Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984

About firing or relieving generals

Recommended Posts

About firing Generals. If you have an hour I suggest this view.  He discusses the difference between results in WWII and later wars.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UC Berkely! HUH??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great lecture. I've followed Ricks' work for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time to watch it yet, but I wonder if he mentions Admiral "Bull" Halsey. If anyone deserved to be sacked for poor decision-making it was him. Not once, or twice... but THREE times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

I don't have time to watch it yet, but I wonder if he mentions Admiral "Bull" Halsey. If anyone deserved to be sacked for poor decision-making it was him. Not once, or twice... but THREE times.

I don’t recall Halsey having been mentioned.  The only commanders in the Pacific that I remember were the original general and admiral. I could be wrong, it was an hour lecture and I was tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He basically only discussed the Army. I agree, Halsey's weather man sucked and they both should have been relieved. The take-out I got from this lecture was that in WWII you served in a role for the duration of the war, so screwups caused replacement. You were shelved and then probably used elsewhere eventually. Since then rotation is automatic, so no one ever gets relieved early; too much trouble for the powers-that-be, especially during unpopular wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the lecture, but I kept reminding myself, this man has never commanded a battalion.  Military historian....excellent.  Military analysis...good.  Worth listening too....yes, but be careful.   If you take risks and  military operations are successful...you are audacious.  If you take risks and military operations are a failure....you are rash.  I do agree, that our generals since Korea are averse to audacity (but I've never ever commanded a company, troop, or battery). 

 

Now for my pet peeve.

Our politicians, have never declared war since WW2.  Our Congress should have declared war against N. Korea, N. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and others that I've omitted.  Yet, our politicians are all quick to criticize the President's conduct of the war and disavow any responsibility; both Democrats and Republicans.  That's just plain cowardly.  Next war...Congress, the representatives of America, must declare war or we stay out of it.

 

 

 

 

 

.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you BQ, but unfortunately in today's political environment you will probably never see another defeated combatant sign surrender papers in the presence of the victor. Nowadays they're either killed, jailed, or they flee to another country and seek asylum. Meanwhile their supporters head for the hills and continue to wage a guerilla war over the next several decades.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

I agree with you BQ, but unfortunately in today's political environment you will probably never see another defeated combatant sign surrender papers in the presence of the victor. Nowadays they're either killed, jailed, or they flee to another country and seek asylum. Meanwhile their supporters head for the hills and continue to wage a guerilla war over the next several decades.

.

Iraq admitted defeat after Desert Storm and Sadam Hussain signed a cease fire agreement, which conditions he broke.   If we had declared war, it would have been a surrender and there would not have been a second Iraq war.  Again, Congress should have declared war the first time.

 

Next, in order to secure the victory, we must occupy the defeated country.  We secured the victory in WW2 by occupying Japan and Germany.  We secured the victory in Korea by occupying S. Korea.   Whenever we pull out, the guerillas become successful and the victory is lost.   So, if we go to war, we must be willing to occupy, long term, the country we defeat.  If that is unacceptable, don't go to war.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

About firing Generals. If you have an hour I suggest this view.  He discusses the difference between results in WWII and later wars.

 

 

Could it be because in WWII our troops weren't being micromanaged by every politician and peace time general in the whole wide world?  An just maybe, because the generals since then have been forced to pay attention to the students, press, peaceniks, and nay-sayers popping up out of the woodwork every time a decision was made..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 said:

Iran admitted defeat after Desert Storm and Sadam Hussain signed a cease fire agreement, which conditions he broke.   If we had declared war, it would have been a surrender and there would not have been a second Iran war.  Again, Congress should have declared war the first time.

 

Next, in order to secure the victory, we must occupy the defeated country.  We secured the victory in WW2 by occupying Japan and Germany.  We secured the victory in Korea by occupying S. Korea.   Whenever we pull out, the guerillas become successful and the victory is lost.   So, if we go to war, we must be willing to occupy, long term, the country we defeat.  If that is unacceptable, don't go to war.

 

 

.

After W.W. 1, occupation of Germany was incomplete, seems like a half hearted operation terminated early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 said:

Iran admitted defeat after Desert Storm and Sadam Hussain signed a cease fire agreement, which conditions he broke.   If we had declared war, it would have been a surrender and there would not have been a second Iran war.  Again, Congress should have declared war the first time.

 

Next, in order to secure the victory, we must occupy the defeated country.  We secured the victory in WW2 by occupying Japan and Germany.  We secured the victory in Korea by occupying S. Korea.   Whenever we pull out, the guerillas become successful and the victory is lost.   So, if we go to war, we must be willing to occupy, long term, the country we defeat.  If that is unacceptable, don't go to war.

 

 

.

BQ,

 

  Spot on commentary. True wars are won when the victor is standing with his heel on the defeated’s throat, in his territory,  and makes him capitulate to his demands. The land, resources,  and hearts and minds of the populace are released back, when the victor decides it’s the proper time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

After W.W. 1, occupation of Germany was incomplete, seems like a half hearted operation terminated early.

There had never been a war of that magnitude and there was no plan to manage the peace. Germany was crushed economically and prohibited by the armistice accords from building up armed forces and engaging in aggression. But there was no attempt to enforce those prohibitions.

Marshall recognized this and his brilliant plan prevented the aftermath of WWII from turning into WWIII. We could use him today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it occurred to anyone that we haven't really fought a war (declared or not) since 1945 and no conflict we have been in since then has had any sort of clear cut conclusion?

 

We have the means to WIN right now, but we're piddling around getting our kids injured and  killed because no one in authority has the guts to tell our enemies and / or allies(hard to differentiate sometimes) to tamp sand and do what needs to be done to WIN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Has it occurred to anyone that we haven't really fought a war (declared or not) since 1945 and no conflict we have been in since then has had any sort of clear cut conclusion?

 

We have the means to WIN right now, but we're piddling around getting our kids injured and  killed because no one in authority has the guts to tell our enemies and / or allies(hard to differentiate sometimes) to tamp sand and do what needs to be done to WIN.

Politics has complete control of military planning and operations these days. The troops are the best warriors we have ever fielded, but their generals have come up knowing how to bend in the political wind to further their careers. The senior NCOs and company grade officers I know on active duty are leaving in droves. Unfortunately this CIC won’t be able to fix the mess it will take a very strong Joint Chiefs chairman to start the process of rejuvenation of the military. But as Mr Rick points out there will have to be a universal change in the way senior commanders conduct business. We have fallen a long way. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.