The Man Who Forgot to Lose
When H. Norman Schwarzkopf drove Saddam Hussein’s force out of Kuwait, he not only won the Mother of All Battles, he also recaptured the standard from Giap’s trophy room. From 1975 until that February, 1991 the accepted narrative forged by the press in Vietnam was that America was bound to lose any clash of arms in the Third World. Schwarzkopf’s performance shattered that narrative so thoroughly that some regarded its effects as dangerously destabilizing.
And they all came home
He died today at 78.
Shortly after his famous victory Schwarzkopf addressed the corps of cadets at West Point. But anyone who had hoped to hear a lesson in strategy and tactics heard something else. Schwarzkopf argued that victory required more than mere strength; more than competence. It above all demanded the kind of virtue best described as the opposite of cynicism; a kind of keeping of the faith; the determination never to undertake so sacred a business as war for anything so frivolous as a bubble reputation at the polls or to advance talking points. He told the cadets that:
To be a 21st-century leader, you must have two things: competence and character.
I’ve met a lot of leaders that were very, very, very competent. But they didn’t have character. For every job they did well in the Army, they sought reward in the form of promotions, in the form of awards and decorations, in the form of getting ahead at the expense of somebody else, in the form of another piece of paper that awarded them another degree. The only reason why they wanted that was because it was a sure road to faster promotion, to somehow get to the top. You see, these were very competent people, but they lacked character…
I’ve seen competent leaders who stood in front of a platoon and saw it as a platoon. But I’ve seen great leaders who stood in front of a platoon and saw it as 44 individuals, each of whom had his hopes, each of whom had his aspirations, each of whom wanted to live, each of whom wanted to do good. So, you must have character. Some great man once said that character is seen only when nobody is watching. It’s not what people do when they are being watched that demonstrates character, it’s what they do when they are not being watched that demonstrates true character. And that’s sort of what it’s all about. To lead in the 21st Century, to take soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coastguardsmen into battle, you will be required to have both competence and character. You say, “How do I do that?. How do I do that?” The answer is very simple–and I guess this is what I really want to tell you most of all. You are being taught every day at this great institution how to do that. I have a classmate–one of the most ethical and moral people I’ve ever met. I was discussing with him one day what gave him his great character. He said, “Norm, that’s easy. When I went to West Point, I was one of those guys that really believed what they told us up there. And I still do.”
Out there among you are cynics. They are the people who scoff at what you are learning here. They are the people who scoff at hard work. But they don’t know what they are talking about, let me tell you. I can assure you that when the going gets tough and your country needs them, they are not going to be there. They WILL NOT be there. But you will.
Competence with character. That’s what you must have. That’s what you are going to carry with you from West Point. Those of you who really believe what you are learning here. To hell with the cynics. Believe it! Believe it! Believe it! You must believe it if you are going to be a leader of the 21st-century military. You must believe it!
Today, two decades after Desert Storm, belief is once again out of fashion. Like the Vietnam generation the public is told that conflicts are to be ‘managed’ never to be won. But that problem, I think Schwarzkopf tried to tell us, arises from the poverty of the ends rather than a lack of the means. Victory must never be defined in terms of impossibilities. But it must be defined in some fashion. It had to be cast as something achievable.
He called the courage to embrace the right ends ‘character’. I suppose the opposite of this virtue would be named ‘opportunism’ or you could use the term that was once current as a form of abuse until Schwarzkopf retired it from the dictionary; you could call it Vietnam.
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe
Oh… this is the first I’ve heard of it. So sad. Stormin’ Norman was a true American military hero and deserves our honor and thanks.
Rest in Peace, General.
RIP, General.
May be one of the last large ground actions the US engages in as well, nothing like it anywhere on the horizon and technology has gone elsewhere.
But hey, are we forgetting our stunning victory in Grenada?
Not to mention repeated Israeli victories at least of US arms over Soviet, showing how it ought to be done.
Besides the Iraqi squads trying to surrender to CNN news crews in 1991, the memorable event for me was the “highway to hell” back out of Kuwait. Schwarzkopf’s main armor thrust across the southern deserts to cut off the retreat of the main Iraqi forces has never been given huge visibility, that I can recall, and partially because of that one can debate its exact value in modern warfare. It was preceeded by Rangers, stealth, and PGM invasions, all three of which have increased markedly since then.
An ironic triangle that since 1991 probably no third-world country would even think of going head to head with major US forces, while under Obambus (and maybe even under Dubya) we are afraid to assert them ourselves, especially given all the hi-tech alternatives.
Character, hmm? Boy, that will get the discussion, I guess. I just feel too much like an old curmudgeon to want to jump in on it.
Privileged to met him, once, when he was a two-star. Impressive man, both physically and mentally. I agree with him, we should shoot for victory or else not get involved at all. Partial victories and things like that only embolden the Bad Guys. Of course, Norman had to not only overcome the Iraqis, but also the US press who was waiting, panting, slavering in anticipation, for us to fail.
He spoke of the profession with which he was most familiar (the military), but his topic sentence applies to every profession.
Instead we are plagued with Men With Hollow Chests everywhere we turn.
A friend remarked to me after the Petraeus scandal how they felt there were no more heroes left. I said there were but they are almost never mentioned in the news or portrayed in entertainment. As a culture we scoff at honor & then act shocked when we find ourselves infested with Cassius types. We elevate disgusting clowns to positions of celebrity & prestige, and then wonder why there is so little dignity left in public discourse & conduct.
Honor has gone Galt. Along with self-control, modesty, courage, honesty, commitment and graciousness. GOSH! We are back to the auld, auld lesson of the free market: People respond to incentives!
The rule of law and not of men is one of civilization’s bulwarks that incentivizes virtue. Replace equality before the law & enforcement of same with a stacked deck, and it doesn’t take long before the formerly law-abiding little guys get wind that it’s a sucker’s game. So they either become really adept at cheating cheaters & learning how to get away with it (like Gondorff as Shaw, cheating Lonegan in “The Sting”) or they just don’t play the game, period. IOW, deviousness and stagnation are what an arbitrary system produces.
Re: the David Gregory incident, I guess we have our answer re: what happens to the well-connected person with the “correct” political views when they commit a felony on national television in front of millions of viewers. Approx. 60 million bitter clingers across the country duly taken note of this.
As I put it a few days ago Courage + Faith.
The Gulf War was not over after 100 hours of combat, it took a bit less than another nine months to extinguish and cap all those burning oil wells, and bring peace to that nation.
The Hell Fires of Kuwait were quite daunting, but they did succumb to
COURAGE + FAITH
I got not one cent, nor any fame, but I did have the honor of making a contribution to one of Mankind’s greatest engineering achievements. I can look at myself in the mirror.
Schwarzkopf was dubbed “Stormin’ Norman” by the Press, but in the Army he was known as “The Bear” both because of his size and his temperment.
Schwarzkopf was one of many officers who stayed in the Army after Viet Nam, and diligently worked to rebuild the integrity of the Officer Corps (which was in large part wrecked by some of the bad leadership/careerism he alluded to above, in the Viet Nam war), and to turn the Army around from a draftee force into the modern all-volunteer force that exists today. At the end of Viet Nam, morale and discipline were low. He stuck it out and perservered (as did many other fine officers and NCO’s) because he ultimately cared more about the Army and his country than a career.
Duty, Honor, Country. What West Point is supposed to stand for. The Long Grey Line.
He did not fail the Long Grey Line.
General Schwarzkopf, a/k/a Stormin’ Norman, was excellence in leadership, character and performance. He got the mission done. Rest in Peace.
And, Richard, thank you for that most evocative, accurate title to your piece.
I wonder what his thoughts were on Petraeus? As much as it has died down, I don’t believe the story has ended.
Eureka!!! an edit function! This is wonderful. Thank you, PJM.
“Go tell the Spartans….”
General Schwarzkopf was a fighting general in the company of generals such as Grant, Lee, and Patton. General Tommy Franks also was a fighting general who finished what Gulf War I started. Fighting generals are a rare breed placing duty honor and country above the opportunism of the political generals like; Powell,and Wesley Clark. Go with honor into the night General Schwarzkopf.
After trying for decades have the termites finally poisoned the officer core? Gays in uniform was never about refusing a sane loyal servant. Every agenda every politicization has been designed to drive out a Bear Schwartzkopf and promote a Weasely Clark.
The United States could achieve a massive victory over al-Qaeda if perhaps a few of our troops presently fighting in Afghanistan were fighting in Mali instead. In Mali, there is a population that wants help, allies willing to fight, and an enemy that has thoroughly antagonized the local population.
Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign of drone strikes is massively increasing support for al-Qaeda in Yemen and Pakistan. It’s not that drone strikes aren’t occasionally effective. It is rather that one cannot rely exclusively upon any one technology to win wars. If nothing else, bad intelligence tells the drones to kill the wrong targets. If one relies too thoroughly upon drones, one becomes crippled and blinded by the atrophy of one’s other faculties. It may be exciting for a president to use drones to zap enemies on his kill list, but one must ask whether that excitement is self-defeating. As a rule, one’s enemies will create countermeasures.
The situation in Mali got bad partly because al-Qaeda got a huge arsenal from Qaddafi’s stockpiles. What does it say that the Obama administration appears to have a policy of arming al-Qaeda in the Maghreb while disarming ordinary Americans?
At some point during the invasion of Iraq, Schwartzkopf was asked by a journalist, “But general, how can you fight someone who wants to become a martyr?” His answer? “Accommodate them.”
#3 – “I agree with him, we should shoot for victory or else not get involved at all. Partial victories and things like that only embolden the Bad Guys”.
Well, I would argue that GW-1 was a partial victory combined with a nostalgic armor thrust. One could almost hear Jerry Goldsmith’s theme from “Patton” in the background. In any case, Saddam continued to rule from and organize terrorism and scratch away at WMD in Baghdad. We imposed sanctions but by 2002 they were significantly eroded.
My fondest memory of Schwarzkopf was at the post-war press conference where he put down a young reporter who asked whether the Iraqi minefields were really as formidible as they had been briefed: “ever been in a minefeld – http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-28/news/mn-2875_1_biggest-victoryn“?.
H. Norman Schwarzkopf put American fundamental interests first
-as does Senator Chuck Hagel
They both wanted Pollard to be executed as a traitor to the USA.
Pollard the traitor lives on-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
General Schwarzkopf was right about Pollard the traitor
Well this comes as a shock. May God bless Norman Schwarzkopf.
Norman Schwarzkopf was a military leader.
Colin Powell was a military administrator.
BIG difference.
And it was apparent at the time.
“To be a 21st-century leader, you must have two things: competence and character.”
Oh, hell. How did we go so wrong so fast?
A wonderful speech, but I’m afraid that the men that Gen. Schwarzkopf warned against may have the upper hand in the military now. I’m sure that after we go off the “fiscal cliff” as planned, that will be the excuse to consolidate loyalty to Buraq and conduct more purges of the ranks.
13 @Alexis
No sale. We’ve expended enough American lives and Chinese money on these follies. Let the French put some skin in the game to protect their own interests.
16 @Shill
Never waste an opportunity to get some hate in on the Jews, eh? Even when Wretchard writes such a moving tribute that has nothing to do with the subject of your hatred. Stay classy…
He shall be missed. Petraeus and company now do not measure up.
I missed Vietnam, but I have a brother who went – and almost made it to the Wall. He once said of his CO – Major Smith, “He was the kind of officer who made you proud to serve”.
There is much to lament in the state of our society and our people, but America can still muster good men to fight her battles. and good men to lead them.
The general landed his c&c Huey in a minefield to evacuate a wounded grunt. That’s righteous leadership.
Victor, you using the general’s death to push your antisemitic crap makes you a world class dickhead.
Wretch thank you not only for the piece but for that photo. It was taken when then Major Schwarzkopf was an advisor to an ARVN Battalion. During the Ia Drang campaigns that battalion was up to its ears in alligators at Duc Co. 1stCav artillery was firing in support. The interpreter at the Fire Direction Center received a radio message and yelled “Artillery too close! Artillery too close!”
The Fire Direction Officer was about to order “Cease Fire” when another message came in: “Artillery very nice. Shoot more ! Shoot more!”
Norman Schwarzkopf, like me, had had a short course in Vietnamese. When he heard the ARVN radio operator say “Phao Kich gan qua! Phao kich gan qua! ” (Barrage superatively close) He knew that it would be put into English as “too close” and be taken as “hitting us not enemy”.
So he ran over and had the RTO send “Phao Binh hay lam! Phao Binh hay lam! Ban nua! Ban Nua!” (Cannon Number One! Cannon Number One! Keep it up! Keep it up!”
Now that was a man who could see past the cultural and linguistic differences and see those involved as individuals! He walked the walk, then talked the talk. Never have been too many like him but Uncle Sam gets a disproportionate share—-Thank God For Small Favors!
Note to “Linh Phao Binh Hoa Ky So Bon: (Cannoneer # 4) Phao Binh==the tubes.
Phao Kich==strike of the rounds.
PS: Colin Powell has come in for some deserved roasting. HOWEVER: He and “The Bear” were together later on in the Americal. (so was I) Things were going downhill rapidly in the Army as a whole. Norman Schwarzkopf was ready to resign his commison. Colin Powell talked him into staying on. Be it noted.
Their are still some Bears in service and there are a fair number of Bears who are out. The left doesn’t have the common sense to be afraid of the American Grizzlies.
To them their militarized police forces, their armed up federal agencies, and the pets they have in positions of power in the Regular forces, are something they could crack and consume with a glass of milk it they get the itch.
I put in 4 yrs in the USMC and did 2 tours of ‘Nam. I got out after the war, but rejoined (Army) as civilian life was even worse as far as corruption, etc. The troops learn pretty quick who are bears and who are pigs. Political officers (pigs) often make high rank but their troops follow them only out of a sense of curiosity. If shooting were to start, said pigs would have to give up command and run for home quickly as they’d get no support from the troops. Knew one full colonel who was a pig, and he used to wear fresh “starchies” each day (sometimes twice a day) on field exercises. He’d send his chopper back to the base to turn in dirty uniforms and get fresh starchies. He had one trooper whose only job was to spit shine his boots (he brought four pair out to the field, I believe) and to see to it his starchies were fresh and his brass shiny. Fortunately, when Desert Storm broke out, he ran up against a bear who had more rank than he did (2 stars) and he was quickly surveyed out of the theater and sent home, being told it was time for him to retire. Had it not been for the major general involved, that colonel was likely to have gotten some kids killed. The “pogues” (USMC term) take over when there is no combat going on. But when there is an actual chance they may get shot at they manage, usually, to find a nice, safe, desk job somewhere until the next lull in combat. One reason I got out of the USMC after ‘Nam was that our infantry company went from having two clerks and one typewriter, to almost a dozen typewriters and clerks. They were creating reams of papers and reports that I’m pretty sure only pogue officers read. We managed, for ten years before that, to run a war in SE Asia without all those clerks and reports. But pogues and pigs alike thrive on paper.
I had the pleasure of watching the video of a portion of this talk earlier this year. It was shown at a leadership conference I attended, which was sponsored by Harvard. I was very pleasantly surprised to find a military thinker was part of the event, and absolutely delighted at the talk, by Scott Snook, who is both a Harvard faculty member and a West Point graduate.
Snook was working at West Point at the time of this talk, in communications, so he has a firsthand perspective. He told a long funny story about how this talk came about.
The story starts when General Schwarzkopf is leaving the theatre after the war. The airplane is under way and the pilot hasn’t been given a destination, so eventually the General is asked where he wants to go first. Home? The Pentagon? The General reportedly mulled it over and then said he would like to stop first at West Point.
Snook was in his office and his superior runs in “with his hair on fire” saying “the big guy is coming, the big guy is coming!” Since it was near Christmas, Snook indulges himself in a joke, asking “Santa Claus?” He’s told that General Swarzkopf is coming within hours to West Point. Snook’s first reaction is that he’ll set up a dinner with officers, but it turns out that the General wants to talk to *everyone*. Snook barely has time to get them all into a big hall, but does so just in time.
When Snook’s superior, the three-star general, goes in the car to get General Schwarzkopf, as they are driving to the hall, Schwarzkopf reportedly asked “so what should I talk about?”
Snook is a great speaker, and he used this material well, giving us first the reaction inside his superior’s head–we’ve just turned this place upside down to get everyone in place for a surprise visit so you could give a talk and you’re not sure what the topic is?!?!–then says “but you don’t get to be a three-star general by saying whatever is in your head.” So the guy says: “Leadership?”
Well of course the talk that emerged would probably have been roughly similar no matter what the ostensible topic, but it’s amazing to realize that a talk this great was given with so little preparation.
It was very beautiful to watch the tape, and quite cheering to know that there is reverence for this man and these ideas in parts of the business world.
We have not yet entirely lost our way.
That Gen Schwartzcopf speech reminds me of the “To Do or To Be” speech by Col Boyd. I hope they are having a happy reunion in Valhalla!
The most impressive thing I ever heard the general say – possibly the most impressive thing I have ever heard any general officer say – was essentially, “You do not go in, screw around, get a bunch of people killed, and in the end fail to achieve you objective, vitcory, not because you could not, but because you chose not to do so.”
So many “lessons” were learned from the war in Vietnam. Most were utterly false, the most important false lessons being that a bunch of guys with no more than black pajamas and some AK’s could defeat a superpower. In reality, South Vietnam fell to a wholly conventional invasion force that had more vehicles than the German invasion of France in 1940, combined with a US Congress that cut off supplies to our ally.
Gen Schwarzkop, God bless him, was one of the few that learned the right lessons.
I cannot, in all honesty, wish him R.I.P. I want his spirit to come thundering out of the mists of time, again and again, to shame us into greatness and bring us back to reality.
Great speech — believe it! Believe it and lead to victory.
This is where the elite Democrat media is so terrible — they do not believe American victory is better; and do believe non-victory is better.
Like losing in Vietnam, and accepting commie genocide rather than continuing to fight against communism. Tho fighting “against communism” was no longer believed to be worth it.
How many would have to be killed by communists to make continued fighting worth it? That is the unasked question that should be asked of every anti-Vietnam protester.
Schwarzkopf ruined my writing career. I’m a Vietvet (and veteran of one or two other conflicts). At the outset of Desert Storm, I had just released a novel with a disgruntled Vietvet as the hero.
It did very well, but the same publisher wouldn’t buy the next novel. In fact it had closed down the entire imprint.
Desert Storm ended a whole stream of fiction, movies and literature based on betrayal of those who went to war. “First Blood” was the representative work of this school.
Desert Storm and the restoration of the veterans’ image as a “winner” made Vietvets whiners and bas-beens. Worse still, Schwarzkopf had made war American-style look easy. US infantrymen played a very minor role and happily sustained light casualties. War was easy. Name one book to come out of Desert Storm.
Who wanted to read about betrayed warriors? They were a thing of the past. And the hard-bitten Vietvet was showing gray at the temples and getting paunchy.
Well, now, the pendulum has begun to swing back.
But it never swings back to the same place exactly. Now veterans’ NON-fiction accounts are top of the list.
I’m betting there’ll be novels of betrayal shortly. I’m a veteran of Afghanistan, but I’m not touching anything on spec. Too risky.
I’m going to stick to historical fiction set no less than a century in the past.
Again Schwarzkopf made it look easy. But in retrospect, who can be really angry about that?
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power. Abraham Lincoln
General Schwarzkopf’s impromptu speech exemplifies the most Christian of virtues – acknowledgement of the dignity of each human person. How ironic that we find it so easily in a man who dealt in death and destruction, and so wanting in those who claim to do everything for the children.
Requiescat in pace General Schwarzkopf.
Institutional inertia in the personnel selection and promotion system picks managers over leaders. It’s damn tough for the system to adjust to the real wartime mission of the military which is to fight and win, not manage. You can give a leader managers to move the organization, but you really can’t give managers leaders to lead. It’s what’s on the battlefield that should determine the selection and promotion over box checking peacetime career enhancement. It’s not fair. War is not fair. The objective is not some concept of social justice. The objective is to win. Be assured though, the bureaucracy will obstruct, delay, and undermine the reason to exist for the entire service to maintain its ‘system’.
The title of his autobiography is “It Doesn’t Take a Hero”.
After having been in a minefield, he then got to see what it was like to be in a minefield full of burning oil wells. That will humble anyone who thinks they are a “hero”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DoxBG5zdxg
He must have been quite dismayed by Paula Broadwell, West Point ’95, a graduate during the height of the Clinton Administration, an “author” with a ghostwriting partner, an adulteress, an opportunist. Not a good example of “competence and character”.
The problem is, those cadets he is exhorting to BELIEVE IT, are going to objectively be fighting for gay pride parade, affirmative action, feminism and the destruction of all our traditional values. I agree with what he preaching, but if you want to be the sort of man GEN Schwarzkopf is motivating you to be, the US Armed Forces is no longer the place to be that man. Go somewhere else.
It is a nice speech but not very reflective of reality. If what he describes is a leader I have yet to meet one. Every leader I have met in every organization I have worked for or been involved with is a master of self interest. The required skills are to insulate yourself from any actual activity and from the people who do the work. Mid level functionaries do that and need to be replaced from time to time. The purpose of promotion is to remind everyone that there are plenty of others waiting to take their jobs.
The kiss of death for any employee or mid level manager is to display more than basic competance or to show any initiative. Anyone who actually “believes” as he advises will never get the chance to do anything. Those people are a threat to the heirachy and status quo and will be dismissed or otherwise kept away from any decision making.
After Vietnam, the meme was “we can’t win” against the upraged, outrised peasantry who are sick and tired of being oppressed, suppressed, repressed and depressed.
After Desert Storm, the meme is, we shouldn’t win. It isn’t nice.
35. GFC:”…but if you want to be the sort of man GEN Schwarzkopf is motivating you to be, the US Armed Forces is no longer the place to be that man. Go somewhere else.”
Respectfully, you are dead wrong and seem to have missed the General’s main point; Do the right things for the right reasons. Ignore the political BS and do the job. Set your own example and the troops will respond favorably. Troops, in my case Marines, follow leaders- not rank. So the individual who wants to serve and be a leader has plenty of opportunity to do so in our military. He/She will just have to be mindful of the political officers. Do it for the young troops looking for competent leadership.
s @ 36: It is a nice speech but not very reflective of reality.
Ah, spindok, I recognize everything you say (from my experience in the commercial world as well) and yet, the general is right, too, and sometimes the two sides align. All bureaucracies always act as you describe and yet, almost all progress happens when the bureaucracy lets go or is somehow transcended. wp @ 26 describes it, how when real fighting breaks out we have to shift modes, and with some effort, generally have done so.
sr @ 27: We have not yet entirely lost our way.
That was twenty years ago. And yet there is no shortage of stories from today’s Iraq and Afghanistan of individuals in the field with initiative, courage, and insight. What then pains is that the spindok/warpig tyranny of the bureaucracy never quite broke down in either Iraq or Afghanistan and horrid ROE cost both American lives and arguably American success in the overall war. OK, the bureaucracy never entirely breaks down, you can read Heller’s Catch-22 for examples from that time. But it really does seem different now.
there was much talk of a political future for the general after DS – but nothing came of it – except, I remember getting a robo call from him in Oct 2004 urging me to vote for Kerry for Pres – … I’ll forgive him that – and remember instead his furious anger at some female journalist in the final weeks of DS who accused him of liking war rather too much – her words accusing him of being something like “… a kid with a video game…” – wow! – was he steamed!
a bit OT – I share the misgivings re: Colin Powell (his boss) … but wasn’t he decorated for combat valor in Vietnam? – I recall an account in which he charged into a minefield alone under fire and lead out some frightened, disoriented troops …
I disagree with the argument that the distinction is between Leadership and Management. While this may sound like semantics the distinction is elsewhere. The great divide in corporate cultures is between Management and Administration. Leadership is a character trait and a tool recognized by senior Managers in successful organizations and used to achieve goals both short and long term. Anonymity routinization and politicking are the vices of a bureaucracy that resorts to Administration at the expense of Management. Administration should be a tool also but not a replacement for Leadership, with which it at best competes for resources and which in a dysfunctional organization it identifies as a threat and removes.
Bureaucracies can work and achieve amazing things. They do so only when the culture sustains the use of leaders. The values of a leader are creativity and shared effort. An organization that eliminates its leaders becomes rudderless and purposeless. Efficiency and documentation are the standards for Administration. They are needed but do not in themselves achieve results.
Colin Powell may be like many men who perform admirably when faced with a binary choice that demands physical courage. It is not unusual for an honest young warrior to go astray in peacetime. Literature is replete with examples.
Dworkin Barimen:
Just say it. You are saying that the United States has been defeated. Defeated perhaps by al-Qaeda. Defeated perhaps by a military cost structure that makes it expensive to fight wars. Defeated perhaps by over a decade of defeatist propaganda. Defeated perhaps by reckless social spending that the United States could ill afford in wartime. Defeated perhaps by a feckless Obama administration that bows to foreign tyrants. Defeated perhaps by partisan gridlock. But defeated all the same.
Al-Qaeda has taken over much of Mali. The United States is deterred from doing anything about it, and so is France. That translates into a victory for al-Qaeda on the ground. The policy of the United States government, and you, appears to be to let al-Qaeda win because the United States has lost.
Schwarzkopf’s great Gulf War victory was marred by the order he was given to stop well short of Baghdad. Some accounts say he, and his underslings, were furious. The case can be made that the objective was to liberate Kuwait, and that an occupied Iraq might well have presented us with the same situation that we inherited more than a decade later, but warriors who are winning don’t think that way. Saddam’s hold on Iraq was not as solid as it became after G.H.W. Bush let him off the hook.
As to Petraeus: can we at least grant him credit for the Iraq surge and the similar attempt (shortchanged by Obama) in Afghanistan? Other flawed men have been great generals in America’s past, remember?
dr @ 43: Schwarzkopf’s great Gulf War victory was marred by the order he was given to stop well short of Baghdad. Some accounts say he, and his underslings, were furious.
Well, the meme was that Bush41 wanted to maintain Iraq as a bulwark against Iran. While perhaps in some part this succeeded for another ten years, on the other hand it cost us continued grief for ten years, and then we finally went back and finished it anyway. So, in retrospect it was a bad call, it both set and followed a precedent for less than full victory.
Schwarzkopf did his job when called, in a way that served his country and served his troops. Petraeus? I dunno. He was a mostly competent general when many of the others were not, the surge was just grade C generalling, after some grade D- generalling. Hoorah. Petraeus later made some very questionable statements about us not angering the Muslims in Afghanistan by criticizing Islam or something, and about how Israel was a cause of problems in the Islamic world and for the US. These put his grade for the surge back open to question, if you ask me. Mostly Petraeus lucked out with the Sunni Awakening, but he was at least wise enough to take yes for an answer and to cooperate with it to our benefit. Credit where credit is due, but it’s not all that much IMHO. As for his girl problems I don’t care much, though it’s hard to grade that positively it’s a separate dimension, I think.
We were powerful enough to entirely defeat Iraq, but it turned out we were NOT powerful enough to only halfway defeat them and still get our way, maybe nobody is that powerful because it is a contradictory goal.
In Larry Niven’s scifi world we have the Kzin, powerful aliens who attacked the Earth and would have conqued the Earth (and eaten many of the inhabitants!) that Earth and humans defeated only with outside aid, but the humans did NOT in turn destroy (or eat) the Kzin even when we had the power, “… and no Kzin could understand it”. Well, the Islamics never seem to understand why anybody lets them live, if they have the power to end them. But the Kzin had the sense to stop fighting a superior force, so far that seems absent from Islam.
If America has been defeated or stymied it is precisely for the reasons that Schwarzkopf warned against. The political system has not had the character to go after the enemy’s center of gravity. It has not even had the character to call the enemy the enemy.
And what is the enemy’s center of gravity? Oil and ideology. What are we doing in Mali? We have not had the character to go after those things. Instead, Washington has relied upon the the Gulf states to “help” out in Libya and Syria; it has canceled the pipeline from Canada. In terms of ideology, it extols rather than criticizes radical Islam. It is not putting up an intellectual fight. On the contrary we send NASA out to make it feel better. We install trophy mosques at ground zero. We make criticism of it a hate crime. Instead of shunning the enemy, we have become more dependent on it. Why should it be any surprise that al-Qaeda is spreading? We are going after the edges, but never the center. The marvel is not that things are bad, but why they are not worse.
No one in Washington has had the character to do anything but “manage” al-Qaeda. Keep it under the radar. Keep it from another 9/11. But to win over it? That would involve angering too many sacred cows. The Saudi campaign contributors. The academic Left. CAIR. They guys who make up the margin in the Big Tent. So victory by energy independence, by winning the argument against extremist elements of the religion of peace — that is verboten.
Re-election before victory. Power above all. That is the watchword; that is another name for lack of character; the thing without which you can never win.
Schwarzkopf was right. Technical competence was not enough. Ronald Reagan once put thus: “There are no easy answers’ but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”
Everyone intellectually knows what is right. No one has the guts to do it. And incidentally, doing the right thing is a far more bloodless approach than the current drone-em-all approach. Zap Achmed and Naseem. Incinerate Abdullah and Yussuf. But don’t get the movers and shakers angry. Victory merely requires angering very, very rich and powerful interest groups. And therefore, as Ronald Reagan noted, fighting the right enemy is not an easy answer. But it is a simple one.
Norman Schwarzkopf was the right man at the right time. GHB wanted to let the generals run the war their way but knew well enough to limit the scope of effort to expelling them from Kuwait. But this war was closer to WWII than it was to Vietnam. It was a classic set piece warfare affair that could be drawn on the board like a football play. Saddam for all of his ugliness had a standing army that wore a uniform and with little exception, played by the rules of game when engaging the US. The same could not be said for the atrocities of his henchman in Kuwait or Chemical Ali in Kurdistan but the first gulf war the Iraqi army was considered one of the best in the world. Schwarzkopf and the US military broke their spirit so bad they did not even try resisting in OIF.
Winning the hearts and minds is not so easy to diagram since it is less bounded my geographical objectives than it is by psychology. Hearts and minds fits in nicely with law-fare and as such, is really an imaginary justification for overseas contingency operations with kinetic action, i.e.: an interesting framework without tangible rules, something that ought to be run by the DoS if run at all.
If North Vietnam was Fascist we’d have finished the job. Too many Democrats thought that communism was getting a bad reputation.
A girlfriend’s brother was a Marine Sergeant Major who served under Schwarzkopf during the gulf war. Thought very highly of him.
God speed general!
MarcH #15,
There is much more to that story. Col. Schwarzkopf was in Viet Nam the same time as I was, but in a different, though near-by unit. He was commander of a batallion of the 11 Infantry Brigade south of Chu Lai. One day his unit was on patrol and they left the road to cross a field. They didn’t get very far before the pointman hit a mine. Another man ran out to retrieve him and triggered another mine. Medics went out to aid the wounded and also were blown up. With wounded lying all about,The Bear, with no thought for himself plunged forward into the field … and found his own mine. They had to call in engineers with minesweepers before the wounded could be evacuated. I remember that this incident made an impression on everyone in Eye Corps. Later, when he recounted it in his interview with Baba Wawa, I was reminded of it, and knew the General for a real leader. That is how he knows about minefields. I presume by now he already has some of the junior Angels pulling maintenance on the Pearly Gates.
Wretchard @ 45 – And what is the enemy’s center of gravity? Oil and ideology.
When we entered into the cease fire after 100 hours of combat, more oil (the center of gravity) was being lost in one day than escaped from BP’s Macondo 252 well in three months.
Rurik @ 47 – They had to call in engineers with minesweepers before the wounded could be evacuated…
And they had to call in the engineers to clear the mines and unexploded ordinance around those burning oil wells in Kuwait too.
We can win by remembering that the Emir of Kuwait merely flipped two switches to extinguish the last well to be controlled, after the well was relit for the dog & pony show of the Emir as the Mighty Arab Oil Well Firefighter photo-op could be arranged.
And that asshole never even said “Thank You” for my venturi tube! Of course STEM education will NOT work in a politically correct world. So those that CAN DO!, will always have power over those who merely TEACH.
Technology over ideology.
Spindok said (#39) “Every leader I have met in every organization I have worked for or been involved with is a master of self interest. The required skills are to insulate yourself from any actual activity and from the people who do the work. Mid level functionaries do that and need to be replaced from time to time. The purpose of promotion is to remind everyone that there are plenty of others waiting to take their jobs.”
It sounds like you are describing an organization that has reached its peak and trying to maintain the status quo. Once a company has become profitable, why should it change? Managers in these companies are hired because they understand the system and will maintain it. Making changes is not part of their job descriptions. That is why innovation does not come from established firms but rather from start-ups out on the fringes. When disruptive technologies or techniques do arise, existing companies usually lobby the government to regulate the upstarts out of business. Anything to maintain the status quo. Because that is what humans do.
What has this to do with Schwarzkopf and leadership? Maybe a real leader in corporate America would actually embrace change instead of fighting it?
While some of you are re-fighting Gulf War I in light of the results of Gulf War II, ask yourselves this question.
Where would you start your logisitcs train to Baghdad? Most of you would merely assume you could do what was done later, start in Kuwait?
But in 1991, Kuwait was a burning pile of rubble with darkness at noon.
LOGISTICS, LOGISTICS, LOGISTICS!
“The political system has not had the character to go after the enemy’s center of gravity. It has not even had the character to call the enemy the enemy.”
This is the essential point. That whole comment at 45 is a beautiful essay.
Josh at 39, it sounds like I was unclear. What I was trying to say is that when a business conference features Schwarzkopf On Character, that seems like evidence that we haven’t totally lost our way as a culture.
Blast #41:
My own observation from 25 years of active duty is that we seem to have plenty – too many – of “leaders” who will do the “Follow me! Onward men! To victory!” type of thing without bothering to figure out of they have enough of this and that or if perhaps their people are instead busy doing the total of 2482 things they were urgently directed to do over the past 6 months. They seem to think that their sheer force of will and enough openly displayed anger will cause resources to appear out of thin air. They refuse to manage, not recognizing that they cannot truly lead without considering how best to use their resources and how best to conserve them. It is this attitude that resulted in my being given 3 full time jobs at the Pentagon when two of our people were reassigned, after which I was told to just get on with doing the jobs; I very nearly quit the USAF right there.
But there are also those who are managers rather than leaders, and simply allow the bureaucracy to handle the details. Items flow downhill and get assigned without anyone ever considering whether a particular bit of administrative insanity being handed down from on high makes any sense. A leader ought to go to bat for his people, and be prepared to quit, if he thinks that they are being over tasked by higher management. But most just view it as part of their job, to be part of the established process, to salute smartly and say “Yes, sir.”
Limpte5 #31:
Not just your writing career was ruined by Desert Storm. I think it was Fred Reed that said he saw a noticeable change after Desert Storm. Before people were writing articles about how our equipment would not work, it was too high tech and not reliable enough, the dust and sand in the desert would savage it. And then it worked; almost all of it worked great, from GPS to the AH-64 to the M1 Abrams to the F-117 to the cruise missiles, worked great and kicked ass. And those writers disappeared, some to reappear later covering totally different subjects, presumably with equal incompetence. Not all tails kicked by Desert Storm were Iraqi or were even in the Middle East.
36. spindok
It is a nice speech but not very reflective of reality.
I know exactly what you are talking about, but I think you are missing the point of what he said in his prescription.
I followed his guidance in my career but I think part of what he means is not just how high a rank one attains, but what is his impact wherever and at whatever rank he serves. I saw a lot of guys in the Navy that were what my Air Force friends called “careerists” – folks who really only cared about themselves. To me as an officer in charge of a Command Center, a flight crew, or division/department in a squadron, I was able to put accomplishment of the mission first, but still take care of the troops who worked for me. In their behalf whenever it came up, I spoke truth to power to my seniors – aggressively and with passion – but never with disrespect. If I took some heat over that, so be it. That was my job as a leader. If a decision I made was considered bone-headed by some senior but was discovered and reprimanded at a lower level, I would go to that senior and take responsibility for it in defense of the innocent sailor who took the rap in my stead. They call that honesty and respect for those that serve with you.
He was the kind of officer that would get way up in a trooper’s face when they screwed the pooch, but would never throw his troops down the stairs to cover for a mistake he made. I served with a few “Norman Schwartzkopf’s” in the Navy. They were the kind of senior that I would gladly take a round for because of the immense respect I had for them.
His passing leaves me with the same knot in my stomach that I felt at the loss of other Flag Officers that I’ve known. We are quickly losing our best. I pray that we’ve got more Norman Schwarzkopf’s in the pipeline. I also pray that when they stick their necks out they don’t get them chopped off by cowardly “careerists.”
45. wretchard
Wow! I wish I could do that!
RWE.
Ref the cottage industry of running down our equipment: Tom Clancy said, in an interview, “yeah, they have special dust there and a Kuwaiti kid has to bring a special pail to the beach….” Sneering, it need not be said.
I had spent some time following that general discussion before the Gulf War contacting, among others, Dina Rasor of The Pentagon Underground, and various journos. Rasor got a nose job–I kid, I think–and was last seen investigating CA nursing homes or something.
She did say that some of that effort was designed by the perps to weaken our military. But since they couldn’t sell that to the public, they had to lie about the equipment.
I recall announcers saying, of a decreasing number of types of equipment that winter, ominously, “not yet tested in combat”. Well, assholes, they were tested, eventually, and how do you like them apples?
Walter Cronkite, testifying in front of Congress, aka having a tongue bath, was asked about such things. He said, stoutly, that the journos had done a sterling job.