Sunday, November 9, 2014

The 5 Worst Generals in U.S. History

Photo: General Lloyd Fredendall. Wikipedia

Commanders of Chaos: The 5 Worst Generals in U.S. History -- Michael Peck, National Interest

It would be nice if all American generals were great. How might Vietnam or Iraq have turned out if a George Washington, a Ulysses Grant or a George Patton had been in command?

Alas, call it the laws of probability or just cosmic karma, but every nation produces bad generals as well as good ones—and America is no exception.

What is a bad general? Defining that is like defining a bad meal. Some would say that failure on the battlefield warrants censure. Others would say that it is not victory, but success in fulfilling a mission that counts.

But for whatever reason, some American commanders have lost the battle for history. Here are five of America's worst generals:

Read more ....

My Comment: It is easy to blame the Generals .... but it should be noted that it is the civilian political leaders who command them who really lose the wars.

4 comments:

Unknown said...

George McClellan made the list.

I could of swore the was a Military History or MHQ article that said McClellan's plan to win the Civil War was basically sound and was more or less implemented.

The problem is that he did not have the temerity to fully implement it.

At least that was the author's thesis.

It is similar to Herbert hoover not having the temerity to deficit spend enough. It might not have been his ideal, but Hoover had latched onto the ideal of deficit spending by the government during economic downturns. The deal was to plan out infrastructure projects that didn't quite have the cost benefit ratio to justify them during good times, but to make the blueprint and shelve them only to be brought out when the economy went into a recession.

Hoover and McClellan were technically savvy enough, but did not have the courage of their convictions.

Philip said...

McClellan was a sound strategist. However, he faced several problems. One was that his maneuver, joint-operation, warfare approach was unconventional for the time. The second was the Union's poor intelligence, which exaggerated the Confederate forces' capability and an excess of caution.

The third was Lincoln's consistent lack of an overall coherent strategy, aside from his insistence that the Union Army go on immediate offensive against the Confederate forces. To that end, the President took personal control of all Union armies except for the Army of the Potomac. That led to fiascoes, such as the botched operation in the Shenandoah area. His impatience and habit of replacing leaders also arguably led to Union defeats at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Charleston.

Unknown said...

I found the article about McClellan

MHQ Fall 2011

http://www.historynet.com/mcclellans-war-winning-strategy.htm

http://www.historynet.com/?s=McClellan

I have to go back & re-evaluate what I think I read. However McClellan comes off much better than he does in a high school history book.

Philip said...

Thanks for the link. I'll peruse it tonight.