All Things in Moderation

Worst US generals

19 Responses

1. 

   jnc4p, on October 20, 2012 at 12:05 pm said:

   Can you post a link? I’m curious as to his criteria, specifically if it’s purely based on military skill or also includes respecting the military’s role in the U.S. Constitutional system, which would explain #1.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Mike, on October 20, 2012 at 12:33 pm said:

   Sorry. Bad link.

   Insubordination was a consideration, probably why McClellan was rated higher than Burnside.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     markinaustin, on October 21, 2012 at 6:08 am said:

     Being a traitor qualifies a General for worst. Benedict Arnold, #1.

     McClellan’s inability to engage the enemy even from gross numerical strength, coupled with his Napoleonic ambition and insubordination, have to make him the second worst, in my eyes. MacArthur was not nearly as poor a battle commander as McClellan. Was he more insubordinate? I do not think so. That would be worth a debate, so even a tie goes to McClellan, because of his inept field command. I did note the comment in the linked post that MacArthur was the only general who had been insubordinate to three Presidents.

     And I agree that Custer deserves a place on the list of infamy. I’d put Wilkinson on the bad list because he was a mediocre commander and a probable traitor who wasn’t caught.

     Before I was born, Mark Clark was one of Marshall’s boys and he was a good one. He trained the north African operation and it worked, under the field generalship of others, but in no small part due to Clark and both his strategy and his secret negotiation of the French Vichy collapse in north Africa.

     His leadership of Fifth Army in Italy was criticized by the Brits. He raced Monty to Rome and beat him, but in doing so he let a German Army escape to the north. He and Gruenther, another of Marshall’s boys, did not want to attack Monte Cassino but were overruled by the Brit commander, Alexander. In fact, both Monte Cassino and the race to Rome were mistakes – the first was a Brit tactical error and the second was, I think, an American political error and I do not know if it was Clark’s fault, to this day. I remember the newsreels I watched after the war when I was very young of Clark coming into Rome and the crowds cheering and the Pope greeting him and Ed Herlihy gleeful that we did it, not Monty.

     And of course, I am defensive about Clark because I was named in his honor on 8-11-43. A week later, I might have been named “George” or “Patton”, although those names are slightly more difficult for locating a Hebrew analog [Jewish babies get a name in the vernacular and an analogous Hebrew name – Mark and Mei-er, in my case]. So my Hebrew name would have had nothing in common with George just as my dad’s name, James, had nothing in common with his Hebrew name. Patton would have surely got me the Hebrew name for warrior – Mordechai.

     Michael is an actual Hebrew name, Mike, so if you convert you don’t need a Hebrew analog. Means one who is near to god.

     LikeLike

     Reply
3. 

   Mike, on October 21, 2012 at 9:41 am said:

   I would say that McClellan may not have been a good battlefield commander, but as an organizer and trainer, he was quite good. But his shortcomings in the field led to his removal as General-in-Chief, whereas MacArthur’s relative competence and popularity forced his CinCs to retain him, so he had more opportunities to be insubordinate until he really screwed up in Korea.

   Taking up arms against your country deserves a special category of bad.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     markinaustin, on October 21, 2012 at 10:10 am said:

     One of MacArthur’s screw ups was Almond.

     In the fall of 1950, my later friend and Austin lawyer Brian Rudy and his wingman were flying F-9s on patrol along the Yalu. On the return flight to their carrier they saw a troop ship crossing the Yalu from China. Rather than wait til they got to sea to drop their bombs, they took out the troop ship. They could not land on the carrier with their wing bombs so they always had to unload them first, and here a target presented itself. The Chinese claimed first it was a medical ship, and then that it was in Chinese territory, as a pretext for the invasion, which in fact was already happening.

     Almond was one of those Army generals who did not listen to his Marine counterparts and never understood amphibious landings and sent lots of Americans ashore to be slaughtered in Korea as a result. I think he did this twice, the second time when he went after the Chinese crossing the Yalu.

     LikeLike

     Reply
4. 

   Mike, on October 21, 2012 at 10:11 am said:

   one who is near to god

   Good to know! Of course, if I convert to anything besides Catholicism, my Catholic wife will probably have something to say about that.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Mike, on October 21, 2012 at 10:14 am said:

   Forgot about Almond. A worthy addition to the list.

   I re-read Rick Atkinson’s books in the last year, so that is probably coloring my opinion of Mark Clark.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     markinaustin, on October 21, 2012 at 12:41 pm said:

     How about Meade?

     Was Custer a general at LBH?

     LikeLike

     Reply
6. 

   Mike, on October 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm said:

   Meade was fairly competent, though cautious, favoring defensive tactics over offense. He even offered to resign when Grant took over, so insubordination was not part of the problem.

   I can’t remember if Custer was still a brevet general at LBH or just a colonel. Thinking back, he acquitted himself pretty well as a cavalry officer in the Civil War — blunting Stuart’s cavalry end-around at Gettysburg and chasing down Lee at Appomattox (under Sheridan). So, I’m reconsidering his inclusion on my list.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Mike, on October 22, 2012 at 10:53 am said:

   Frum has an update from his readers:

   Here are your nominations to date for the list of worst generals in US history. Any more? Remember, the criterion is military incompetence: Benedict Arnold and Robert E. Lee were bad Americans, but not bad generals.

   Horatio Gates
   James Wilkinson
   William Hull
   Ambrose Burnside
   George McClellan
   John Pope
   Braxton Bragg
   John Bell Hood
   Lloyd Fredenhall
   John Lucas
   Douglas MacArthur
   William Westmoreland
   Tommy Franks

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     markinaustin, on October 22, 2012 at 11:03 am said:

     Almond, Almond, Almond…

     LikeLike

     Reply
8. 

   novahockey, on October 22, 2012 at 11:03 am said:

   Re: Lee — was he ill or just outperformed at Gettysburg? And I’d rule out Meade. If you beat Lee, even if he’s sick, doesn’t that earn you a couple of points?

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Michigoose, on October 22, 2012 at 11:15 am said:

   Why Tommy Franks? Just curious.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    novahockey, on October 22, 2012 at 11:32 am said:

    wasn’t Franks on the record as disputing the possibility of a post-war insurgency in Iraq and therefore not planning/preparing for one. or the extent or composition of one of one. something to that effect. going off memory here and might be way wrong.

    MiA adds: Kelley, didn’t he call off the Tora Bora assault on OBL, or am I way wrong?

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    Michigoose, on October 22, 2012 at 12:10 pm said:

    Ah, yes, Tora Bora. . . forgot about his fingerprints on that one.

    I’ll have to look up what he said about the Iraq insurgency, nova.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    Michigoose, on October 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm said:

    nova (from wiki):

    In Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, veteran defense and Pentagon reporter Thomas E. Ricks echoes criticism from officers who had served under Franks who put forth that, while tactically sound, he lacked the strategic mindset and overall intellect necessary for the task. Some close to him argued he was more thoughtful than he seemed, was aware that Secretary Rumsfeld and his staff were unable to discuss the Iraq War in military terms and had an obligation to put forth stronger objections to the civilian control of military planning. While demanding and goal oriented he was also criticized for being unwilling to countenance alternate viewpoints and for detaching himself from day-to-day affairs when the ground war ceased and he prepared for retirement.

    He also dismissed the possibility of the Fedayeen coming into Iraq after major combat operations were over.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    bsimon1970, on October 22, 2012 at 3:47 pm said:

    ” Of course, if I convert to anything besides Catholicism, my Catholic wife will probably have something to say about that.”

    As it happens, michael has you covered for Catholicism too, as a saint’s name.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Dave!, on October 22, 2012 at 3:53 pm said:

    I might put Bradley on the list…Custer and Mac would probably not be on it. I would put General William H. Winder on it.. the guy who let the British in to burn DC in 1814.

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    ArmyDicked, on November 21, 2014 at 9:51 am said:

    M’y list

    1. LTG Wilkenson theif and Traitor
    2. BG Hull screw up bar none
    3. BG Charles Lee Traitor
    4. BG Howling Smith war criminal
    5. MG Fenderal Screw up arrgent
    6 ADM King arrogant & Stupid
    7. McClellen/Burnside/Pope/Pillow/Bragg/
    8. MG St Claire worthless
    9 GEN Mcarthur Liar, Mommies Boy Brilliant at Inchon
    10 MG Ostenberg snake

    LikeLike

    Reply