‘Good Guys’ Make Bad Generals

The American Conservative ^ | May 13, 2013 | ANDREW J. BACEVICH

[JerseyanExile]

By all accounts, the present-day United States military is the best—that is, the most capable—in all the world. In the estimation of their countrymen, today’s American warrior (the homelier term G.I. having now gone the way of doughboy) may well be the best of all time. Yet America’s Army doesn’t win. Except for small-scale skirmishes, it hasn’t since World War II.

The United States Army is like one of those chronically underperforming professional sports franchises: the team looks good on paper but somehow doesn’t quite get the job done. Despite a huge payroll, a roster loaded with talent, and an enthusiastic fan base, performance on the pitch falls short of what’s needed to win championships.

What explains this gap between apparent potential and actual achievement? When Americans send their army to fight, why doesn’t it return home in triumph? In The Generals, Thomas R. Ricks ventures an answer to that question, with his book’s title fingering the chief culprits.

Writing in 1932, the soldier-historian J.F.C. Fuller identified the essential attributes of successful generalship as “courage, creative intelligence and physical fitness.” A prize-winning journalist best known for his cogent analysis of the Iraq War, Ricks does not question whether senior American military officers can do the requisite number of push-ups and sit-ups to demonstrate their physical vigor. Yet since World War II, he argues, the quality of creative intelligence found in the upper echelons of the United States Army has declined precipitously. So too has the quality of civil-military interaction—the dialogue between senior officers and senior civilian officials that is essential to effective war management. Here the problem stems at least in part from pronounced lapses in moral courage. Together, these failings at the top explain why an army that seemingly ought to win doesn’t.

[TADSLOS]

I knew we were in real trouble when the memorandum came down saying that it wasn’t fair to evaluate Soldiers based on their performance in combat. You could end a career if the Soldier was one second late on the fitness test or because the Soldier looked fat, but it wasn’t fair to evaluate Soldiers based on their performance in combat? We have an Army of runners with all that entails.

Yes, that is the message being delivered.

[Future Snake Eater]

We have an Army of runners with all that entails.

So true, and it will only get worse as the war winds down and we get back to garrison stupidity. At least we'll have an Army that looks like it's fit to fight.

This satire article is all too true.

[quadrant]

I agree the Corps has “declined” but it has retained its standards to a degree that far exceeds the ability of the
Army to retain its core beliefs.

[quadrant]

I agree: LBJ did micromanage the war to an incredible degree; but the day-to-day tactics were designed by Westmorland. Lets not forget that the Marine Corps protested the tactics chosen by the Army leadership but were overruled.

[Repeat Offender]

I agree the Corps has “declined” but it has retained its standards to a degree that far exceeds the ability of the Army to retain its core beliefs.

Sucking less than someone else isn't exactly a positive outlook.

And having personally witnessed the ineptitude of certain Marine officers in comparison to their Army counterparts in the same AO.......I lost the ability to trash talk the Army; something when I was a young dumb '03 knuckle dragger I never thought possible.

[quadrant]

You are correct, but in the atmosphere in which the DOD operates, “sucking less” is about the best a service can do.

Ineptitude is common throughout the officer corps. But Marine NCO’s and Staff NCO’s are head and shoulders above anything the Army can field.

[Repeat Offender]

But Marine NCO’s and Staff NCO’s are head and shoulders above anything the Army can field.

I agree with you there although I may have reason for bias. However, everything possible is being done to water down the NCO and SNCO corps. Much of the problem with the O corps, I blame on weak SNCOs not slapping sense into those with shiny on their collar.

I do not know a single Marine unwilling to put their life on the line for another......I know very few willing to put their career on the line for the same.

The other major problem is to view the services, or DoD in general, as some faceless entity......without realizing who actually makes up the entity. In other words, it is easier to blame the org as a whole, or the system, without ever gaining the testicular fortitude to say damn the system and doing something about it.

[quadrant]

Things must have changed since my days in the Corps. The SNCO’s kept everything together. They coached the officers and sat on the faces of the junior NCO’s, esp, I thought, mine.