Runaway Redux: Patton 2.0

Last week, Rolling Stone Magazine published an article by Michael Hastings entitled “The Runaway General,” a provocative portrait of four-star General Stanley McChrystal. The article is a compelling narrative filled with vulgarities, booze, and down-right arrogance, reading more like the plot summary of Hollywood’s next big action movie than a critical analysis of the man in charge of the Afghanistan war effort. Ultimately, the administration responded harshly and the General was dismissed from his role as top commander of American forces in Afghanistan

This, however, is not the first time an American President has had to deal with a sharp-tongued rebel as a military commander. General McChrystal seems to be the 21st century reincarnation of the man who was arguably World War II’s most famous and tactically brilliant general – General George S. Patton. Patton, like McChrystal, possessed an infamously brash attitude and a penchant for vulgar language.

Patton was also a public relations nightmare for his administration. During supply shortages in WWII, he was quoted as saying, “Men can eat their belts, but my tanks gotta have gas.” In 1943, following an aggressive and very successful campaign to capture Sicily, Patton lost his notoriously red-hot temper with two of his soldiers. The General dismissed the soldiers’ complaints of “battle fatigue,” considering them cowardly. During his notorious tirade, General Patton slapped both soldiers across the face. When the story was published on the home front, Americans were outraged. President Eisenhower pressured General Patton to release a public apology, and then assigned Patton to serve in occupied Sicily. In other words, Eisenhower temporarily sidelined Patton until he could learn to stay put and shut up. Eventually, Patton returned to a prominent role in the U.S.’s war efforts, leading an important mission on D-Day.

Unfortunately, President Obama was not nearly as lenient on General McChrystal. After the release of the article, the General was immediately summoned from Afghanistan to the White House for a meeting with the President. That meeting lasted a mere twenty minutes. Just a few hours later, around 1pm on June 23rd, President Obama announced that General McChrystal had been relieved from his role as the top commander in Afghanistan and that General Petraeus would be taking over his command.

The 1970 film Patton provides an intimate look at the brash general. The movie was a huge critical success, winning six Oscars that year. The film is so well made that it continues to appeal to audiences today. (In fact, if you have yet to have seen this film, I order you to go watch it immediately or else I might have to slap you, Patton-style.) This scene provides a particularly poignant look at the General’s personality.

I fear that the Rolling Stone article and the film Patton share one thing in common – they are more caricatures than realistic portrayals. Upon close reading of the article, one begins to notice that the majority of the salacious quotations are attributed to his aides, not the General himself. While I’m certainly not suggesting that Hastings fictionalized some new character that is “the General McChrystal,” I do believe his actual behavior was probably embellished for theatrical appeal. After all, isn’t that the stuff that sells magazines?

I find it unsettling to know that the commander of all American forces in Afghanistan, a man who was hand-selected by President Obama to lead thousands of troops in an effort to eliminate insurgency from the ruins of a crumbled country, was dismissed after an article in an entertainment magazine. The man who was once considered the most competent man for the job is now suddenly ineligible due to some comments in a magazine which, although may not have been entirely innocuous, were mostly made by his staff. Yes, there are some vulgarities, but wasn’t it just last week that the President himself stated, with the regards to the BP Oil spill, that he wanted to know “whose ass to kick?”

This leads me to a simple plea: Mr. President, next time you have the power to decide who is going to lead our troops in a dangerous insurgent fight overseas, please do not do it on the basis of his diction. I must implore you to consider one thing and one thing alone – which General will send the smallest number of American soldiers home in body bags.

Caroline Mimbs Nyce

Caroline Mimbs Nyce is a junior majoring in Philosophy, Politics, & Economics (PPE) and Government. She returns to campus this spring after spending her fall studying abroad in Santiago, Chile.

http://aicap.org WF Posey

Are you kidding or what? This is a story that is rather ignorant, pointless and the two situations, or people, described bear no resambalance to each other. Sort of porr journalism. At least the Rolling Stone writer had an actual story and did not have to go to fantasy land to conjure up his words for the day. This is a very poor and pointless article, rather cowardly really.

Diggory

Cowardly? Pointless? “Porr journalism”? Were you stoned when you wrote this comment? Someone should call up a “resambalance” to take you to get your head checked.

AJ Harris

Loved the article, and the clip of course. I might just have to watch Patton sometime in the near future.

P.S.

So I’m guessing you wrote your own bio??
http://aicap.org WF Posey

Are you kidding or what? This is a story that is rather ignorant, pointless and the two situations, or people, described bear no resambalance to each other. Sort of porr journalism. At least the Rolling Stone writer had an actual story and did not have to go to fantasy land to conjure up his words for the day. This is a very poor and pointless article, rather cowardly really.

Diggory

Cowardly? Pointless? “Porr journalism”? Were you stoned when you wrote this comment? Someone should call up a “resambalance” to take you to get your head checked.

AJ Harris

Loved the article, and the clip of course. I might just have to watch Patton sometime in the near future.

P.S.

So I’m guessing you wrote your own bio??
CW

While the comparisons you draw as to the personalities of the two figures may be accurate (despite the embellishment they receive in the media), I doubt that McChrystal is nearly the tactician that Patton was. Patton is potentially the greatest wartime general in history. As for McChrystal’s removal, it had something to do with being a hotheaded rogue, yes, but more to do with his failure to adapt American strategy to constantly changing battlefronts and Taliban guerilla tactics in Afghanistan. Well written article nonetheless.
CW

While the comparisons you draw as to the personalities of the two figures may be accurate (despite the embellishment they receive in the media), I doubt that McChrystal is nearly the tactician that Patton was. Patton is potentially the greatest wartime general in history. As for McChrystal’s removal, it had something to do with being a hotheaded rogue, yes, but more to do with his failure to adapt American strategy to constantly changing battlefronts and Taliban guerilla tactics in Afghanistan. Well written article nonetheless.
Kyle Jenkins

This is an awesome article. I had never thought of this comparison, but I like it. Too bad we’re losing McChrystal
Kyle Jenkins

This is an awesome article. I had never thought of this comparison, but I like it. Too bad we’re losing McChrystal
Real world check

McChrystal and his staff work for Obama. Generally, ridiculing your boss and his hand-picked representatives in widely-distributed magazines is considered bad. Very bad. Undeniably-warranting-firing bad.

If I did to my boss what McChrystal did to his, I’d be fired without another thought. Why? Because that kind of insubordination and lack of professionalism is damaging to any employee-employer relationship. The same holds true at the low level (me) and the highest levels (McChrystal). Only if an employee’s skills are truly irreplaceable should an employer overlook behavior like this. And McChrystal’s skills are not one-of-a-kind.
Real world check

McChrystal and his staff work for Obama. Generally, ridiculing your boss and his hand-picked representatives in widely-distributed magazines is considered bad. Very bad. Undeniably-warranting-firing bad.

If I did to my boss what McChrystal did to his, I’d be fired without another thought. Why? Because that kind of insubordination and lack of professionalism is damaging to any employee-employer relationship. The same holds true at the low level (me) and the highest levels (McChrystal). Only if an employee’s skills are truly irreplaceable should an employer overlook behavior like this. And McChrystal’s skills are not one-of-a-kind.
Timeline confusion?

Good article, but it was Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower who relieved Patton of his command and sent him to Sicily, not President Eisenhower. Patton served under President Roosevelt and, briefly, Truman.
Timeline confusion?

Good article, but it was Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower who relieved Patton of his command and sent him to Sicily, not President Eisenhower. Patton served under President Roosevelt and, briefly, Truman.
Jillian

I think the whole situation is unfortunate. The worst thing to do in the middle east right now is to have greater turn-over. One of the biggest problems is that, just as troops are scheduled to leave, they are the most effective and have the most knowledge about the area. Having built trust with the people and established a knowledge base, troops are shipped back to the U.S.

Even though I think McChrystal’s comments were extremely wise, we need to understand the background.

Troops are increasingly controlled by combat guidelines that establish how they track down potential terrorists/combatants, and how they fight and protect not only the people there but themselves. For example, the Obama administration, to reduce trampling on Afghan civilians, has prevented troops from going inside houses to search for combatants. Another complaint the military has had is lack of air support. The guidelines are so strict as to when air support can be requested, that many battles are drawn out much longer than usual action – especially battles that had once been supported by air support. And many leaders have even complained that, when air support is warranted, they spend so much time arguing their request that the support either takes too much time or does not come at all. Furthermore, troops have been advised even on when they can fire at enemy combatants. It has greatly increased the violence that U.S. troops face.

I’m not saying I know the solution (or perfectly understand everything) … but this is a big factor behind McChrystal’s frustration and I predict many more frustrated military leaders before any of this comes to a solution.

Given McChrystal’s comments and President Obama’s position, I don’t know that it could have gone differently… but the whole situation is unfortunate.
Jillian

I think the whole situation is unfortunate. The worst thing to do in the middle east right now is to have greater turn-over. One of the biggest problems is that, just as troops are scheduled to leave, they are the most effective and have the most knowledge about the area. Having built trust with the people and established a knowledge base, troops are shipped back to the U.S.

Even though I think McChrystal’s comments were extremely wise, we need to understand the background.

Troops are increasingly controlled by combat guidelines that establish how they track down potential terrorists/combatants, and how they fight and protect not only the people there but themselves. For example, the Obama administration, to reduce trampling on Afghan civilians, has prevented troops from going inside houses to search for combatants. Another complaint the military has had is lack of air support. The guidelines are so strict as to when air support can be requested, that many battles are drawn out much longer than usual action – especially battles that had once been supported by air support. And many leaders have even complained that, when air support is warranted, they spend so much time arguing their request that the support either takes too much time or does not come at all. Furthermore, troops have been advised even on when they can fire at enemy combatants. It has greatly increased the violence that U.S. troops face.

I’m not saying I know the solution (or perfectly understand everything) … but this is a big factor behind McChrystal’s frustration and I predict many more frustrated military leaders before any of this comes to a solution.

Given McChrystal’s comments and President Obama’s position, I don’t know that it could have gone differently… but the whole situation is unfortunate.
Connor Barclay

Well-written article, Miss Nyce!
Connor Barclay

Well-written article, Miss Nyce!
W Mitchell

McChrystal is in many ways a very different than Patton. Granted, the two are/were both hard-bitten, highly-competent commanders who eventually got themselves into trouble with their bosses, and I’d say a good number of the comparisons made between the two are reasonably valid. But I’d also say that the differences are as telling as the similarities.

The first one is largely cosmetic; but it is telling about the character of the two men. Patton was a martinet, typically dressed in a flamboyant cavalry uniform complete with a gleaming steel helmet, spurs, and a riding crop, not to mention his infamous ivory-handled revolvers (not “pearl-handled,” after all, “only a New Orleans pimp would carry a pearl-handled pistol”). His obsession with the appearance of his troops was equally intense; at one point he even demanded combat troops wear their ties into battle.

McChrystal is significantly plainer in appearance, in part because the spartan conditions in Afghanistan demanded it, and in part because he probably chose to remain so. He’s usually seen in ACUs adorned with little more than four stars, “Ranger” and “Special Forces” tabs, and the appropriate unit patch. It’s a far cry from his 1940s predecessor, a soldier who designed many of his own, flamboyant, uniforms. This doesn’t make Patton an inept showboat nor does it make McChrystal the paragon of humility; but it is telling about their approach to life and duty.

Secondly, the two are fighting a very different war. Patton fought a clearly-identifiable enemy, clad in Feldgrau, willing to fight a conventional war. Cultural sensibilities mattered less, because unlike McChrsytal, he wasn’t trying to build a nation and win a war. Afghanistan is a powderkeg of tribal and political tension. The enemy there does not wear a uniform and IEDs and AK-47s, rather than panzers, are the weapons of choice. Different wars demand different types of men to fight them and they will respond differently to criticism and commands from above.

Thirdly they come from different backgrounds. Patton was a hard-charging cavalryman and one of the early proponents of the tank in the US Army. Aggressive mobile warfare suited his personality and his background better. McChrystal is a wiry ex-Green Beret, and he understood that surgical strikes by SEALS, Rangers, and Special Forces are weapons better suited to counter-insurgency and counter-terror operations.

(As for “leading an important mission on D-Day”…Patton wasn’t even involved in combat operations during Overlord. Yes, he did perform a role of sorts; but his mission was “commanding” a bogus “Ghost Army” intended to fool the Germans into thinking the real invasion would be in Calais. Patton saw it as a punishment and Ike probably meant for it to be one, in the process killing two birds with one stone by using Patton’s notoriety to further the deception directed at the Germans regarding D-Day. Patton’s Third Army fame only came after the post-D-Day breakout)

A comparison to Gen. Douglas MacArthur and his firing by Truman during Korea seems to me a more accurate one.

(My apologies for the long post…I can be a bit of a windbag….)
W Mitchell

McChrystal is in many ways a very different than Patton. Granted, the two are/were both hard-bitten, highly-competent commanders who eventually got themselves into trouble with their bosses, and I’d say a good number of the comparisons made between the two are reasonably valid. But I’d also say that the differences are as telling as the similarities.

The first one is largely cosmetic; but it is telling about the character of the two men. Patton was a martinet, typically dressed in a flamboyant cavalry uniform complete with a gleaming steel helmet, spurs, and a riding crop, not to mention his infamous ivory-handled revolvers (not “pearl-handled,” after all, “only a New Orleans pimp would carry a pearl-handled pistol”). His obsession with the appearance of his troops was equally intense; at one point he even demanded combat troops wear their ties into battle.

McChrystal is significantly plainer in appearance, in part because the spartan conditions in Afghanistan demanded it, and in part because he probably chose to remain so. He’s usually seen in ACUs adorned with little more than four stars, “Ranger” and “Special Forces” tabs, and the appropriate unit patch. It’s a far cry from his 1940s predecessor, a soldier who designed many of his own, flamboyant, uniforms. This doesn’t make Patton an inept showboat nor does it make McChrystal the paragon of humility; but it is telling about their approach to life and duty.

Secondly, the two are fighting a very different war. Patton fought a clearly-identifiable enemy, clad in Feldgrau, willing to fight a conventional war. Cultural sensibilities mattered less, because unlike McChrsytal, he wasn’t trying to build a nation and win a war. Afghanistan is a powderkeg of tribal and political tension. The enemy there does not wear a uniform and IEDs and AK-47s, rather than panzers, are the weapons of choice. Different wars demand different types of men to fight them and they will respond differently to criticism and commands from above.

Thirdly they come from different backgrounds. Patton was a hard-charging cavalryman and one of the early proponents of the tank in the US Army. Aggressive mobile warfare suited his personality and his background better. McChrystal is a wiry ex-Green Beret, and he understood that surgical strikes by SEALS, Rangers, and Special Forces are weapons better suited to counter-insurgency and counter-terror operations.

(As for “leading an important mission on D-Day”…Patton wasn’t even involved in combat operations during Overlord. Yes, he did perform a role of sorts; but his mission was “commanding” a bogus “Ghost Army” intended to fool the Germans into thinking the real invasion would be in Calais. Patton saw it as a punishment and Ike probably meant for it to be one, in the process killing two birds with one stone by using Patton’s notoriety to further the deception directed at the Germans regarding D-Day. Patton’s Third Army fame only came after the post-D-Day breakout)

A comparison to Gen. Douglas MacArthur and his firing by Truman during Korea seems to me a more accurate one.

(My apologies for the long post…I can be a bit of a windbag….)

Photos
Videos
Activity
Tweets

Follow @cmcforum

Runaway Redux: Patton 2.0

More posts by Caroline Mimbs Nyce »

Caroline Mimbs Nyce