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….)

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….)

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.

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.