Posted on 10/12/2014 4:21:23 AM PDT by iowamark
France's military history is littered with cautionary tales and glorious triumphs. And the secret differentiator between the two may be age.
The average age of Napoleon's generals was 41, and many of the brightest were even younger. Jean Lannes was named a general at 27, and a field marshal at 35. Andre Masséna was named a general at 35. Louis-Nicolas Davoust was named a general at 23 (really), and a field marshal at 34. Joachim Murat, Napoleon's legendary cavalry commander, was named a general at 29.
By contrast, in 1939, when France started what would be the most serious debacle in its history, the supreme commander of its armed forces was Maxime Gamelin, age 67. Before the end of the Battle of France, he was replaced by Maxime Weygand, 73. France's only World War II victories were won by a young general, who had previously written a prophetic book on blitzkrieg tactics, by the name of Charles de Gaulle.
This is a pattern so often repeated in military history that you can't help but ask, "When will they ever learn?" A military force wins a series of victories. After doing so, it becomes cocky, set in its ways, sure that its tactics will work forever. A hungrier force comes up with new and unexpected tactics. The older force cannot adapt. It is defeated. The phenomenon is so well known that "generals fighting the last war" has become a common expression.
We should always be wary of over-generalizations. Obviously, some of the world's most daring and innovative people are senior citizens, and some of its dullest and most conservative are in their 20s. But broadly speaking, these are exceptions that prove the rule. It seems hard to deny that there is indeed an inverse correlation between age and willingness to try new ideas, and between age and aggression, which are among the most critical features for military commanders.
And that brings us to America. Today, the U.S. military seems both as strong as ever and as weak as ever. As strong as ever because it has no great power rivals that can even hope to match its conventional strength; and because it has the most aircraft carriers, the best technology, and unattainable command of the skies. And yet, no one but a fool would claim that the U.S. military's recent war-making record is sterling. As Thomas E. Ricks has argued, a great many of the U.S.'s military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly attributable to poor generalship.
The U.S. military is the most powerful fighting force in history. And warfare is changing faster than ever. The entire world depends on the U.S. military for security. Whatever the "next war" ends up being, we will all be sorry if U.S. generals are fighting the last war while it happens.
I don't know what the "next war" will be, so I can't make tactical recommendations. Instead, I can make a recommendation that will bias the U.S. military toward more inventiveness, more risk taking, more daring. Is it sure to work? Of course not. Will it make a true difference? Is it necessary? I believe so.
That recommendation is simple: The U.S. military should have a firm retirement age of 50 for officers.
This would be a sea change. It would mean the chairman of the joint chiefs would be in his mid-40s, instead of 62, as he is today. The career path would be compressed to an astonishing extent. It is not just generals who will be (much) younger; it will also be every type of superior officer.
There are, of course, laws in America that ban age discrimination. There are very good reasons for these statutes, and I don't propose changing them anywhere — except in the military's officer ranks.
Now, you might be concerned that my plan will promote people past their level of competence. Don't worry about that. Bureaucracies promote people to their level of incompetence; startups and adventurous militaries promote people past their level into competence, into jobs that they must grow into as they do them. A very common feature of military campaigns, especially successful ones, is officers being promoted very early due to high rank turnover, whether due to dismissals or death in action.
Plus, the U.S. military needs more accountability for senior officers. Some senior officers will not be ready for significant command by their mid-30s. Replace them!
Aren't there a lot of very valuable old commanders? Of course. As I said earlier, there are exceptions to every rule, and there are or should be a lot of exceptions to the current, never-justified, unwritten rule that says senior commanders should be in their 50s or 60s. The point of setting a general rule of this type is not to catch every single eventuality in its net. It is to find a way to shape incentives and culture and probabilities to improve the organization.
One effect of this new rule is that, given the shorter career span, and, therefore, a much more brutal "up or out" promotion system, younger ambitious officers who want to make general very fast will be more incentivized to try to stand out, to try new things and methods.
I realize, of course, how audacious my proposal is. Almost as audacious as Napoleon.
Now THAT’S the truth! Obama is trying to kill some military off, I suppose.
If you will re-read my post you quoted from you’ll notice the wish of those who would bring back the draft.
When the person got their “draft” notice they would have the choice of Military Service of some type of In Service to America program.
That is where the favoritism would come into play where the politically protected would dodge military service by doing the Service to American gig.
It’s just a bad idea all around.
Any savings would be more than eaten up by the jobs program and sure would not make much of a difference in service by politicians.
If they are top-heavy and have 20 years they can leave with a monthly check. I would institute an involuntary Reduction In Force(RIF). How many of our top Generals are really politicians?
“When the person got their “draft” notice they would have the choice of Military Service of some type of In Service to America program.”
LOL, well, I listed the Peace Corp as one of my examples of a draft deferment that should not be allowed if the draft should be activated. The Peace Corp was indeed a refuge for the left during the Vietnam War. That’s why I stated “no exemptions other than for physical or mental problems”. Peace brother, I’m old and you’re wearing me out :)
Benedict Arnold was 39 when he conspired to give the defensive plans of West point to the British.
Napoleon himself was just 43 when he lost 360,000 troops in Russia and 46 at the Battle of Waterloo.
George McClellan was 35 years old when the became the highest ranking general in the United States Army.
Braxton Bragg was 44 when the Civil War began and was such a bad commander that his subordinate Confederate commanders hated him and his own troops tried to kill him.
Winston Churchill was just 41 when he concocted the Gallipoli campaign but 66 when he took office in 1940.
Mark Clark was 48 when he commanded the Fifth Army during the 28th Division’s disastrous crossing of the Rapido River in Italy. Veterans of his own command demanded a Congressional Inquiry into his command after the war.
The attack began early on the morning of October 14, and the fighting was fierce. MacArthur's 168th Iowa regiment, fighting with great courage, took Hill 288 by noon. MacArthur had little time to savor their success, as he led the repeated but fruitless assaults on Chatillon, now the final key to the area. MacArthur planned a bayonets-only attack for the next day (to avoid the muzzle flashes which gave away their locations), but after listening to the protests of his men thought better of it and canceled the order.
October 15 was a bad day for the Rainbow Division. MacArthur's 84th attacked repeatedly, but could get no further than halfway between Hill 288 and the Cote de Chatillon. From the high ground, the Germans were able to pour machine-gun and small-arms fire on Lenihan's 83rd, preventing it from making progress toward the towns. That evening, furious at the lack of progress, Summerall relieved Lenihan of his command, and repeated to MacArthur his demand that he take his objective or die trying. That night, MacArthur led the night patrol and found a relative weak spot in the German lines.
The next day, MacArthur's men, led by the 167th Alabama and 168th Iowa regiments, exploited this weakness and finally took the Cote de Chatillon. MacArthur directed a massive barrage which pinned the Germans down while Major Ross of the 168th led a group through the wire and enveloped the Germans, who were routed and either killed, fled, or captured. There were numerous acts of personal bravery; it was perhaps the Rainbow Division's greatest achievement in the war. The Rainbows were too decimated to press their advantage, but the tide had turned with the taking of Chatillon. Menoher wrote in his report to Summerall: "The indomitable resolution and ferocious courage of these two officers [MacArthur and Ross] in rallying their broken lines time and time again, in re-forming the attack and leading their men that saved the day. Without them the German line would not have been broken. On a field where courage was the rule their heroism was the dominant feature. I regard their efforts as among the most remarkable of the war."
Old? Who’s old?
I tried to enlist when I was 18 but was told I had to turn in my draft card. I told them I didn’t want to be drafted I wanted to enlist. They said if I wanted to enlist I needed to turn in my draft card - and the post office was around the corner and two blocks down.
So down I went and back - all to turn it in. Must have had it all of ten minutes.
But to sum it all up - If the left is for it, it must be a bad idea. That’s really the only place there is talk of this issue.
...and General George Washington won the Revolutionary War at 52.
Yep. What hasn't the left tried to politicize? Let's see, get rid of those ‘older’ military officers who haven't been indoctrinated by the left - and replace them with young Wesley Clarks - who said just recently that he will be backing Hillary.
Beyond those aspects of this article, the whole concept of comparing the age of generals during a time of Napoleon to now is ridiculous.
I knew we were in serious trouble when the memorandum came out stating that it wasn’t fair to evaluate a Soldier based on his performance during combat. What, then, should you use to evaluate a Soldier?
The president has the joint chiefs of staff. Unfortunately, he has fired or forced out the competent officers and replaced them with “yes” men.
Gimme a break.
Puny little new world order geek. That’s the US military’s biggest problem, all the new world order civilian geeks who are “consultants”.
Who is this freak... here’s his bio at bi...
http://www.businessinsider.com/author/pascal-emmanuel-gobry
Lots of military experience...
“It’s time for young blood and fresh ideas in the military’s highest ranks”
Sure worked out well in the presidency, didn’t it?
“Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry is an entrepreneur and writer based in Paris, and a frequent columnist at The Week. His writing has appeared at Forbes, The Atlantic, Commentary Magazine, The Daily Beast, The Federalist, Quartz, and other outlets.”
So, based on his experience and intimate knowledge of the military......
There is also the issue of the changing rate of maturation in society. Many years ago, someone 18 was an adult. Now someone 35 appears to be just leaving his teens. Not everyone, of course, but a large proportion.
True to a degree but the change in tech and tactics was much more rapid during past wars. A 67 year old general in WW2 cut his teeth during the era of trench warfare and no air power.
Patton was 77 when he kicked a lot of Kraut ass.
In truth, the age difference between the Union and Confederacy in the Civil War was very important, in that the Confederate commanders average age was about a decade older than that of the Union commanders.
However, at the same time, the experience and learning of the older Confederate generals proved to be important in the short to mid-term of the war, before fatigue kicked in.
And the quote is true, though it is from a football coach (Vince Lombardi), that “Fatigue makes cowards of us all.”
But the solution to this problem is not found in retirement, which removes the greater experience and learning from the battlefield, but in retention as a “Commander Emeritus”.
Some confusion exists, because armies have evolved a system of command leadership, in which a commander, while they issue the commands, these commands are executed by their deputy commander, who “does the heavy lifting” in the unit.
Beyond that, the commander is a liaison with the higher headquarters, and has a staff of officers to carry out operations, training, logistics, personnel management, intelligence, and other specialized functions.
The way a “Commander Emeritus” would come into play would be when in combat, continuity between commanders was especially important. Instead of retiring, the former commander would take on the role of “officer ombudsman”, who would observe the situation without any participation, and would then only offer advice to the new commander in person and in private, with strict limits on doing anything else.
His term in doing this would be limited to either 3 or six months. Then he would issue a secret final report to the superior unit commander. The purpose of this would be to let him know if there is a potentially catastrophic failure that the new commander refuses to address.
And then retirement.
No, the correct age was 60.
Who the heck is Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry ??
Why would anyone think that way?
Institutional memory bye bye
easier for a demagogue to control, yeppers
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.