|
Post by skinz on Jan 25, 2005 16:50:57 GMT -5
Are there any military leaders today that will be talked about in future generations?
The last great general in America is George Marshall or General Douglas MacArthur or even Dwight Eisenhower,right? (MacArthur is questionable after his horrendous planning of the korean war)
Do anyone think that the level of technology is at fault?
Or Politicians stealing the spotlight?
|
|
|
Post by Hachiman Taro on Jan 26, 2005 14:33:36 GMT -5
Military leaders that truly stand out are not a dime a dozen in any era, whether this one or times past, so the fact that we have a hard time thinking of a modern one isn't surprising. Sadly, there have been so many wars in the history of humankind so that there have been many military leaders for many different countries active at any one given time--the vast majority of these are not memorable. Is our age different from others because of politics or technology? It's different from the medieval era where "one warrior worth ten thousand" could singlehandedly turn the tide of battle by actually physically fighting at the front, but the greatness of the leader has evolved so that it is pretty much entirely in the head (courage is part of this, too, but it is courage displayed in different ways then in the medieval era).
As far as recent decades go, I forget the name, but I recall there was this general who led a counterrevolution in one of the central African countries (I'm thinking this is Rwanda after the horrific massacres--ie it was the campaign ended the slaughter, but I'm not sure), who apparently displayed such brilliant and original strategy that his battles have been studied carefully by our own military. As far as our own leaders go, we need to remember that as far as "going down in history" it is difficult to win renown if you are a leader of a vastly superior force. What goes down in history is generally the actions of those engaged in equal combat or those who succeed with inferior forces.
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Jan 26, 2005 15:47:46 GMT -5
Well said, Hachiman. Also, it's hard to say someone is "great" without the remove of at least 50 years, don't you think? It's the same as any other activity--who could have said 120 years ago that Emily Dickinson would be considered one of the greatest American poets. Nobody had even heard of her.
Generals might even be harder, considering that you don't know how history will treat them; same for kings and presidents.
Ahem.
Bo
|
|
|
Post by Hachiman Taro on Jan 26, 2005 16:58:59 GMT -5
I thought I'd amend one of my statements above, which is that the technology of war is likely not a factor inhibiting the rise of brilliant military leaders. The modification involves the potential concealment of great military minds: As the technology of war has "advanced" (I hate to say "advanced" because I really don't think it is really an advancement of humanity to become more proficient at killing other humans), one might argue that there may be more potential ability to take out key leaders if desired. If the identity of a key enemy strategist who was clearly head and shoulders above his or her peers was known, some may find it militarily expedient to eliminate this threat--doing so could conceivably save the lives of thousands of the soldiers on your side and possibly turn the tide of a war. Thus, I would guess there is some incentive for the more sophisticated military establishments to not really reveal who their true genuises are. Perhaps the most famous field leadership hit in the last 100 years of war was the dramatic long range interception and shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto's personal plane in World War 2. No doubt the fact that such an elaborate scheme was evolved is testimony to the extremely high regard the Allies had for Yamamoto as a naval leader--he was probably the most brilliant Asian naval leader since Togo, if not since YSS. Getting back to the "keeping your heroes secret" aspect, it has been noted that in Israel the identities of their fighter aces are kept secret out of fear that they will be assassinated. Whether or not such concealment of star strategists/leaders goes on today is anyone's guess, but I can certainly see some rationale for it. The flip side of this is that knowing the heroes of one's own side can boost morale (it's easier to believe in a person if one can attach a name to them), so concealment has it's military disadvantages, too. If indeed there are policies in some militaries to conceal their main players, we may not find out about some key leaders in some wars until many years after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Jan 26, 2005 17:08:08 GMT -5
.. If indeed there are policies in some militaries to conceal their main players, we may not find out about some key leaders in some wars until many years after the fact. Hmm. I thought that was the gist of my Emily Dickinson remark. Maybe I was too oblique. Or subtle. Always a problem for me. Bo
|
|
|
Post by skinz on Jan 26, 2005 17:18:50 GMT -5
The flip side of this is that knowing the heroes of one's own side can boost morale (it's easier to believe in a person if one can attach a name to them), so concealment has it's military disadvantages, too. I agree 100% with this statement. I would've joined the army,navy,etc. if there was someone I could've looked up to. We have all these victories when were at war, but there is no absolute figure or figures to honor. Don't get me wrong, the men and women that are fighting could motivate anybody. But would there be a drama series on YSS if he was just another men in uniform? Politics also play a good role on supressing such greatness evolving. We'll see this executed in Yi Soon Shin no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by florel on Jan 26, 2005 18:23:39 GMT -5
Politics also play a good role on supressing such greatness evolving. We'll see this executed in Yi Soon Shin no doubt. I think politicians are the greatest ass in history.
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Jan 27, 2005 10:28:42 GMT -5
I think politicians are the greatest ass in history. Oh, Florel, that's a generalization--so not like you! There have been lots of fine politicians. Take, for instance, Abraham Lincoln. Totally a political animal. Or the great Paul Simon (the Senator from Illinois, not the singer). We need politicians to run the government, that's what we have them for. It's when they get too enamored with keeping the job, instead of doing the job, that the trouble begins. It's just like lawyers. People love to hate lawyers, but they are the people that preserve our rights. Shakespeare said, "First, kill all the lawyers," but the line was spoken by a despot who was trying to keep the people from getting out from under his thumb. Bo
|
|
|
Post by florel on Jan 27, 2005 20:56:13 GMT -5
Bo, I admit I uttered too generalized declaration. I'm skeptical about politicians as like my compatriots. Korea has had no chance with politicians in her history. But I'm not anarchist ;D and I deeply respect Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela.
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Jan 28, 2005 10:47:44 GMT -5
...Well, I guess that makes me an anarchist, which is especially odd, as I vote Republican I see no incongruity there.... ;D ;D ;D ;D Bo
|
|
generaldu
Senior Addict
The subway charms us so, where balmy breezes blow, to and fro. - Lorenz Hart - "Manhattan"
Posts: 312
|
Post by generaldu on Jan 28, 2005 11:58:51 GMT -5
Are there any military leaders today that will be talked about in future generations? The last great general in America is George Marshall or General Douglas MacArthur or even Dwight Eisenhower,right? (MacArthur is questionable after his horrendous planning of the korean war) Do anyone think that the level of technology is at fault? Or Politicians stealing the spotlight? For the most part American Generals in WWII had such an overwhelming advantage in men and equipment one cannot fairly asess their place in military history with respect to strategy, tactics, etc. The greatness of Marshall and Eisenhower is unquestioned however because of their skill in leading unprecedentedly large multi-inational forces. Marshall's monumental role as a post-war statesman overshadowed his military reputation with his formulation of "The Marshall Plan" which allowed for peaceful economic reconstruction of much of Europe which had been so devastated by the war. In modern times the most truly tested miltary leaders have been those of the state of Israel which has withstood large scale conventional military attack from its surrounding neighbors. Though more famous as elderly politicians, Israel's generals (such as current P.M. Sharon) were the worlds last living tank and infantry commanders that faced and consistently beat an evenly equipped opponent in large scale combat. Of course anyone discussing their place in history would become embroiled in the tragic quagmire of Middle Eastern politics. America's continuing supremacy in its technical military capability make it difficult to evaluate our leaders other than in the negative sense, when they fail.
|
|
generaldu
Senior Addict
The subway charms us so, where balmy breezes blow, to and fro. - Lorenz Hart - "Manhattan"
Posts: 312
|
Post by generaldu on Jan 28, 2005 18:20:42 GMT -5
Oh, and don't be so quick to call Sharon a good leader. That might offend some people. Sharon was commander during the war with Lebanon. Where, he lead 3,000 soldiers into an ambush. How do I know? Well, you see, my mother's first husband was among those killed. And that was fate, as I wouldn't be here telling this too you, had she not married my father. quote] There are very few military leaders that have not been beaten in some action, it is the nature of their terrible profession. I was merely pointing out that Israel is one of the few cases in modern history where you can attempt an honest appraisal of military leadership. In Sharon's case moreover there are war crime charges and he has been an unmitigated disaster as a civilian leader of his nation. Israel's future depends not on its undoubted military prowess but on whether it will survive in any meaningful way even in peace (should it ever come) given the the demographics of the region in which it happens to lie.
|
|
|
Post by BungalowDweller on Jan 28, 2005 23:07:45 GMT -5
I nominate General "Stormin" Norman Swartzkopf. He is the Patton of our generation but only those who served with him know the extent of his greatness. He got out when they wouldn't let him do what needed to be done. He was a great warrior who had No interest in waging a political war. As said earlier, in 50 years the good ones will be justified and the weasels forgotten. "I am a soldier. I fight where I am told. I win where I fight." George S. Patton
|
|
|
Post by JPh on Jan 30, 2005 19:09:04 GMT -5
I'm not trying to put down the Israeli military, but I just don't think facing and beating the Arab armies is not all that formidable as once thought. This is based on the last two Gulf Wars that I've withnessed. One on one, Arab armies are a no match for anyone, as they'll get their pants whipped every time. The Arab political and military leaders' incompetence in leading their men in the battle fields is world reknown famous. We would have a better ideal on how good the Israeli military is if they face better quality enemies.
Where the Arabs get dangerous is when they go undercover and become terrorists. That's a whole new ball game. And who can blame them for being frustrated that they can't win a fight fairly on the fields so they have to resort to hiding behind womens' skirts.
|
|
generaldu
Senior Addict
The subway charms us so, where balmy breezes blow, to and fro. - Lorenz Hart - "Manhattan"
Posts: 312
|
Post by generaldu on Jan 31, 2005 10:15:52 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that it's his fault that Hamas are blowing up buses full of children? Oh yeah, they didn't put that on CNN. Let me ask you, if you were the Prime Minister of Israel, what actions can you take, other than war? I am talking about something that hurts me, as I am part Israeli. But, i'm not lying when I say: there isn't going to be peace. The latest round of violence was, unfortunately, precipitated by Sharon's election, due to his prior reputation and the warcrime allegations (unfounded or not) and by Arafat's unwillingness to pursue the best chance so far at a peace settlement. Israeli's totally non-media savvy leaders, however, have always managed to make it look as though they're the aggressors with heavy-handed responses. The hideous looking wall for instance, while an understandable response, allows Israel's enemies to draw superficial comparisons with Nazi ghetto partitions. As for the Palestinian political "leaders" they have always lived up to Abba Eban's analysis wherein he observed "They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". These two groups of people, integrally linked through most of history, have been badly served by their leaders in modern times in a typical post-colonial scenario. I'm afraid the only possibility for a solution will be when the old warhawks die and the Israelis and Palestinians rediscover their cultural commonalities and learn to live together again. The modern notion that Muslims should fight Jews (and vice versa) is clearly a post-colonial pathology derived from Christian Anti-Semitism and the leaders of Islam and Judaism must exorcise the demon which was placed in their midst as a catalyst for their subjugation by the Europeans.
|
|