During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln endured a series of ineffectual generals until at last he found one that knew how to fight, and would. One of the criticisms lodged at President Bush – a man who came from a political dynasty wherein loyalty was considered an unalloyed virtue – was that he tolerated failure in his senior leadership in Iraq for far too long.
General Ricardo Sanchez, in particular, was allowed to preside in uneasy alliance with Paul Bremer over Iraq’s descent from post-war instability to hellish maelstrom, but was only relieved of duties after the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted on his watch.
Whether the criticism on Bush was fair or not, his successor – who has said he does not believe the US is “winning” in Afghanistan – has shown fewer compunctions about re-arranging the chairs at the head of the table:
The top U.S. general in Afghanistan was forced today to step down by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in a rare move against a top commander of a theater of war.
Army Gen. David McKiernan will be replaced by Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded special operation forces in Iraq.
Gates announced the shuffle during a news conference at the Pentagon, where he appeared alongside Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he agreed that a change was needed in military leadership in Afghanistan.
The move followed criticism of McKiernan among military officials who said he had not moved aggressively enough to overhaul the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan as Taliban groups and extremists expanded their hold.
How much of the criticism of McKiernan is valid, and how much his ability to prosecute the fight in Afghanistan was constrained by the resources he had available is something I’m ill-equipped to judge. But in terms of sending a signal to Army leadership that this is a fight that needs to be fought, and that time is not necessarily on our side, it’s a good move. And McChrystal certainly has the reputation of a man who knows how to eat soup with a knife.
“Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres…” — Voltaire, Candide
Update: Analysis from Time.
I know so little as to whether the decisions are correct or not, that my first look was at their names, noticing both men are of Celtic heritage, which brings to mind the old adage of the Scots, “Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?”
Always makes me laugh when I see a Celt in charge of fighting.
Darn it Lex, you keep making me look things up!
That quote is very topical, and also laugh out loud humorous. Was nice of you to keep it nautically oriented
The statement applied to the execution of Admiral Byng – shot on the quarterdeck of his own flagship. It was felt he didn’t do everything in his power to relieve British troops on Minorca, iirc.
I think the relief of McKiernan was most likely a political move. He was saying things the current maladministration didn’t want to hear, and he was appointed by the evil Bush, whose fault the current state of the world is.
It is entirely possible the relief was needed, to put a different set of eyes on the ground. The others may, or may not, agree with the reliefe, but GOFOs, as Salamader calls them, are politicians with the same will to survive, are not beyond temporizing or other forms of opportunism. Just because you put stars on their collar doesn’t remove the temptations common to humanity.
It’s the end of his career either way. The only question to answer is will his current rank be made permanent, requiring a submission to Congress, or will he revert to the permanent rank of MG. I’m guessing he will be scapegoated.
Slipped my mind earlier.
Grant really wasn’t much a General. Meade was much more sparing of the lives of his troops. Meade won Gettysburg before Grant came west.
Grant then proceeded to put into effect what Zhukov and Koniev did with the Germans, pile bodies on the problem. When the Army of The Potomac reached the Confederate field fortifications at Petersburg, it took 9 months to rebuild the Army of the Potomac after Grant slaughtered in in the Wilderness and at Cold Harbor. To say Grant was a tactical murderer is not an unreasonable assessment.
Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan will be remembered as the inventors of total war. They were the first to intentionally target civilians.
Easy, Quartermaster, you’re slandering the 1st President of LSU, one W.T. Sherman, by name. (Actually, L. Military Academy, LMI, the pre-Civil War precursor of LSU–that’s why LSU has, as one of it’s nicknames, “The Old War Skule.”) And Grant was from my home state of Illinois to boot. Looks like you and I are going to have to meet under the branches of the one lone survivor of the original pair of the “Dueling Oaks” in City Park in NO. (After a few Absinthe’s apiece, of course)
OOhh..
Dancing with the green fairie! Virgil, the more I learn of you, the more I consider you to be a kindred spirit. We shall make the louche together and discourse upon the role of the proper gentleman in military circles, and whether claret or port should be the preference in the library.
I’ll definitely have to figure a way to come visit for a spell.
Speaking of Port, one of the “Ilama Butchers” of the blog of that name (you should visit) has his own, separate blog entitled: “The Port Stands at Your Elbow.” You should visit and enjoy both.
Classical, geeky East Coast gentlemen all…
Had a Sazerac while waiting for a table a Mandina’s two Saturdays ago. Asked the barkeep if they were making them with absinthe, now that it is legal. Nope, still with Pernod. Have to make one of each, and do a blind taste test to see if it makes a difference.
Absinthe’s Dubious Charms, per the WSJ. I have to say that I’m intrigued.
BTW, QM, a bit of ephemera. Most people don’t realize, but City Park in N.O. is 3x size of Central Park in NYC.
Virgil, my grandfather helped build City Park as we know it now. He was a supervisor, and his folks dug out and created the lagoons, and also built the beautiful bridges there. Don’t forget the two 18 hole golf course tucked away in the north end!
VX, if you survive, I have a 1000 tee time this Friday at the North Course at City Park and we need a 4th.
I, Sir, am a teetotaler and my aim shall be totally undisturbed.
All kidding aside. It would really be hard to slander Sherman as the truth is so damning that no one has to make up anything.
I should have stated the proviso that the union trio were the first in modern western civilization to intentionally target civilians. I know that won’t make you feel any better, but the truth sometimes is a fearful thing. It is best faced squarely.
At the time I wrote of W.T. Sherman’s affiliation with LSU and it’s military tradition I should have added that our martial tradition is the reason our class rings have the Campanile War Memorial tower (built to memorialize WWI dead) mounted athwart and bisecting crossed sabres on one side of the ring.
I would never associate the word murder with Grant.
Grant understood, more than anyone else save Lincoln and Grant’s friend Sherman, that the only way to win the war was to destroy the Confederate armies.
As long as the objective was to take Richmond, then the Confederacy would live. However, as soon as it became an actual war of numbers, the South was in deep trouble. Grant could replace his casualties. Lee & Johnson could not.
Like it or not, when Grant took command it became a war of attrition, with him supervising the armies of the Potomac, James and Gulf, in the east, and Sherman taking over the armies of the Tennessee, Ohio and Cumberland. The whole idea was to muckle on to the Confederate field armies and never let go.
Once that die was cast, the south’s fate was sealed, and the only remaining variable was when, not if.
respects,
Tim: I agree. Lincoln had a whole boatload of bad generals so even when some called for Grant’s ouster (based on his drinking) Lincoln replied “I cannot spare this man! He fights”. I do not regard him as a murderer. It was recognized at that point it would be a war of atttrition.
Sherman wasn’t tentative either. As to his scorched earth campaign: While it was severe, it was effective.
Murder and tactical murder are two completely different concepts. As a general, Grant only one military virtue, tenacity. It ledf to tactical stupidity and a refusal recognize the effect of the rifled musket, and he killed half of the Army of the Potomac in the Overland Campaign. I marveled at the stupidity of Grant. If Lee had beem able to make good 10% of his losses and solve his logistical problem, the war could have been extended and, perhaps, the north worn down.
The term tactical murder is a metaphor for tactical stupidity. And, like it or not, the northern triumvirate invented total war. To this day it is one of the biggest shames the north has to bear in history.
I knew Sherman was the first president of LSU, although it wasn’t called that when he was president. he in fact resigned the position when the secessionists started getting out of the union. I’m truly sorry for the disappointment, but Sherman’s name will always be blakened by the Georgia campaign. No matter the “need” for what they did, to win the war, winning by waging war directly against non-combatants is inexcusable and places us in a weak position internationally in places like Taiwan.
Depends upon how you look at it. Seems I remember that Mongols did some harm to civilians, quite deliberately. Russians, Germans, Saxons, Turks, Vikings, …. How far back do you wish to go?
Appears that you have a bit of a North/South slant on historical events QM.
Grant understood what no other Union general did, that taking Richmond would not end the war. Instead, he made destroying the field armies and especially the Army of Northern Virginia his primary center of gravity, with targeting the civilian infrastructure that allowed the Southern armies to keep fighting. Never did the Union generals you mention target civilians.
Byron — Sherman never gave the order to sack Southern cities, but he certainly watch passively as those under his command did just so. He issued no order forbidding the burning of Columbia, SC, for example. He rode through the streets while the city burned, “casually puffing on a cigar, and giving no order to supress the flames.” His troops broke into stores, stripped civilians of jewelry on the streets, threatened women with pistols to the head, and interferred with firemen trying to fight the fires. The net result was the complete destruction of almost 1,300 homes.
It may give some solace to think that Sherman didn’t order that destruction. But he also didn’t do anything to prevent it, or slow it once it started by those under his command.
Scott,
Not that I am disagreeing with you, but I would question whether Sherman could have stopped his men from burning Columbia.
To the soldiers with him, especially the veterans of previous campaigns, Columbia was the viper’s nest where succession’s poisoned fruit was grown.
It was in Columbia where succession began and those Federal soldiers were waiting for the chance to pay back the note, with interest.
The only way that Columbia might have been saved would have been to bypass it completely. Being the capitol of SC, however, that was impossible.
Respects,
QM, thanks for the historical reference. I initially took the quote as a metaphor, as in the Gilbert & Sullivan mode. Should have taken some more time in research.
Regards,
I guess shooting an Admiral occasionally does “encourage the troops.” Voltaire thought so anyway. Byng never made that mistake again.
Apropos reference to eating soup with a knife, whether to John Nagl or T.E. Lawrence. Both Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife and 7 Pillars of Wisdom are great reading on the subject of the Long War, how to do it, how not to.
Maybe there’s a case of that whiskey that Grant drank left?
While I’m usually leaning into the harness to be part of the team attacking Obama for anything and everything, I can’t do that right now.
Changing the commanders in the field is the prerogative and responsibility of the President, in his role as Commander in Chief. If he isn’t happy with the prosecution of the campaign, very often, a change of leaders is the best course. And if not, I’ll have my opportunity to express my displeasure in November, 2012 ( I hope).
Concur,
I may disagree with POTUS (and I do) on a number of issues, but he us well within his rights to appoint whomever he sees fit in whatever slot he wants to fit him.
Of course, once he gets his own men in there he certainly owns the issue. Swords have two edges, after all.
And indeed, Grant wasn’t so much a murderer, but rather, understood that a ton of casualties now that win the war are better than a string of casualties over a couple years that lose the war.
Grant would have been a fool to fight a war of maneuver against Lee. Lee is probably the best ever at it. And he had interior lines of communication, and an army that had superior agility. Would a Wildcat pilot be wise to get into a turning fight with a Zero?
I would have disagree with you on Lee. Jackson was far better. Lee was the best that survived the war, however.
I would argue that Longstreet was better than Lee.
Lee, however, was FFV, and that put the polish on his halo.
Longstreet suggested moving the Army of Virginia to a position to theaten DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia simultaneously. Lee rejected the move. I’ve never seen why, but haven’t looked hard either. It would have been an ingenious move. Meade would have been forced to fight Lee, breaking his teeth on prepared positions, backed with rifles. If teh Army of the Potomac had suffered Overland Campaign losses at that time, it most likely would ahve resulted in the end of the war, from broken northern morale, at a minimum. Instead Lee gave the Confederacy Gettysburg. After that, it was all over but the crying.
If you look at the war post Gettysburg, the northern strategy doesn’t add up. The south’s logistical problems were becoming obvious even in the north. Even before the end of the POW exchange cartel, the south was not making good its losses. It was hard to field the armies they did on a population of one fourth that of the north. The south made up for it in valor, and northern military stupidity. Grant’s willingness to expend men like water won the war, but it was still a very close run.
Looking at the political problems we have now, it is increasingly recognized that the wrong side won. I think the country would have come back together after the north moderated and rejected Lincoln for expending the men he did, and losing. Harry Turtledove’s novels spin a good yarn, but the mystic bonds of memory that Lincoln tried to use so hypocritically would have seen most of the country reunify. Part of new England might not have rejoined in that, but given what Massachussetts was becoming even then, I don’t think it would be much of a loss.
So aside from blaming ourselves for the current state of Afghanistan-when does one get to blame the Afghans themselves?
Civil War nostalgia aside-its kind of hard to get things moving when the civil government you helped establish is corrupt and not getting any better. McKiernan had been arguing for more combat power for quite a while now-before the current administration came into office.
As for sending a signal to Army leadership-one should be careful what one wishes for- a protracted war in Afghanistan is not in the national interest any more than a protracted war in Iraq is-especially when in both cases the civil government is lacking and thus allowing you no exit at the end of the road.
The politics of moving flags around aside, it will be interesting to see how Afghanistan takes to both the Iraq model (security precedes progress) and the Obama/Clinton model (it’s not just a military problem). All of this against the backdrop of a country that has never been remotely as modernized as Iraq. Further, we have yet to see any civilian mobilization that isn’t reservists in civilian clothes and the throw money at Pakistan and hug Iran plan seems to be foundering as well.
Can’t resist adding to the Grant debate. My favorite quote from Lincoln: “He doesn’t worry and bother me. He isn’t shrieking for reinforcements all the time. He takes what troops we can safely give him…and does the best he can with what he has got.” And at the end of his “murderous” campaign (how I love Southern revisionism), the Lee and his treasonous bedfellows were defeated and theUnion was preserved.
“…Southern revisionism”
Personally, I laugh at the general historical ignorance of the publically educated. The deep misunderstanding of the roots of that war never cease to amaze me.
If you want to call the facts revisionism, by all means, be my guest.
And what is frightening is how those same issues at the root of the Civil War are still in contest today, albeit somewhat less bloody, for now. Tea bags, anyone?
Yep, we aren’t shooting people for now. If the left keeps acting as they are wont to do, you want a good weapon because it may flare up again. Reconstruction and the military occupation of the south shares many characteristics of what we are seeing now. Reconstruction almost set off a guerrilla war in South Carolina, which bid fair to spread across the south. It converted the KKK, which started as good natured clownishness, into the foundation of a guerrilla movement.
I really hope the left settles down and decides to grow up. that type rarely does and just leaves wreckage behind for the adults to clean up.
From your update, “…Army Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, the Defense Secretary’s own top military aide, is to serve in a newly created post as McChrystal’s deputy…”
With Gates’ guy as deputy, he’ll know exactly what’s going on at all times.
Civil wars in any country are always a bloody, bloody mess, as you gentlemen and scholars know. And they take a long, long time to get over. Having been born in Illinois, and having grown up in Wisconsin, I didn’t know a huge amount about the American Civil War until I married a Texan and came here to live. But Southerners are Civil War scholars, by and large, and I’ve learned a lot since because my husband is a history buff, particularly on American history. It’s very interesting to hear this discussion on the War of Northern Aggression, as many Southerners call it, and to realize just how much it devastated the economy of the Southern states, and grieved the inhabitants. The South didn’t really recover economically until the run-up to the Second World War, brought some prosperity back.
But many in the South are still grieving. When my husband gave a speech a few years ago in New Orleans about the vast outward migration of Confederate soldiers who had lost their families and their land in the aftermath of the Civil War, I was startled to see that many people in the audience wept quietly.
From my sporadic historical explorations of English history, I’ve noted that painful memories of the English Civil War are still green in many English hearts.
Marianne
Marianne — I too, have a mixed marriage. My Michigander wife had never lived outside the state until she was 47. Moved to the Commonwealth, and observed “man, why don’t these people just get over the fact they lost?” Needless to say, she has seen a side she never contemplated, until she met me. The thought that there was another side to the victor written history had never crossed her mind.
Many don’t understand it almost destroyed the north as well. War is synonymous with waste, and Lincoln wasted the blood and treasure of both regions to statisfy his own intransigence on secession, a concept he had supported when in Congress himself.
Lincoln’s intransigence was, at the bottom line, the only cause of that war. And it should be remembered as the heinous act it was. Both sides of my family, my mother’s side were Unionists from NW Alabama, and were forced to relocate to the 4 corners area of Colorado because of their unionism.
Many wars are unneccessary, and the War of Northern Aggression (it was not a civil war as the south had no desire to rule the north) was more unnecessary than most.
Prior to the war, even many Northerners agreed that a sovereign state had the right to withdraw from the Union. A large body of people in the North were willing to accept a peaceful separation from the South. Lincoln had thousands arrested without trial for expressing such views, including several Maryland legislators who, while remaining in the Union, opposed using force to keep other states from seceding.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims that “these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states” — that is, 13 separate sovereignties, not, as Lincoln said, a single, monolithic “new nation.” When these sovereign states ratified the Constitution they did not surrender their sovereignty. Several of them, in their acts of ratification, reserved the right to secede, and the other states, by accepting these acts as valid, recognized that right.
Lincoln on the other hand, took the position that “the Union is much older than the Constitution” and that no state could ever withdraw from it. As the historian Pauline Maier puts it, Lincoln’s understanding of the Declaration of Independence was based on “wishful suppositions.” He was guided by Daniel Webster’s famous nationalist slogan, “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable” — an illogical credo that leads to dangerous nonsense. If liberty was “inseparable” from Union, why did the framers adopt constitutional safeguards to prevent the possibility of federal tyranny?
But like so many great controversies, the debate between North and South was settled not by reason but by force. And in the history books, as usual, the victors’ rhetoric prevailed over the losers’ logic. Today few Americans, even in the South, understand the case for the Confederacy. Any talk of “sovereign” states — the vital question of 1861 — sounds archaic.
In the end, both sides lost the war. A country out of touch with its own ancestors is truly impoverished — and uneducated.
Good reprise of some neglected history, TwoFiveZulu.
By point of reference, prior to the war, when referring to this nation, people said “These United States are”. Afterward, it became “The United States is”.
Therein lies the crux of the problem.
We need to return to the concept of “These United States”, and stop the tyranny of an all-powerful Federal Government.
Raised in Wisconsin? Marianne’s a BADGER! HUZZAH!
Since I had never heard the title phrase, I did a short Google to ascertain the provenance. I found a link that amused me, in a “Geez, I guess these people never learn” sort of way.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801295,00.html
George Bernard Shaw, on the virtues of the USSR in 1941:
“Financial systems are in continual flux, and don’t survive anyhow, war or no war. Economic systems all depend on the balance of power between the holders of private property with their parasites and the really productive proletariat. Mr. Churchill and Mr. Anthony Eden are for private property and oligarchy. Stalin is for public property and democracy. So am I. Therefore, I cannot give you an unbiased opinion. All I can tell you is that when the war is over there will be wigs on the green.”
Maybe Sean Penn could play him in the upcoming biopic “Give Me All Your Money, You Greedy Capitalist!”
“Update” Time link has gone bad, Lex.
I have noted that the CJCS has been dragged into this decision to relieve the General in Afghanistan. I haven’t yet caught sight of where the CENTCOM Commander stands on the replacement of one of his subordinate generals.
Once upon a time, I read the complete “Political History of England” in 12 volumes. If asked why I just say it was how I relaxed between bouts of physics, chemistry, calculus and a host of other dull engineering courses. What I really profoundly enjoyed about these 100 year old volumes of history was how detailed and passionate each of the authors were in their individual volumes but yet how non-partisan they appeared. I was able to read it without the sense that some partisan of the Kingdom of Northumbria was still pissed off at any of the other historical entities. All in all, they were good reads and it introduced me to the works of Charles Oman which is a good thing.
I’m a little concerned these days that one side is redacting history in joblots. When historians in the future rummage around for primary documents they won’t exist anymore since the vast bulk of them will be in digital formats that are no longer readable or which have been deleted.
Oh well, once upon a time researchers viewed the NYT as the paper of record. Now, who believes a single lying word they print about anything?