Do You Bother to Read Military History?

[longknife]

The title of this, then the first sentence, hit me between the eyes. I think it clears up any discussion between anyone interested in this subject.


Civilian leadership usually appoints the wrong commanders


Of all the other great points, this is, by far, the most important.


Read more @ Vox Popoli Things I ve noticed while reading military history

 

[konradv]

The Allies stopped trying to have Hitler assassinated when they realized his meddling with the German military was one of the greatest aids to an allied victory.

 

[shart_attack]

This is the television generation, longknife.

Actually, no, make that the iPad "streaming" generation.

Sadly, very few of us read anything anymore.

Given that, I hafta admit that I am a sucker for everything on The Military Channel/ American Heroes Channel.

It just might be the most interesting channel on tv, IMHO.

 

[whitehall]

There's "history" and there is propaganda pop-history. Real history is out there but most of us have been bored to death with the pop-history taught in sub-standard US education curriculums. For example, nine times out of ten pop-history will call MacArthur a hero for no particular reason but real history indicates otherwise.

 

[konradv]

There's "history" and there is propaganda pop-history. Real history is out there but most of us have been bored to death with the pop-history taught in sub-standard US education curriculums. For example, nine times out of ten pop-history will call MacArthur a hero for no particular reason but real history indicates otherwise.

MacArthur was a hero in that he showed a lot of personal bravery leading from the front during WW I and tactical genius leading to the landing at Inchon. He wasn't much of a strategic thinker, however, allowing his hatred for Communism to trump the realization of what the results of his later statements and actions in Korea would be.

 

[oldfart]

The title of this, then the first sentence, hit me between the eyes. I think it clears up any discussion between anyone interested in this subject.


Civilian leadership usually appoints the wrong commanders


Of all the other great points, this is, by far, the most important.


Read more @ Vox Popoli Things I ve noticed while reading military history

The author seems to be mostly offended that few realize he is far more brilliant in military matters than the civilian and military who have made the decisions he finds so bone-headed.

 

[regent]

It seemed to me that there were basically two types of commanders, garrison and combat. Some, however, could do both roles. Patton for example was combat, Custer, combat, Ike, garrison. Often garrison soldiers would have to be removed from combat and replaced. In peacetime we need garrison commanders and in war combat commanders, both are needed and both serve a purpose.

 

[jwoodie]

To put forth a somewhat different angle, I support civilian control of the military but detest political control. Civilian leaders should first ask the military what is doable with the fewest casualties before setting arbitrary objectives and timelines, often based on political considerations.

For example, the question regarding Iraq should have been how to subdue the country with the greatest military convenience. The answer might have been to divide Iraq into several military districts which could be administered according to local conditions, rather than trying to maintain the trappings of a national government. Only after proving the ability to govern themselves would these districts have been allowed to voluntarily join a national coalition government, while the U.S. established secure military bases wherever and whenever it wanted. Instead, we pursued a political pipe dream of Middle Eastern democracy that crumbled as soon as we left.

Ironically, this approach to determining military objectives would have resulted in less political opposition at home and much greater security abroad.