Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- The Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz Memorial Lecture
Thomas E. Ricks is a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). Concurrently with his duties at CNAS, Ricks writes an online blog for ForeignPolicy.com called, "The Best Defense," serves as contributing editor for Foreign Policy.
nimitz.berkeley...
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
"...But when a man suspects any wrong, it sometimes happens that if he be already involved in the matter, he insensibly strives to cover up his suspicions even from himself. And much this way it was with me. I said nothing, and tried to think nothing."
"...this man entrusted with so much arbitrary power must have believed what he said or else he could not have gone on bearing the responsibility."
@@gfarrell80 so this is the problem....we are indoctrinating uncreativity and blind following. I mean, look at today’s generals half of them ain’t near as good as 60 years ago.
@@kmmediafactory the problem is not generals. The problem is war. It is colonialism. It is tribalism. Nationalism. Militarism. The striving for hegemony. The Drum Major Instinct. These are the problems. War is not a problem to be solved by creativity of generals. War is a curse of the elite on ordinary people trying to live their lives. War is excess resources poorly spent.
The generals of 60 years ago were lunatics. Patton, McArthur, LeMay. Lunatics and sociopaths. These were deeply disturbed men. Eisenhower at least had some ability to reasonably assess the world and speak truth to power on occasion - the Military Industrial Complex, humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Eisenhower and Sherman. Our only 'great' generals. And both of them were heads at a machine where the outcome was already determined, but they had humanity and clarity of thought. Smedley Butler too, maybe our 3rd candidate for great American general.
@@gfarrell80 well I meant that that’s why we’re not winning any wars. But yeah we all can agree that war is the real problem, killing for for resources and power. But I was referring to places like Afghanistan, where we lost because of poor leadership. I mean “War on Terror”? That’s doesn’t even make sense, it just results in time and money wasted.
@@kmmediafactory agreed! ::thumbsup::
“If there is no reward for taking risk, then no one wants to take risk.”
That is a very prescient insight.
Only those who are afraid of death think like that, study Christianity and you'll see plenty of examples with no obvious reward.
@@einarabelc5 We call those people idiots.
So many government offices have this mentality. The OVERALL objective is, 'Don't screw up.' But that's the silent thing. Everything else gets spoken aloud, the so-called goals but those goals are always tempered by the "Don't screw up," mentality.
If you have a bunch of incompetent personnel, this isn't actually that bad. But if you have anyone competent they are likewise held back by that bureaucratic requirement.
It's a tight rope though. I actually had a similar thought as the last questioner, as relieving command based on failures could easily result on an incredibly conservative command structure. I think the key is you have to innovate the command structure in a way to reward risk taking while also reducing the punishment if the risk fails. The key issue with reestablishing command relief is to also remove the career ending ramifications resulting from it. It is an interesting viewpoint.
Apparently, the US government has adopted the opposite truism "if you don't stick your neck out, it won't be relieved of your body" There seems to be a grotesque lack of independent, critical thinking to get anything done where the government is concerned and it flows from top to bottom. Exhibit A - 1/2 million homeless people. And covid vaccines happened because of private sector. The rollout appears to be from the same template as the Afghan evacuation.
My first advice from my company commander as a second lieutenant (1997) was that in order to have a successful career you had to avoid separating yourself from the herd. You have be in step with your commander and be well liked in your peer group. They tell you the opposite in OCS, Basic Officer Coirse, and Infantry Officers Course. But, when you get to the unit its all about not making waves and not standing out. If an officer has all average fitness reports he/she will make it to lieutenant colonel. But, if you are outstanding and have one bad fitness report you are done. Its not about succeeding, it is about not failing. Creativity, the biggest determiner of successful executives is killed in the junior ranks. Maintenance of predetermined procedures is emphasized. This is how you end up with managers and not leaders. You have a senior leadership that knows all the paperwork but cannot understand a problem and how to solve it.
That's scary!
You sound like Jocko Willink.
So patton wouldn't make it in today's military , that's freaking sad
@@scallen3841 because he is not woke enough and did not have two moms.
thats what i was thinking... Its exactly the problems that our 'western' world or corporate world and politicians are prone to... Sad its the same in the armed forces, but its run like a big Employer nowadays mh :L?
On how to classify the different types of Military officers I really enjoyed this quote supposedly attributed to a German General, Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord:
"I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
Geniala zicere !
Beautiful
You will find the quote in this book: The Silences of Hammerstein: A German Story (Author: Enzensberger). Worth reading anyway.
Not entirely his invention. Clausewitz stated in his book, On War, that the worse/most dangerous officer is one who is both stupid and energetic. I think - memory - his grid was Smart and Stupid on one axis, and Energetic and Lazy on the other. I think Equord had read Clausewitz.
I"m saving this
As someone who drove generals and colonels around Kuwait in 2005, I can tell you this guy is on the money. The only topics were on equipment and tactics. No discussion of strategy, or how turn the tide and actually win. Everything was geared towards do your time, get as few people killed as possible and go home. Really winning the war was even mentioned.
ticket punchers just like 'Nam...
HA HA HA NEVER AGAIN..
@andrion waser exactly people need to know Vietnam and Iraq it wasn’t about winning it was about keeping the conflict going you can’t lose a war that was not meant to end in the first place nor meant to try to win
Well it was a foregone conclusion in most of those engagements, though it turned out to be mistaken in one.
If the title of the video is correct the US generals were only sucessful in ww2, the rest were a statemate and defeats. The US was defeated in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. As the UK was part of Iraq and afghanistan debacle they took were defeated, but they were junior partners to the US. UK track record on its own, is rather different. Victory in Vietnam 1945, stalemate in North Korea, victory in Malaysia 1950s, victory in Kenya, 1950s, victory the Falklands war, 1982 and victory in Northern Ireland 1969 -99.
Do not go on about the IRA defeating the british they did not , all the brits had to do was denied the IRA the ability to operate and that is what they did. The facts speak on the ground, the republic renounced it claim on Northern Ireland, the republic recognised British interest in northern Ireland for the first time. In other words the republic recognized Northern Ireland as a British province and part of the UK for the first time. Also the republic recognised people in Northern Ireland are British citizens automatically at birth, both states however recognised the said citizens can change their citizenship to Irish or British as they see fit.
Also, both states recognised if the citizens of Nothern Ireland wanted to stay in the UK or join the Republic via a referendum, they would accept the results. To top this the IRA etc laid down their weapons in 1994 and stopped fighting. That is in any parlance is a victory for the British. Not only did they keep the battlefield ( NI) but it got its enemies and supporters to accept that the battlefield was not theirs but British.
After Pearl Harbor, Marshall fired every National Guard General except one. Officers were too old, and as one senior army officer noted: "The Guard was so full of dead wood it was a fire hazard."
@Koenig Barbarossa The nationalists would have never won that civil war. They burned too many bridges with the populous during WWII (like intentionally causing a flood that killed millions of Chinese citizens) plus it was highly corrupt and extremely inefficient militarily.
@@Kaiserboo1871 People seem to forget that the nationalists fucked up massively by pissing off everyone that wasn't themselves which pushed everyone that wasn't a corrupt army officer into the PRC.
@@Kaiserboo1871 Indeed. Chang Kai Shek is a moron of the highest magnitude. Speaking from a Taiwanese who still suffers from his ineptitude and lack of foresight.
@@bobjones4901 Chiang Kai-shek wasn’t the worst dictator I’ve ever read about (that distinct honor goes to Pol Pot) but he was pretty bad as far as dictators go (I’d say he is about on par with Saddam Hussein)
@Koenig Barbarossa Yes and because China turned Maoist, it was no economic threat to the capitalist West. Right after the end of WW2, US GDP was 60% of the world's GDP. Now it's less than 25%. There was no global competition.
Generals in ww2 were given a strategic objective without political interference, the cold war and the war on "terror" had no strategic object but was pure politics. (Update 1-23-22) All you gainsayers who purposely misconstrue my brief statement need to understand that the U.S. political objective of the Cold war was peaceful compromise with the Korean war as an ideal model of such a compromise to be followed in future conflicts. In other words, the U.S. was willing to settle for half a loaf while Russia and China wanted the whole loaf (who wins with that strategy?). After WW2 the Joint Chiefs of Staff were marginalized by Cold war Commanders in Chief (from Truman to Nixon) who micro-managed wars and conflicts without consulting the JCS, the military strategy of winning the whole loaf was not a formula for ideal political compromise or a peaceful settlement, the military strategy of the JCS to win the whole loaf was not in step with the political strategy of Cold war compromise with Korea and Vietnam as an example of the half loaf strategy. Think of Cold war conflicts as "soup nazi" political diplomacy, the one with the "soup" dictates the terms, in this case the U.S. kept asking for a side of bread, "No Soup For You!"
True. Also many (I said many, not all ofthem, calm down dear Americans!) of the bad guys today were either directly funded by the US or they cooperated with them. Gaddafi, Hussein, Bin Laden and so on alls cooperated with secret intelligence at some point.
There's no real strategy in the war on terror whatsoever. Terrorism is an idea, it's a combat strategy for fighting an enemy which is superior in numbers and cannot be beaten in conventional battle. You can declare war on Al-Qaida, on the Taliban, on ISIS, yes, but not on terror itself. It's just a meaningless propaganda term used to coerce the population to consent to a 1984-like surveillance state. 20 years have passed since the 9/11 attacks, we just left Afghanistan and we still consent to being treated like potential terrorists when boarding a plane.
@@backwatersage Dude don't annoy me either tell me directly what you don't like and we can talk about it or you stop bothering me. Just get to the point or stop wasting your time.
@@backwatersage I hate it when people jump into a conversation and then act like they don't care. You mistake apathy for intelligence now make a argument, add something to the discussion or shut the fuck up. "hemorrhoids" well you're a poo poo head! And I'm pickle rick!!!!!!!
The choice of which side to join: with the Nazis and against England, or vice versa, IS a political choice! ALL choices about whom to kill and why are political choices. So your point, Richard DeWitt, makes no sense. I am GLAD we sided against the ultra nationalist ultra conservative Nazis and Japanese, and WITH the Communist Soviets and WITH the Chinese. But, there is NO law in the universe saying our politicians could have chosen the other side!
@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 to be fair int he case of Bin Laden (and Afghanistan in general) if the US had actually finished what it had started he likely would never have become an enemy as the education system in the country would have been greatly improved as well as travel with the building of schools and roads as proposed by congressman Charlie Wilson.
the US' biggest issue is that we let politicians dictate to the military and diplomatic arms of our government on how they should proceed and when they should be done instead of how it should be done where the people on the ground and in the situation tell the politicians what is needed and they find a way to pay for it. they also have a habit of doing stupid things just to do the opposite of an administration they replaced and hated.(see current events)
i am honestly sorry that you get treated so bad at airports, but people tend to be afraid of what they dont understand. for example many are scared of a traditionally dressed Muslim or Hindu due mostly because they dont understand the reason for why they are dressed that way. it even applies to the Amish as some people cant seem to wrap their heads around a religion dictating dress or a wanting to avoid technology.
really instead of being offended you should truly pity such people as they are doing it out of ignorance not malice most of the time.
then again ive also got a unique perspective as a very good friend of mine had his life saved by an Afghan interpreter who he then got moved over here to the states 3 years ago and i was able to have a good long talk with. if someone looks at you weird try to talk to them most of the time all it takes is finding out that your just a normal guy with a weird name to change peoples minds.
hope what ive said and proposed helps you and you have a good night.
A general needs to be a logistics expert, a psychologist, a historian, a strategist and tactician able to adapt rapidly to new circumstances, and able to convince politicians of what must and must not be done .
"I don't write books because I have answers. I write books because I have questions." What a great quote
Every war you have fought since WW2 was for israel
@@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200 how was vietnam for israel?
@@jamesgo8454 Yeah thats the only one hahaha thats not good bro
@@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200 why
@@jamesgo8454
I agree. Why?
Keep nagging him.
Boy, is this quite relevant now after the Afghanistan debacle. Still NOBODY has been fired for that.
Why would they? It was a complete success. We stupid citizens chose to believe in an obviously false narrative, while the State Departments, NGOs, and Bush & Obama's handpicked lickspittles fought a holy war for Progressivism. Every society has gods, and ours are demons.
@@mattcrosby2310 It's shit like this that makes me wonder if voting for leaders even matters. 🤔
@@mattcrosby2310 The crime isn't the mission.
@@Vespyr_ there's no mission. Only correct action was pulling out.
@@5dful Yeah, losing a foreign war tends to leave that option as the correct one. We're in agreement.
When I was in the military, we had a saying when we ran into incompetence: (He's reached his level of incompetence)
The theory was, a person would do good or good enough & get promoted, this would continue til they did a bad job, no longer get promoted and there they would stay, exceeding their level of competence with the last promotion. There were a few privates that had already reached their level of incompetence.
Also known as the Peter Principle
@@tjwarburton beat me to it😂😂😂
Private Joe Biden is one of them.
So...what he is saying is..."BEAN WAS RIGHT!"
Not true in the military. Plenty of incompetent people make to General and Admiral because they never pissed anyone off while climbing the kiss-ass commanders above them!
The discussion of harm created by frequent rotations interested me because I raised that issue in 1971 when as a Spec5 I was placed on a panel discussion. I compared our merry-go-round to the more stable British force we served with. We were asked whether we followed orders because we respected the man or his rank. I explained that we would like to respect the man, but because we didn't know him and he didn't know us, all we could go by was his position. The senior officer, a major if I recall, glared at me, but there were a couple of lieutenants nodding their heads in agreement. I've had the impression since that the problem has been approached, but not solved.
Definitely a factor. I actually forgot about that.
U.S. Military Deaths by War
World War I: 116,516
World War II: 405,399
Korean War: 36,574
Vietnam War: 58,220
Persian Gulf War: 382
Iraq Operations: 4,600
Afghanistan Operations: 2,456
@@tocreatee3585 The two largest wars in history had the most deaths, no shit.
I love the point. You don't have to fire someone when they make a big mistakes. Relieve them....send them back down and make them earn their trip back up. Ideally when someone isn't doing things right, you relieve them, move them somewhere else, and let them reflect on what they did wrong so they can learn from their mistakes.
Incidentally, that's basically what the church does whenever a priest molests a child. Just move them somewhere else and hope they learned their lesson.
@@Astraeus.. Molesring a child is not a mistake, it’s a horrible crime. The church has been responsible for some of the most reprehensible behavior committed by humans. Now, if you’re talking about a general committing war crimes, then yes, the comparison works. However, someone who is trying to do a difficult job with honor and a strong moral compass but is not up to the job can be removed and given time to grow in another position? No comparison.
Well said. We are seeing this in businesses today. No matter how bad the leader/manager is they are keep in place.
Today the class of people who comprise the Boards of directors are like Bohemian grove or CFR types who reward CEOs and themselves astronomically whether they are successful or not.. I think that CEO pay should be restricted in some reasonable fashion. The ratio between CEO level pay to worker pay has gone from 15-1 in the 1950s to 351-1 currently which is absurd .. these people are not entrepreneurs who at least deserve what the get because their creativity and effort created the business.. they are organization men who often boot lick there way up the ladder..
Yeh look at what just happened in Afghanistan. We have freakin politicians for generals. Only caring about their career. Not about winning. F it
It depends whether you ask Joe Taxpayer or Lockheed Martin, whether spending 20 years and ungodly amounts of money in Afghanistan was a successful venture or not.
Was probably successful for them because they kept it going for so long.
@@willisleroy3992 And then his party started signing the biggest checks a few short years later.
It was a clear defeat. Ideologically, and in the eyes of the globe, it was a failure. The nation with the highest military spending on the planet has told every extremist on the planet that there is nothing they can do, with all their weapons, and all their money to tell them that they can't terrorize a nation into submission whether or not they have the right to do so. They can literally give that nation the finger, and for all its bluster, all its bright minds and success, can do nothing to make them yield. Even after decades. That they are just as corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent as anyone else. That we spend a lot of money and time on a lie. I promise you will never get the kind of rapport for an occupying American force ever again, from any nation that Afghanistan gave you. A nation that can make a deal to leave a country peacefully, have that deal broken, lose thirteen service members, while they laugh, is no success. Regardless of what Lockheed Martin pocketed. The colors on a flag, fade from this.
@@Vespyr_ You were fools for going into Afghanistan in the first place. You know how I know that your leaders didn't have a single authority on Afghanistan in their meeting room when they discussed launching this invasion? Because they went through with the invasion at all.
Anyone, and I mean anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at Afghanistan's history will tell you that there's a reason its called the Graveyard of Empires.
If Alexander the Great, if the Seleucid Empire, if the Mongol Khans, if three British invasions, if the entire Soviet Union couldn't subjugate Afghanistan, what on Earth made you think you would be successful?
What could you possible do to them that they don't do to each other? What weapon could you possibly bring to scare them? Oh you'll drop a few bombs from planes on them? They cut each other's tongues out and bury one another neck deep in the sand to be feasted upon by lizards. They kidnap and rape one another's wives, daughters, and sons. They live in $10 shacks made of dried earth and and wooden supports while you drop $10,000,000 munitions from $80,000,000 warplanes. They live with so little, what could you possibly deprive them of? Their lives? They don't value their lives. You lost this war the minute you made the stupid mistake of entering Afghanistan.
@@Killzoneguy117 excellent summary
The most astonishing part of this lecture is finding out that UC Berkeley has an ROTC unit.
I live and work in Berkeley. And have been an activist for many years here in Berkeley.. you see the occasional BDU or dress up soldier walking by.. but I would have never had any inclination that the campus had an ROTC unit.
ya an the officers from that program are DOA.
More like sissy unit...
@@AnonMedic Each person, specially adults, choose their juice, and this should not concern anyone else.
There were efforts to force ROTC of campuses during the Vietnam era. To the best of my knowledge none were successful.
[Patton understood that] "The enemy is almost always going to be as tired as you. If you go the extra mile, frequently that's the measure that wins you victory." This rings very true, and makes me think of the great decisive commanders in history who won by maneuver: Napoleon and Caesar spring to mind.
George Washington seems relevant.
Reading about the Battle of Singapore, I first understood that commonly both sides have strong evidence that they are losing catastrophically, and that the first side to act on that information loses.
I am always reminded of how a man with not single day of schooling in his life, Pancho Villa, outsmarted Lt. Patton and Col. Pershing when the two West Point grads took an entire regiment into Mexico looking for Villa, and found nothing.
@@mrlaw711 To be fair, Patton was sent on recon, and returned with one of Villa's commanders on the hood of his vehicle.
The terrorists ALWAYS go the extra mile. That's how they were able to take over Afghanistan and fight off the most powerful military alliance in the history of all mankind.
No wonder NATO lost the war. Nobody gives a fuck about Afghanistan except terrorists, and that's why they live there!
Ever heard the expression, "The soldier fights not because he hates what's in front of him, but because he loves what's behind him"? NATO has absolutely NO reason to give a flying fuck about a shitty little 4th world fuckhole country on the other side of the planet. That's why we lost the war.
There's a meme floating around that shows General Milley with his MASSIVE medal count that takes up most of his left side... then the medal count of General Eisenhower, then lists each generals accomplishments lol.
yeah, the US military now has an award for everything, especially the Army. The Army even has a DRIVER badge. It also doesnt help that things like the bronze star are given out for administrative non combat duties, and commendation medals are handed out like candy in some communities. When I was in the Marines on a field op a motor transport guy got a NAM for driving like 500 miles or something during the op. When we deployed one of our point men got a NAM for finding dozens of IEDs. The award disparity really is something.
@@mh3225 I wonder if the Army will eventually start giving out the “Hey your breathing, good for you!” Medal.
They need a new "woke" medal for sloths like Gen. Mike Milley. He's an 'angry white male' and wants to major in CRT.
Eisenhower's personal military accomplishments were zero. He was a politician and a figurehead.
@@paddymeboy You've never heard of D-Day?
Sun Tzu: 17. Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
(4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
(5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.
What does the fifth essential mean, can somebody rephrase that for me?
@@christopherg1288 Basically, it means politicians, presidents, kings, etc. need to let the generals do their job if they want to win.
@@jballaviator "military capacity" includes capable general officers.
@@jballaviator (
to (5) For example: Hitler let the genererals do their job in the beginning, so german wins. Later he interferes the generals and makes decisions, and german loose. Stalin interferes his generals in the beginning and get hit ass kicked. Then he let his generals do their job and russia wins. For me, this proofes Sun Tzu right.
There was a saying about Soviet Army: "Those, who served in army, do not laugh in circus". It describes any army, including US.
Underrated comment detected here. Thanks for sharing :D
Love it, everytime we went on a big convoy my platoon sergeant would say "the circus is on the move." LOL
I tried to understand, but I do not get the message.
@@mikloscsuvar6097 War is not a game!
@@mikloscsuvar6097 In the army, there are clowns in uniform and donkeys on tanks and even a freak show, compared to this, the circus is quite boring
A brilliant lecture, with a lot of great insight. The fact that nobody was fired for the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan is proof positive that the US Military is in really bad shape; you have to punish failure of that magnitude.
Well said. I was assigned to a unit that failed a combat readiness inspection. Our fired commander's boss took over for several months. He was astute enough to know the core of the problem was with the SNCO and Field Grade leadership and cleaned house accordingly.
The war served its purpose, which was the financial enrichment of the military-industrial complex.
How can you fire someone when they just can produce the email that shows they were ordered by politicians. If they get fired, the press gets the email.
Who do you fire? Bush for making the mistakes that turned Afghanistan into a sunk cost fallacy?
It was also found that during the suicide bombing on the main gate at the airport, most of the causalities were caused by US small arms fire, not to mention the drone strike on who they thought was one of the bombers, but turned out to be a aid worker and a bunch of kids
This is probably the most militarily knowledgeable journalist I've seen. Thank you sir.
Thanks for the talk. I was on the CENTCOM staff from 1995 to 2000. Saw the cautiousness first hand. If you didn't make mistakes, you were promoted. If you took risks and won, you were promoted (no quicker), if you took risks and lost, you were toast. Therefore, many "waited to be tasked." If you took risks and won, it did not endear you to the careerists.
looks like the corporate world of usa - this is why us business outside usa are "flourishing" -walmart outside usa make way worse the"socialist swedens IKEA -mainly due to bad homework as stubborn dumb ideas that made them big in usa but would get them hated elsewhere . nothing nwe for anyone but "usasians"
“Petraeus liked reporters” a year after this speech we found out how much he really liked them lol
Okay that's funny.
Why what happened?
Clearly Mr. Ricks knew more than he let on in this speech. It’s hard to believe this talk is 10 years old.
@@billmarion5796 Petraeus had an affair with one
Yes. She was very well liked. He shared classified info with her both in bed and outside.
Prior enlisted, here, and I gotta tell ya...I would've loved to see some of my officers get relieved. Not because of personal reasons, but because of some of the reasons this man outlined in his recital of Marshall's criteria. All of the officers that I admired, loved, and respected, fit that bill, and we were ALL better because of it. And, when they weren't, we were all worse off. To quote my first E6, "There's 2 kinds of superiors: the ones who care about their careers, and the one who care about their people".
No one gives a flying f-word about military cannon fodder AKA soldiers. Families have forever competed with each other for the honour of proclaiming how many (more) of their own flesh and blood they sent overseas to kill, destroy, and die, how many (more) of the enemy's sons they buried, families they ruined, farms, factories, towns, cities, states, countries, empires, civilizations, peoples they destroyed, and oh how eagerly they parrot the obscenities and display the trinkets that assuage the pang of loss, and fuel the furnace of atrocity evermore...
Lest We Forget...another paper tiger: we'll be afforded the opportunity to attempt to forget the day we realize it's all a have; a giant scam, pushed by rapacious psychopathic cowards, funded by human misery, delusion, ignorance, greed, and exactly the same script / M.O. / goals / propaganda / lies, false flags (name a major 20th Century conflict not predicated / triggered by one or more false flags...I won't hold my breath) every single time: deadly external evil enemies threaten imminent extinction; every available private & state resource must immediately be re-purposed to feed the military / industrial / academic / intelligence / usury machine, with the unquestioned exception of those of aristocratic, noble, and royal origin...for if we risk and lose *_those_* dignitaries, families, institutions, we lose what it is that defines *_who we are_* as a people.
If it wasn't for free online streaming HD porn, Nicky Minaj, vaping, meth, fentanyl and transgender Hollywood celebrities, I honestly don't think we'd be able to say the great unwashed useless eating masses have made any social, economic, or moral progress since the days of Thatcher, whoever the hell _he_ is, might as well be a Pakistani Dalek as far as I'm concerned, heck I'm not even a self-conscious biological lifeform, I'm a subroutine running black-box algorithms coded in a regional Mandarin dialect, competing with cryptocurrency scam botnets and pseudo realtime streaming AI-generated (Step) Daddy / (Step) Daughter slash Twincest porn malware distribution vectors for CPU cycles on a bamboo Smartphone, I wouldn't know an erection if it poked me in the eye, but I'll tell you this much: I might not be able to feel real emoticons or cry realistic human tears, but if you do anything like THAT to anyone like that was doing to that in that last video you watched (23 times on repeat) wet cheeks will be the last of your problems, you wanna see TEARS? Here, I'll show y **
Divide by 0 error...beginning crashdump.
To paraphrase von Clausewitz, "War is the use of organized, directed violence to achieve military objective to gain a desired political end state". He pointed out that it was "statesmen" who decided the when, where and who of war. The "statesmen" chose the desired political end state and allocated resources to that end. It was the responsibility of the military to analyze the end state versus the resources applied and advise the government as to the possibility of military success. It is then the responsibility of the "statesmen" to adjust either the end state or the resources. The political element was supreme in the policy of war-making. And then there was the concept of the "Holy Trinity", the government, the armed forces and the people. Imagine each actor as a circle on each point of a triangle. The unity of effort is where the circles overlap. The less the circles nested or overlapped each other, the more dissension between the government, people and armed forces existed and the less efficient and possibly less successful the war effort would be. WW2 featured two things we have not seen in any war since. A defined political end state to which sufficient resources were committed and the unity of the government, armed forces and people. Much of this was due to the successful management of resources and political end state by FDR. In contrast, the wars since WW2 have featured dissension among the people, armed forces and government, and political end states not achievable by the resources committed. To blame the generals when in fact it is the "statesmen" who are to blame for setting unrealistic political end states and/or refusing to commit sufficient resources to achieve that end state.
you should teach at anapolis not the cunts that do now...
Well said. Good summary!
@Jay D How'dya like them apples... ?
But seriously, if war was that simple then every war would be won. Its not - all three of those elements, the politicians, the generals, and the public, are all able to make mistake, be manipulated, and be unable to comprehend what is not known to them.
I think you take von Clausewitz words a bit too far away from its purpose.
@Jay D When he apportians blame to failure at the polititions feet, by expanding on the quote, then yes, he's is doing exactly what I said.
I retired as a lowly 1SG of a Infantry STP Battalion. After serving in Iraq I always wondered why senior officers were not relieved and why did we continually rotate field commanders. Get one that was a fighter and stick with him. But no. The officer corps takes care of its own and screw the men. I do have a hell of a lot of respect for the marine commander that voiced his feelings about Afghanistan recently (08/2021). That man was a leader who fell on his sword for his people.
Greg you “TOP” are 100% correct. From CW4 ret.
As a one enlistment Infantry Marine, I agree 100%. ...and about the Marine Captain...his biggest mistake was choosing his men over protecting his inept superiors. I guess he wasn't paying attention at OCS.
Spot on, Top. The BN CO I had before I EASd we used to call Lt. Col Antoinette because some of the standards he set forth were largely superficial and only made sense when you spent all day in the AC. That's not to say he was a dick, because he was a nice guy personally, but just a bit out of touch with the rest of us.
I will say it goes with every rank. On my second deployment in 2006 we had a SFC when I was in Afghanistan who was one of the most corrupt/biggest POS I ever met. How this guy stayed in the Army to make it to E7 was beyond me.
We where embeds with the ANA and this guy was such a POS he raided my medical bag from my bunk when I was asleep for pain pills. Our COP was taking small arms fire and he went and called his wife and a slew of other events. We had only been in country 2 months! The guy had pissed every single person including the ANA soldiers off at our COP. Our company commander recommended an article 15 but our brigade SGM got involved and had him moved to our garrison where he got caught having relations with a specialist. His punishment was he was sent back to the US to his parent command.
I ran into that same SFC in Kuwait on my the way to my 3rd deployment in 2014. This time not as a an e5 but as an O2. This guy was such a dick when I was an E5 and to anybody below him. He acted like we where long lost best friends and told crazy stories. Found out he got away with his BS Bc him and our brigade SGM knew each other from a previous command and served in the balkins together.
What did he do and what happened to him???
"If you really do care about your enlisted more than you do about the happiness of your officer corps, you will get rid of bad people." Truer words have never been spoken! 52:00
Yet, the majority of the military is well integrated and bonds with the enlisted and officers are great in the military.
@@belluh-1huey102 Oh yeah? lol
@@Kupoinfo For example Generation Kill by Evan Wright which is autobiography of the 1st Recon Battalion.
@@belluh-1huey102 Is that the movie that portrayed Mad Dog blowing a fuse on Iraq Invasion?
@@Kupoinfo Mad Dog isn't even a character. Plus the miniseries adaption for HBO Max is so realistic only IRL veterans can understand it.
I'm not in the military, but that last question asked reminds me of several people I've worked under...more interested in not doing something wrong than they are in doing something right. It leads to competent, but unspectacular results that never seek to be an improvement over what was done before; they merely want to be sure they don't get worse. You can operate like that for a while...but when it becomes a perennial policy, it leads to stagnation.
The military has a lot in common with normal jobs, then. I guess there's nothing wrong with that as long as a company stays in business, but in the military the goal is to SERIOUSLY fuck the enemy up beyond any recognition at any and all expenses, not to make ends meet.
@@devilsoffspring5519 you know American compulsory education was inspired by the Prussian (precursor to German Fascism) style of producing non-questioning obedient soldiers?
52:26 The summit of this brilliant speech: "This is a democracy and the enlisted count for more in my mind than the officer corps. I am not going to let soldiers get killed just to help some officers career along." (MARSHALL).
Damn.. We need to have values that stay even with different people in offices. And we don't.
Well done there.
That was Omar Bradley (known as the 'GI General,' ) not Marshall
After Kabul, a lot of people are coming to this video to figure out why our military is the way it is.
Someone needs to send this video to Gen. Milliey. Might learn something.......maybe not
@@sylviamaresca8852 When the VA Hospital dont deal with mental issues... Well releive that General from duty or demote him to a miserable 11B
Simple, cause insurgency is an entirely different kind of war compared to conventional warfare. Using the tactics for a conventional war is not going to work in an insurgency.
@@imgvillasrc1608 Its not about methods, it's about the creation of a government the "Afghans" (if such an identity really exists) didn't want.
Try removing politicians from battlefield...n current general officers. Real warriors are gone.
"Petraeus really knows the reporters he's talking to" aged well
"All In", was the title of the autobiography written. Oh, the humorous irony.
She was not a reporter and it was stupid to let go of your best general for having an affair. His wife should have been left to deal with him about that and he should never have been moved to intelligence. It was a waste.
@@tamaliaalisjahbana9354 Wasn't he "let go" for showing classified documents to his girlfriend?
Yeah then he became such a threat to the Dems that they sabotaged him with the girlfriend classified document story.
I was an Aussie private in Vietnam and on a plane with all these Yanks on 5 day RnR. They were covered in badges, insignias and ribbons and I thought they were much more braver than I was until they told me this was not the case. In their forces these were dished out as if they were in the Boy Scouts. They were great guys who I had a wonderful time with.
Thank you for serving in Vietnam. Australia is truly Our Greatest Ally.
In addition to serving 26 years in the Air Force, I was a two-time BSA Scoutmaster. I can assure you that Boy Scouts earn every badge and patch they wear - nothing is dished out. What’s more, the Boy Scouts do not have longevity or good conduct medals like the military does.
@@californiaslastgasp6847we've got a lot in common, both of our countries came about because england thought we werent worth keeping around and kicked us out, and instead we overcame and adapted.
@@ZeSgtSchultz"kicked us out" you heard about independence war?
@@__Mr.White__ yes because all european immigrants saw the land of opportunity and decided to pack up and move completely on their own fruition
This is what happens when the industrial military complex inevitably turns the military into big business and promotions are given out when customers (politicians with business agendas) are pleased with "progress". Ike was right about this 70 years ago.
Heck I was reading a book recently, and in it there was a potential war threat but the president was more focused on re-election and his personal gain than actual defense. (It was a novel btw) But it still highlights the problem, everyone’s in it for themselves nowadays. We need decent people back in power
@@kmmediafactory not completely...
The power of many people have to go down. We are already at a point with our western "values" and govs where a monarchy would be better AND cheaper for all of us, and thats a shame!
If you havent realized yet, "they" hold us as good in a cage like "we do" with hamsters, but in our cage, our wheels are connected to a generator, and the "reason for our life" is working our ass off for the rich elite.
We give them 2/3 of our life and time so they can live in extraordinary luxury without ever working.
Its a even bigger shame that the majority of people on earth are barely able to have a good life with their job(s), hell, some even say they are lucky because they got a "safe" job!
@@harrison00xXx hmmm, I didn’t think of it that way. Interesting.
Of course ike was rightabout military industrial complex... he helped to built it after all
@@kmmediafactory What you're describing is LBJ during Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary has him on tape caring a lot more about re-election and the polls than how many Vietnamese civilians are going to be killed in his bombing raids, or how many American soldiers are going to die with each of his troop expansions. Nixon was even worse.
Carpet bombing in ww2 was very accurate, every bomb hit the ground.
How true.
Collateral damage like shit happens
Ben From SK
, sorry Ben, som3 bombs fell into the South China Sea in anticipation of China building islands there.
Too funny--all they needed was to cut loose about 10,000 bombs and GRAVITY did the rest...
The allied bombing campaign did force Germany to pull what few planes and pilots they had off the front and use them for home defense.
I love this presentation; I've been thinking the same thing. It's difficult to plan, execute a campaign plan if you know you'll be replaced in 1-2 years.
@@adeptavatar9394 well it depends on the definition of ‘winning’, and what the objectives are.
@@MattDW45 Short term objectives driven at by uninterested Careerists .... best summed up thusly: " We were not "At War" in Afghanistan for 20 years .... we were on offense for a few months in 2001-2002, and then engaged in 8-12 little private police actions that lasted just as long as the Commander that was calling the shots did.... and the only rule was "don't look bad on TV".
Now apply that same thinking to government. When as a representative you have to literally begin campaigning for re-election as soon as you arrive in DC, you have problems. Even the Senators spend one-third their time fund-raising and campaigning rather than actually solving the problems that the US faces.
America is too ephemeral and impersonal to stay on top for long.
"Attack at dawn"
"Why wait, we'll attack at midnight"
Absolute beastmode.
More relevant than ever August 2021. Very enjoyable lecture. I have a feeling we’re not gonna learn and this thing is going to have to go down before it goes up.
To be fair, they never had a chance of "winning" in Afghanistan. The moment we left, they were always going back to their old ways unless you spent a few more decades there, sent out missionaries and enforced Christianity. And even that might not have worked, it's bloody Afghanistan. It's called the Graveyard of Empires for a reason.
@@PumpkinHoard And even the people who wanted to be free of the Taliban lost faith in the new government once they realised it consisted of the same warlords that had tormented the civilian population from the beginning.
Agreed. You can't paint 20th century on 12th century minds stuck in tribalism savagery
@@willthomas234 I'm not advocating doing it. I'd prefer if our militaries stopped fucking with the middle east personally.
But frankly, yes. Yes it does work. It has been done many, MANY times. There's a lot of religions that don't exist anymore because this was done. Hell, Afghanistan used to be largely Buddhist. It's not anymore because Islamic countries ENFORCE their culture and religion.
I was merely stating the reality, this is what you would have to do if you intended to make real change in Afghanistan. Spend decades, if not centuries there enforcing a foreign culture/religion. Otherwise, they were always going straight back to their old ways the moment we left.
@@PumpkinHoard No, we just had to stay a decade or two more until the old guard of the Taliban were dead, there was absolutely no reason to replace Islam with anything else when the problem was the Taliban's form of extreme Islam. To try and snuff out Islam would just make us the enemy of the 90% of Afghans who don't want the Taliban and just want to be more like Jordan or Tunisia with their moderate, peaceful societies.
After almost 30 years of officer service ending a few years ago with the US Army which included a dozen overseas tours, seven of which were in combat zones, I can emphatically say this about each and every one of those deployments. I was constantly dismayed to see so much of the field grade officer and senior NCO corps groomed to volunteer nothing and do as little as possible (outside of their unit's typically narrow mission task list) so as to have every Soldier deploy and redeploy stateside without ever having to so much as endure wearing a bandaid. That meant that each branch discipline was discouraged from helping an outside discipline. The overarching missions laid out by the President and theater commander were often subverted by this mantra that the personal safety of one's own cadre and protecting Army equipment were of prime importance. That is one of the reasons why those nation-building experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan failed so miserably. Few officers had the wit or will to force the Iraqi or Afghani to conform to the newly prescribed norms and no general officers wanted to risk their safety records to make them try.
No wonder we failed with that type of thinking
@@scallen3841 "no general officers wanted to risk their safety records" that says it all
@@rockpadstudios so they did lead from the front like patton
@@rockpadstudios if that's the case we are screwed in the next major war situation .
Kurtz...
You only need to read Lt.Col Hackworth’s “About Face” to see exactly where the problem lies
After watching this lecture i bought mr Ricks book "The Generals" and learned a lot. I looked up the book you mention and i'm going to buy it. if you have any more books to suggest i would really appreciate it.
@@anastasiosgkotzamanis5277 look up jocko willink
@@kcb8130 thanks.
@@anastasiosgkotzamanis5277 i was gonna buy "The Generals" but I will just try and find it locally, used. I looked up Ricks, and dont wanna give him any of my money now. I am sure I can find a copy somewhere.
@@phlather i don't know all that much about Ricks, i am Greek. His book the generals is well written and researched. It covers from WW2 to Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2010s. The Vietnam part is very good, a lot of what he says agree with things i have read over the years. Naturally, i am for buying second hand books and saving on money.
As an aspiring colonel, I like this so much that I have come back to listen again. I also just shared it with all of my officers and senior enlisted today.
We're not fighting countries anymore, we're fighting ideas.
We've always been fighting ideas. National boundaries just have a tendency to contain them.
Nunya Bznss bang on. War on terror and war on drugs the military industrial complex is not set up to fight either of these ideas. You fight ideas with ideas. Big steps in the war on drugs could be taken by legalizing marijuana great idea. Big steps in the War on terror can taken by not trying to take every bodies else’s oil.
Wasn't Nazism an idea? Wasn't communism an idea?
Nazism isn't an idea??? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ grow a brain kid.
@@anthonywarren9885 We fought Nazi Germany smart guy, not insurgents armed with AKs and RPGs.
Check out a pic of Gen. Eisenhower compared to Gen. Milly and you may notice a significant difference in medals and ribbons on the front of their uniforms. General Milly has enough medals and ribbons to sink a boat while Gen. Eisenhower has a handful. Very telling of the culture change within the military.
Last person who had an obsession with medals was Lenoid Brenzhev of the USSR. Everyone hated him and joked that he would do a chest expansion surgery now and then to make room for one more gold star.
Matt, you got it. Eisenhower reminds us to trust in God, so Democracy party should do the same.
@@張洪鈞 What about the saying: Keep your powder dry.
I mean some responsibilities are our to do as well.
Maybe more of a change in uniform policies. Gen. Milley was a Green Beret. You expect him to have less ribbons than Eisenhower?
Unfair comparison..
1
nobody wore all medals on a regular uniform during WW2
Eisenhower had much more medals at later time on his dress uniform.
Get the right picture to compare too and you'll find eisenhouwer had more bling then his handful you refer too.
2
Eisenhower had ZERO combat commands.. He never led men into battle because he completely missed out WW1 and in the interbellum he was a staff officer, so he could never have won any medals for gallantry like Milly DID earn.
That's not Milly's fault, nor is it a diss on Ike, it's just a fact that he never held a combat command.
I'm a former AF officer/pilot but have been in the business world (supercomputing primarily) for 35 years. This video, IMHO, should be mandatory viewing for each and every senior leader in the Fortune 1000.
it should be showed to every little child as part of their education. because it is the same way a prosperous and healthy society works and evolves
@P4N1 Agreed.
As others have noted, your point is sound but needs a broader application. The best organizations, civilian and military, operate this way in the United States. A good counterexample is Germany. Outstanding, well-educated workforce. Great capacity for critical thinking. But an aversion to risk born of such abject penalties for failure as to make it all go for naught most of the time.
@P4N1 I teach at a university. Red ink is my friend. In fact, I'm about to replace another red pen very soon.
This man is a great public speaker. Not only does he present well but he also engages other people well even in such a immense social setting. Not to mention all of the criticism and shit talking of not only the system but also prominent individuals. Our country is not perfect; but damn am I proud of our culture listening to this. You couldn't get away with this in many other contemporary nations let alone throughout most of human history.
“If you don’t punish failure, you can’t reward success”
19:07 well spoken
Tom Ricks is the standard that journalists should be held to. Subject matter expert, thick skin, historical perspective.
thick beard too
One can hope, but I think journalism is heading in the opposite direction unfortunately.
@@hristiyanhristov3662 It's not journalism that's headed in the wrong direction. Real journalists do great work, it's just that a lot of people prefer to read or listen to editorialists who agree with them.
I have family who are actual reporters and journalists. They are great at explaining a situation and showing facts. It's just that we live in a time where people value opinions more than facts.
@@Damorann Oh, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean that there are no great journalists today, what I meant is that they are no longer the standard and hence that objective journalism is going to hell, replaced by sensationalism and propaganda. It's extremely taxing job to be an honest and fact-based journalist today, not only because of the unfair sensationalism competition, but because journalists are actually in danger if they go great lengths in revealing the truth. I completely agree with you bar one thing - people seem to value nothing and hence they can't appreciate or hell, can't even see real journalism even if it hit them in the head.
That anecdote of Sanchez is entirely legit. I have an Army buddy that was in 1st AD when Sanchez was division commander. He said Sanchez relished in torturing junior officers in briefings just as Mr. Ricks described.
There was no front line, no real mission statement, no help from the south Vietnamese who sat on the fence knowing we would eventually leave or worst we'd stay. If you asked a villager why we were there they would have a blank look on their face because no one had that answer, we grunts didn't. All we knew was that at any time we would have to attack or defend some hill on the map. A hill we would kill or die for and then leave behind, only to come back to at some later date and after the NVA regrouped and dug in deeper so we could do it all over gain. Bait, that's what the combat ground troops were and we knew it. LBJ decided to cut and run out on us but Ho had no such thought. At that moment the enemy knew we were going to lose, maybe they always knew because they could never leave. And still the blood flowed on both sides because the vampires ruled disguised as politicians on both sides. There has never been a movie that can transmit the true hell of Vietnam on the grunt level where your own country deserted you as you died in that dark place without dignity or hope. SF
Not even Apocalypse Now?
@@jacoblevenson7934
Or the battle scene at the end of Platoon?
USA DROPPED 2.7MILLION TONS OF BOMBS OF BOMBS ON NEUTRAL CAMBODIA FOR PEACE jeeeeeeeeez
@@tuforu4
More like for $
@@tuforu4 Not sure exactly why Nixon did it but Cambodia was used by the North Vietnamese to get troops into South-Vietnam and it was close by so a valid target.
This's basic leadership: you don't micromanage, the head boss is charged with equipping and training and supplying the men, and then cutting them loose to do their jobs with as little interference from Supreme HQ as possible; Supreme HQ deals with civilians and production and resources, the field HQs deal with leadership of the military units.
it makes them more mobile and agile
@@mr.mysteriousyt6118 What it does is make sure you don't overreact to anything, so as to keep proper balance in your campaigns.
@@Nate-uf4xk That "setting up government they don't want" is so true. It won't get to this point if the majority population prefer democracy and capitalism over communism/theocracy.
There are exceptions tho, like maybe China. If the CPP is abolished via invasion, majority of the Chinese people will probably support a new government. But that's just being optimistic. I'm not sure anymore if majority of the Chinese secretly hates their guberment.
This school is a farce and all the rest of them r idiots
@@Nate-uf4xk I think you're view is very valid: a massive failure of upper leadership at that does make sense for this disaster.
It's worth mentioning that General Shinkseki was fired for being a pessimist. But it turned out his pessimism was deeply warranted. Perhaps Marshal was mistaken when he imagined us as being forever unprepared for the next war in the sense that we're more than prepared for any conventional war, but that we no longer fight conventional wars. During the conventional Gulf War we suffered no defeats and hardly any losses. Perhaps in a situation like Iraq or Vietnam, the pessimists should be given a chance to challenge the holders of orthodox views.
"Generals always re-fight the last war." This is a human failing in all aspects of life. Terrorism is a totally different type of war, where I believe we are learning fast. Especially when you consider the government has learned this war involves not only military power, but also economic, financial, public relations and cultural components. In short, a full court press.
It's not the job of a general to decide whether to fight a war; it's his job to win it. Pessimism by generals would not have prevented engagement in Vietnam or Iraq, because those decisions were made by civilian officials.
I am inclined to believe that General Marshall meant that the USA was forever unprepared for the 'next war', that we were always busy looking at and fighting the last war. The US Army that has been deployed since 1991 Gulf War is the one that was constructed in post-Vietnam buildip to fight the USSR, thus the innate inability to fight and defeat insurgency with conventional forces. Who ever thought that the tactic of using ground hardball Main Supply Routes was proper to conduct daily mobile search * destry mssions using Hummers? Military tactics and theory prescribe that one travels and fights the enemy on 'terms/tactics' which favor oneself and not the enemy. The extensive use of helicopters, UAVs, Special Forces and surgical night raids should have been the prevailing tactics in both Iraq and Afghanistan, not foot or motorized patrols that could be watched and ambushed with IEDs by the enemy.
there is an iron rule , pesimists are always right and optimists are always wrong
Shinseki was also involved in geopolitical planning/strategy at the point he was fired and not the execution of a campaign. I think that is a different zoom level than what the "Marshall Model" is referring to in this talk.
As a career civilian with the Defense Department, our contracts teams successfully bought millions of widgets with very few mistakes (under 10 out of millions), we purchased airplanes, jet engines, overhaul and repair of military aircraft and many other types of widgets and consultants for research. I am proud to have worked with so many successful military & civilians.
I remember being a kid in Europe and already asking my father why does a two striped lieutenant in the states have more medals than my father who fought an independence war in an ex colony and retired as a 2 star general. I’m sure there’s no lack of talent and courage out there but that makes you look to the other armed forces like a bunch of kids showing off their pins for participation in Sunday charity event
Participation Trophies!!~
My father didn't serve in active duty, but I remember him telling me that in America, you get medals for tying you shoes
When I was in the army (British) I heard a rumour that the Yanks get a stripe for any American involved warzone they fly through or over. So if they were deployed to Afghanistan and there were four campaigns going on in Europe or Africa, for each air space they flew threw where an active campaign was going on they'd receive the stripe.
Probably bollocks, but it would certainly explain it. I once saw a Corporal (US Army) who has about 12 stripes, he'd only been in 4 years, so he'd have to have been at war the entire time to achieve that.
@@backwatersage Not heard it myself. And sure British Army is sort of an overstatement, as I left I think we'd dipped below 100K soldiers meaning we can only be classed as a militia or something now :P
US military is a bit odd like that. I did some deployments to combat zones, but as a truck and heavy equipment mechanic. My biggest accomplishment was running a mechanic shop relatively well. However, if you saw my ribbon rack, you might think I actually did something.
This was a very informative and poignant in light of current events of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Thank you.
Well, I don’t think anyone planning the evacuation took into account that the Afghan government would totally and completely collapse so rapidly and completely. I don’t think even the Taliban anticipated that.
@@johncronin9540 We literally ghosted them in the middle of the night. The ANA forces in bases like Bagram woke up to a complete absence of US personnel - and we left in such a hurry that we abandoned multitudes of military equipment. With how this "withdrawal" was carried out, it makes zero sense how no one behind the scenes anticipated the ANA getting curbstomped by the Taliban after we more or less sucker punched them from the back.
This was either a withdrawal planned and conducted by the most incompetent leaders in US military history, or all an entirely intentional plan by one factor or another. No other way about it.
@@johncronin9540 we left in complete disgrace. Worst possible outcome
@@trey6563 from the other side of the planet, and from someone who has never served in any armed force (kudos and love to those who have), I think you’ve just chosen the most apt word in our language to describe the last 20 years in the Middle East. A disgrace. Starting with an illegal George W. Bush and Tony Blair war that basically skipped the UN process, and ending with a power vacuum that is almost a war crime on its own.
I think the hardest part is a relief not being terminal. Our culture changed so much, we see a relief as proof for a failure and not the failure's actions. It fundemently is in stark contrast to the humane ideal - that every human has the potential to improve upon himself.
Also many people have forgotten the meaning of prudence
I wonder if, for relief to not be terminal to a carrier, a domineering external challenge is required. I.E., a really consequential enemy, a real war. WW2 is the icon of that. All the others since weren't nearly the same threat to US survival or freedom.
America has become so rich that now men want to give birth to babies.
@@filmymela4638 It aint gonna happen.
What is a relief?
I wonder if the culture change was a direct consequence of the cold war. Previously you had the principle that "America goes to war unprepared", and as a result officers gain promotion in an environment where there are opportunities to distingush themselves. Post WW2 there is a need to maintain a substantial armed force in a state of readiness. Without open conflict an officer can either do their job properly or not, there is no opportunity to "excel". Promotion becomes a matter of who has the cleanest record.
Patreus REALLY KNOWS the reporters he's talking to. That was prescient in hindsight.
It was not just the rifting of generals. Fighting an enemy that has no fronts is hard. No clear picture of who is who. Also the rotating of troops is hard. By the time you get settled in and learn the AO it’s time to go home. Lastly, no one leads from the front. The
absolutely. This "relieving generals" seems to be Ricks's hobby horse to the extent that he completely ignores the fact that most of the later conflicts weren't the pitched battle model. Makes you wonder about quality control in the miltary history field, too.
South Vietnam a point in case; why would you think a minority Catholic Government is valid proposition for an overwhelmingly non-Christian country? You know is corrupt and unpopular, why would you expect a positive outcome, given the conditions?
Syria today, why would you back the Wahhabi ‘Free Syrian Army’ (let’s not kid ourselves) over a SECULAR head of state? Haven’t we learned from Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan?
@@frankstein9982 I was actually thinking this guy seem to fixate on relief when the examples he give point at other problems. Civil war's management was catastrophic and firing of generals indicated incompetence. As he said, Patton not being fired and keeping him for his talent was critical. Also, you could attack at 4 am and catch an army marshalling for dawn because it is a regular army fighting a conventional war.
What people say in the comments about the education and training seems much more accurate in terms of identifying the problem
I think the chain of command is fking clueless about the dynamics of the operation, who they are working or dealing with and the subordinates are thaught to believe the command has the perfect information to make the best decisions
@@frankstein9982 Well, it’s all he focused on in this lecture, anyway, and it is an area that doesn’t get a lot of attention. Ultimately, it’s the civilians who decide where and when to do the fighting, not the military. And that was a huge problem, especially in Vietnam and Iraq, where little thought was given to our purpose in even going to war there in the first place.
Even in Afghanistan, it would seem that the civilians changed the purpose of the mission over time, and lost sight of the original goal.
Then there’s the interesting fact that WWII was the last time that Congress declared war, not the president. Korea, at least, had UN official backing (largely because the Soviet Ambassador was boycotting UNSC meetings, and thus was absent when the UNSC voted to take action against North Korea’s invasion of South Korea. As a result, the USSR didn’t exercise its veto power in the Security Council.
Since then, however, the Congress has more or less completely abdicated its sole authority to declare war, and left it with one person - the president. This was something the Founders and Framers did not want. They wanted more than one individual to have the authority to take the nation to war.
But it’s possible that the hosts of the lecture wanted to confine the subject to purely military matters. The politics can get in depth, especially for a time frame of only one hour.
The
Even to this day, we continue to judge Afghanistan at a national level. The ANA vs the Taliban, etc. We continue to just group those factions together as if they are unified forces in typical western style warfare. It just shows despite 20 years, we still never understood.
True. Afghanistan doesn’t exist, really. And so does it’s army. It’s a bunch of tribes and warlords all fighting each other and not a coherent nation.
Actualy atghanistan was a monarchy once but bad politcal moves and geography made it fracture.
There WAS a western general who subdued Afganistan after defeating and integrating Iran -Alexander the Great. His methods included taking a capable woman as a wife, and he encouraged his soldiers to do likewise. I'm not sure if this would be acceptable as a main method today, but it sure helped better understanding.
@@simpl51 Not really. Alexander was an effective cult of personality, but his empire fell apart into separate kingdoms as soon as he died.
i mean i dont see often typical US pple trying to understand something at all in every subject
Can relate to that last answer. I was in Iraq during 08, by that time - it was “move out like you’re looking for a fight”. Worked well for us. Now, I’m glad I’m retired. Feel sorry for those going in now.. how it has changed …
Interesting video! Coming at this from a British point of view, it reminds me of the Royal Navy during its most successful period in the 1700s and 1800s. After Admiral Byng was shot (on his own quarterdeck!) for not being seen to fight hard enough at Minorca, the message to British sea officers was pretty clear: If you get into battle and you don't fight hard enough, you'll be in danger of being shot when you get home. Always pursue, always press the attack, even when the odds are against you. Only retreat when the odds are overwhelming.
This led to a Navy that was constantly on the offensive, which had huge benefits in terms of training and effectiveness, which led to an even greater change of victory. While the enemy (often the French) stayed in port, playing it safe, the Royal Navy was at sea, itching for a fight.
This culminated, I'd say, in Nelson - the man who was just on the right side of reckless, always pressing the attack, *constantly* - and the great victory at Trafalgar.
Then as time went by, the Navy became complacent again, and by Jutland, that incredible fighting spirit had been lost after a century of playing it comparatively safe.
The British navy was exceptionally effective in ww2 the problem during ww1 was a combination of technology being too advanced in some areas and not enough in others
@andrion waser That's right. "Press-ganging" was pretty common through the whole period of the Napoleonic Wars (and originated much, much earlier!). In theory it only applied to men with experience at sea, but the Impress Service weren't always as picky as they should have been.
It's a fascinating period, in many ways. There's high professionalism on the one hand combined with (essentially) legalised kidnapping on the other. To say nothing of brutal discipline and oppression.
Noting a similar problem as is being highlighted in the video -----
In the 1914-1918 war, The navy having been a dominant, and to most degrees unopposed force - was one that had some terrible things going on. They hated gunnery practice because it made ships dirty. They reached a point where rot had deeply set in. In WW1, The navy which carried a force projection capability and cost levied at enormous levels - was to a majority steak - under used, and sat on its fat arse.
In WW2, the RN in sorted form - mostly - played a part that was larger than its size and contributed to winning a war so far beyond WW1 RN, with less resources that it has to be looked at wide eyed.
In terms of the gents in the video, I would say I place Swartzkopf in a different league - at least in terms of events - but that he was one the one that to the most degree was told go and win a war. The others have had the nightmare of international policing, with hands politically tied to a degree in WW2 was nominally the opposite. I could say more but will keep this short.
Very good lecture, IMHO. I'm a civilian from Brazil - a country where the military is still seen as a bad institution because of the 64-85 military regime. I really like him mentioning Marshall's interest in getting Brazil in WWII - we were the only Latin American country to fight that war and I've seen more praise for our efforts in US military writings than I see in Brazil. One day, researching about the "rubber soldiers" - civilians who went into the Amazon to produce rubber for the war effort and our greatest losses during WWII reaching up to 30,000 people or more - and I found a text by a US association of WWII veterans talking about but very few texts about it in Brazil and none so good as the US one.
Você ainda tem o link?
@@DaviHorner Infelizmente não. O vídeo sumiu. Vou passar as pistas: é feito por uma equipe de vídeo, dos EUA, que foi convidada para registrar o making off de um filme sobre Chico Mendes que acabou não sendo feito. O cara que contratou eles é brasileiro e foi contratado pelo estúdio para procurar locações para o filme (que estava sendo feito na América Central). O cara então chama a equipe americana para conhecer a origem de Chico Mendes que, se não me engano, é filho de um dos Soldados da Borracha. A série é feita em vídeo e são vários episódios curtos. Boa sorte!
Max. I worked with several Brazilians in the Middle East……I always thanked them for Brazils support in WW2 … they were surprised that I had
read about your countries contribution. My son likes Brazil as he has a job that allows him to travel. Thank you.
WW2 was a nation wide effort.
If you visited America during WW2 you would see women working in Factories ,professional sports canceled, car plants building tanks and everyone on rations.
If you visited the US during the other wars,you would see people were living exactly as it would be in peacetime.
Woodstock, rock and roll and driving muscle cars was what people did during the Vietnam war.
1st, a definition of win is needed. What would winning in Korea and Vietnam have been? Unconditional surrender? Capturing the capitol? Pyongyang fell to the UN forces, but MacArthur's failure to gather and read the intelligence that was there to be found resulted in the Allies being driven back into S. Korea. No victory like anything resembling WWII was possible in either Korea or Vietnam because wars are only a means to an end. In other words, wars are fought to achieve political ends,and are not the end in itself. N. Vietnam and N. Korea would never surrender because they had a clear purpose that was more important to them than it was important to the Americans to win, whatever that meant. Only the utter destruction of those 2 countries would have yielded anything resembling a victory, something that was not politically tolerable, desirable, or feasible to the American political leadership, because the American public would not support that.
@@pakelika100 This. So much this.
And if true Americanism is to be considered, isnt one of America's main points about independence and self determination?
In Vietnam, one could argue that the US did in fact win, even though the US regime at the time lost.
Theyre an independent country that is self determining and today has pretty good relations and trade with the US.
I dont see how thats not in the US's best interest.
Im interested to see how the conflict in Vietnam gets seen in the coming years.
Tom Ogburn
Good point. I tend to agree with you
The Vietnam American war was a special balancing act in that it was limited by design. Even though we mined Haiphong harbor, we did not want to get either China or Russia involved. There was no real propaganda war or mobilization of the American population. Johnson put reins on the right wing. No nukes. No massive invasions. The terrain was not suitable for invasion anyway. The good thing about Vietnam is that it did not turn into world war three. The bad thing is that we ever got involved as a nation. So many American draftees killed. So many draftees later killed themselves. Massive inflation caused at home due to deficit spending. So much hate created for the US Government.
@@tomogburn2462 So America could have achieved its goals if it had just allowed full elections in Vietnam and walked away or never gotten involved.
WWII was launched by a people with the mindset of audacity, fire, and risking taking. All those people got demolished. A great example was Heinz Gudarian, "Hurrying Heinz" that led the Germans to victory in France. He surrendered in 1945 and was imprisoned until 1948. Nearly all the Japanese field commanders instilled in their subordinates the Yamato-damashii. And the majority of Japanese service personal went to their deaths believing it. Mean while the US went to huge lengths to make sure men and material were not sent to destruction without cause. Japan rarely ever bothered to rescue their down pilots. The US rescued hundreds of downed air men. That meant by the middle of 1943 the most experienced pilots in the Pacific were American not Japanese. WWII is the largest cluster-f in history. SNAFU and FUBAR came out of that conflict and not without reason. We won because we had the money, factories (unbombed) and lots of people to work in the factories. The US Army Air Corps biggest problem by 1944 was over production. That led to simply not bothering to repair fighters and bombers. Just pushed them off the run way or dump them into the sea, there is plenty more where those came from. War is a math problem. Chivalry, valor, tenacity, all that mean nothing without bucks to back it up. Also a clear objective that is achievable. We did not go to war against fascism in WWII. Spain was a fascist dictatorship, armed by the Nazi's, that simply sat WWII out by declaring neutrality. We also did not fight to liberate Japan or Germany, but to bring them to their knees. My father's medal, denoting his service in Japan, does not say Army of Liberation, it says Army of Occupation. And the Noritake china that I have from Japan does not say made in Liberated Japan, but made in Occupied Japan. Also we called the department that ran our effort in WWII the War Department, instead of the Defense Department. The later sounds so great, but war is all hell and not good and terrible and nothing but mechanized mass murder. So why not just go back to calling it the War Department? Lastly make sure that, when we go to war, we declare it. That means that Congress and the POTUS are tied together in the fighting of it. The candy assed way we do it now is that Congress passes a continuing resolution and then totally allows the POTOS a free hand. This approach allows Congress to bitch of this go wrong without the responsibility, and it allows for more mission creep by the DOD, since Congress is in the dark. Not good. Also TAX people for the war. Another way to have unending wars that do not do shit, is to not have any pain felt by the general population. That way most of America can forget about the war since only a tiny fraction of people actually have to deal with it.
Bravo sir, very well said.
What's your point even
@@andrewmarshall4527 call wars war, and have the general populace be affected by them, then the general populace wont want to get into wars if they can avoid it.
I see you say " we won because we had money" I'd like to introduce you to the city of Pittsburgh, I'm sure you know where it is, but did you know that during WW2 Pittsburgh outproduced all 3 major axis powers in terms of steel production? combined btw, Italy, Japan and Germany, combined, even stealing from those around them to get more, were still outproduced by 1 city in our beautiful USA. they never had a chance and they knew it themself, Hitler's first minister of Economics(before dying in a plane crash) was reported saying many times that they would need to win the war before the U.S.A. ever got involved or as he said the war wouldn't be winnable if they had to fight the economy of all their enemies, and the U.S.A. with its insane productions.
Damn read an actual history book, dont be so brainwashed...
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist"
Dwight Eisnehower on January 17, 1961.
tex talks battle tech
We NEED journalists like this guy again!
It helps a lot when you can see and identify your enemy, build tactics based on that principle.
Essentially (sports analogy), go back to the bench, sort out yourself (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc), observe the game, orient yourself (see the patterns), bring your voice and your energy back, and finally add new energy to the game (from a better vantage point). Repeat the pattern (if necessary). Great presentation!
Now looking back upon this lecture after the debacle of the pull out of Afghanistan, and 20 years of combat operations there , Mr Ricks has been proven very right by history.
We were not doing anything good in the AfPak Fiasco
The installed government fled; the Afg Army was selling their rifles and boots
@@markrossow6303 not only that, u seed the wind for the storms to come, u forget with that second Saigon there.. u lost the heart of any supporter for the west wich was there, and many will die, in the end u strengthen the undemocratic Fighters there, showing them who was with them and who not, the Fighters simply dive under the radar, learning from the enemy... its not only u wasting the weapons to the wrong hands, its u even trained them how to fight agains a supermighty modern army, showing them all teh weaknesses, and were to look and not to look and how u work...
the complete Ignorance of History and Landlords, the downfall of Afganistan begann, the moment the US installed the Dictator there ... and that was Decades ago, bevore that Afganistan was a prosper Democratic state... and who knows maybe its not just agains russia, maybee its a bigger Plan to place Seeds of Turmoil for the future so all other Countrys have to deal with, while US is so far away and can conzentrate on theyr own...
The mistake was getting involved in the first place.
qamrmn007
There was NO WAY to pull out of Afghanistan with a victory because of past decisions. So it's either keep troops there in a sunk cost fallacy or pull them out. No matter who did it it was going to end bad because of Bush Era mistakes.
Would love to hear his thoughts on Afghanistan now that the whole thing is over.
I was going to say "an update pls 10 yrs on". Perhaps the civilians didn't watch this lecture. Sorry... perhaps the politicians did watch it but decided to leave it to the military in case they needed a patsy?
Is it over? We went in there for a reason , and is that reason going to be a problem now that we are back to the begining
Now white Supremacist Joe Biden is threatening China, when the US can’t even beat the Taliban. The US is the laughing stock of the world.
@@Honorablebenaiaha that chomo joe biden, he can't do shit to china. they have stairs. lots and lots of stairs.
One big reason for the change in the military since WW2 is that the ruling class washed its hands of serving soon after it ended. Unlike the current officer corps, people like FDR's sons and the sons of other powerful civic, social and financial leaders didn't need the service for financial security because they already had it, so weren't motivated (crippled) by careerism and dreams of a pension.
All of Roosevelt's sons served, none of Clinton's, Bush's or Obama's kids did so. The ruling classes or their major domos no longer have skin in the game outside of the profiteering
I listened to this entire thing thinking this was recent…turns out it’s 10 years old! nothing has changed. wow.
Whoever did that lighting needs a raise.
More aptly, they should be relieved.
Excellent speech! Finally, a YT video that has excellent content and isn't spoken by a computer generated voice! Thank you, Mr. Ricks.
You'd be surprised to know how humane a computer generated voice can sound
The main reason generals were more successful in WW2 is that the civilian leaders at the top of the government kept their nose out of war-making decisions. Eisenhower was basically told your the boss. Hold the coalition together and win the war. Even Gen. Marshall basically left Eisenhower, McArthur and Nimitz alone and let them successfully prosecute the war. Vietnam especially was micromanaged by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Commanders in Vietnam often had to wait for permission from McNamara to execute a mission.
lack of REMFs breathing down the necks of the Generals and Admirals
Ricks makes an important observation, but I think the big thing he's leaving out of the analysis is the fact that in WW2 there was temporary wartime promotion, separate from an officer's "permanent rank" in peacetime -- Patton liked to tease Ike that "I still outrank you in peacetime". So, these officers Ricks talks about who were given an army command, then relieved and sent back, then given another command, that was all the equivalent of "Monopoly money" ranks being given and taken away, which don't have direct impact on their permanent rank or career prospects. In contrast, the later Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan wars were done with peacetime permanent ranks, so the assignment you have is much more directly tied to your career prospects -- you're supposed to be capable of handling that command or you wouldn't have the rank in the first place, so if you get your command taken away, you're never getting another promotion and you might as well retire.
It's hard to measure conventional effectiveness when no one will face you conventionally
Yup.
Different rules of engagement; different commitment by the United States government, i.e., the ENTIRE US economy was on a war-footing from 1940-1945...yes, we were 'at war' before we were At War. During WWII, virtually everything in the USA was oriented on war production; in these wars lately, (Iraq and Afghanistan) life in the USA went on normally....nothing disturbed due to the war.
Sorry to reply to you 1 year later, but I only just came to this video.
while the US is not technically on a war production footing, our daily lives are affected by the wars we currently fight. Our spending priorities are on the current wars, and our infrastructure is crumbling, receiving a very bad grade from the society of engineers. We do not fund social programs, and ongoing problems with VA funding stretch back decades.
I feel like you're not giving enough credit to insurgent tactics. Just calling them different rules of engagement and then acting as if ramping up the war economy would solve that isn't really looking at the issue from as much of a politically sensitive stance as America had to take in these wars. The fact that we couldn't just bomb every Iraqi and Afghan city into oblivion like we did in WW2 and instead let the insurgents somewhat dictate where the fights would occur was a massive hindrance in my view. I'm not saying there wasn't a great amount of collateral damage either, but completely crushing the resistance was made nigh impossible without much greater commitment to destroying hives of resistance.
To the guy above me saying the war has effected us I would say obviously yes and probably in a great many ways that aren't transparent to us, but you can't say it was anything like what we would need to wage total war against an economically developed nation somewhere closer in strength to us like Germany or Japan. I don't think he meant to imply that there were no concessions made in order to support the war, but that it wasn't like milk and gasoline were being rationed and everyone was buying bonds and growing victory gardens.
You oversimplify and no professional military historians agree with you. I suggest you begin by reading maps. Korea was a sideshow. Europe mattered more and diverting more forces would have been a gross strategic error. Doubly so for Viet Nam. I defy you to articulate a compelling strategic reason the US should have been in Viet Nam. You cannot do it. Afghanistan is an entirely different kind of war, also not worth endless escalation. We baited the Soviets and they learned that lesson.
The Soviets could bomb as they wished. It failed. They killed about a million Afghans. Airpower narcissists exist on all sides.
I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with here. Europe mattered more, but for the most part all of Europe was within the spheres of influence of one side or the other to the point where little provocation could start WW3. East Asia looked to the planners of the time as potentially extremely important at some point in the future. Retrospectively having ultimately lost Vietnam, America looks like the fool for trying in the first place, but you can't say these proxy wars were meaningless. Both sides in these wars actively tried to make it completely unworth the effort for the larger aggressor and then tried to reap some benefit from the smaller defender. This might seem cynical, but historically nations interact based on value of action to themselves just as individuals do with nations having generally well understood reputations and planning sometimes very far into the future. They don't always see the whole picture, but you can't say that South Korea has not been an economically important beacon of Western intervention and governing styles(At least recently) and likewise you cannot say that China has received no political utility and labor utility from their buffer slave state of North Korea.
Within the same decade that the proxy wars occurred the only obvious effect would be economic stress on the aggressor and defender, although the defender at the time didn't matter so much as a political player and instead this was really a way of settling disputes and keeping super/great powers nationally competitive in the nuclear age. If a developed nations like the US or USSR/Russia can go in to undeveloped nations completely unopposed and develop them economically then certainly these areas are extremely important both as conduits to the larger countries as cheap labor and trade, but also as political capital for smaller neighbors or even people across the planet in the information age.
It's sad to say, but in the age we're in just as in every age there has been economic value to human life that nations are willing to 'invest'. Media coverage of this has made this fact more...obfuscated... by current nations with each having their own method of spinning it until it's unrecognizable or completely keeping it hushed up, but 100% it is still happening and while all these wars may seem senseless they are indeed anything but. This is rational and has been made to seem conspiratorial and you only critique these decisions with the benefit of hindsight that the planners of the time didn't have.
General Patton Quote :
"Kill the Enemy"
Simple yet effective
@Craig Wooldridge yet we now have a president who courts that enemy
He also said that he'd fought the wrong enemy, shortly before he was assassinated.
Pitt Burgh, I don’t think you should bring race into this. That’s not a main purpose at all. Are these other commenters going against Trump because they believe he’s bad for attacking a non white race? Which of course some people there are white, however, race doesn’t matter at all in war and shouldn’t matter in politics.
Fight for your country, let the other Son of a bitch die for there's. Patton
@@darrenhooper3828 PWEE GUY n PUSSYGRABBER.
Very informative. Thank you very much.
I’m watching this in the aftermath of the collapse of Afghanistan. The story about McCrystal and Sanchez seem like ancient history now. Now I wonder if General Milley or other recent generals knew what they were doing.
95% of the population of Afghanistan hate US soldiers in their country.
I believe the objectives were wrong. We won militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Vietnam. I think we are not good at nation building in a land with a totally foreign culture. I'm not sure that it is even the job of a General officer.
@@georgechristoforou991 We went there to find Al-Quida and curb stomp them. Military is not a peace or nation building organization.
@@daviddevault8700 Was that after not finding him in Iraq? What about Syria? Surely the US were not still looking for him in Syria or Libya? Especially considering that he had been killed in Pakistan. You have a totally wrong idea when you start thinking in terms of nation building. "Nation building" is just a propaganda term that is spoon fed to the American general public to make invasions by the US more acceptable.
Milley is a communist, so of course he doesn't know what he's doing. He's a moron.
Very insightful video regarding flag officers. Most today seem to like their “participation awards” rather than earned medals. Different class of leaders today versus those of the greatest generation.
In 1982 I resigned my commission and put 10.5 years of the Army behind me. I woke up one morning and said to myself, “This Army’s military leadership are bureaucrats, not soldiers.” Coupled this with the crappy political leadership and my decision solidified.
What the fuck is a gew?
President Reagan was a poor political leader? I would disagree. 1972 to 1982 however must have been a very difficult time to be in the US Army ending of Vietnam, post Vietnam. Would be I interested to hear about your time in the military. Thank you for your service. God bless. Merry Christmas.
You can thank wo-MEN for undermining the military
There's a director of military affairs at Cal-Berkeley?
Ricks missed the mark ever so slightly with his conclusion ("It is time to restore the tradition of relief"). He alluded to what I believe is the more pressing issue earlier in his prepared remarks when he said, "it is more difficult to relieve commanders in unpopular wars" and that this change in behavior started during the Korean War, which was the first of a series of unpopular American wars following WWII.
So rather than being about restoring the tradition of relief, it seems to be more about restoring the tradition of fighting popular wars, and that relief would come naturally to Americans in that case (it had always come naturally before Korea, after all).
The bigger question then is why did the US start fighting unpopular wars after WWII? The answer to that is what we need to better understand.
Two reasons: (1) Americans went back to Isolationism - they tend to have a cocoon mentality, and (2) they knew that war was a primitive solution, and it was time humans matured beyond that (unfortunately the rest of the world was not there yet).
That is a great question/point.
Profits!
Why did the US start fighting unpopular wars after WWII? -- Globalism demands that America become unpopular, then impotent. We should have returned to isolationism, but it was impossible: foreign enemies using media and electronics found new ways to fight. Koreans and Vietnamese are Communists (as is China, Russia), not a far cry from Socialism (remember: it was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST - not Communist - SOCIALIST Republics).
Fighting over how to divide Germany, then dividing Germany
Japan being the impetus for USA to enter war, despite Churchill's requests
Italy escapes punishment -- Germany and Japan are mostly blamed for the war
* The Pope knows how to back a winner --- or sink into the shadows and wait for later
and MOST IMPORTANT: Israel being made a nation three years following
* History being made in the 20th Century, and God's Book displays more proven prophecy
These are things we forget when we talk about WW2.
I agree with Ricks here, let me say it in a more-broad stroke: the progressives, the globalists, the socialists of the world were born or woken. All that is happening today? Much of it is a result of rebellion against the WW2 mindset: healthy churches, man and woman getting married, the continuous efforts to help your fellow man (no matter skin color), the rule of law, the support of a government truly balanced, and yes: risk taking because real punishment ensues -- these things are what make America a great nation: the freedom to do what is right and correct, the freedom to fix the problems, the freedom to speak the truth.
* These benefits of the Western World and the Free Markets, the idea that freedom is good for all people: all of that is going away --- Socialism destroys your profit margin, your options, your ability to create and produce arts, products, and supplies, it destroys the human spirit.
High taxes, low progressive status, and then: twenty year old Muslim men seek "refuge" in your countries because -- evidently -- it is the women and the children that are stoning them and chopping their heads off. Those poor young Muslim men... (sarcasm)
We are witnessing first-hand what Russia has already gone through over a 100 years ago -- with the resulting deaths of over 30-40 MILLION people in the sole name of Socialism, coming right up on a silver platter.
And young people are eating this "socialist equality" lie up like a dog laps vomit -- they have NO CLUE of what history teaches. Hey, be warned: young socialists seek to change the history because they don't understand the importance of retaining ALL HISTORICAL FACTS: good - bad - and the ugly. Save it all, you will need to understand those facts, later.
Those who destroy history are destined to repeat it, and there is nothing new under the sun.
Globalism is nothing short of a World Dictatorship -- except if a World Dictator rules the world with an iron fist... and make no mistake, there are no benevolent rulers extant... they all have two faces if given ultimate power... who will save us from a tyrant world leader?
I know the answer to that question.
@@emeraldquack4406 young and old social seek to change the future from nihilistic capitalism to something more fair and just for, living and dying with dignity! Why does Earth need billionaires?
I think WWII is hard to compare to more recent deployments. In WWII there was a meaningful and monumental task to complete. There was an active expansionist power invading allies at near total war scales. That situation compels creativity. I don't think the US military of the 1940s would have done better at chasing the Taliban around the mountains for vague reasons.
If you want a military to win a war muzzle the politicians, militaries didn't fail they weren't allowed to do what militaries are meant to do politicians these days are as deep as a puddle and can't stop interfering in the wars/conflicts they start.
The U S military wouldn't have been involved in crap like Afghanistan back in the 1940's.
The difference is that we wouldn't have "chased them around," we would have bombed all of them, including civilians, and occupied ground with a force 10x the size. All rules are off in a total war situation.
very true, situation is totally different.
agree
I came to watch David Letterman and stayed for the history lesson
Rules of engagement and media. Saved you an hour, you're welcome.
If they had listened to him ten years ago we wouldn’t have this disaster in Afghanistan brought to you by people who are complete failures who held their ranks
We would've still had a disaster.
I feel it's a bit of both.
1 starting a proxy war with Russia is a dumb idea to start with.
2. When we DID start a proxy war with Russia, we should have rotated our command a hell of alot more than we did.
Both of these; plus many other variables, led to our eventual withdrawal from the region.
@@Behemoth_Rogue At the end of the day Communism is better than Islamic rule in Afghanistan, same can be said anywhere. Soviets litterally forced women to be educated
There has never been success in Afghanistan… by anyone…. Including the Afghani …
Perhaps it might have gone better, but this was Afghanistan remember. The Graveyard of empires. The problem is any war there results in attrition and you'll never beat the Afghans at that game. It's their land, they know it best, and they can wait out foreign powers for generations.
It's amazing that the question needs to be posed. By far the biggest difference was the quality of military intelligence. In World War II, 'Ultra' -- developed in large measure by the Poles and British -- gave a nearly complete picture of German plans and intentions, while 'Magic' revealed those of the Japanese.
In later wars, the lack of intelligence has been stunning.When the war in Viet Nam began, the US embassy had no one who even spoke the language, In the end, nearly 20% of the ARVN Special Forces turned out to have been a "fifth column.' They disappeared overnight weeks before Saigon fell. In Afghhanistan, the number of 'green on blue' attacks has been astonishingly high and continues to be so. Yet even the basic knowledge of foreign languages is regarded as optional.
You should reconsider the role of the ARNV, they werent as bad as pictured in the media. They lost more than 1 million soldiers trying to hodl off the North, they are remembered ina bad way only ebcause they lost.
I suggest this guy's lectures: ua-cam.com/video/cvnJxX_9vvw/v-deo.html
At one point he mentions two generals who should have been relieved. One of them is MacArthur. IMO MacArthur should not just have been relieved, but court martialed for his complete bungling of the defense of the Philippines. Anyone got a hypothesis of how MacArthur escaped this fate?
Court marshalling Mac Arthur would have been terribly demoralizing for all Americans.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Yes MacArthur should have been court-martialed and cashiered out of the military like General Short and Adm Kimmel. MacArthur had several hours warning about the attack of Pearl Harbor every single one of the B-17s in the Philippines were destroyed on the ground!
Very good post. In the U.S. scheme of things failure is rewarded with retirement, an increase in rank and pay and dismissal from the service. Hitler had 87 of his general executed. No farting around with those Krauts.
Thank you, Dave Letterman
At the end, in an answer to a question relating to how the US Army has retrained itself, he says the US Army has not revised how it thinks about generalship. Totally true.
WW2 by in large was a conventional war with clear goals where the US Army was engaged against peer rivals who also had clear goals. I think this talk rather misses that key point!
EXACTLY, not to mention the other enemy that America now has to deal with is a media and social media that tend to twist around facts, or at the very least show the worst portion of what war does, to people who have no capacity to deal with it on a mental basis, and therefore support for the war is eroded on many levels on the home front.
yes, big difference between nation states conventional war and coin (counter insurgency) the U.S. has no business getting involved in 4 GW wars.
@Fat Bastard He makes excellent points, but the conclusion misses the mark. Many commanders', from general officers down to field grades, hands are tied by bureaucratic red tape set by civilian leadership based on politics, what's popular, or what will allow them to keep their jobs. So, unless a commander is relieved by someone willing to break the rules knowing they'll be relieved because of it later, then it may not matter. As an example, I've been in units where a Colonel was replaced by some swinging johnson known for kicking ass. A year later nothing was different because the new Colonel was crippled by the same stuff as the other guys. Meanwhile, civilian senior executives keep blaming incompetent commanders for not being able to navigate the BS they impose -- i.e., "it's not the rules that are the problem, everyone trying to work within them is the problem."
He's spot on about the value of relieving leaders -- to be a normal process, not as a career killer -- as well as many other points. But everyone has a boss, and the generals at the very top still have to operate within the confines of civilian leadership, regulations, and laws. I could write for days about how regulations implemented by nebulous, bureaucratic, unaccountable organizations in government hamstring the military's ability to be flexible, efficient, and more successful generally.
@@jaym2112 I get your point, but while his point was primarily in regards to combat commanders, this would also apply to the "REMF" and others who have built a litany of needless and overly complex regulations.
There is an added benefit to relief, and that is to provide high ranking officers with a refresher on the realities on the front lines.
The problem is that peace-time armies have a terrible track record in building effective war-time forces. There are very good reasons for that, as a peace-time army's priorities are very different, especially when it comes to things like budgets, retention and preparedness. Running a wartime army like a peace-time army or vice-versa is a recipe for disaster.
@@Silvertip_M I don't disagree with you. To be unjustly simplistic on a complex issue for brevity, let me say that my main point was that his focus on the military leadership, while correct, doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, he somewhat gives the civilian senior leadership a pass by saying that the 4-star levels get replaced by civilian leadership, but it doesn't really happen below that. As if the senior civilian leadership has the right sight picture but below does not.
Without getting into it too much more, my study of military history and experience in US military leadership is that policy decisions relating to ROEs, commitment of forces, and allocation of resources (Congress), etc, in very broad terms, has has the largest effect on war efforts. What he discussed is correct, but EVERY leader will have those same overarching constraints which may require an absolute rockstar to be only marginally effective.
I could talk about this a lot. I'd love to discuss the point about aligning attitudes and being team players and contrasting that with folks like Billy Mitchell as well. There's a lot here... It's an interesting topic. I already wrote more than I had time to though, heh.
Difference is the GENERALS were allowed to make the combat decisions and not POLITICIANS. That's why they won.
The A-Bombs had to be authorized by Truman and what the targets were. Otherwise we would be remembering X and Y Day Invasions and the slaughter of the Japanese people.
It also helps the Generals were better men back then.
@@Palmerrip Not really. Conventional bombing was already doing as much damage, just took a couple hours longer. The A bombs killed about as many American POWs as it did Japanese soldiers. Neither sites were military targets. The Atomic bombs were more a message to Soviets than a strategic action against Japan. Atomic bombs also released more radiation here over time from their construction and storage of waste materials than what actually hit Japan.
Not even close to being accurate.
@SteinbrecherBack That's the nature of war sadly. And why we have precision weapons instead of "just drop 400 bombs in this area" to get the combatant.
Too much trivia in Rick's presentation. During the question and answer he finally gets to the heart of the problem...comes down to the fact that we don't really understand the nature of our recent wars until it is too late. And that problem lies with both the civilian and military leadership.
Simply put, we’ve lost the art of war.
Nah, we lost the ability of rapid 'hiring and firing' which has demonstrably led to massive complacency from American Generals, Executive Officers (XO's) and staff alike.
Gross oversimplification. WW2 and Korea were the last wars with clear frontlines. Ever since then, enemies have been hiding among the population. Even if we, for example, dropped our entire army into, say. Afghanistan and they had 0 political influence, how do you A. fight an enemy that hides amongst the population and wears civilian clothing and B. win the hearts of minds of people who are hostile to you and will not rat out their friends and families who are our enemies? The soviets didn't care and killed 1 million afghans. Entire villages raised to the ground when the population would not comply with them and hid the resistance fighters. Eventually, the Soviets gave up because they'd have to commit literal genocide to win. Doesn't make a lot of sense when their goal was to set up a communist government in Afghanistan. Can't set up a government if everyone is dead. And thus you see the problem. You can't separate the political sphere and the military completely, as the military is used as physical force to reach a POLITICAL end goal. But again, that aside, you can't defeat an enemy that you cant see, and it doesn't help when the population actively harbors them. A literal, unequivocal GENOCIDE would have to take place in places like Afghanistan to militarily win.
@@nonamesleft3765 I agree, but consider this viewpoint. A population that harbors folks that means ill will towards its enemies should be dealt with. I wonder, if the enemy had the same resources as us, if they would be so concerned about our total demise. Seems, they would kill enough of us so that the remaining population will do whatever is necessary to survive. In this case, convert to Islam. The Afghans (radical elements) don’t play by the same principles, yet we don’t adapt. The radical elements of Islam only understand brutality. The moderates don’t do anything to control the radicals. Therefore, other populations (after being provoked) must resolve the problem. We provided training,tools,tactics to the moderates so they could have a fighting chance, however they once again demonstrated that they are not willing to control the radical elements of Islam. I really wish that Islamic (and a few others) populations played by the same moral code….
one thing i can say about US warfare after WW2 are increased standards. When you see the death toll for US soldiers in each following war, it just improves, so the tougher standards means that even though the results are better it gets mentioned as a failure. The wars after ww2 arent just normal wars too.
if you see the ratio of each death for the US side to the death on the enemy side, its been better since ww2.
Wow, I really appreciate this guys view point and I feel like his point about relief/firing makes since. It’s something my workplace could definitely benefit from.
A private who loses a radio or weapon gets in more trouble than a general who loses their portion of a war.
The Professor is correct in stating that rotation of commanders is likely the cause, but he needs to drill down one more layer: Why is rotation needed? Because we are “not in it to win it”.
WW2 also had one president for the duration. With partisan changes every 4 years rotation, the American way, is inevitable.
Yes. The goal of war must be something existential . Defend the homeland. Liberate Europe from Hitler. Today's career MBA military achieves objectives, hits metrics, manages resources with no larger purpose than defending or expanding The Empire.
@@mccamman What empire lol. you don't have one, never will.