Stormin Norman. The last of his kind?

K

Kevinw

Moderator
I was watching the MSNBC News last night. (please forgive me) And they were doing a speacial on Powell and.. Schwatscauf(I know that is wrong) Well How the hell do you spell his name. LOL

My question is this. Was he the last of the great Generals. Will the future ones be polotitians that just kiss up to the Comander and Chief? I fear that he was the last of a great breed. What do you all think?
 
I saw Norman on some news show awhile back on gun control and he said while he was stationed in Germany he had to get licensed and have insurance to be a gun owner. He said he didn't have a problem with the licensing and insurance. Unless he has said something different in the mean time Norman sounds nothing but one of those gun owning elitists.

------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"

[This message has been edited by walangkatapat (edited August 01, 2000).]
 
Maybe.... Maybe not. Who knows from where the next great leader will emerge? What makes Schwartzkopf great? Because he won a victory as defined by others with few casualties on our side? Before I get flamed, let me say that he did a great job, possibly one that could not be improved on. By anyone. But please don't make direct comparisons between what he accomplished to what others did at other times facing other adversaries, with different arms and armies.

Other than the rumble of artillery, perhaps, it's not clear that Norman S. ever heard a shot fired in anger during the Gulf War. For that matter, I doubt either Nimitz or Eisenhower did, either. All three managed multinational forces, from safely away from direct enemy action. Nimitz and Ike had the primary goal of achieving the unconditional surrender of the enemy with a minimum loss of life by the Allies, in whatever period of time such a victory might take. Norman S. was charged with ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait by whatever means necessary, in a minimum period of time. The time constraints were as a result of the need to maintain support at home and within the coalition. In similar fashion, all three regained the initiative from an enemy who had struck first and occupied the disputed territory. Ike and Nimitz were prosecuting a war to destroy an enemy and end an enemy regime. Hitler and Tojo/Hirohito were NOT going to be allowed to remain in power after the war. We had no such aims regarding Hussein.

I think that great military leaders are created by the times in which they are called on to serve. I don't think there will ever by another Patton, Kincaid, Halsey, or Lee leading U.S. forces in a desperate battle against an enemy deployed in the field, with the stakes being the survival of our Nation. Thank God.
 
>>I saw Norman on some news show awhile back on gun control and he said while he was stationed in Germany he had to get licensed and have insurance to be a gun owner. <<

I find this interesting because when I was stationed in Germany, I only had to register my firearms with the Army's Provost Marshal. I did not have to get a license nor insurance with the German government because US soldiers fall under the status of forces agreement. I did have to get a German hunting license nad have liability insurance but thats a diferent matter.

So either Norman was confused or he was talking about hunting.
 
If Norman has any kids, the potential is there for another distinguished person to emerge. His father was the determined New Jersey State Police Colonel who solved the Lindberg kidnapping. Runs in the blood, I'd say.
 
A little off topic here ... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by houndawg: ... Nimitz just ran the Navy. McArthur ran the whole pacific theatre.[/quote]Both Nimitz and McArthur were five-stars. Nimitz in the Navy and McArthur in the Army. And this brings me to my question. If memory serves me correctly, there were three 5-star army generals during WWII from America: Marshal, Eisenhower & McArthur. An army 5-star general has the title of "General of the Army". How could all of them be "General of the Army"? Who was really in charge here? I believe it was Marshal who was the ultimate head guy but that being the case, why not just have him as a 5-star and the others as 4-stars?

Sorry for the topic veer here, but I've been wondering about this for a while now.
 
Norman served in Vietnam so I'm sure he had fired in anger at some point.

As for a replacement in the future. Not likely for the next decade or more. It will take that long for the clinton appointees to leave.



------------------
He who dares wins.
NRA Life Memeber
 
FUD, McArthur was the Supreme Allied Commander Pacific, and Eisenhower had the same job for Europe. I believe Marshal was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I think that we made Ike and McArthur 5-stars so they would outrank their Allied counterparts.

At least I think that's what happened.
Eric

------------------
Teach a kid to shoot.
It annoys the antis.
 
Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of "It Doesn't Take A Hero," Schwartzkof's autobiography. It will blow away any stereotypes you may have of the guy.

He is honest, courageous and direct beyond belief. His family life during WWII was chaos and he managed to create the persona he has today on his own with help from the military academy.

He is also that rarity -- a general who prepared to fight the NEXT war, not the LAST war. When he was put in charge of the command covering the Middle East, standard US military doctrine required the army to prepare to repulse a Russian invasion of Iran. Schwartzkof recognized that was nonsense and saw Iraq's "So Damn Insane" as the real threat to peace.

On the morning Iraqi troops landed on the beach in Kuwait, Schwarkof was in Florida -- running his troops through a war game designed around the notion that Iraq had invaded Kuwait.

As for shots fired in anger, read the chapter on his stay in Vietnam where he personally lifts a wounded black soldier off of a land mine, and lived to talk about it. Like I say, forget the stereotypes. This guy is THE REAL THING.

The book is worth any price you have to pay. If he hadn't gotten prostate cancer there is no limit on what he could have done.

It may not have taken a hero, but one showed up anyway. His name was Schwartzkof.

[This message has been edited by abruzzi (edited August 01, 2000).]
 
I really gained a lot of respect for Schwartzcopf when he looked at the post-Viet Nam era Army and said I need to stay and fix this problem (ie. rampant drug use even in the officer corps, poor leadership and politicians making tactical decisions covers a lot of ground concerning the Army in the early 70s)
I looked at the post-Viet Nam era Army and said this is entirely too screwed up to ever fix.
I wish I had better insight. But, at 20, I guess we all have hard time seeing down the road.

My hat's off to Schwartzcopf and the other members of the 70s military who stayed on and fixed the mess.

There is a Japanese proverb:
"Of your best steel you do not make swords and, of your best men you do not make soldiers."

In a fight for my life I would want a sword of the best steel, and a nation fighting for its life would want its best men as soldiers.

We are fortunate that they rise up from the soil when they are most needed.

William
 
I'd put in a vote for Jim Gavin for one of the last great generals. I reccomend "About Face" by Col David Hackworth. A great book about soldiers. He would have been a great general. Later, byerly.
 
Fred S, you could be correct, but the issue was firearm ownership and not hunting. I hope Norman was confused.

------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
 
I was working with a plumber who served under
Schwartzkopf during desert storm, he told me Schwartzkopf liked the booze and that is why he retired. To many embarrassing moments.

Waterdog
 
If you want a fairly objective look at Schwartzkopf, I recommend the book "Crusade" by Rick Atkinson. While Schwartzkopf brought a lot of skills to the SWA campaign, he also brought a lot of baggage. Taken in whole, I do not find him to be in the same league as Gavin, Patton, Abrams, Pershing, etc.

I also recall that he said in an interview that American citizens didn't need semi-auto rifles. Kinda funny how the NRA had him on the cover of American Rifleman and a mention in every issue, then all of a sudden he disappeared from sight.
 
MacArther had command of the Southwest Pacific theater, mainly Australia, New Guinea, and the Philipines. Nimitz had command of the South Pacific theater (kinda confusing, both then AND now). MacA came out of retirement to be Marshall of the Philipine armed forces (remember the US owned them back then). Before that, he had been the Chief of Staff of the Army (George Marshall's boss). As such he had written an unflattering OER recommeding Marshall not be promoted. They cordially detested each other. If MacA had not been so successful, both as a leader and self-promoter, FDR/ probably would have sacked him early in the war, and turned the entire Pacific theater over to the Navy CincPac. It was a happy coincidence for Marshall that the "Germany First" doctrine of war fighting agreed to by FDR and Churchill gave him a good reason to starve MacA for resources, especially early in the war.

The reason the US had ANY 5-star officers (Fleet Admiral or General of the Army) was to have a rank that corresponded to the Field Marshall rank held by some of our Allies. Unless politics intervenes again, we'll never have another. FYI, Omar Bradley was the last of the 5-stars.

Thanks for letting me pop off. G-d, I love history.
 
As to Schwartzkopf being the last of the great generals, I gotta say I doubt it. There are some good comments on the issue of Schwartzkopf's "greatness" and I won't weight in further. I will comment, however, that "growing" great generals (i.e. talented and effective warfighting leaders) is something that is a primary concern of the services and the Joint community. Although there are certainly too many "administrative generals", there are also a cadre of capable people who focus on being great warfighters.

This year, the Army's promotion board nominated 39 people from O-6 to one-star. The Marine's list is significantly smaller (I think they took 7 people this year). The Navy and Air Force both were in the 30's I think. Among all those officers, there are ass-kissers, and incompetents, and the like.

There are, however, a bunch of bright (I mean seriously smart), experienced, loyal, and hard-as-steel people who train and prepare incessantly for their chance to execute a Presidential ass-kicking license. They dream of one day being a Joint Task Force Commander (CJTF) or even a CINC with the authority to break things and hurt people in support of national policy. I know a couple of them and I feel sure that, in time of need, this nation will still have outstanding warfighters available to do the job. Even the DoD has a hard time of getting in the way of that.

I would further point out that there ain't no "clinton appointees" with General's (or Admiral's) stars. Flag officers are promoted by the services with legislative approval.

Just my $0.02


------------------
Best,
- Jawper
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top