"The 5 Worst Generals in U.S. History" Topic

"It would be nice if all American generals were great. How might Vietnam or Iraq have turned out if a George Washington, a Ulysses Grant or a George Patton had been in command?

Alas, call it the laws of probability or just cosmic karma, but every nation produces bad generals as well as good ones—and America is no exception…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Sherman might have defeated the Vietnamese but I doubt if Patton would have been in his element.

So MacArthur and Franks are among the top five worse? I'm sorry, this guy's reasoning is woefully wrong.

McClellan worse than Burnside?

He's right about Gates and Fredendall, so he's 2 for 5.

Ben Butler, nathaniel banks, franz sigel? Bragg, pemberton, hood?

What about Hull, and the rest of the 1812 crew? Abyssmal!

Northern Monkey touches on an interesting point: it is, at least in part, the job they were chosen to do that makes them the "worst generals." If McClellan had spent the war in New York, Ohio, or Illinois training and organizing troops for others to lead into battle, he would have made the list of "5 Underappreciated Generals of the Civil War," and would not have made it to this list.

Grelber

Westmoreland, Abrams, all the generals in Iraq and Afghanistan except Petraeus (not including his later private life). The former generals did not know how to fight a counter insurgency war and later ones maybe knew how to fight a war but not how to win it.

I have this opinion because I just read
The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today by Thomas E. Ricks

Oooh, forgot about Hull. Yeah, what a prize.

Wilkinson, Charles Lee, Horatio Gates, Ledlie from the Crater, and maybe Custer…

All are nominated for the No-Talent Arse Clown Award…

Eric

How is St. Clair not on the list? He suffered 97% casualties. How can you put Custer on your list and not St. Clair? How can you put anyone on your list above him?

I can't believe for a second that Mark Clark is not on that list. The man single handedly extended the war in Italy by a year.

I will give St. Clair this: the government gave him 6 months to raise an army and take his objective. Once he was well and truly stomped, they gave Wayne a couple years and a much bigger budget.

If Mr. Lincoln had listened to Burnside when he told the President he wasn't the man for the job, perhaps Burnside might not have ascended to his penultimate of incompetence.

I think Gerow might have an in on this list: throwing division after division into the Huertegen Forest in a meatgrinder does not demonstrate a good grasp of strategy.

Would like to disagree with Harry Truman and state that I don't think that very many graduates of West Point were stupid. I imagine that highly educated members of other professions, doctors, college professors, business CEO's, scientists, etc. probably make as many or more dunderheaded errors in their line of work as any generals ever did. Thousands of people are not usually killed or maimed as a result of their mistakes, however. epturner: I have to disagreee about Custer. IMHO he was one of the better Generals to come out of the American Civil War. Just opinions, of course. THanks, John Miller

Truman had served in the Great War as a National Guard officer. His opinion of West Point is derived through experience.
Right, Eric?

The unholy trip of Wilkinson, Lee and Gates were also treacherous to the very marrow of their bones.
Being incompetently treacherous merely adds to their greatness on lists like this.

Winston Smith: Thanks for your response. I still don't agree with him but thats what makes the world go round. Thanks, John Miller