Generals, good and bad

[griz]

The oxymoron thread inspired me to start this. This is a first for me, I'm starting a thread on a topic I know little about to learn from those more educated. Judging from other examples on THR I don't think I'll be dissapointed by the expertise here. So to start, what makes a good general? From the other thread I get the impression it's kind of like poker. A bad general can get lucky, and a good one can catch a series of bad breaks. Is that right?

[TarpleyG]

Well, not being a General and not knowing any (know a couple of Colonels though) I CAN tell you what I think it takes to be a good leader.  Forget what the media and those hell bent on the demise of the military tell you.

First and foremost, a good leader should be someone that will not ask anyone to do anything that they are not willing or capable of doing themselves.  Now, I am not saying that others will not have more expertise in an area but a good leader would at least give it the old college try, fail or not.

A good leader should also be:
-a good listener
-fair
-understanding
-strong and upstanding in the face of adversary

I could go on but let some others chime in.

Greg

[Sean Smith]

A good leader should also be:
-a good listener
-fair
-understanding
-strong and upstanding in the face of adversary

I really don't mean to be rude (this time, anyway   ) but that is bunk.  The list you described makes for a nice person.  It doesn't make for a good general.  Lots of generals had those qualties... and were horrible failures.

The bottom line is that a general can only be judged on how well they (a) accomplish their mission, and (b) conserve the lives of their soldiers.  Everything else is utterly irrelevant to their generalship.  I don't give a rat's behind if the general is a nice person, I want somebody who will get the job done, and be smart enough about how he does it that as many Americans come home as possible under the circumstances.  He can be an awful human being (excluding ordering outright atrocities and that sort of thing) and I could care less.

[Sean Smith]

From the other thread I get the impression it's kind of like poker. A bad general can get lucky, and a good one can catch a series of bad breaks. Is that right?

Well, war is an extremely chaotic environment, where a general is commanding immense, complex organizations who are actively opposed by an enemy who is dynamically trying to stymie everything he does.  But good generals are not consistent losers unless the odds are overwhelming; if you look at any general's defeats, they are usually a function of his own defects and errors.  And that includes training and maintaining his forces, not just the strategy of the battles.

[griz]

Good point, probably a bad analogy. In poker you can fold a bluff or losing hand and the other player doesn't keep trying to kill you.

[Arc-Lite]

a good General, is as good as his last engagement, as for what basics are required to make a good General.... a few of many are focus and clairity, and keeping in mind, the difference of winning a battle, and winning a  war.

[telewinz]

A good general (or leader) is a person who places the correct value on the input he encourages, demands to take responsibilty for his decisions, shares the success with all but shares the blame with none.

[Sean Smith]

A good general (or leader) is a person who places the correct value on the input he encourages, demands to take responsibilty for his decisions, shares the success with all but shares the blame with none.

Not if he is a loser.

[atk]

According to Klauswitz, a truly good general needs to be a genius, and to be able to use the chaos of war to his/her advantage.

According to Sun Tzu, a good general needs to understand himself, his organization, and his enemy.  

According to Machiavelli, it would appear a good general needs to always hedge his bets (well, a good prince, but isn't a prince a general, too?).

According to the movie "Patton", a good general needs to act sooner than his enemy, more effectively than his enemy.

According to "Warfighting," by the USMC, a good general needs to understand... ack, I can't remember the word that book used!  It's basically the grind of war, and how it affects both yourself, your troops, and your enemy.

'Course, I'm sure others will chime in and prove my observations wrong

[richyoung]

According to "Warfighting," by the USMC, a good general needs to understand... ack, I can't remember the word that book used!  It's basically the grind of war, and how it affects both yourself, your troops, and your enemy.

"Friction" the word?

[280plus]

Read Chesty Puller's bio, now THAT was a good General...

[Moondoggie]

I worked for several generals in my service career.

Worked "around" several admirals, too.

I have my own opinions, but most of the previous posters have covered the high points.

There are definately "A" list general officers and "B" list types.  In the Marines you find the "A" listers in command of divisions and the 2 FMF's.  You find the "B" list types in command of bases, stations, and training commands.  The air wing is similar, although it's an entirely different culture.  You will NEVER see a Commandant of the Marine Corps with aviator's wings on his blouse unless he was the ACMC and the CMC died.

In the warfighting course in the Marine Corps what atk is talking about is "cycles"...the one who initiates the most cycles and the most rapid cycles usually wins strategically.  The enemy is forced to respond to the cycles and the more cycles he is forced to deal with the more he falls behind and loses capability until he can no longer respond.  "Good" generals exploit this.

What Marine Generals in the combat commands try to develop is an extremely high level of familiarity and confidence among subordinate commanders.  These close relationships enable the juniors to percieve the expectations of seniors without direct instructions, and the confidence of the seniors that the juniors understand his "general" intent and will act  on their own initiative.  This concept ensures that subordinate commanders will continue to carry out "the plan" even if communications/contact with higher headquarters is lost.

So, to sum it up, what makes a good general is the ability to develop their subordinates and enable them to carry out his intent.  Also his ability to clearly communicate his intent.

IMHO, the most important of the Marine Corps' "Principles of Leadership" are:

1.  Develop your subordinates, and

2.  Employ your command in accordance with its capabilities

Both qualities of "good" generals.

[griz]

If anybody is really interested in this ancient history, the "oxymoron thread" had a little bit of drift about General Patton, and I was curious about what made a good general.  Thanks for the informative replies.

It's right here if anybody still wants to check it out.

[280plus]

One thing I rcall about Chesty is a story where in absolute frigid temps he gave his overcoat to a low ranking individual because the kid didn't have one and froze himself instead. Things like that endeared him to his men and consequently they would fight and die for him without a second thought. He was nice when he could be and tough when he had to be.

[CAnnoneer]

The best generals tend to have a good combination of skills and qualities:

techical: proper education, detailed wide knowledge, experience, intuition, talent, inventiveness
leadership: empathy, charisma, heil, integrity, fairness, magnanimity, generosity, flexibility
personal: curiosity, stamina, energy, valor, mental fortitude, diplomacy, intelligence, wisdom, independence

One can certainly be very successful without having all of the above, but then events beyond him determine if his weaknesses become his downfall or remain mercifully unaddressed. In the end, even the best generals suffered from their weaknesses, albeit to different extents: Hannibal miscalculated, Patton talked too much, Napoleon was too ambitious, Zhukov was inflexible, Washington was too trusting, Guderian was too obedient.