes w/o saying what the right course of action would have been.
On the "not enough troops" issue, I haven't actually seen any quotes of Generals saying: 'more troops would have resulted in fewer casualties.'
And I actually don't believe this is true.
JA Taxpayer is a bit right that the cost is too high -- because America is trying to get too much credit. Bremer should have had each Iraqi municipality use ration cards for a local election, and then let the leader decide how much money was needed for security and reconstruction, and then promised to have the US buy municipal bonds issued by the city. So that Iraq is rebuilt by Iraqis, controlled by Iraqis, and using Iraqi money.
"Aid teaches corruption", and the USA is too quick to offer aid/grants, a handout, rather than a more dignified loan, a hand.
Posted by:
TomGrey at April 28, 2006 05:22 PM
Just,
It should be kept in mind that I am un-awed by generals (or admirals). Its part of being a "small r" republican.
The Zogby poll was bogus, as is most of your other assertions about the liberation of Iraq - it has been a success from start to finish, and right from the start it was stated that the reconstruction of Iraq would take a long time...we just didn't realise how long a time because no one suspected that Iraq's infrastructure was that run down by Saddam. There have been tactical errors - but each and every war has thousands of tactical errors...some of them loom larger than others, but all wars are filled with errors. The reason for this is, quite simply, that you cannot predict the future. You can make preparations for what you think might happen, but it is only events that will tell you precisely what you need.
A case in point on this was the need for "up-armouring" the Humvees...in hindsight, this was a "no duh" sort of thing...but find me the military officer who was demanding it PRIOR to our entry into Iraq...the same Humvees had worked splendidly for more than a decade in US military actions, but for Iraq they needed to be a bit different. As soon as the tactical error of insufficiently armoured Humvees was noted, it was fixed as swiftly as possible. Are you going to lay this error at the feet of President Bush as if he were deliberately culpable? If you are, then you are being entirely unjust...the worst form of bearing false witness against another.
As it is, far from sending in more troops, you'll soon see us pulling even more troops out - far from having to raise taxes, you'll see our expenditures in Iraq start to fall rapidly. The battle is won, Just; victory is ours, we've won the day. The Iraqi government is made, the Iraqi army is immensely superior to its terrorist enemy (and likely the superior, man for man, over any other military force in the area other than the US and Israeli military), the Iraqi police grows in competence on a daily basis. You're looking at success and calling it failure, and I really can't explain why you would want to do that...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 28, 2006 07:54 PM
mike,
That is 180 degrees out of whack - had we listened to these generals, Saddam would still be in power...paying 10k for each Palestinian suicide bomber, providing aid to international terrorism and bribing the French, Russians and Germans for ever more reductions in the level of sanctions on his criminal regime...meanwhile, we'd still be parked in Saudi Arabia and enforcing the "no fly" zones while the Iraqi people suffered more and more each day...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 28, 2006 07:58 PM
Mark,
Thank you for posting my comments here and on several other issues on your website. I have written to the Blogs for Bush rebutted website to tell them that you do indeed accept opinions that are not all compliments to the president.
Considering that you guys do this on your own time and own dime, you have a very good sampling of Blog opinion. Your sight is definitly not an ech chamber. Keep up the good work.
Now, having said that, where's the rebut to my post here?!
There is no substitute for victory, and in place of that, how about a good discussion of the issues.
Look forward to your response.
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer at April 29, 2006 12:18 AM
Just,
I thought I already did respond...what have I missed?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 29, 2006 02:58 PM
As a 22 year vetern retired now its hard for me to think of one thing more harmful to our troops then thir ex generals comeing out against the current leadership. The one thing it should point out to all is how political the upper ranks are . So sad but true .
Posted by:
Rod Ferroggiaro at April 30, 2006 11:59 AM
Post a comment
Mark,
These brave generals you speak of were ignored by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld when told they would not have enough troops on the ground to manage the peace. History has proven the generals to be correct and the president and secretary to be incompetent.
More than 2,300 American troops have given their lives needlessly because these brave generals were ignored. How many more Americans are you willing to let die? A thousand? Ten Thousand?
Every word you post in this blog in defense of this administration’s failed Iraq policy prolongs the suffering, and leads to the death of another brave American.
What kind of ghoul are you?
Mark, I appreciate your piercing thoughts on a very difficult subject. Keep thinking, keep writing.
Mr. Noonan,
Do you really believe that these generals are going to make it harder fort the soldiers in the field than the administration has with its "thousands of tactical mistakes"?
These Generals, like Jack Murtha, have credentials that are a little difficult to tackle, as the no one from the Republican side has yet questioned their patriotism or brought up their service records to prove they're merely disgruntled employees. I suppose the adminstration wanted to avoid another Jack Murtha situation where they end having to call someone a great patriot after trying to lump him with Micheal Moore.
These Generals believed in their mission which was to topple Saddam. No one in the adminstration, as General Zinni has said, talked about the "O" word:occupation. No plans were made for period after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech.
Paul Wolfowitz testified in february 2003 that containing Saddam from 1991 to 2003 had 30 billion, and that oil revenues would finance Iraqs reconstruction after Saddam was taken out.
No one contemplated our spending another 3 years, 350 billion, amd 2100 lives (and counting) to get an Iraqi government in place that...well we're waiting. How much longer, how many more "Tactical mistakes", how many more "Future Presidents", how many more billions in Treasuries will the Chinese have to buy for the war US citizens refuse to pay for, how many more lives will be lost?
As the Zogby poll of American troops showed, most of them over there think they have doen all they can and that it's time for the Iraqis to stand on their own.
The thrust of what the Generals are saying is that the mission might be alot closer to completion if the president had committed several hundred thousands more to the reconstruction of Iraq than he did. If things are hard for the troops in Iraq, its not the fault of Generals who see the well being of their men subverted to the political fortunes of the President, and the party he serves.
It's time for Bush to get honest, send in the troops necessary to finsh the job, and raise the taxes necessary to pay for it.
We can't remain tied down in Iraq, with a coming confrontation with Iran looming. They've got 80 million people, and the ability to produce nukes. We've got to get ready for it.
Fine note on the Generals. But it's important to note more specifically what the Generals think the mistakes are ... and it's not so easy. One didn't want to go into Iraq at all, others allude to mistakes w/o saying what the right course of action would have been.
On the "not enough troops" issue, I haven't actually seen any quotes of Generals saying: 'more troops would have resulted in fewer casualties.'
And I actually don't believe this is true.
JA Taxpayer is a bit right that the cost is too high -- because America is trying to get too much credit. Bremer should have had each Iraqi municipality use ration cards for a local election, and then let the leader decide how much money was needed for security and reconstruction, and then promised to have the US buy municipal bonds issued by the city. So that Iraq is rebuilt by Iraqis, controlled by Iraqis, and using Iraqi money.
"Aid teaches corruption", and the USA is too quick to offer aid/grants, a handout, rather than a more dignified loan, a hand.
Just,
It should be kept in mind that I am un-awed by generals (or admirals). Its part of being a "small r" republican.
The Zogby poll was bogus, as is most of your other assertions about the liberation of Iraq - it has been a success from start to finish, and right from the start it was stated that the reconstruction of Iraq would take a long time...we just didn't realise how long a time because no one suspected that Iraq's infrastructure was that run down by Saddam. There have been tactical errors - but each and every war has thousands of tactical errors...some of them loom larger than others, but all wars are filled with errors. The reason for this is, quite simply, that you cannot predict the future. You can make preparations for what you think might happen, but it is only events that will tell you precisely what you need.
A case in point on this was the need for "up-armouring" the Humvees...in hindsight, this was a "no duh" sort of thing...but find me the military officer who was demanding it PRIOR to our entry into Iraq...the same Humvees had worked splendidly for more than a decade in US military actions, but for Iraq they needed to be a bit different. As soon as the tactical error of insufficiently armoured Humvees was noted, it was fixed as swiftly as possible. Are you going to lay this error at the feet of President Bush as if he were deliberately culpable? If you are, then you are being entirely unjust...the worst form of bearing false witness against another.
As it is, far from sending in more troops, you'll soon see us pulling even more troops out - far from having to raise taxes, you'll see our expenditures in Iraq start to fall rapidly. The battle is won, Just; victory is ours, we've won the day. The Iraqi government is made, the Iraqi army is immensely superior to its terrorist enemy (and likely the superior, man for man, over any other military force in the area other than the US and Israeli military), the Iraqi police grows in competence on a daily basis. You're looking at success and calling it failure, and I really can't explain why you would want to do that...
mike,
That is 180 degrees out of whack - had we listened to these generals, Saddam would still be in power...paying 10k for each Palestinian suicide bomber, providing aid to international terrorism and bribing the French, Russians and Germans for ever more reductions in the level of sanctions on his criminal regime...meanwhile, we'd still be parked in Saudi Arabia and enforcing the "no fly" zones while the Iraqi people suffered more and more each day...
Mark,
Thank you for posting my comments here and on several other issues on your website. I have written to the Blogs for Bush rebutted website to tell them that you do indeed accept opinions that are not all compliments to the president.
Considering that you guys do this on your own time and own dime, you have a very good sampling of Blog opinion. Your sight is definitly not an ech chamber. Keep up the good work.
Now, having said that, where's the rebut to my post here?!
There is no substitute for victory, and in place of that, how about a good discussion of the issues.
Look forward to your response.
Just,
I thought I already did respond...what have I missed?
As a 22 year vetern retired now its hard for me to think of one thing more harmful to our troops then thir ex generals comeing out against the current leadership. The one thing it should point out to all is how political the upper ranks are . So sad but true .