Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan
2011 ж. 21 Нау.
2 164 354 Рет қаралды
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.edu/
“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.
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
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
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?
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.
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 .
"Attack at dawn" "Why wait, we'll attack at midnight" Absolute beastmode.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
@@wdcurry111 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.
@@wdcurry111 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.
"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.
[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.
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
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!
When father Christmas changes suits and surprises you with his hobby
Jajaja good one
Came on here to say you gave me a nice giggle with that one. Cheers.
Don't try to use and persuade out christian heritage, which you have absolutely no part of
I support and do not oppose my Taliban brothers for they are in fact cadets their name means student aßshole prick
Hiii Igffggggggfgggffffffffffffffffgfffffffffffggfgfgffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffggfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftwl
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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!
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 …
"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.
“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.
This was so informative and interesting I'd never thought it would have been
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"
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.
I listened to this entire thing thinking this was recent…turns out it’s 10 years old! nothing has changed. wow.
Phenomenal lecture. Managers everywhere should take note.
I should say leaders.
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.
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 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.
I do enjoy these technically oriented lectures. The lack of sensationalism is refreshing
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???
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.
I stumbled over this fascinating talk on my YT feed. Not being American (but having serviced in the military of another country), I felt I was missing something: what was the step that would let a relieved officer return to grace? What did you have to do to get from "desk job" or even demotion back to showing you could do better? Who gave you that chance, once your file had that "black mark"? Does Ricks just not mention that here, assuming his audience would know? Does he explain it in one of his books?
"Hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle!" That was priceless and the exact phrase appropriate to describe the strategies in which he describes as such.
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
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.
Very informative. Thank you very much.
This reminds me SO much of civilian business. Very little risk taking. Just keep your heads down and wait for orders. No reward for innovation, no penalty for failure. I thought Rick was talking about the place i worked for a minute.
This is probably the most militarily knowledgeable journalist I've seen. Thank you sir.
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.
@@user-dv5sn2xv2y 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.
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...
16:00 Clausewitz also believed that a good officer needs to be cheerful and optimistic. The word used in my translation was "Buoyant." 47:00 I think the meant to say "Did you lose 2 more tires?" Because if you had 20 missing tires yesterday and 22 missing today, then that means that you have 2 more missing tires than you did yesterday.
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.
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.
A private who loses a radio or weapon gets in more trouble than a general who loses their portion of a war.
World War II was an existential war. Made a big difference in motivation to succeed and supporting efforts. And you knew you were not going home until the job was done or you were a casualty.
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.
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...
Amazing lecture with incredible knowledge...
Great speech and sound reasoning.
"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.
“If you don’t punish failure, you can’t reward success”
19:07 well spoken
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.
A very deep and in depth speech.
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.
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.
@@wdcurry111 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.
For more information on Douglas Macarthur, The Macarthur Memorial has a KZhead channel and a Facebook page.
Really enjoyed this lecture.
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.
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
@@PumpkinHoard yes because subjecting people to a new religion by force works almost every time in modern history…
@@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.
Incredibly well presented case.
Allen was a Lt. Colonel when he was promoted to brigadier over about 900 more senior officers because of his experience in WW1.
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.
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.
Really intelligent lecture yet entirely accessible even to a lay person such as myself.
I'm from Bulgaria, and I am happy you mentioned Bulgaria.
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.
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.
Absolutely right ........"relief" essential at all levels in all walks of life...!!
I am rewatching this lecture. And how he goes through history is fantastic. I really enjoyed the line of how General Marshall could see the talent, just as Ike could be the President. It was time of making A New UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA This was on the bounds in the human spirit.
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?
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.
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.
War is a continuation of politics by other means. That simple quote often provides much of the explanation why wars succeed or fail. That's certainly true in Vietnam and also the Second World War.
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
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.
@@thehavoccompany-a3 Correct
In a time of new technology, new tactics and great advancements America was able to watch a world war play out and develop a fighting force ready to face the challenges ahead, While most others had to adapt on the field of battle with each lesson learned the hard way. Not the *all* of the question but certainly a good place to begin...
It's weird that you can't find this guy on spotify or any Podcast shows
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
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.
i love the quote by a German tank commander that went: "A German Tiger tank is worth four American Sherman tanks. The problem is, the Americans always had five."
This was excellent!
We NEED journalists like this guy again!
Whoever did that lighting needs a raise.
More aptly, they should be relieved.
3rd Reich and Japan, unlike current/more recent threats actually meant serious business. Both, especially Germany had a very strong officer core, organizational skills that literally kept up until the last days, running a war with most of the factories bombed and under constant air supremacy. They both also had offensive capabilities unlike Afghans, who were mere defenders, and are no serious threat to their surrounding countries. If Japan or Germany were left alone they would most likely capture and satellite any country they can in their proximity. I think that war in especially Afghanistan was kept going for the war industry, and nothing else. In days of peace assured by nuclear weapons that prevent a war between polar countries such as Russia and USA, war lobby needed a conflict in wich they could profit from conventional arms and development of conventional arms. It is very obvious that Afghanistan was not treated as a serious conflict, that had serious outcomes.
I think it is more the US had the will of the people to defeat the enemy in WW2. Japan attacked preemptively hoping that the americans would sign a non-aggression pact with Japan, however it was used as an excuse to by the US and gain public support for war. If the US had declared war on Japan because it was an axis power, I doubt the US population would have supported the fight in the pacific and instead would have signed a non-aggressive treaty, similar to the USSR and Japan in WW2. The US voting population has not wanted to fill the soles of the waning European powers and I think that is the true reason it has not been successful since.
Erik was dead right. What they did was revolting. It has soured the entire right in this country on the military. Now the military is the play toy of neo-libs and neo-cons under the Democrat banner, parading these woke supposed generals out as if they inspire strength in our ranks and strike fear in our enemies. Milley and Allen are worldwide embarrassments and I’m ashamed of their political maneuvering to play along with these Marxist racist games they seem to exhibit no shame over, castigating the only president to ever have the BALLS to say what he meant and had the full support of the segment of the American public the military want, yet they pretended Russia is our number one threat for not wanting NATO on their front porch (can you blame them?) instead of facing up to the massive threat coming from an increasingly belligerent and hostile, rapidly growing PLA under the control of the Chinese Communists. Russia’s GDP is about what our total government expenditures were this year. Yes they have a ton of nukes. China is literally lying, cheating, stealing, spying, bribing, manipulating currency and propagandizing their people against Americans, preparing for war after they intentionally released a virus on the world intentionally and it may as well have had our name on it. But the corporate establishment has too much money tied up in China to stop lying and face the real music. They’re going to lose us our country as we know it. It’s time to MAN up and be the men your grandfather wouldv’e been proud of. Fir all the toys we buy, we sure are in a sad state of affairs when it comes to management of Human Resources.
That doesn't explain then why the US Army of the past was so excellent at putting down rebellions and stomping out guerillas. From the Moro Rebellion and American-Fillipino War to the Indian Wars and the US Civil War, the US Army crushed movements just like the Taliban consistently. So what happened? Personally, I look at what William T. Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant did and said. They fought not just Native American tribes, but defeated Confederate Armies and the Confederate guerilla bands like the KKK. Both Sherman and Grant were of the opinion that war was brutal and to the point. There were clear objectives and the enemy was pursued constantly. It wasn't just about winning battles, it was about convincing the enemy that they could not win the war. The modern US military wins nearly every battle. US Army units haven't been overrun and captured en masse since the Korean War. The US Army never loses the battle. But the US generals and politicians fumble around with no strategies or objectives. They struggle to define what "Winning" the War is. US soldiers and the wider public often have no idea what these modern foreign conflicts are about. Without a defining goal or an active pursuit of the enemy, the US has already convinced itself that the War is lost.
@andrion waser Racist fantasies.. the reality is that the US is rich enough to do whatever it wants. Nobody pull the strings - it's in the interest of the US to have a strong allies in the region. Allies who also dislike Iran.
Yeah, until Germany runs out of oil and they're left to fight an infantry war.
I'm a retired grandmother who never served. But this talk resonated with my experience in the private sector where the same phenomenon can be seen in management, even company owners. Its a pattern that contributed (though was not entirely responsible) for the complete annihilation of retail brick-and-mortar business sector. The one place where this management phenomenon is sometimes avoided is Silicon Valley. But it must be said that a similarly destructive Cavalry mentality Mr. Ricks described, along with other sins such as sexism/misogyny and racism are also endemic and systemic. Great talk. .
Sexism and racism has nothing to do with this... let's not forget WW2 was ALMOST fought entirely by White men (more than 90% of the fighting forces, and that's being generous)
His mention of Gen. Sanchez made me chuckle, having been chewed out by him in Baghdad as a 2nd Lt.
It helps a lot when you can see and identify your enemy, build tactics based on that principle.
Patreus REALLY KNOWS the reporters he's talking to. That was prescient in hindsight.
To answer that woman's question, in 2018 the Navy fired it's 7th Fleet commander (a 3-star) after two deadly ship collisions.
It is not only our civilian government, But the company's of supply in War weapons materials that have a direct affect on the corporate delegation of structure in our military aka the military complex.