I sure do! Anyone who disagrees is sadly mistaken.
2007-10-03 12:54:25 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Two thumbs up and a star for you my friend.
2007-10-03 14:16:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
George Patton can be better compared to a Ulysses S. Grant than a general of today. Generals of yesteryear actually spent time in the field with their troops. Grant spent all of his time in the field. Patton was out there when a big push was on, but he also enjoyed more down time than even he thought he deserved.
Today's generals are conducting live wars in command centers, that are often hundreds of miles from the combat zone. Sometimes they are set up in completely different countries.
By today's standards, Patton was a cowboy ! Indeed, he was an effective leader in the field, and like Grant he kept the enemy's feet to the fire. But, he was also arrogant, egotistical, vindictive, and vulnerable. In other words, he was human. Patton was unpredictable and careless in his choice of words, and for a general he lacked self discipline, but he sure was popular because he could relate to the average man.
Sadly mistaken you say ! You are a romantic, and only see the hype that George raised. If you were to ask Ike, or Bradley (both 5-star Generals, in their careers) they would probably say that George Patton was a pain in the butt !
2007-10-03 14:26:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think of he could be super for some days yet then his impatience could get the suited of him. Patton wasn't a guy to take a seat around gazing television or having a quiet beer with acquaintances. BQ - C could probable help along with his aggressive spirit yet i think of he could have discovered some human beings skills. It grew to become into his greatest weak spot. super strategist and chief yet had a not elementary time concerning to human beings. BQ2 - comparable as yours George S Patton.
2016-11-07 04:38:59 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Amen, the military needs to say goodbye to the political correctness bull crap, and actually be the military. F*ck the whole being charged for hazing... or the whole "I'm a person" thing in boot camp. Liberals are turning this country into a bunch of Frenchmen, without the good taste in wine and cheese. If we would actually let our military do it's job there would be no war on terror... why? Because no terrorist would want to fight if they knew we werent going to be all soft with rules of engagement and crap. Bomb the hell out of terrorists and their families and they'll stop.
***Edit: that was an extreme example.... but am I wrong? No. More then likely a terrorist has a family that are terrorists... and I'm sorry... the military needs to go back to it's roots and stop this "if they drop their wepon they're a civilian" bull crap
2007-10-03 13:25:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
My father ,a Lt Col in Marine Corps during WW II, named one of his pet cats General George Patton.
Martin Blumenson's book,"The Patton Papers 1885-1940 "is in my collection of books to read.
Patton was a real renaissance man who remembered his past lives fighting on battlefields which makes him even more fascinating to me.
Yes, I agree that we need another Patton!
2007-10-03 17:05:34 · answer #5 · answered by TraditionalValuesStrongWorkEthic 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't. George Patton's strategy and tactics were well suited to wars in which masses of troops, supported by air and armored elements moved to contact against similarly equipped forces. That's not the nature of the current war. He would be a dinosaur and a museum curiousity.
2007-10-03 14:09:30 · answer #6 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Really, Patton was a strategist against another field army> in the current war in Iraq, he would be ineffective because there is no way to defeat insurgents in their own country and who are well integrated into their society's mainstream.
In other words, even Patton would get his butt kicked in today's Iraq
2007-10-03 13:34:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We need people that know how to win battles and adjust tactics to meet battlefield changes, We need people versed in guerrilla warfare, in the 10 years our military in Vietnam fought a guerrilla war with conventional war tactics.
Not since Korea,when China entered the war, and General MacArthur was fired , we should have attacked the Chinese mainland and bomb the Chinese troops and supplies before they reached the front in Korea. But instead we started a policy of appeasement on the war front, that exist up to today.
2007-10-03 13:09:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Politicians are careful not to allow generals to be that effective. A lesson learned by Generals Washington, Grant and Eisenhower usurping their power by becoming president in spite of the the politicians' influence.
If you think that the politicians will ever again allow a general to be that effective, and not send that general into seclusion,....you are sadly mistaken.
2007-10-03 13:02:50 · answer #9 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I absolutely AGREE that this US Military and the country needs another General George S. Patton.
BTW, General George S. Patton is buried at an
American Cemetary in Hamm. Luxembourg and his grave sits on a little knoll over looking the graves of thousands of American WWII Veterans!
He wanted to be buried with his men. He was a soldier's General!!
2007-10-03 13:03:16 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You should watch the movie Patton. Pay attention during the "face slapping incident".
No soldier even remotely resembling Patton could possibly make Major in today's political environment.
But, to answer your question, I do agree with you. It's just that it would be unrealistic to expect it to happen.
There certainly ARE still people of his mindset and caliber joining up as officers in our day, they just don't put up with the political BS and stay.
2007-10-03 12:58:49 · answer #11 · answered by open4one 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋