English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

4 answers

General Patton would have followed the rules that all great military leaders have abided by for generations. He too read Tzun Tsu. Back in Kuwait, he would have not stopped and allowed the Iraquis to get away. He would have pursued them in, annihilating all possible future threats and perhaps, seeing Iran as another potential hostile, he might have driven in there too, subduing the majority of the countries that over the past 30 years have been the most responsible for the terrorist threats to ourselves and our allies. Patton would not have made the mistaked that the simpletons we have had in office back then(The Bush morons.) and have now have made-we would have won the first time, for everytime.
He would have done right by us.

2007-10-13 10:26:21 · answer #1 · answered by Vlad the impaler 3 · 0 0

There is no denying that Patton was a great battlefield commander. His theories, leadership, and actions significantly helped the Allied Powers win WWII. However Patton was hotheaded. He had trouble working with his peers in the US Army, not to mention his disdain for much of the English and French leadership. Patton also known for achieving his objectives regardless of the cost in men or material. He would not take time to marshal his forces in order to minimize his own casualties or collateral damage.

In the modern 'War on Terror', Patton would be next to useless. He would invade and conquer without regard to possible casualites, economic costs, or post invasion governing of the conquered territory. I do think he would have been able to role through any organized military force, but his tactics would not transition to geurilla fighting. His pension for fighting would have overextended the US Military, while at the same time his temper would have alienated potential allies. So we'd be in basically the same position that we are now.

2007-10-13 10:39:41 · answer #2 · answered by gentleroger 6 · 1 0

Frist, he'd do the bidding of his Commander-in-chief, bitter about it regardless of the truth that we will be. He likely might want to have resigned his fee a lengthy time period in the past. yet when he'd stayed on, he'd do in truth what wide-spread Patraeus is doing, because he'd be restricted by technique of the political situations - situations that are the actual evil overriding this entire mess. obviously, decrease Patton free, and he'd have wiped out each and every enemy combatant in his course. He'd have used his particular opps human beings to verify who the insurgents and their cooperatives were, and he might want to have killed them. He'd have performed all of it with minimum casualties on his aspect. Political correctness and a faulty united states-hating international community...satirically headed by technique of the american Democrat social gathering, the mainstream information media, and the academic gadget in this usa...has allowed the middle East situation to fester, and now needs the US to lose in its efforts to pursue a righteous warfare on terror. contained in the US, generals can in basic terms direct their troops alongside lines drawn by technique of civilian elected officials. it really is because that is going to be. The lies and the losses are on the heads of the politicians. determining who's mendacity is a more suitable complicated interest, and till Armageddon occurs - Pearl Harbor, the air raids of London -it really is continually hashed out by technique of noncombatants of their ivory towers. as quickly because that is all-out warfare, were even the stupid, naive "pacifists" are conscious that there is no longer something left to do, human beings like George Patton emerge and guard organization.

2016-10-21 02:43:13 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

He knew little about strategy. He would probably have made an even bigger mess than Bush has

2007-10-13 19:52:44 · answer #4 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers