Putting the generals on a longer leash?
Over at Daily Beast, Kim Dozier is reporting that the Trump Administration is leaning towards giving greater mission authority all the way down the chain of command, starting with allowing the SECDEF, General Mattis, and from him, on down to the field generals. Supposedly the thinking is that this will allow operational commanders to respond more quickly to suddenly developing or rapidly changing situations than was allowed them by the Obama White House. Dozier reports that the current leaders think this would be an important component of their plan to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Those who read here know the truth of that. Too many presidents have hamstrung their field commanders by injecting too much geopolitics, national politics and just their own damned personalities into decision making that would have been best done much further down the chain of command. The author points out that all presidents have a fear of field commanders escalating small conflicts into something much more widespread. Ol’ Poe’s thinking is that had some presidents let the field commanders do some escalating we might have a different world today, such as no North Korea, a free, democratic South Vietnam and a Europe that never experienced Soviet occupation.
Category: Politics
Methinks that we are seeing the wise and highly-experienced hands of SECDEF Mattis and CJCS General Dunford at work here in re-establishing this long-overdue, combat-proven method of conducting military operations. Commanders at all levels have been micro-managed by politicians for much too long, at the cost of an exorbitant amount of U.S. blood and treasure.
It’s about time that they made this change.
There is a plan to defeat Al Queda? How’s that working out?
You have a much higher opinion of generals than I do. Truman gave MacArthur his head in Korea in 1950; how did that work out? The military leadership in Vietnam was just as screwed up as the political leadership. And Europe? Are you kidding?
If you look at history generals have not done any better than politicians in waging war. Look at poor Abe Lincoln-his generals couldn’t even successfully fight battles, much less a war.
There is a reason Clemenceau said;
“War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.”
You have a much higher opinion of your knowledge of history than I do.
Regarding Al Qaeda, you seem to forget who has been in charge for the past eight years.
Regarding Korea, you seem to have forgotten that Truman fired MacArthur, and most assuredly did not give him his head.
Regarding Vietnam, you offer but an opinion that carries no more value than mine and I happen to think you are dead wrong. It was the chickenshit behavior of a Democrat Congress that ultimately lost that nation to the communists.
Regarding Europe, there were a number of field generals, Patton foremost among them, who wanted to push further east and prevent the Russians from occupying so much of Eastern Europe as our civilian leadership allowed them to do ushering in the Cold War.
Regards…
Clemenceau’s vindictive hand in the Treaty of Versailles helped create the circumstances that brought the world to war barely 20 years after WWI.
Yeah, that was the first thing I thought when I saw someone quoting him.
Mattis will have to get rid of a lot of generals first (at least in the Air Force–I don’t have as much intel on the other services). Unfortunately, the careerists climbed the rank ladder while the warriors were downrange and got left behind (because they weren’t around to fill squares and check blocks).
MacArthur wasn’t fired until April 1951.
“On 30 September, Defense Secretary George Marshall sent an eyes-only message to MacArthur: “We want you to feel unhampered tactically and strategically to proceed north of the 38th parallel.”[”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Regarding Al Qaeda, I don’t seem to recall any generals claiming to have a plan differing from either Obama or Bush.
Regarding Vietnam, perhaps it was the loss of credibility the generals suffered after repeated claims of “light at the end of the tunnel” and “just a few thousand more troops and we will win” that was at least partially responsible for congress’s actions (or inactions).
Nothing to say about the Civil War?
Clemenceau may have been a jerk, but I stand by the quote.
Re Europe, hindsight is 20/20. I doubt if the boys at the pointy end or the folks back home wanted to fight any more than necessary to end the war. And I think the Soviets may have had a little to say about that.
“War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.” -Said by a French idiot whose intransigence during the Paris Peace Conference was largely responsible for WWII. For every General you can name that fucked up a war, I can name two that won it through on-the-spot thinking. Throughout the Peninsular War, Wellington had to constantly fight off Parliament (which controlled by his own political party, the Tories, for most of the war) who kept insisting that Portugal was a lost cause. But Wellington kept winning battles, driving the French from the Spanish Peninsula. At Waterloo, Wellington relied on Blucher and the Prussians to back him with two corps. I think it probable that if Blucher had consulted Frederick William III, he might have told him to march toward Liege instead of Wavre, thus dooming us to more French stupidity such as the words of Clemenceau (who was largely responsible for the idiotic peace after WWI that caused WWII). More importantly, the U.S. should embrace the Prussian model that won them the Austo-Prussian War and the Franco-Prussian War, both in record time (7 weeks and 1 year): Bismarck trusted Moltke to execute the war with minimal interference. Likewise, the Moltke extended the Prussian principle of Auftragstaktik (initiative and independent thinking) to his officers: he once scolded a Major for *not* disobeying orders when the situation clearly warranted it. Prussian officers were expected to take general directives and execute the mission, even deviating from orders should the situation warrant it. The example of Lincoln during the American Civil War is disingenuous: Lincoln chided his generals because they largely refused to act (such as McClellan’s failure be aggressive or Meade’s failure to follow up his victory at Gettysburg). Rather than micro-managing his generals, he was simply tired of the fact that they *weren’t taking enough initiative on their own* as opposed to trying to *reign them in.* Rather than placing blame on generals or politicians, we need to start selecting officers who are comfortable with taking initiative and with accepting accountability for their actions. Mattis will have his work cut out… Read more »
DISINGENUOUS;
: not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/disingenuous
I choose to believe you were mistaken about the definition.
Having lived through Vietnam and the cluster-f#ck that the politicians made of it and our country, I have to say that the BS flag is flapping hard on at least that component of your retort.
I am no military historian, but when Truman would not let McArthur actually fight a war as it ought to be fought, he set a terrible precedent. It was exacerbated during ‘Nam. Any problems the ‘Nam military leadership had (beyond the fact that all military leaders are human beings) could be directly attributed to the “rolling downhill” principle.
I think it is a credit to many of our current military leaders that we have some who, like Mattis, managed to do the job well despite the idiot(s) in the Oval Office. I think examples of the politically-created military leaders are common enough that those jerks need not be dignified by name here.
(My standard disclaimer: I have never been personally in the military and am in no way, shape, or form a Vietnam Vet.)
Your MacArthur/Truman example is a bad one.
Mac set the terrible precedent in challenging civilian control of the military- he also made some bad decisions that led directly to the Chinese invasion and the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. Thank God we had a steely eyed paratrooper (Ridgeway) standing by to step in and save the day.
MacArthur deserved to be relieved (he arguably should have been relieved in WWII)
“he also made some bad decisions”
Precisely my point. Generals are just as prone to making bad decisions as politicians are. And some of the bad decisions made by politicians are influenced by the advice of generals (and admirals, of course).
The generals’ decisions, of course, are usually on a smaller scale than the politicians’ decisions and have less publicity or effect on the overall conflict.
I appreciate the disclaimer though I don’t think it is relevant or necessary.
I, obviously, disagree.
Truman did let MacArthur fight the war as he wished, which led to our worst defeat since the Philippines (coincidence?). Except for going to war with China. That is one of the reasons Truman fired him.
I, too, lived through Vietnam and I remember the constant arguments over strategy in newspapers, magazines, etc. As I recall Abrams changed our strategy as soon as he took over from Westmoreland, which is just one example at least one general being wrong. You can decide which one. There were a few other bad decisions made by generals.
timactual, because one general who succeeds another implements his own plan you conclude that the first general was wrong?
That’s a huge logical fallacy and further demonstrates you don’t know zip about generals. Yet you feel qualified to come to this military forum and make sweeping pronouncements about our nation’s military history.
Regarding the disagreements on strategies and tactics in the media during the Vietnam War, are you unaware of the huge disinformation campaign conducted in America for precisely that purpose by the Soviet GRU? The Russians spent more to indirectly undermine the American war effort with disinformation than they did in active support for the North Vietnamese. Unfortunately they found millions of useful idiots to make their campaign successful, far too many of whom reproduced to give us the useful idiots of today, Red Diaper babies, who do much to continue the subversive campaigns of their parents and grandparents.
“…you conclude that the first general was wrong?”
In this case at least, yes. Why else would he change the strategy?
Yes, I was aware of the disinformation in the media. I was also aware of the actual information in the media, and the articles written by those who actually had input into our decision making process.
“Yet you feel qualified to come to this military forum…”
Short answer; yes.
Yep, you would rather trust the nations security to the likes of the pervert bubba da clinton, or maybe the queer kenyan illegal, communist muslim obozo? or maybe carter the peanut butter maker and his control so even his helicopters couldn’t make it to a rescue…yeh, you are a genius, let civilians with NO MILITARY experience rule the roost, guess you weren’t paying attention!!
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to this. The president, as commander-in-chief, may, subject to constraints under the War Powers Act, entrust military leadership with more freedom, just as President Trump’s immediate predecessor hamstrung the military. Presidents are not knowledgeable in all fields within their administrations and, accordingly, choose cabinet members who are. Civilian authority over the military is not endangered here, but can be only if the president and the Congress don’t do their jobs. It has always been so.
I just shake my head at the thought of someone like Obama setting the strategy and having to bless any tactical response for a general who has worked their entire adult lives learning their craft.
Just mind boggling.
Thank God that Trump realizes where the real experts are and trusts that guys like Mattis and his generals and admirals will make the right decisions.
What a novel concept – let the guys on the ground make the decisions.
Any good leader will do this:
1) define the goal
2) set the delta
3) let the guy in charge on a daily basis do what it takes to reach the goal.
4) get the heck out of his way.
Which leads me to conclude that we have had very few good leaders in office for a long, long time.
Under the War Powers Act, the Commander in Chiefs role is narrowly identified as…Founders gave the President the title to preserve civilian supremacy over the military, not to provide additional powers outside of a Congressional authorization or declaration of war.
So, I wonder how this plays out with the escalation with ISIS… Military leaders always state that “our hands are tied due to politics.”. War, is essentially the last act of political negotiation, so, to give more authority to the generals would IMHO go against what the Founders had in mind…There is a reason why military actions are limited…Case in point, WWII and Pearl Harbor. We dropped the bomb to let the Japanese know we could annihilate the (sleeping giant), but politically, long-term we knew we would have to assist in rebuilding their country, have diplomatic relations, etc…
I can’t comprehend why the President would abdicate this role to the military in general.
You liked it better when the culls in leadership picked incompetent generals like westmoreland who were merely puppets and yes boys? “Dropped the bom on the Japanese to wake up the sleeping giant”??? WTF is that….AMERICA was the sleeping giant, not Japan…go back to your nap, but take your pills first!
” incompetent generals like westmoreland”
Thank you for providing more proof of my point.
Again, timactual, you accept opinion as proof…
My mistake. I should have said “Thank you for providing support for my point”. It should be obvious from the fact that I disagree with you that I do not accept opinions as proof.
There is nothing that can screw up any organization as a micromanager.
The micromanagement of the last 8 years has led to ROE’s that made it all but impossible for our fighting men and women to fight back.
That is why we need more delegation of responsibilities with the troops on the front line, where they should be instead of in the halls of second guessing shitheads locked up in political games in DC…
Period…
We seem to be conflating and confusing strategy, operational art, and tactics.
Strategy has three components- ends, ways, and means. The political leadership (i.e. POTUS) is responsible for defining the Ends- what success looks like, or how we want to change from a current state to a more desirable state. Obviously, the president is advised by his civilian and military advisors, chiefly the SecDef but also including SecState, the National Security Council, Intel Community, the Joint Chiefs as well as the combatant commanders (CENTCOM, EUCOM, SOCOM, etc). That said, they should be defining an end state that is in the best national interest of the US.
The Ways are how we will accomplish the ends. National/grand/global strategy addresses all elements of national power, to include diplomatic, information, military, and economic power. In other words, it is more than a military solution.
Finally, the Means are the resources. THis is where Congress comes in. Nothing happens without money. Congress can refuse to fund the necessary troops, or they can refuse to fund overseas operations.
So, Obama had a strategy, it’s just one that most people can’t agree with. He did not see ISIS as an existential threat, so his End was essentially to contain ISIS. His ways were to apply just enough hard power to ensure that they didn’t expand (very much). Since these ends were pretty modest and ill defined, he didn’t really need much funding to support it.
Bad strategy? Sure seemed to be. Did it work? Sure, as far as Obama wanted it to. Of course, ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away.
The
Tactics are simply the art and science of applying violence to compel the enemy to bend to our will. The mission of the Infantry says it best:
‘…close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver to defeat or capture him, or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack.’
It’s that simple. Of course, it’s never that simple. However, while it’s relatively easy to develop a tactical plan, it’s hard to know what to attack or counterattack when there is no broader plan. In other words, while it might seem like a pretty good plan to roll an Armored Brigade Combat Team through Mosul and jump in an Airborne Brigade Combat Team to block the exits, that has to be synchronized in time and space. Tactics are meaningless without an Operational Plan
Operational Art bridges the gap between strategy and tactics
We usually think of operators in terms of individuals (‘I’m an Operator’), but Operational commanders (usually Corps or Division commanders) synchronize not just the combat power (the killers), but MORE IMPORTANTLY the combat multipliers, the Intel, the logistics, and the fires to shape the battlefield and determine the time and place to engage the enemy so as to ensure our success. This is usually called a Campaign Plan. It is a series of operations or battles each designed to achieve a tactical, positional (in time, space, or other dimensions like information or cyber) over the enemy. The aggregated effect is to change the situation so that the enemy has to choose between destruction or capitulation.
So, while we need a strategy to defeat ISIS, the Ends may be as simple as ‘hey, Mattis, defeat ISIS. That means they are incapable of conducting military or terrorist operations, occupying territory, acting as a state, or using their influence to inspire any of the above’.
The Ways should include Diplomatic pressure on our ‘frenemies’ like the Saudis and Pakistan, reaching out to our allies to deny safe havens through immigration, Information campaigns to discredit ISIS and deny their influence, Military campaigns to destroy ISIS troops and Strongholds, and Economic pressure for all of the above.
The Means will be a bunch of OCO money to the services, and potentially an increased end strength to our ground combat forces so they can actually go house to house and kill bad guys.
There should be individual campaign plans for each of these elements, to include a ground campaign designed to literally destroy ISIS while the other elements figuratively destroy them.
The tactics? Well, as the old axiom goes, amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics. Remember that ISIS make great terrorists, but they are shitty soldiers. It won’t be that hard to defeat them on the battlefield once we get an Amored Brigade on the ground. The orders will be something like ‘Move north. Kill Everything.”
Goodness gracious ain’t the red devil loquacious?
Just kidding; I find your comments quite interesting. But both strategically and tactically you’re operating at a planning level most here have never experienced. This is not an audience at the Command and General Staff College.
But most puzzling is that at the end of all your fascinating comments, I’m still not sure whether or not you think this downward extension of mission authority is a good thing.
He hasn’t figured that out yet….!
” you’re operating at a planning level most here have never experienced.”
That may be true but it is always nice to learn something new or useful. And it ain’t rocket science or classified info.
I think Trump went to a military college.
Perhaps you guys weren’t paying attention this morning, when I dropped a link to an article which said, bluntly, that ALL roads to Mosul are now in the hands of US-trained Iraqi soldiers, trapping ISIS in Mosul.
Now, if the objective is to destroy ISIS, which makes sense because it is an existential threat to all governments and peoples everywhere, then all ‘refugees’ and ‘migrants’ who swarmed into Europe and somehow found their way into the USA and elsewhere, should be rounded up and sent right back where they came from, as long as the destination is Mosul.
Then if they want a real right to the death, which also makes sense because ISIS is a death cult, then give them what they want.
And as someone else has pointed out bluntly, the requirement for the end of this fight to the finish is or should be that the Saudis and Iran either get that shit under control in their own parts of the world, or we do it for them permanently. And I don’t think they’ll like that word.
I can’t think of anyone who did more damage in destabilizing the Middle East than T.E. Lawrence.
Don’t forget the limeys…those clowns screwed up every country they ever invaded and controled….Saudi were just fine before the brits stuck their nose in it, the saudis were busy fighting amongst themselves…like it should be!, like the muslims ALL should be, let the sunni’s and the other twits do their thang, to each other!!
T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) WAS a British officer assigned as a liaison to ‘appreciate the situation’.
I wouldn’t say that ISIS is an existential threat NOW, but they are a threat, and they could grow into at least a catastrophic threat if we don’t do something about them, especially if they get a nuke.
Words mean things. Destroy means something very specific to military planners- to physically render an organization incapable of operations. It does not necessarily mean to kill everyone and blow everything up.
Rounding up immigrants will be harder than you think, not to mention probably illegal (if not immoral/unethical) in the countries we are talking about.
Aside from the logistics and legal issues, the fact is that not all of the immigrants are bad guys. Some of them really are decent people just fleeing the war.
Without assigning a percentage, if we round everyone up and send them back to wherever they came from, all you are doing is creating another petri dish for terrorism.
You have to remove the conditions that created ISIS in the first place. I agree, part of it is Saudi, but Iran is not responsible for this per se. They are propping up Assad along with our new ‘friends’ the Russians (more on them in a bit), but they hate ISIS more than you do. If we gave ISIS a nuke tomorrow, their top three targets would be a major US city, Tehran, and Tel Aviv, not necessarily in that order.
“I agree, part of it is Saudi…”
When these fanatic movements are spiritually fed and founded by Saudi Wahhabism and much of their fighting force funded by Saudi petrodollars, that shapes up to be a rather significant “Part” don’t you think?
And short of “nation building” how are we going to remove conditions that have persisted for centuries in large part because that is the way both the rulers and the ruled want it to be?
True..
However, the conditions that existed for centuries did not create ISIS, that didn’t come until the US dismantled any semblance of civil order in Iraq and waited a good year until we started to build something in it’s place, all the while allowing AQAP (Father of ISIS) to fester and grow.
And, no, we can’t really fix this with military power alone. ‘Nation Building’ is kind of a vague term, but in the aftermath of any operation against ISIS there will be a humanitarian crisis and the squirters from ISIS held cities will simply go elsewhere. This won’t be a short fight.
The problem with Iraq was that it wasn’t really a nation to begin with but a cobbled together British construct that needed a brutal strongman to hold it together. Sooner or later the Iranians will take it. At least they do have historical Persian Empire claims and a stable (if troublesome)form of government.
Red, personal curiosity: How do they deal with Westmoreland in the war colleges?
Disclaimer: I am a CGSC and Joint Warfighting grad but did not attend a Senior Service College.
That said, much like West Point Grads, War College Grads won’t/can’t shut up about it so I can basically parrot them…
I think it could be summed up by the title of this War College Lecture: ‘Westmoreland, the General Who Lost Vietnam.’
The only real question is whether he was lying constantly or if he was so incompetent that he had no clue as to what was really going on. He was clearly more concerned with his public perception than actually winning the war. He was in Johnson’s pocket.
He completely misunderstood the nature of the conflict or how to win it. He pissed away critical years, and by the time we got a competent leader in place the damage was done.
He established a system of lying to the nation (body counts, etc), poor personnel policy (individual replacement and leader rotation) that essentially ensured that we would never maximize our effectiveness, and just a ridiculous strategy that avoided risk.
Sadly, if you ask most people today, to include those of your generation that did not serve at the time, Nixon was responsible for the failures in Vietnam, when in reality Johnson knowingly and deliberately set out to deceive the American people about what was going on in Vietnam. McMaster’s book does a great job of laying this out. It’s actually a pretty good and interesting read (well, as interesting as this type of book can be).
Careful, lest you draw the wrath of poetrooper et al.
Kind of like it.
My problem.
Do we get Mattis or Patreus, Abrams or Westmoreland, Nimitz or Stufflebeam?
That is my worry
No more Westmoreland. Had enough of his tactics in the RVN. Joe