General Failure

[MachineGhost]

Generalship in combat is extraordinarily difficult, and many seasoned officers fail at it. During World War II, senior American commanders typically were given a few months to succeed, or they’d be replaced. Sixteen out of the 155 officers who commanded Army divisions in combat were relieved for cause, along with at least five corps commanders.

Since 9/11, the armed forces have played a central role in our national affairs, waging two long wars—each considerably longer than America’s involvement in World War II. Yet a major change in how our military operates has gone almost unnoticed. Relief of generals has become so rare that, as Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling noted during the Iraq War, a private who loses his rifle is now punished more than a general who loses his part of a war. In the wars of the past decade, hundreds of Army generals were deployed to the field, and the available evidence indicates that not one was relieved by the military brass for combat ineffectiveness. This change is arguably one of the most significant developments in our recent military history—and an important factor in the failure of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... _page=true

[Ad Orientem]

That is a very good article.

[FarmerD]

John T Reed’s military articles page contains a lot of brilliantly written written critiques on the state of our military.  I can personally attest to Reed’s description of the military.  These articles are must read items.  Below are links to 2 articles relevant to this thread.

Reed discusses the 2007 essay written by Col Yingling mentioned above.

http://www.johntreed.com/Yingling.html

The 'U.S. military’s marathon, 30-year, single-elimination, suck-up tournament'
OR 'How America selects its generals'

http://www.johntreed.com/tournament.html