Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
David Patraeus
Stanley McCrystal
David McKiernan
Raymond Odierno
The above mentioned were the main bunglers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in and around the years when I served, although there were plenty of other hands in addition to those jokers. Those clowns not only bungled the wars, but also disgraced themselves in other ways. McCrystal and McKiernan were both sacked, Patraeus had shady deals and a very public affair as well. Each of these men serve on the boards of directors of various large companies including Jet Blue and Morgan Stanley. I'll also note that James Mattis was on the board of the incredibly shady Theranos corporation along with John McCain....what a shame.
William Westmoreland, in an earlier era, bungled Vietnam. His subordinate commander, Creighton Abrams was the superior man and would've been the correct man for the job from the beginning who understood the media/propaganda war and the war for the "hearts & minds" of the population, concepts which Westmoreland could never grasp since he was a the type of man who'd swing a club to try to swat flies.
Last edited by InchingWest; 05-28-2019 at 10:21 PM..
Grant was successful where all his predecessors, who had exactly the same advantages that Grant enjoyed, were beaten by General Lee. Obviously Grant understood how to use what he had and win with it, while McClellan, Pope, Burnside and Hooker did not.
And the apparent advantages were not as great as they would seem. The eastern theater of the war featured east/west running rivers which served as natural defensive barriers, and the battlefield arena itself was hemmed in by the ocean to the east and the mountains to the west. It was a defensive general's dream, unlike the western theater where the north/south running rivers served as natural invasion highways.
Along with those defensive advantages, the southern forces were commanded by Lee, the best general of the war, and the top subordinates of the Confederate army served under him. Lee wasn't saddled with Polks and Earl Van Dorns, he had Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart et al.
If having a size and supply advantage was all it took to beat Lee, how come only Grant was able to do it? How could anyone place Grant on a list of the worst generals when not only did he win where others failed, the war produced numerous candidates who were genuinely bad. Grant was as bad as Butler or Banks? Worse than Polk or Floyd?
I don't think Grant was a horrible general. I don't think he was a very good one either. I think a thread on his accomplishments, good and bad, would make for some interesting debate.
Now, the other Union generals did not have the same "exact" advantages that Grant had. Grant had over 100,000 troops when starting the overland campaign and Pope had around 75,000 for 2nd Bull Run. Each one had different challenges and weren't only Grant and McClelland in overall command of the army?
Also, Jackson was gone by the time Grant came east, so Grant never faced him while other Union generals did. Additionally Van Dorn wasn't a bad subordinate, he was just terrible in overall command.
The difference was after a battle Grant didn't retreat and just kept the campaign going, he won a war of attrition. The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor aren't really masterful displays of leadership.
The difference was after a battle Grant didn't retreat and just kept the campaign going, he won a war of attrition.
But that is just it, it was Grant who grasped that the war could only be won via attrition. Those who thought that they could beat Lee with dazzling maneuvers were all proven wrong.
It wasn't as though Grant was thick headed and unimaginative. In the Vicksburg campaign he was tactically brilliant, because it called for bold, innovative tactics. The campaign in the East required something else.
Ask yourself why the others lost, examine their campaigns and where they went wrong. McClellan was overly cautious, Burnside was unable to come up with an alternative plan when his original plan had lost the element of surprise. Hooker lost his nerve when Lee failed to act as he expected. Was Grant overly cautious? Was Grant inflexible? Could Grant be stampeded when his original plan went awry?
The above....those were the differences, not just "He kept the campaign going."
But that is just it, it was Grant who grasped that the war could only be won via attrition. Those who thought that they could beat Lee with dazzling maneuvers were all proven wrong.
It wasn't as though Grant was thick headed and unimaginative. In the Vicksburg campaign he was tactically brilliant, because it called for bold, innovative tactics. The campaign in the East required something else.
Ask yourself why the others lost, examine their campaigns and where they went wrong. McClellan was overly cautious, Burnside was unable to come up with an alternative plan when his original plan had lost the element of surprise. Hooker lost his nerve when Lee failed to act as he expected. Was Grant overly cautious? Was Grant inflexible? Could Grant be stampeded when his original plan went awry?
The above....those were the differences, not just "He kept the campaign going."
I don't agree that the war could only be won through attrition. That's how it happen, it doesn't mean there weren't other methods to do so.
It was Lincoln who emphasized defeat of the Confederate armies.
But that is just it, it was Grant who grasped that the war could only be won via attrition. Those who thought that they could beat Lee with dazzling maneuvers were all proven wrong.
It wasn't as though Grant was thick headed and unimaginative. In the Vicksburg campaign he was tactically brilliant, because it called for bold, innovative tactics. The campaign in the East required something else.
Ask yourself why the others lost, examine their campaigns and where they went wrong. McClellan was overly cautious, Burnside was unable to come up with an alternative plan when his original plan had lost the element of surprise. Hooker lost his nerve when Lee failed to act as he expected. Was Grant overly cautious? Was Grant inflexible? Could Grant be stampeded when his original plan went awry?
The above....those were the differences, not just "He kept the campaign going."
This. The South had the audacity, but the North had the reserves. Grant realized that he had one supreme strategic advantage and, as a result, ground the Confederates to powder in a relentless effort.
David Patraeus
Stanley McCrystal
David McKiernan
Raymond Odierno
The above mentioned were the main bunglers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in and around the years when I served, although there were plenty of other hands in addition to those jokers. Those clowns not only bungled the wars, but also disgraced themselves in other ways. McCrystal and McKiernan were both sacked, Patraeus had shady deals and a very public affair as well. Each of these men serve on the boards of directors of various large companies including Jet Blue and Morgan Stanley. I'll also note that James Mattis was on the board of the incredibly shady Theranos corporation along with John McCain....what a shame.
William Westmoreland, in an earlier era, bungled Vietnam. His subordinate commander, Creighton Abrams was the superior man and would've been the correct man for the job from the beginning who understood the media/propaganda war and the war for the "hearts & minds" of the population, concepts which Westmoreland could never grasp since he was a the type of man who'd swing a club to try to swat flies.
I cannot argue with you about the generals as you served over there and know better then I do.
But I would think that at least some of the blame for Iraq, was done by politicians in Washington or later in Bagdad . I am not even talking about the controversy of us going into Iraq in the first place but rather political decisions like not having enough troops in Iraq to guards vital points or totally dismissing the entire Iraqi political structure just because they might be members of the Baath Party.
I don't think Grant was a horrible general. I don't think he was a very good one either. I think a thread on his accomplishments, good and bad, would make for some interesting debate.
Now, the other Union generals did not have the same "exact" advantages that Grant had. Grant had over 100,000 troops when starting the overland campaign and Pope had around 75,000 for 2nd Bull Run. Each one had different challenges and weren't only Grant and McClelland in overall command of the army?
Also, Jackson was gone by the time Grant came east, so Grant never faced him while other Union generals did. Additionally Van Dorn wasn't a bad subordinate, he was just terrible in overall command.
The difference was after a battle Grant didn't retreat and just kept the campaign going, he won a war of attrition. The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor aren't really masterful displays of leadership.
The one thing I would point out in your discussion here is you are looking at Grant in 1864 and 1865 when he faced Lee. But in 1862 and 1863 he won victory after victory in the West, especially during the Vicksburg campaign where probably no other Union general would have taken the gamble he did by leaving behind his main supply line to cross the Mississippi River, isolating Pemberton and the Confederate Army of Mississippi and eventually surround and take the city of Vicksburg.
Personally, after Lincoln I think no other American did more to save the Union then US Grant.
Grant caused at least three Confederate armies to surrender, the garrison at Fort Donelson, the bulk of the Army of Mississippi at Vicksburg and the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Courthouse. I do not think any other Union commander comes close.
Where did I say superior? Oh, that's right I didn't.
But since you asked. How about not doing anything (just holding Lee in Virginia) and just waiting until Sherman's army marched up the coast from Georgia after he took Atlanta and Hood decided to destroy his own army?
The one thing I would point out in your discussion here is you are looking at Grant in 1864 and 1865 when he faced Lee. But in 1862 and 1863 he won victory after victory in the West, especially during the Vicksburg campaign where probably no other Union general would have taken the gamble he did by leaving behind his main supply line to cross the Mississippi River, isolating Pemberton and the Confederate Army of Mississippi and eventually surround and take the city of Vicksburg.
Personally, after Lincoln I think no other American did more to save the Union then US Grant.
Grant caused at least three Confederate armies to surrender, the garrison at Fort Donelson, the bulk of the Army of Mississippi at Vicksburg and the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Courthouse. I do not think any other Union commander comes close.
I do dwell on Grant vs Lee a bit because I don't think the overland campaign was necessary. I agree he was much more successful earlier out West.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
