Ah, it doesn’t matter, what you believe, there is what you believe, and what I know, they don’t overlap; but that’s not my fault, that’s yours!

I’m quite sure you think you know. Many people allow themselves to be convinced of things when they shouldn’t.

Keep in mind, I, while skeptical, was open to hearing the reasons regarding your initial claims about Schwartzkopf. However, your unmitigated story was unconvincing.

It is too rumor millish rather than nuanced. The real world is usually (not always) nuanced. And I’m not a stranger to “behind the scenes” upper echelon issues.

Um, I think you meant to include, “CINCEUR” with respect to fighting the Soviets.

Ah, NO, I was clear, I said “CINCLANT” and “CINCPAC”, I know what I’m talkng about, “CINCEUR” even though in Europe, and right up against the Soviets at the time, still never carried the “panache” of being CINCPAC or CINCLANT, “CINCEUR” just like “CINCCENT”, were considered 2nd Tier; don’t ask why, and don’t try to explain it, to do that you have to understand the psyche of Flag Offices, and Military history and trandtion going back to WWII, if not before.

For some reason, CINCLANT and CINCPAC were considered the two Major, 1st tier “CINC’s”; who knows why, maybe CINCPAC and CINCLAND basically OWNED the US Forces, and farmed them out to the other Regional Commands, such as CENTCOM, who basically owned no forces of their own. CINCEUR was also that “European Command”, and had to overlap/share with NATO, and all that political crap.

Creme de la creme were the two US “coastal CINC’s”; just the way it was.

You know, I could tell, just from the way you wrote your first reply, that you just couldn’t help yourself!

“You were where? In the room …”

Ah no, and I NEVER said I was!

But I know people who literally were, or the next best thing to it, a half dozen at least, and interesting in different places and times, they all had the same story.

“I just don’t believe your unmitigating story.”

Ah, it doesn’t matter, what you believe, there is what you believe, and what I know, they don’t overlap; but that’s not my fault, that’s yours!

Again, you can choose to believe or not, and its irrelevant, as I’ve tried to tell you in 20 different ways, whether you believe it or not; and I’m totally aware that it wasn’t ONLY “Army leadership” that made that decision; I told you he had been deputy to an Admiral for a JFT, you figure it out from there.

“BTW, don’t confuse my skepticism with any type of attack on you….”

Fine, I don’t take it as an attack, but the dicussion is over; it can go no further from here anyhow.

I know, you believe, that’s the end of the discussion, actually.

and remember, back then, it was “CINCLANT” and “CINCPAC” were considered THE combat commands, the ones that were going to get to fight the Soviets and/or the Chinese,

Um, I think you meant to include, “CINCEUR” with respect to fighting the Soviets.

Personally, if I were you, I’d say “Okay, interesting tidbit, the guy was there he knows its true, but I he can’t prove it, so I remain a skeptic!”

You were where? In the room when they decided to undeservedly hand him the keys to an entire theater after deciding to undeservedly pin a fourth star on? BTW, those decisions included more than just ARMY leadership.

I have my own views about ‘pre-Reagan vintage’ military leadership (both officer and enlisted) that rose through the ranks in the post-Vietnam era. And while I believe that you knew some “Colonels and Generals” that were unimpressed with Schwartzkopf, I just don’t believe your unmitigating story.

BTW, don’t confuse my skepticism with any type of attack on you (like with respect to Joe Pa).

Holmes on April 25, 2008 at 2:14 AM

Touche, but that’s as good as it gets on this, I’m afraid.

Its your choice to believe, or not believe.

Personally, if I were you, I’d say “Okay, interesting tidbit, the guy was there he knows its true, but I he can’t prove it, so I remain a skeptic!”

I’m fine with that…

Anyway, hope that helps, for what little it is worth to you.

Dale in Atlanta on April 24, 2008 at 11:20 PM

There is nothing like first-hand evidence.

And I suppose George W. Bush is Abraham Lincoln?

Why not? The Congress is still full of Copperheads.

blink on April 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM

blink, let’s just say I was a “military” officer who happened to be witness to that part of history.

First, let me say, that if you examine his combat history, Schwartzkopf was an incredibly BRAVE man, there is no doubt; though military officers in ALL services, who are “legacies”, clearly get favorable treatment in terms of Commands, Meritourious Medals (note, I did NOT say medals for valor, they are different things) etc., he WAS a brave man.

He had three Silver Stars, 3 Bronze Stars with “V”’s, 2 Purple Hearts, etc.

I do know of cases where Medals for Bravery were bogusly awarded to senior officers, there was an Admiral who was given a Silver Star for commanding a ship in the Persian Gulf during the beginning of the Iraq Invasion that comes to mind; and of course, there’s the infamous case of Lyndon Johnson’s Silver Star for being in an aircraft that flew within 100 miles of a combat zone; there’s also the fact that a young MacArthur over in France during WWI, he’d write to his mother from the frontline that he did something brave, and his mother would march over to see the Secretary of War, and pound on his desk, and say “My son deserves a Silver Star”, and they’d give him one; he came home from France as junior officer with SIX of them as a result, and his CMOH for losing his entire command in the Philippines, wouldn’ve NEVER happened to anyone else, his father was a CMOH earner from the Civil War, and the rules were different for MacArthur all around. John Kerry’s Silver Star and Bronze Star and at least two of his Purple Hearts are so bogus, it hurts, and I knew people who served over there with him, and who told me those stories TWENTY years before he ever ran for President!

But I digress, anyway, despite the fact that Schwartzkopf was a BRAVE man, he was not a highly regarded Officer.

And, he became the Deputy to the Joint Task Force that invaded Grenada, and so screwed up that, despite what you read “officially”, and I have dozens of friends that were there to see, first hand, that he was basically told by Army Leadership, fine, you’ll get your 4 star, but you’re retiring soon afterwards.

When he got his fourth star, there was a faction of Army leadership that wanted to force him out, and there was a faction that said he could never be trusted to have a “CINC”; and remember, back then, it was “CINCLANT” and “CINCPAC” were considered THE combat commands, the ones that were going to get to fight the Soviets and/or the Chinese, CENTCOM back then was considered the LEAST likely place where a war of any import was going to break out, and he was given his “CINC” to basically put him out to pasture, and retire him.

Now, can I “prove” it to you? NO, I cannot. Can I produce a written document, backing up all this, No, I cannot.

But, I was in the miliary back then, it was an “open secret” in certain circles, and the Colonels and Generals that I knew, “knew” it was the case, especially after his less than stellar perfmance during the Grenada evolution.

But, the “official” history has been written now, ever since his genuine, and deserved success during the Gulf War (note I didn’t say he faked that, or didn’t deserve that, because its not true, he got everything he earned out of the Gulf War, and deservedly so!) and as Julius Ceaser says “the victor writes the history, the loser reads it”.

You’ll encounter very few people these days, that thru hindsight, want to talk about it, or who would be willing to step up and say that’s the way it was; but that IS the way it was prior to the Gulf War.

General Swartzkopf never did any bad to me, and I wish him no ill will, but those were the below the surface feelings/currents/opinions at that time, prior to the Gulf War.

And as I said, he was a Brave man, no matter what, and I never heard not one single instance of him having Medals, especially Medals for Valor, that he didn’t deserve, unlike some othe famous cases I outlined above, so he deserves any amount of respect and honor for that. He was also well regarded by his own troops, especially when he was a tactical leader in Vietnam, and that frankly, is all that an Officer can ask for.

Now, that all said, I know full well, the “danger” of coming on this blog, saying anything even remotely critical of a “hero” like General Schwartzkopf; I’m going to be roundly attacked and catigated and abused for even doing this, so I know its coming.

I had the temerity, the other year, over on Capt’s original Blog, to rain on the parade of a Hagiographical account of old Joe Pa Paterno up in Happy Valley, because I grew up there, my whole family went to the University, going back to 1943, and I have many close friends, who have seen Joe Pa up close and personal, for over 30 years.

So, I made a mistake, and posted that he is not the “saint” and “god” that he’s made out to be, and I endured weeks of abuse from everyone, including Capt, for having done that.

And by the way, everything that I said about Joe Pa, was and is true, and he’s another one who has gotten to “write history” and obscure his past, due to his current successes.

Anyway, as a result, this is my LAST post on this topic; if you choose to believe it, fine, do so; if you don’t, fine, power to you. I’m not going to convince you either way, but just like Joe Pa, I KNOW what the facts are, and I stand behind what I’ve said about both, but in this forum, I’ll never convince anyone, and I’m not really in the business of trying to “prove” or convince” anyone, actually. In this forum, you can only post your comments, and move on, you can’t “prove” anything.

Anyway, hope that helps, for what little it is worth to you.

In Capt’s defense though, I think he conflated a few things.

I think Capt was conflating the Army of the Potomac’s incompetent leadership under McClellen and Pope, McClellen had the “slows” as Lincoln said, and he had to fire him because McClellen was a seditionist as well, who came as close as any American General in US Military History of trying a Coup d’Etat; he screwed up the Peninsular campaign, when he should’ve won, and when he was fired by Lincoln, and Pope took over, Pope sent one year doing absolutely nothing.

I wasn’t until Pope was replaced by Gen George Meade, that the Army of the Potomac finally managed to do something right, and that was win the Battle of Gettysburg. But Meade even screwed up that major victory, if he’d have pursued Lee and his Army south into Virginia, and destroyed them, he may have ended the war 2 years earlier.

I also think Capt was making a general comment about Grant; Grant was, frankly, a complete and utter screw-up, at EVERYTHING in his life, EXCEPT during his Generalship during the Civil War; he couldn’t hold a job prior to the Civil War, screwed up every civilian endeavour he ever tried, lost countless jobs and businesses, etc.

If the Civil War hadn’t of came along, and he went back into the Military, he would’ve been lost to history, and deservedly so.

And, if you examine his life, after the Civil War, including his Presidency, he was a complete and utter screw-up there as well, his Presidency is rightly viewed as one of the worst in history.

Like General Schwartzkopff during the Gulf War, who was pretty darn less than stellar officer his whole Military career, who was nothing but a “legacy” General, because of his father’s reputation, and when he got his “CINC”, he was deliberatly chosen to take over CENTCOM, because it was hoped he could go there, hang out for a couple of years, and retire in anonymity!

Then, lo and behold, along comes the Gulf War, and like Grant, he rose to the occasion for the first, and last time in his career.

Very interesting parallels between the two.

Anyway, I THINK that is what Capt was trying to say.

You’re Glum.

Maliki could be compared to General Ulysses S. Grant Lincoln, who stumbled from loss to loss to overall victory.

burt on April 24, 2008 at 8:53 PM

Oh my God, now Maliki is Lincoln?

My head just spun off.

The Sunni leaders said they were still working out the details of their return, an indication that the deal could still fall through.

If they re still “working out the details”, then there is no deal, certainly not yet. And then, of course, even if there is an actual honest to goodness deal, as opposed to a “vaporware” deal, how long will it last, how long can Sunnis and Shiites “Can’t we all just get along”?

For students of American Civil War history, Maliki could be compared to General Ulysses S. Grant, who stumbled from loss to loss to overall victory.

And I suppose George W. Bush is Abraham Lincoln?

My head is spinning. I don’t think I can take the next fifty make it a hundred! years.

Quoted not to denigrate the Brits’ efforts, but just because it’s nice that at least some major news outlets are confronting the awful truth of victory: One month on and Iraq’s leader can justifiably claim to have scored a stunning……

We just need to remain firm in our commitment to keep provocateurs from any encouragement.

We’re going to muzzle Reid and Pelosi? Good.

irongrampa on April 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM

You mean the woman from Lebanon who appeared in many pictures during the Israeli-Hezbollah 34-day war. She had two houses destroyed on her. No its not the same woman. The only way to prove it for sure is to examine in close up whether she has a small scar above her left eye. But no its not her.

Maliki could be compared to General Ulysses S. Grant, who stumbled from loss to loss to overall victory.

Huh?

Ed, you’ve badly mangled Civil War history here. Grant was consistently successful from beginning to end. He routed the Confederates in the western theater so effectively that it might be characterized as a near-total victory over all the major strategic points. Once called to the East, he may not have been as decisive, but he was definitely successful.

I regard him as one of America’s greatest generals.

Perhaps Ed was thinking of the North generally (or Lincoln as C-in-C), rather than Grant specifically.

In truth, your attribution to Grant, better fits Lee, with the exception that until facing Grant, he won more than he lost and that of course, in the end, Lee lost the War as well.