StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I saw this article at Foreign Policy and found it intriguing:

The worst general in American history?
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - 10:51 AM

That was the discussion I was having yesterday with several friends. Here is my ranking of their nominees:

1. Douglas MacArthur
2. Benedict Arnold
3. Ned Almond
4. Tommy R. Franks
5. William Westmoreland
6. George McClellan
7. Ambrose Burnside
8. Horatio Gates

It was my contest, so I declared MacArthur the No. 1 loser, because of his unique record of being insubordinate to three presidents (Hoover, Roosevelt and Truman) as well as screwing up the Korean War. Plus additional negative points for his role in the gassing and suppression of the Bonus Marchers in 1932. You can't defend a country by undermining it.

It really is extraordinary how the Army has extirpated his memory. The influence of Marshall, Eisenhower and Bradley lives on, while MacArthur has been treated as a historical dead end. Kind of amazing, considering he was a general for 26 years, was the Army chief of staff, received the Medal of Honor, fought in three wars and was a senior commander in two.

I think it's silly to include an outright traitor like Arnold. If treason puts you on the list then Robert E. Lee belongs at #1 and the rest of the list should be Confederate generals, too. I'm also puzzled by Almond's inclusion. I understand that being MacArthur's butt-boy makes the guy a tool, I can't think of any particular blunders he's responsible for, either.

To make it an even ten, I'd like to add Rupertus, who nearly wiped out the 1st Marines at Peleliu (problem: he was in command of the 1st Marines); and Fredendall, who made American forces the laughingstock of the North African campaign while he was tucked away in a bunker many miles away. I'm of two minds about who should replace Arnold on the list.

Any obvious candidates who were left out?

Mark W. Clark for making Italy an even worse disaster of a campaign then it was always destined to be.

I would not put Rupertus on such a short list, he was not present for planning the Peleliu operation because he had been called back to Washington for no good reason. His staff did the best they could with the information they had, which was flawed, but no one really could have known the Japanese not only had excellent terrain, but also a radical change in strategy in store. The situation was only made worse by the navy conducting a halfassed bombardment even after it knew it had screwed up at Saipan, and many of the too few heavy bombardment ships left early on. The Marines meanwhile simply had no weapons over 155mm, and so the only means of dealing with heavy bunkers and caves was close in infantry assault. Not much a field commander can do about that.

Had the Japanese defended like they did Tarawa, the operation really would have been over in a few days. The fact is Peleliu should never have been invaded, the operation had no real point, and many officers argued against it, but MacArthur insisted that his flank be protected and so it was done. MacArthur saw no point to the entire central pacific offensive except to protect his flank. Mac didn't even need the airfields for anything, and his land based air power had been raping everything the Japanese Army had for the better part of a year at that point too.

I would push McCellan up the list a little bit more, maybe to at least number Three. What did Frank do to get on the list? Granted, I can think of the Iraq cock up, but it seems a little bit unfair to assign so much responsibility to him that he gets on the list.

Keep in mind that it was Ricks' friends who according to him named these guys in the first place; he's just ranking them.

Pelranius wrote:I would push McCellan up the list a little bit more, maybe to at least number Three. What did Frank do to get on the list? Granted, I can think of the Iraq cock up, but it seems a little bit unfair to assign so much responsibility to him that he gets on the list.

He commanded the entire CENTCOM theater of operations with 500,000 US troops under his direct command in 2003. He had VERY few people are above him on that. His command of our move into Afghanistan was also pretty dismal, leading up to the complete fuck up of our one chance to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora. He may have been a fine officer for conventional war, but he didn't adapt well to the challenges he was given. He was certainly burnt out, which is why he retired right after the invasion of Iraq.

Like Efly said, if treason's the reason then half the list should be confederate cunts. So I'd replace Arnold with Petreaus for allowing himself to be used as a fucking political prop to keep a dead end war going. Though not that high on the list.

Courtney Hodges? Is overshadowed in the ETO by Patton, Bradley and Eisenhower but his record has a few blemishes - and allegedly flipped his shit at the start of the Bulge, rendering First Army essentially devoid of leadership at the moment of crisis.

Also, Westy is VERY stiff to be on the list. Hard to see what else he could have done in the circumstances; the war was not lost in MACV headquarters.

I think Burnside certainly takes the cake for bone-headed tactical blunders. Most of the others make mistakes on a strategic scale. Burnside is relatively unique in that he made horrible decisions, even while he was in a position to directly see why what he was doing was a bad idea (the bridge at Antietam, Fredericksburg, the Crater...).

Pelranius wrote:I would push McCellan up the list a little bit more, maybe to at least number Three. What did Frank do to get on the list? Granted, I can think of the Iraq cock up, but it seems a little bit unfair to assign so much responsibility to him that he gets on the list.

Should McClellan be on that top list? He had some incompetent mistakes as a general, but he also played an important role in turning the Army of the Potomac into an actual fighting force through his preparation and training.

How is Mark Clark not on that list? Kesselring was able to repeatedly shut him down with scratch units thrown together from hospital wards, clerks and guys returning from leave.

Flagg wrote:So I'd replace Arnold with Petreaus for allowing himself to be used as a fucking political prop to keep a dead end war going. Though not that high on the list.

Petraeus would be on the list of the best commanders the US has ever had. Maybe not the top ten, but certainly the top 25 or so - he turned Iraq from a complete fuckup to something winnable.

The absence I'd like to know about is Wesley Clark - the man who had to be stopped from starting World War Three.

Elfdart wrote:I saw this article at Foreign Policy and found it intriguing:

The worst general in American history?
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - 10:51 AM

That was the discussion I was having yesterday with several friends. Here is my ranking of their nominees:

1. Douglas MacArthur
2. Benedict Arnold
3. Ned Almond
4. Tommy R. Franks
5. William Westmoreland
6. George McClellan
7. Ambrose Burnside
8. Horatio Gates

It was my contest, so I declared MacArthur the No. 1 loser, because of his unique record of being insubordinate to three presidents (Hoover, Roosevelt and Truman) as well as screwing up the Korean War. Plus additional negative points for his role in the gassing and suppression of the Bonus Marchers in 1932. You can't defend a country by undermining it.

It really is extraordinary how the Army has extirpated his memory. The influence of Marshall, Eisenhower and Bradley lives on, while MacArthur has been treated as a historical dead end. Kind of amazing, considering he was a general for 26 years, was the Army chief of staff, received the Medal of Honor, fought in three wars and was a senior commander in two.

I think it's silly to include an outright traitor like Arnold. If treason puts you on the list then Robert E. Lee belongs at #1 and the rest of the list should be Confederate generals, too. I'm also puzzled by Almond's inclusion. I understand that being MacArthur's butt-boy makes the guy a tool, I can't think of any particular blunders he's responsible for, either.

To make it an even ten, I'd like to add Rupertus, who nearly wiped out the 1st Marines at Peleliu (problem: he was in command of the 1st Marines); and Fredendall, who made American forces the laughingstock of the North African campaign while he was tucked away in a bunker many miles away. I'm of two minds about who should replace Arnold on the list.

Any obvious candidates who were left out?

I think Almond was a notorious racist who didn't handle the black troops under his command
(both in Korean and WW2) IIRC. Feel free to correct me on that, I'm just going off the top of my head....

Leaving aside the issue of including Confederate generals on such a list (which I would have no problem with) Mac easily deserves the number one spot for his generalship in both WW2 and Korea.

However, his main sin in my book is subverting the civil-military order in the US. I've always been under the impression that FDR never canned him because of his ties to various right wing causes and figures.

Lets not forget the Bonus Army and his handling of post-occupation Japan, either.

Captain Seafort wrote:
The absence I'd like to know about is Wesley Clark - the man who had to be stopped from starting World War Three.

Well, I don't think having bad ideas that aren't acted upon would make a general necessarily bad.

Pelranius wrote:Well, I don't think having bad ideas that aren't acted upon would make a general necessarily bad.

Given that it was only the good sense of his 2iC to tell him "Sir, I won't start World War Three for you" that stopped things going pear-shaped, I definitely think Clark comes under the "bad" category.

Guardsman Bass wrote:

Pelranius wrote:I would push McCellan up the list a little bit more, maybe to at least number Three. What did Frank do to get on the list? Granted, I can think of the Iraq cock up, but it seems a little bit unfair to assign so much responsibility to him that he gets on the list.

Should McClellan be on that top list? He had some incompetent mistakes as a general, but he also played an important role in turning the Army of the Potomac into an actual fighting force through his preparation and training.

McClellan was a finest quartermaster general ever to lead the US army into combat.

Cecelia5578 wrote: I think Almond was a notorious racist who didn't handle the black troops under his command
(both in Korean and WW2) IIRC. Feel free to correct me on that, I'm just going off the top of my head....

By that standard almost every American WW2 general aside from Patton belongs on the list -and even he referred to black soldiers as "my niggers".

George Armstrong Custer. Yes I know when he was killed he wasn't a true general, but he heled the bervet rank of a general for a time. I beleive that would qualify him for a spot on he list.

Elfdart wrote:I'm also puzzled by Almond's inclusion. I understand that being MacArthur's butt-boy makes the guy a tool, I can't think of any particular blunders he's responsible for, either.

I'd generally say that if nothing else should disqualify him from the list then the generally positive if not glowing support he has from "Chesty" Puller (notoriously caustic towards Army commanders in general). His conduct of the amphibious landing at Inchon was flawed (but then again it was MacArthur's fault for assigning an amphibious assault to a commander who had zero experience in such) and his subsequent conduct of the campaign could be called in to question but "worst" would be going too far I would say. If for no other reason than there are a LOT more deserving candidates.


...anyway to thoughts on the list:

- Gates belongs but Arnold doesn't unless you want to (as others have mentioned) add every single Confederate General to the list (with the possible exception of Bragg and Hood whose respective weaknesses were more of a boon to the Union).

- Franks belongs not just for Iraq part deux and Afghanistan but also for his conduct in Iraq the first time around, he was slow off the mark and constantly bitching about flank security while in the midst of outflanking his opponents. Its only the fact that the rest of the forces present managed to slice through the prepared defenses in Kuwait that the war was over as quickly as it was.

- I'm wondering how the hell McDowell, Pope, and Butler escaped the list and a reason is eluding me as I'd expect to see at least one of them (probably Pope above the others) for being among the most incompetent major commanders on the Union side who weren't in charge of the Army of the Potomac.

Guardsman Bass wrote:

Pelranius wrote:I would push McCellan up the list a little bit more, maybe to at least number Three. What did Frank do to get on the list? Granted, I can think of the Iraq cock up, but it seems a little bit unfair to assign so much responsibility to him that he gets on the list.

Should McClellan be on that top list? He had some incompetent mistakes as a general, but he also played an important role in turning the Army of the Potomac into an actual fighting force through his preparation and training.

McClellan would have made a great command sergeant major, but as a commander he was a massive fuckup. Yes, he made the Army of the Potomac into the well-oiled fighting machine it was, and then refused to use it because he feared failure even more than he feared Lee, whose armies he consistently reported outnumbered his own (even though they never did at any point) as an excuse to avoid attacking. Lincoln wasn't kidding when he observed that if he gave McClellan the reinforcements he so confidently said he could take Richmond if he had, he would the next day suddenly have certain intelligence that Lee had another hundred thousand men.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Guardsman Bass wrote:

Pelranius wrote:I would push McCellan up the list a little bit more, maybe to at least number Three. What did Frank do to get on the list? Granted, I can think of the Iraq cock up, but it seems a little bit unfair to assign so much responsibility to him that he gets on the list.

Should McClellan be on that top list? He had some incompetent mistakes as a general, but he also played an important role in turning the Army of the Potomac into an actual fighting force through his preparation and training.

McClellan would have made a great command sergeant major, but as a commander he was a massive fuckup. Yes, he made the Army of the Potomac into the well-oiled fighting machine it was, and then refused to use it because he feared failure even more than he feared Lee, whose armies he consistently reported outnumbered his own (even though they never did at any point) as an excuse to avoid attacking. Lincoln wasn't kidding when he observed that if he gave McClellan the reinforcements he so confidently said he could take Richmond if he had, he would the next day suddenly have certain intelligence that Lee had another hundred thousand men.

Worse —McClellan literally had Lee's entire battle plan in his hands at Antietam and had the reserves he could have committed to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia after breaking their centre and... simply let Lee slip through his grasp. That, I think, crosses the line into criminal incompetence in command.

Personally, I think Burnside gets a lot of flak for a lot of things that weren't really his fault. He was tasked with attacking the Confederate right flank under absolutely dismal terrain (a tiny bridge that can barely fit two or three men abreast backed by like a thirty-foot sheer ridge), yet still pushed through and nearly routed the Confederates until Hill's reinforcements came in out of nowhere to stop him. He slipped completely past Lee before Fredericksburg and was only stopped because the pontoon bridges Halleck promised him were like a week late. And immediately prior to the Crater assault (as in hours before), the black soldiers who had been specially drilled for the operation were suddenly replaced on Meade's orders by regulars who had no clue what to actually do (instead of moving around the crater and taking the Confederate works, they just poured straight into the hole and basically got stuck). He also did just fine in the West.

McClellan certainly deserves a higher spot on that list. There's just no excuse for his behavior in the Peninsular Campaign or at Antietam (or immediately afterwards). Both cases he could have ended the Civil War in '62 had he shown some semblance of a backbone.

Do you make an attempt to seperate John Bell Hood's record as a division commander from his army command record? If you look at his army command record, he was pretty bad.

Braxton Bragg deserves consideration for this as well.

I think Arnold does belong on the list. The Confederate complaint is a bit misleading for the point that as far as the Civil War is concerned these never fought for the Union side. Arnold did fights for the Colonists before turning traitor. This is a big difference.

McClellan does deserve the top spot for many reason the biggest one being that who cares how well trained your army is if you are never willing to use it! Time and time again he would sit about and claim that his army wasn't big enough. Just do something!!!!!

Ziggy Stardust wrote:I think Burnside certainly takes the cake for bone-headed tactical blunders. Most of the others make mistakes on a strategic scale. Burnside is relatively unique in that he made horrible decisions, even while he was in a position to directly see why what he was doing was a bad idea (the bridge at Antietam, Fredericksburg, the Crater...).

In Burnside's defense, many of his plans were actually quite good (TC pilot goes into more detail a few posts up). The problem was that he was a not a good tactical commander. When things went wrong, he had a lot of trouble improvising.

But for me, the main reason why he would appear lower on my list of bad generals than others is because he acknowledged that he's not a good commander. I have more sympathy for a screw-up who knows he's a screw-up (since they'd be more likely to look for help from non-screw-ups), than a medicore leader who thinks his shit smells like flowers.

Isolder74 wrote:I think Arnold does belong on the list. The Confederate complaint is a bit misleading for the point that as far as the Civil War is concerned these never fought for the Union side. Arnold did fights for the Colonists before turning traitor. This is a big difference.

Yes, but the Civil War did not happen in isolation, and a huge number of Confederate generals were US Army veterans. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, Bragg, Joseph Johnston, Albert Johnston, and AP Hill are just a few examples of major Confederate generals who were veterans of the Mexican-American War. It would take all day to list the Confederate officers who cut their teeth in combat under the US flag. The fact that it was more widespread or took place over a longer period of time does not make their betrayals any less meaningful than Arnold's.