In Defense of U.S. Generalship

In Defense of U.S. Generalship

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/united-states-generals-defense-of-americas-military-leaders/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202020-03-24&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart

Excerpt: Both the Civil War and World War II were unlimited, not because of the military but because of civilian policy. The Civil War did not begin as an unlimited war. Policy evolved over time. At the outset, the goal was to end the rebellion as quickly as possible. But the emergence of Robert E. Lee changed the dynamic of the war. In the spring of 1862, the military defeat of the Confederacy appeared to be within sight as Union forces struck deep into the heart of the South, especially in the west. But during the next year, Lee inflicted a number of defeats on Union forces, driving them back from the outskirts of Richmond until finally turned back at Gettysburg. Until that point, Lincoln would have been willing to return to the status quo ante bellum: the end of the rebellion with the seceded states reintegrated into the Union with slavery intact. But the emergence of Lee convinced Lincoln that Frederick Douglass was right: Slavery was “the stomach of the rebellion.” As Lincoln changed policy to attack slavery, many of his generals resisted, since most were War Democrats who supported ending the rebellion without challenging the institution of slavery. [Civilians set policy goals, not generals. This excellent article correctly identifies the dilemma faced by the USA’s POLITICAL leadership, not its military generalship. Which isn’t to say we haven’t had some turkey flag officers. Some will always be politicians-in-uniforms. If we refer back to the excellent metaphor of wolves and sheepdogs, these politicians-in-uniforms are the subset of “lap-dogs” who accomplish little but to create harm and confusion. Ron P.]