Who was the worst general in American history? - Author Thomas Ricks picks.....

[RamboLiberal]

Who was the worst general in American history?

Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Thomas Ricks, writing in Foreign Policy, picks Gen. Douglas MacArthur as the worst general in American history, just ahead of traitor Benedict Arnold.

Ricks, who covered military affairs for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, fingers MacArthur for "being insubordinate to three presidents (Hoover, Roosevelt and Truman) as well as screwing up the Korean War."

He also knocks MacArthur for gassing and suppressing Bonus Marchers in 1932.

"You can't defend a country by undermining it," Ricks writes.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/06/who-was-the-worst-general-in-american-history/1

That was the discussion I was having yesterday with several friends. Here is my ranking of their nominees:

1. Douglas MacArthur
2. Benedict Arnold
3. Ned Almond
4. Tommy R. Franks
5. William Westmoreland
6. George McClellan
7. Ambrose Burnside
8. Horatio Gates

It was my contest, so I declared MacArthur the No. 1 loser, because of his unique record of being insubordinate to three presidents (Hoover, Roosevelt and Truman) as well as screwing up the Korean War. Plus additional negative points for his role in the gassing and suppression of the Bonus Marchers in 1932. You can't defend a country by undermining it.

It really is extraordinary how the Army has extirpated his memory. The influence of Marshall, Eisenhower and Bradley lives on, while MacArthur has been treated as a historical dead end. Kind of amazing, considering he was a general for 26 years, was the Army chief of staff, received the Medal of Honor, fought in three wars and was a senior commander in two.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/02/the_worst_general_in_american_history

I think Dugout Doug was probably the most overrated!

[The Magistrate]

1. Not A Bad Judgement, Ma'am

Though with luminaries like Westmoreland and McClellan in the running, competition is stiff.

Arnold, by the way, but a pretty good battle leader, though hardly, from the Continental point of view, much of a Patriot....

[roguevalley]

68. custer and fremont should be in there: the only good Indian is a

dead Indian fame

[Jeffersons Ghost]

2. If admials count, Zumwalt was an idiot...

[zipplewrath]

3. Curious about your criteria

Does it have more to do with their battlefield accumen or their political? Because the truth is, Washington was pretty bad as a battlefield commander. Other than being smart enough to collect smart men, he was pretty bad, and something of a "community organizer" style "I just want everyone to agree". Truth is, his handling of Arnold was part of what pissed off Arnold.

Conversely, he seemed to understand his role quite well, and especially post War, understood the power of image.

[zipplewrath]

4. Curious about your criteria

Does it have more to do with their battlefield accumen or their political? Because the truth is, Washington was pretty bad as a battlefield commander. Other than being smart enough to collect smart men, he was pretty bad, and something of a "community organizer" style "I just want everyone to agree". Truth is, his handling of Arnold was part of what pissed off Arnold.

Conversely, he seemed to understand his role quite well, and especially post War, understood the power of image.

[arbusto_baboso]

6. Being a general is as much political as it is strategic or tactical.

Read Sun Tzu and Clausewitz.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Actually, in military terms, Benedict Arnold was a fine general.

I've read military historians that rated him the best...on both sides.

[Oregone]

9. I guess it depends on the criteria

Id assume the rating is not based entirely on ability, but rather on the actual effect on the nation as a whole.

[Oregone]

7. General Lee didn't make the top 10?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Good question.

If you're going to consider insubordination instead of actual military strategizing, you might as well include treason.

[Mudoria]

12. Doubtful..

Lee was one of the best commanders in US histroy.

[Oregone]

15. I disagree with that

If he was one of the "best commanders", his service as a general should have resulted in promoting the interests of the United States. He did the opposite, and undermined those interests

[Confusious]

19. A general doesn't "promote" the interests of a country

He wins battles and wars.

And going by those criteria, he was THE best during that war. He won battles with fewer men and resources then anyone else. Of course, the opposition was pathetic.

I don't admire the man for the cause he fought for, but I do admire him for his ability at his profession.

[Oregone]

24. You do realize soldiers take oaths and uphold them

If you are fighting against your own country, you aren't exactly a "good" general by a comprehensive criteria.

[Confusious]

34. He was an officer, and officers can resign

Which he did, before he became a general for the south. So technically, he broke no oath.

[Oregone]

37. So resigning to fight against his country doesn't make him a bad general?

Heh.


I understand resigning because you oppose a war. Thats a whole other level.

[Confusious]

43. He saw Virgina as "his country"

The entire south had the "states are sovereign" mentality. It may have been a war between the states, but technically, it was a war between two countries. and the south lost because of a weak central government.

"The south died because of "states rights"" A quote I heard.

If you're going to hang one person for fighting against the United States after resigning and becoming a regular citizen, you're going to have to hang every man who was a United States citizen and then took up arms. And every person who gave any aid and comfort to the south.

You see a problem with that? I do.

[S_E_Fudd]

52. Interestingly...his father would have been appalled at what he did...

Light Horse Harry Lee was a strong federalist...and wrote harshly of those who even mentioned disunion...

[Confusious]

56. Well, you know kids. nt

[The Magistrate]

17. Marse Robert, Sir, Just had Good Luck In Opponents In The Early Going

That is easily mistaken for skilled generalship....

[S_E_Fudd]

35. I tend to agree...however...

You could argue it was his skill that made his opponents look like bumblers...

Joseph Hooker put in good service later on...

However, the first time he went up against a Union general that wasn't intimidated by him - George Meade - he didn't do so well...

And of course Grant took him out.

btw: If you made a list of the best generals in American history Grant would be at or near the top of that list IMO...

[Confusious]

44. I don't know about Grant

He had more men and material. He could take losses and casualties. He just waited the south out.

It was a war of manpower and material. One of the first. The north had more of both.

If a general can win against a larger force, that's what makes him great. I don't think grant ever did that. But on the other hand, he did realize what type of war it was.

[S_E_Fudd]

49. Six confederate armies surrendered during the Civil War...

Four of them surrendered to Grant....including Lee's

Grant was on the offensive the entire overland campaign and maneuvered Lee into Richmond...he didn't wait them out until he had maneuvered them into an untenable position...

His Vicksburg campaign is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest military campaign in American history...

He took over at Chattanooga with the Union Army surrounded and trapped in the town, with confederate forces on the high ground....and won..

He is a highly underappreciated General. It is not hyperbole to say that along with Lincoln, Grant is primarily responsible for the preservation of the Union...

[Confusious]

58. Yea, but I still have a hard time with

A good general = Really crappy president.

He picked good people who could get the job done during the war. How could he not pick good people during his presidency?

Did the liquor addle his brain?

There are different types of great, and getting an enemy to do what you want without them knowing is a good sign.

along with Lincoln, Grant is primarily responsible for the preservation of the Union...

and I would never say it was!

[S_E_Fudd]

64. Presidency was underrated as well...

Not a great President, but by no means a failure...

I think you are starting to see this in the ranking of his terms by historians...

[Confusious]

70. Well, considering how much I study history

ranking him the same as historians comes as no surprise to me.

Still, you can't argue facts. He trusted people he shouldn't have. There was some sort corner on the silver market during his term which caused an economic crisis, and a couple of other scandals as well.

Besides that, I'm not sure his drinking would be a southern rewrite. The officers I can see, but the south saying they got got their ass kicked by a guy who was drunk all the time? Just think of what he could have done if he wasn't!

On the other hand, considering the level of intelligence of the southern rewriters, it could have happened.

[S_E_Fudd]

65. And his drinking issue was largely mythical as well...

First stirred up by jealous officers who were not happy at having him jump over them so rapidly (Henry Halleck), then by the "lost Cause" school of historians who succeeded in setting the narrative on Grants career after the war...

[depakid]

71. Cold Harbor on the other hand...

illustrates that Grant's strategic skills have to be seen as part and parcel to attrition- and it's questionable how many of these battles he would have won without that rather overwhelming advantage.

Lee on the other hand was a master of Maneuver with far lesser- and less well equipped forces. Case in point Chancellorsville, which is still studied to this day.

[S_E_Fudd]

72. Tactics are easier on the defensive....

The two times Lee tried to take the offensive he got crushed....

Cold Harbor was no more a mistake than Gettysburg or Antietam...

If you look at casualty rates, as a percentage of troops engaged Grant and Lee are on par...a good record for Grant considering he was usually doing the attacking...

[The Stranger]

77. An admirable goal, but from a military history standpoint, Lee was superior to Grant.

Grant's army was the best-equipped, rested and trained group, and far superior to what Lee had.

Lee was able to succeed with far less, and even outmaneuvered Grant through the Shenandoah Valley, before ending up at Appomattox with only 7,500 troops left.

Lee knew his only victory was in outlasting Union resolve, not defeating superior Union troops on the battlefield. His campaigns are taught as some of the most masterful in military history.

[S_E_Fudd]

78. Sorry...I disagree...

No campaign in the war was better than Grant's at Vicksburg...an opinion shared by Edwin Bearss

Grant's advantage at the points where action took place was no where near as great as the number of enlistments would imply...

The two times Lee attempted to go on the offensive he utterly failed...every time Grant when on the offensive he succeeded. And the one time when he truly was on the defensive in Chattanooga he turned it around into one of the signal Union victories of the war...

Lee may have had a slight advantage in a confined tactical situation but as a strategic thinker with the ability to carry out his plans Grant was far superior...

[S_E_Fudd]

50. Tactically very good...

Strategically...not so much...

His decision to attack north was a disaster...both times...

[watrwefitinfor]

23. Lee has long been one of my top picks.

He KNEW that the south could not win, felt secession was a dreadful mistake, yet agreed to resign his commission and take command of the Confederate army, anyway.

Would the south have actually seceded had Lee not been on their side? I don't know, but I think it's a valid question. One he must have surely asked himself. The man was brilliant.

Wat

[Gaedel]

30. Secession was going on before Lee

Lee did not tender his resignation till Virgina seceded quite a while after the deep south states.

Beauregard and Joe Johnston were the early confederate leaders. Secession was 18 months old before lee became the ANV commander.

[watrwefitinfor]

38. Well, that would tend to answer my question.

:hi:

But my first paragraph stands.

Wat

[Johonny]

48. he's probably not among the top ten worse civil war era generals

the civil war had a lot of civilian appointed hack generals.

[arbusto_baboso]

8. In fairness, Mac thought he was actually God.

In that light, his major 'tude is easily understood.

[era veteran]

10. Armstong Custer sucked a lot

McClellan, at least built a good Army for Grant. Dugout Doug has a lot of negatives but Inchon was luckily brilliant. A more decisive battle in the last century?

[provis99]

22. Custer's commander in the Civil War might make the list.

General Kilpatrick, Custer's immediate superior, was known as "Kill-cavalry" for his willingness to sacrifice Union cavalry soldiers in stupid and pointless attacks; Custer idolized him and probably based his own stupid theory of battle on Kilpatrick's.

[RamboLiberal]

45. Custer was actually excellent as a cavalry commander

in the Civil War. He really shown at Gettysburg. Usually Union Cavalry sucked compared to the Confederates.

Now in the Indian Wars Custer blew it big time.

[joeybee12]

13. Where's Colonoscopy Powell on the lsit? n/t

[Tutankhamun]

25. LOL. Colonoscopy Powell.

He makes my list of most overrated whatever the hell he's actually ever done since his army days ended.

I know his reputation is ruined, but he's still overrated. There should never have been a reputation for him to ruin.

[MicaelS]

14. Why Tommy Franks? n/t

[The Magistrate]

20. Because The Invasion and Occupation Of Iraq, Sir, was a Major Cock-Up

Bungling on a truly monumental scale.

[MicaelS]

26. OK, just thought it was odd to see someone so recent

On the list. Thanks for the info.

[rurallib]

74. heard a roundtable on this subject recently - Franks won hands down

Funny was publicity can do. I had the impression he was on top of things.

[RamboLiberal]

46. Also Franks was in charge during initial invasion of Afghanistan

Tora Bora - one of the bigger mistakes in U.S. battle history.

[Confusious]

16. You forgot Lloyd Fredendall

Small in stature, loud and rough in speech, he was outspoken in his opinions and critical of superiors and subordinates alike. He was inclined to jump to conclusions which were not always well founded. Fredendall rarely left his command post for personal visits and reconnaissance, yet he was impatient with the recommendations of subordinates more familiar with the terrain and other conditions than he.<2>

On 5 March 1943, after the American rout at Kasserine Pass, Eisenhower visited II Corps headquarters and conferred with Bradley. Eisenhower asked "What do you think of the command here?" Bradley's response was "It's pretty bad. I've talked to all the division commanders. To a man they've lost confidence in Fredendall as the corps commander."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Fredendall

[provis99]

18. Gen. Walter Short should definitely be on the list.

The idiot was the General in charge of land and air forces at Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack, and his incompetence and stupidity contributed much to the beating that American forces too.

I would also put Gen Mark Clark on the list, for his willingness to sacrifice American soliders in World War II simply so he could get a good photo-op for himself, and get his name in the newspapers. A real right-wing shit, too.

[Winterblues]

21. I would move Westmoreland up about five notches..

All about body count and nothing about winning..

[MrScorpio]

76. Damn Skippy! N/T

[Gaedel]

27. MacArthur was a pretty good general

In WWI, he put together one of the best of the fighting divisions (42nd "Rainbow" Division).

He modernized the Army education system and prepared the Army for WWII without much in the way of fiscal resources.

President Hoover ordered MacArthur to move the "Bonus Army" out of Washington. Hoover then had second thoughts about this and wrote an order to have the US Army troops stop once the "Bonus Army had been driven across the Anacostia River toward their camps. SecWar Hurley and his military assistant, Brig Gen Moseley, purposely withheld the written order from Hoover and did not transmit it to MacArthur who crossed the Anacostia and pushed the Bonus Army out of their camps and out of the boundaries of the District of Columbia in compliance with the original order.

Everyone thought that after his election, FDR would fire MacArthur, an avowed Republican who had crossed verbal swords with powerful Democratic senators and representatives. FDR not only allowed MacArthur to finish out his term as CofS, he nominated him for an additional term.

When MacArthur's term as CofS expired, he would have gone into retirement as a permanent Major General. FDR arranged for macArthur to become the military advisor to the president of the Phillipines, a potentially lucrative position.

When WWII was approaching, FDR wanted MacArthur to be called to active duty, he could have just let him remain on the Phillipines payroll. When the Japanese conquered the Phillipines, FDR told MacArthur to escape and named him as a theater commander.

MacArthur's offensive up the north coast of New Guinea with multiple landing behind Japanese lines was brilliant and was done with a minimal amount of casualties.

[S_E_Fudd]

28. I'd move Burnside and Gates ahead of McClellan...nt

[Tutankhamun]

29. I vote for Smedley Butler, for saving America from Fascism.

on edit: For best general, not worst.

[CanonRay]

31. How about Mark Clark?

He butchered his troops in Italy in '43. My father-in-law still hates him. Although Westmoreland gets my vote.

[freddie mertz]

32. Gotta go with Westmoreland. "Light at the end of the tunnel" and all that.

Mac second, Franks third.

[Arkana]

33. MacArthur? Really?

MacArthur was a complete and utter nutcase, but there's no denying his ability.

Arnold should be at the top just by virtue of the fact that he fucking betrayed his country because (in Revolution-era terms) no one invited him to the cool kids' table.

Don't know who Almond was. McClellan was a great general--but cripplingly lazy.

[FBI_Un_Sub]

36. Among the BEST -- but idiosyncratic and iconoclastic

• Curtis LeMay
  
• Smedley Butler
  
• Billie Mitchell
  

And, as an Admiral I would include Rickover.

[AnArmyVeteran]

40. Curtis LeMay wanted to nuke Vietnam. That makes him one of the worst.

[PSzymeczek]

57. I'd add Wes Clark

to that list.

[AnArmyVeteran]

39. Colin Powell led us to an unnecessary war using blatant lies & unverified information.

If I was one of the members of a family who was killed by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell regime I would name General Colin Powell as the worst general ever. He deliberately lied to the United Nations with nothing to substantiate his idiotic claims. If you believe Powell was just following orders from Bush, then Powell could have resigned, stated the reasons for his resignation and perhaps he could have stopped the Iraq War before it started.

Colin Powell is the worst general in my lifetime because he was part of a war machine that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and over 5,000 American soldiers' lives. It also caused the loss of limbs, eyes and spirits of 35,000 American soldiers. And ALL of this loss was for nothing. Our soldiers were used as a low-paid mercenary force only in Iraq to protect the financial interests of corrupt republican friendly corporations.

The entire Bush regime should be tried for treason, and that includes General Colin Powell.

[PSzymeczek]

59. That and My Lai.

Colin was a major player in that.

[benld74]

41. My father HATED MacArther

[dgibby]

73. I'm guessing your dad was in the Navy or Marines.

Considering MacArthur loaded the last plane out with his personal possessions and left Sailors and Marines to die at the hands of the Japanese, it's a well-deserved hatred, shared by many.

[Uncle Joe]

42. MacArthur.

Thanks for the thread, RamboLiberal.

[Jack Rabbit]

47. Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but my pick is still Custer

Custer was a fatheaded, genocidal maniac whose battlefield incompetence got his entire command killed.

It is true that Franks, Westmoreland and McClellan deserve to make the dubious list, but Custer takes the cake for all time worst in my view.

[PSzymeczek]

60. Custer wasn't a general, IIRC.

He was a Colonel.

[fishwax]

63. yes, he was a lieutenant colonel at little big horn, but he had been a general before that

He got temporary appointments as general during the Civil War and maybe also at some point after it.

[branders seine]

51. Odd that Westmoreland didn't place 'higher.'

He sucked entirely.

[Hardrada]

53. Some of the CSA generals weren't that great either:

Braxton Bragg, Gustavus Woodson Smith, "Prince John" Magruder and the wonderful cavalry commander Beverly Robertson who, during the Gettysburg Campaign, essentially did nothing.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. If you want a real lousy CSA general, look at Earl Van Dorn

He was the Confederate general who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at the Battle of Pea Ridge (Arkansas). Van Dorn had his men march something like 50 miles in two days in freezing weather through the rugged Ozark Mountains without a supply wagon, and by the time they reached what would become the site of the battle, Leetown (about 6 miles west of the present-day town of Pea Ridge), his men were exhausted, cold and hungry. Although he had a numerical advantage, his bumbling quickly forced his men to go on the defensive, and eventual retreat.

[JHB]

54. "You can't defend a country by undermining it"

Not about a general, but that phrase is almost word for word my thoughts when first hearing Ollie North and all the covert actions of the Reagan administration. And it's only gotten worse.

[Ardent15]

61. Ollie North=traitor

And the fucker should be in prison now.

Instead, he's on Faux.

Gotta love America.

[rug]

62. He caused a lot of deaths at Bataan.

While ordering the retreat down the peninsula, he neglected to order the removal of stores with them. The starvation and misery during the siege would have been alleviated.

[neverforget]

66. MacArthur is a good choice although McClellan and Burnside should

be in the top 3.

[Blue_Tires]

67. hard to argue with that list for the most part...

I don't know if you put Mac as #1, though...

And other posters have mentioned differentiating between generals who were bad strategists, leaders, thinkers, etc., versus near-rogue loose cannons lacking in political tact...

[jberryhill]

69. I'm torn between Motors and Electric /nt

[KG]

75. if we're talking army commander level, Ben Butler was criminally inept

but politically connected, important in times of civil war.

[Synicus Maximus]

79. Hands down it was McClellan.