Another reason not to fear China's military might

[grumbler]

Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war.  Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.

Anyone who hasn't read Amateurs, To Arms! http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533 needs to do so immediately if they think the US has avoided selecting officers based on politics.  No American commander has probably ever shown skills in actually fighting a war before the war starts, bar Bobby Lee. Maybe Nimitz or Pershing, but I think those were flukes.

[Ideologue]

Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war.  Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.

Schwarzkopf?

It's not nice to point out when Ide's talking out of his ass.

Note that this doesn't mean not to do so.

We had such fun winning we had to do it again in 2003.

[Ideologue]

Also clearly everyone missed the significance of the year I mentioned.  That's when MacArthur was pulled from command over the U.S. forces in Korea.  And, yes, MacArthur could put his ego above rational strategy (Cartwheel! yay! let's waste lives and materiel on this shit when only the central Pacific matters!) and was politically a doofus, but he knew how to win a war: destruction of the enemy government and long-term occupation aimed at changing the cultural roots of its aggression and dysfunction.

When was the last time America fully dismantled an enemy and turned them into a prosperous, free, and loyal friend?  1945.

[Valmy]

When was the last time America fully dismantled an enemy and turned them into a prosperous, free, and loyal friend?  1945.

When was the previous time?

Heck we failed to do that with ourselves once.

[Razgovory]

Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war.  Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.

Anyone who hasn't read Amateurs, To Arms! http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533 needs to do so immediately if they think the US has avoided selecting officers based on politics.  No American commander has probably ever shown skills in actually fighting a war before the war starts, bar Bobby Lee. Maybe Nimitz or Pershing, but I think those were flukes.

What a strange and absurd thing to say.

[Viking]

Anyway, it's not like America has selected its officers based on ability to actually fight a war.  Maybe we've always had those skills, but no American commander has been shown to possess them since 1951.

Anyone who hasn't read Amateurs, To Arms! http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-To-Arms-Military-Campaigns/dp/0306806533 needs to do so immediately if they think the US has avoided selecting officers based on politics.  No American commander has probably ever shown skills in actually fighting a war before the war starts, bar Bobby Lee. Maybe Nimitz or Pershing, but I think those were flukes.

What a strange and absurd thing to say.

I gotta say this sounds pretty strange to me as well, since the only real place to show skills is in real war grumblers statement becomes a tautology. Basically the only significant consequence here is that the US rarely fights more than one war per generation.

[Josquius]

Might this not be a reason why we should in fact fear it?
Rather than intelligent professionals who are the best people for the job we instead have whoever could afford it and felt like being a military commander in charge. Sounds like a recipe for instability and stupid mistakes

[Viking]

Might this not be a reason why we should in fact fear it?
Rather than intelligent professionals who are the best people for the job we instead have whoever could afford it and felt like being a military commander in charge. Sounds like a recipe for instability and stupid mistakes

The argument for purchasing comissions is that the only people to bother purchasing them will be people able to get the resources as well as wanting to be officers as well as believing they will be successes as officers. Having money meant you had a place in society, that you got an education could read and write, had the authority granted by the lower classes to the upper classes.

In the british system the alternative to purchasing comissions was to hand them out as synecures as political favors (which is the system the napoleonic officer system replaced in france).

[Malthus]

So yeah...

Sounds like 18th century England.

Yet they managed to kick egalitarian French ass ... 

The British system was the product of a particular time, place and cultural environment.  It isn't something that can likely be transplanted successfully into the modern world - indeed, in Britain itself the purchase system was eventually eliminated when found counter-productive for a modern industrial army in a modern industrial society.   Another thing to consider is that even under the purchase system, a commission could be obtained without payment if vacancies arose while campaigning (i.e. casualties) or through brevet promotions, both which I think were relatively common during the Napoleonic Wars.

I'm not actually arguing for the introduction of the purchase system. 

Just pointing out that, just because the system of selecting officers is absurd, doesn't mean that the army is not to be feared.

The author of the Flashman books makes a good point: the purchase system produced officers and generals who hardly knew which end of the sword to hold, and made a balls-up of the Crimeran War; then they got rid of it, and produced such masterpieces of good soldiership as ... the Boer War and WW1.

[DGuller]

made a balls-up of the Crimeran War

I thought the expedition force routed the Russians rather comprehensively?

[Valmy]

I thought the expedition force routed the Russians rather comprehensively?

That was because of the awesome work of their glorious allies

[Valmy]

The author of the Flashman books makes a good point: the purchase system produced officers and generals who hardly knew which end of the sword to hold, and made a balls-up of the Crimeran War; then they got rid of it, and produced such masterpieces of good soldiership as ... the Boer War and WW1.

In WW1 you could be a five star military genius and still look like an idiot.

[Malthus]

made a balls-up of the Crimeran War

I thought the expedition force routed the Russians rather comprehensively?

While the allies won, it was a war famously rife with disaster and idiocy on the part of the officers in charge, leading to loud and long condemnation in England.

[Valmy]

Things were so bungled logistically in the British Army that they regularly would go over to the French soldiers and beg rations from them.

[jimmy olsen]

The author of the Flashman books makes a good point: the purchase system produced officers and generals who hardly knew which end of the sword to hold, and made a balls-up of the Crimeran War; then they got rid of it, and produced such masterpieces of good soldiership as ... the Boer War and WW1.

In WW1 you could be a five star military genius and still look like an idiot.

Name one