Oh no. Custer, at the time of Little Big Horn, was a lieutenant colonel, who had had a "brevet" major general commission in the Civil War. Brevetting was something done before the full system of medals was worked out in the 20th century. It didn't confer authority, as does today's "frocking", where you can wear the insignia and have the authority of the higher rank, but not the pay.
"Heroic" is a complex term for Custer. Brave and stupid, perhaps. Douglas MacArthur, by all accounts, had no sense of personal fear, as much or more ego than Custer, but a much better brain. Patton was similar, without quite as much ego.
No, try someone like Major General Lloyd Fredendall, who led one of the task forces into North Africa -- had an immense bunker built for himself, in which he cringed, giving conflicting and asinine orders. After the US had its ass whipped, to use the technical term, at Kasserine Pass, he was relieved and sent back to the US to train troops, a dubious assignment. Patton replaced him, and things turned around.
It's not fair to look to the Late Unpleasantness Between the States, 1861-1865, as the proper lady guides call it at the Museum of the Confederacy. Looking for stupid generals, idiotically fearless generals, cowardly generals, and just plain unlucky generals in the American Civil War is like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet. There were special cases, such as several Confederate brigadiers that went on Pickett's Charge, knowing they were going to die, but refusing to leave their men. Few things are more poignant than the one who reached the Union guns, Lewis Armistead, and was mortally wounded. Hearing that his close friend, George Meade, commanding the Union side, was wounded, he cried. Meade recovered, and was a decent man over his head, especially at Cold Harbor ("the battle of the crater").
In WWI, the choices among British and French officers of small brain was comparable to the Civil War. The French insisted that all-out offense would always prevail, so their soldiers, in their bright red trousers, were sent into barbed wire covered by machine guns. Some of the best generals, the Canadian, Currie, and the Australian, Monash, were both known for planning such that they not only would win, but minimize casualties among their own.
I'd call Lesley McNair, the highest (3-star) ranking American officer killed in WWII, brave but not foolhardy. He was killed by friendly fire at the breakout from the Normandy beachead, where he had gone to observe. His real job, where he did a magnificent job, was in the US, building the forces to go overseas.
Would you consider Theodore Roosevelt Jr. brave? He insisted on going on the first wave at Normandy, and arguably provided the leadership that got the troops moving off the beach. He died of heart disease a week later, and he probably knew he was dying. Posthumous Medal of Honor, given to his President father as well.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
Custer was rebreveted (is that a word?) major general after the Civil War by Sheridan.
But I wasn't talking about bravery or idiocy. I was talking about criticizing generals. There are plenty of generals throughout history who were criticized and deserved criticism. Custer is the one with the greatest cultural resonance because of his perceived idiocy.
So when people say, you shouldn't criticize a general, I say, George Armstrong Custer.
Absolutely agree that generals can and should be criticized, although letting the criticism degenerate to "Dugout Doug" or "Betray-Us" suggests the discussion is degenerating into namecalling.
Nevertheless, there certainly have been generals worse than Custer, who held true general officer authority (usually with a lower permanent rank, but that's a matter of Congressional confirmation). Custer had one virtue, bravery, coupled with stupidity. Others, such as Fredendall and a wide sampling of WWI and ACW generals, were stupid cowards. There were some who had intelligence, terrible people skills, and avoided the front line, such as JCH Lee.
Obviously, public debate didn't enter into MacArthur's successful dare at Inchon. Later, though, there was public discussion, following his firing for making his own foreign policy. That touches on a teetering stage: on the one hand, you don't want generals with different policies than the civilian command, but on the other, you want someone that will speak up if he believes the direction is wrong. It may be that for the latter, the right balance may be closed sessions with Congress, no matter how much the media wail or political factions want the discussion to be open.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
Oh no. Custer, at the time of Little Big Horn, was a lieutenant colonel, who had had a "brevet" major general commission in the Civil War. Brevetting was something done before the full system of medals was worked out in the 20th century. It didn't confer authority, as does today's "frocking", where you can wear the insignia and have the authority of the higher rank, but not the pay.
"Heroic" is a complex term for Custer. Brave and stupid, perhaps. Douglas MacArthur, by all accounts, had no sense of personal fear, as much or more ego than Custer, but a much better brain. Patton was similar, without quite as much ego.
No, try someone like Major General Lloyd Fredendall, who led one of the task forces into North Africa -- had an immense bunker built for himself, in which he cringed, giving conflicting and asinine orders. After the US had its ass whipped, to use the technical term, at Kasserine Pass, he was relieved and sent back to the US to train troops, a dubious assignment. Patton replaced him, and things turned around.
It's not fair to look to the Late Unpleasantness Between the States, 1861-1865, as the proper lady guides call it at the Museum of the Confederacy. Looking for stupid generals, idiotically fearless generals, cowardly generals, and just plain unlucky generals in the American Civil War is like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet. There were special cases, such as several Confederate brigadiers that went on Pickett's Charge, knowing they were going to die, but refusing to leave their men. Few things are more poignant than the one who reached the Union guns, Lewis Armistead, and was mortally wounded. Hearing that his close friend, George Meade, commanding the Union side, was wounded, he cried. Meade recovered, and was a decent man over his head, especially at Cold Harbor ("the battle of the crater").
In WWI, the choices among British and French officers of small brain was comparable to the Civil War. The French insisted that all-out offense would always prevail, so their soldiers, in their bright red trousers, were sent into barbed wire covered by machine guns. Some of the best generals, the Canadian, Currie, and the Australian, Monash, were both known for planning such that they not only would win, but minimize casualties among their own.
I'd call Lesley McNair, the highest (3-star) ranking American officer killed in WWII, brave but not foolhardy. He was killed by friendly fire at the breakout from the Normandy beachead, where he had gone to observe. His real job, where he did a magnificent job, was in the US, building the forces to go overseas.
Would you consider Theodore Roosevelt Jr. brave? He insisted on going on the first wave at Normandy, and arguably provided the leadership that got the troops moving off the beach. He died of heart disease a week later, and he probably knew he was dying. Posthumous Medal of Honor, given to his President father as well.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 25, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Custer was rebreveted (is that a word?) major general after the Civil War by Sheridan.
But I wasn't talking about bravery or idiocy. I was talking about criticizing generals. There are plenty of generals throughout history who were criticized and deserved criticism. Custer is the one with the greatest cultural resonance because of his perceived idiocy.
So when people say, you shouldn't criticize a general, I say, George Armstrong Custer.
September 26, 2007 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely agree that generals can and should be criticized, although letting the criticism degenerate to "Dugout Doug" or "Betray-Us" suggests the discussion is degenerating into namecalling.
Nevertheless, there certainly have been generals worse than Custer, who held true general officer authority (usually with a lower permanent rank, but that's a matter of Congressional confirmation). Custer had one virtue, bravery, coupled with stupidity. Others, such as Fredendall and a wide sampling of WWI and ACW generals, were stupid cowards. There were some who had intelligence, terrible people skills, and avoided the front line, such as JCH Lee.
Obviously, public debate didn't enter into MacArthur's successful dare at Inchon. Later, though, there was public discussion, following his firing for making his own foreign policy. That touches on a teetering stage: on the one hand, you don't want generals with different policies than the civilian command, but on the other, you want someone that will speak up if he believes the direction is wrong. It may be that for the latter, the right balance may be closed sessions with Congress, no matter how much the media wail or political factions want the discussion to be open.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 26, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink