OK, I don't necessarily support the causes of the war, but I do support our men and men fighting over there. And frankly I think it's a pile of crap that the media is constantly harassing our Armed Forces. how are they supposed to get anything done? Yes, people will die, it's a war and there will be collateral damage. Do you ever wonder if someone like George Patton or Douglas MacArthur, someone who wouldn't put up with all the horses*** from politicians and the media, could lead our army and turn this whole thing around?
2007-06-30 13:43:30 · 10 answers · asked by stpaulsabres 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
No.
It's not the military leaders. It's the political leaders.
Remember, MacArthur could have won Korea if Truman hadn't kept him on a tight rein, and eventually fired him for having the balls to...you know...try to WIN the war.
America could win the war in Iraq in 48 hours, if we simply unleashed our war dogs and let them do what they were trained to do. Unfortunately, America has been too long exposed to liberalism, and too many politicians and citizens believe that nobody should get hurt in war.
2007-06-30 13:47:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Patton and MacArthur led their armies without having politicians back home telling them how to do their jobs and without the media doing everything possible to make sure that the USA and its allies would LOSE.
There are generals today who are every bit as good, maybe even better than those two august commanders. Unfortunately, political correctness and the constant negative attacks by the press make it impossible for them to do the job the way it needs to be done.
2007-06-30 20:50:52 · answer #2 · answered by marguerite L 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First, why blame the messenger? The media reports the news of the day. They didn't start the war, nor did they ignore the American public when we voted for a change in direction.
That political rant aside, no general could win in Iraq under the current conditions. We do not have enough men and women in military to get the job done. In fact, we are in the horrible position of being unable to win and being unable to retreat. At this point, we are short of men, material and supplies.
As fas as MacArthur goes, his version of winning in Korea was to use nuclear weapons. The reason he was a general and not the president is simple. He understood tactics. He did not understand global long term strategy. Had we have used nukes in Korea, it would have opened the door to a nuclear free for all as well as invited a full blown war with the Chinese. We would have lost that one since we were pretty weak after the demilitarization following WWII.
2007-06-30 20:58:54 · answer #3 · answered by Ray 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Neither. Patton was a master at tank warfare. If tanks were involved I go with Patton.
MacArthur-too much of a blow hard and would rather involve himself with the politics in Iraq than the war. We don't need another Bremer!
My choice would be General Grant. Get in their and kick the hell out of them as soon as we can. Well count our casualties later and match them with the terrorists. Grant 1 - Terrorist 0
but that would be the first battle. After that he would really have to look carefully to find a terrorist. In my opinion Grant was the greatest infantry general we ever had and probably ever will have. Of course, Chesty Puller wouldn't be a push over.
2007-06-30 22:23:42 · answer #4 · answered by SgtMoto 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. We went in with "the army we had," not the one we needed, and the administration made almost no effort to get the army we needed. Now it's up to the Iraqis, since we still don't have the army we need for that sort of business. The limitations come not from the Pentagon but from the administration and Congress.
2007-06-30 22:49:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war has been over for years. It is now an occupation of a people who do not want to be occupied.
All the other countries are baling out leaving the Americans to it after the horrible mess they made post- war.
Neither man had to deal with this situation.
2007-07-01 01:00:29 · answer #6 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
not MacArthur. that guy would just leave the entire army in Iraq and come back in a few years, while he has his dinners with fine wine while his soldiers die trying to make it through the day with rotting rice with rotting pig flesh. nope, not MacArthur. there were 75,000 American and Philippine soldiers in Bataan, my grandfather being one that survived the Death March and 3 years as a POW under torture and infected with a jungle disease. no, not MacArthur.
2007-06-30 21:38:54 · answer #7 · answered by karakittle 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If Macarthur had his way you'd have nuked Teheran by now.
Both of the men are grossly overrated as generals.
2007-07-01 01:20:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
i don't think aggressive general types would make much difference. you aren't fighting nazis in uniforms with tanks and stuff. in this war you are fighting in urban areas against 3rd party insurgents whose goal is to cause all out civil war among the iraqis. it's just two entirely different types of wars.
2007-06-30 20:56:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If america had Macarthur leading. He will take all the credit for wot some outher allie did. and give it all to america.
2007-06-30 21:00:47 · answer #10 · answered by kolalajoe 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋