McCain has no clue about military history

Email Print posted by callisto 08/19/2008 08:14:49 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
McCain can't seem to stop pandering and living in his own dreamworld

John McCain in a speach to the VFW:
"General Petraeus, one of the great leaders in military history"

really, a great leader in military history????

are you f-ing kidding me, if he reaches the top 1000 it would be great for Petraeus.

so according to McCain Petraeus is at the same level as Julius Caesar, Alexander The Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hannibal, Charlemagne, Rommel, etc etc etc etc etc etc

American history maybe? NOT!!!!!!! really you placing this guy on the level of Eisenhower, Patton, etc etc etc etc etc

look maybe McCain's Swiss cheese brain forget about those guys, totally possible
< John McCain was NOT Tortured in Vietnam, says Bush | McCain's VP >
 Display:
McCain has no clue about military history | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)
he probably forgot about (none / 0)
robert e lee too...and grant... and churchill... and  probably  even washington

by holy noize on 08/19/2008 08:28:28 PM EST

Doing a nice job doesn't make one great (none / 0)
Great is doing what others think can't be done. A few names from United States history that come to mind

Stonewall Jackson
George Patton
Dwight Eisenhower
Robert E Lee
George Washington
Omar Bradley
Robert E Lee

There are more but I'm not in the mood to Google right now.

Petraeus has done a competent job cleaning up the cluster fuck Shrub handed him, but one of the greats? What decisive battle did he win? He occupied a defeated country that had no organized army and fought a small group of insurgents.

That's the problem with the world today. All the kids get a trophy and if someone does their job they are considered "Great".

Bullshit.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/19/2008 09:08:14 PM EST

A-fucking-men (none / 0)

And you listed Robert E Lee twice but that's cool cause he was a straight badass.

I am going to throw out Belisarius, Agrippa, Attila, Scipio Africanus,  Nathan Bedford Forest, Pericles, Leonidas, Simon Bolivar, Joan of Arc, Miltiades, Themosticles, Thucydides, Xenophon, Cyrus, Darius, Gaius Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Muhammed, Saladin, Edward III, Nimitz, and and a whole bunch of Chinese dudes.

Now who up there does Saint Petraeus even deserve to be in the same sentence with?

Petreaus is still trying to work his way up to Westmoreland.  Powell and W. Clark are probably beyond his reach.

Washington- Great military leader because he got men to follow him even though they clearly had no chance and he was a pretty incompetent strategist.  But he could flat out get men to do what he needed to and he deserves credit for that.

Churchill- He was a military leader but it was way back in the Boer War.  He was a politician in WWII.

Grant- Not a great military, IMHO.  He was a butcher who made up for a lack of military genius by being willing to consistently attempt to break his own record for largest pile of bodies on a battlefield.  A travesty as a general and even moreso as a president. 

And calm down with the "he won the Ciivl War" stuff.  The North should have won it years before. Its like giving Belicheck credit for his Patriots beating Baylor by a field goal. 

If his entire roster had to go on the IR after the game.

by ProfRich on 08/20/2008 12:49:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How about (none / 0)

Epaminondas of Thebes, who taught Phillip II of Macedon everything that he would later pass on to his son, Alexander.

Even as a Southerner, I gotta give it up for Sherman.

Patraeus? Give me a break, McCain. This reminds me when Lindsay Graham called John Roberts one of the best minds of his generation. Just hold on there, cowboy. Take it down a notch. 

by Tullius on 08/20/2008 08:34:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sherman!?! (none / 0)

Sherman was a cowardly piece of shit who made his progress afainst massivley inferior forces.  He was a psychopath and murderer and highly unstable.

About the only Northern officer I really respect is General Joshua Lawrence Chamberlian who was brilliant, fearless and a true abolitionist unlike almost all the others.

I would have loved to have seen Petreaus when he heard this.  I wonder if he was embaressed?

McCain was right on John Lewis, though.  That dude is a true American hero.  It was pathetic shameless pandering for McCain to try to steal the guy's glow but he was right about Lewis in general.

I also would have liked to have seen Lewis when he heard this. 

by ProfRich on 08/20/2008 09:07:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're gonna have to back that up. (none / 0)

How was Sherman cowardly? Who did he murder? He may  have been unstable, hell, even he admitted that, but psychopathic? Let's not be hysterical here.

Sherman believed that war was a ghastly affair, and that the only thing to be done in the face of it was to pursue it to a quick end. To achieve this, he marched through the south, wreaking havoc on the ability of the South to maintain a state of hostilities.

While records the records of the period are not particularly thorough, Sherman's troops tended to focus their destructive talents on material, not persons. There is little evidence of widespread violence against civilians.  

by Tullius on 08/20/2008 09:30:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok (none / 0)

Maybe murderer was a bit much but he clearly ordered wanton destruction and there were people who did die because of it either in the burning of Atlanta and much of Georgia itself or due to the starvation it created.

In the early part of the war, Sherman was stationed in Kentucky (I believe, could have been Missouri).  He became convinced there were well over a hundred thousand Confedorates all around him and refused to fight.  He was relieved from that command and returned to Ohio to recover from his breakdown.

On his return he refused command of Grant's army and continued to be timid as a commander until he was attacked at Shiloh and repulsed the Rebels.

At that point he became fairly bloodthirsty.  His combat career is a mixed bag with some impressive victories and some significant defeats.  He is famous, yes.  but mostly because he was (a) Grant's favorite and (b) introduced total warfare directed against a civilian population.  Being named Tecumseh probably didn't hurt.

I find it hard to look at his military record and call him a "great military leader."  His successes are mostly repelling attacks, often from inferior forces in a time when defense dominated and then, of course, the largely uncontested destruction of the homes and food of thousands of Americans.

All in all, I think he was crazy, a middling tactician, not a particularly inspirational leader and exceedingly cruel. 

by ProfRich on 08/20/2008 01:45:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But (none / 0)
Many great generals experienced significant defeats in their time, it is not necessary for one to wear the epithet to have been consistently victorious. His psychological issues were temporary, and while his tactical skills might have been lacking (though I am not sure why it is you say this), his strategic and logistical skills were exemplary (one doesn't move an army of over 60,000 men through enemy territory without being capable in these areas). And as far as being inspirational, there are numerous accounts of his being quite inspirational to his own troops, which is what I assume you were referring to.

As far as being cruel, you say this because he destroyed the infrastructure in the South required for the maintenance of the Confederate forces, thereby affecting the local populace, and also destroyed the property of the populace. Well, this is quite bad. But it almost certainly ended the war sooner than it would have otherwise. Moreover, while one must respect the distinction between combatant and non-combatant, I do not see why a civilian population who cheered on a bloody war ought not be made to feel its consequences. And that is what Sherman did: noncombatants were not killed by his troops (not as a matter of policy, nor regularly), but their quality of life was severely worsened. And thus the Confederacy lost the will to continue the war.

by Tullius on 08/20/2008 03:49:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How very enlightened of you (none / 0)
I do not see why a civilian population who cheered on a bloody war ought not be made to feel its consequences.

That was exactly the philosophy of the group of people who flew planes into buildings on Rudy Giuliani Day.

Unfortunately for you the civilized world has taken a somewhat different perspective and made targeting civilian populations a violation of international law.

Fortunately with Allah on your side and in the words of George W Bush "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

You are advocating the targeting of innocent civilians? I wonder who you consider yourself with.

As for Sherman, he was a hack. It's easy to win decisive battles when you have overwhelming well supplied forces fighting an impoverished group of men. Other than that he managed to march through poorly defended land and burn it down. WOW!!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/21/2008 09:23:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey pal (none / 0)

Did you see the part where I said that the distinction between combatant and non-combatant must be maintained? What the 9-11 hijackers did was to break down this distiction.

I was not talking about targeting a civilian population, and a careful reading of my post would have informed you of this. There is no need to compare me to a terrorist or George W. Bush, save to engage in the sort of mindless discourse that has plagued this country for years.

What I was talking about was the permissibility of destroying an infrastructure required for the maintenance of hostilities which would have the addendant consequence of affecting the lives of noncombatants. And this is something that is not impermissible under international law, as far as I understand.

As for Sherman, he was marching through enemy territory and living off the land. Well supplied? And again, what I am chiefly praising about Sherman is his strategic thinking, which at the time was unorthodox and ended the war more quickly than otherwise.

by Tullius on 08/21/2008 09:47:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Scorched Earth (none / 0)
I'm sorry I have to admit I'm confused as to how someone can burn down entire cities, march several hundred miles burning down homes and destroying crops and looting homes and  you don't consider that "targeting" civilians.

Do you really believe the people who lost their homes and their livelihood weren't being "targeted"?

Well supplied?

Yes compared to the Confederate Armies, I would say extremely well supplied, and considering they were in an extremely fertile and agriagricultural area of the country and they took what they wanted at the point of a gun, yes well supplied. Of course Sherman did have a habit of jumping off the grid and outrunning his supply lines, which is why after he had his ass handed to him at the Battle of Picketts Fence he had go back to the railroads to resupply his troops. After that it was a game of running around the Confederates to not engage and burn and pillage.

We will never know exactly how many civilians were killed by Sherman because he burned everything. But we do know he left many homeless and penniless. Something we currently condemn in places like Durfur.

You wrote

(one doesn't move an army of over 60,000 men through enemy territory without being capable in these areas).

When you go out of your way to avoid engaging enemy armies but instead focus on looting and burning civilian areas, not really.

Sherman wasn't innovative, he took a tactic that was used by the Romans, the Europeans, and others.

Was Sherman effective? No doubt. Was he a "Great General"? Not even close.

I apologize if you take my comments too personally, I was responding to a specific comment.

I do not see why a civilian population who cheered on a bloody war ought not be made to feel its consequences.
 
The men who flew the planes into The World Trade Center were not targeting civilians they were targeting a symbol and to them the civilians were collateral damage and of course the civilian population supported our policies in their country so to use your logic they might as well feel the consequences.


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/21/2008 10:26:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I took it personally (none / 0)

because I was subjected to what appeared to be a personal attack in the form of a comparison to the 9-11 hijackers and G.W.B. How can you level such a charge against someone and not expect them to take it personally?

 Now, as for targeting non-combatants, I take the definition of this to be attacks directed at non-combatants by combatants. That is, actions directed against non-combatants. Actions of the sort that I was defending are not directed against non-combatants, but rather, infrastructure. This is what Sherman did, for the most part. Clearly, though, I have to be careful - I do not think that actions such as the strategic bombing of industrial centers which involve substantial civilian casualties are appropriate. But this is because I doubt the truth of the Principle of Double Effect, whereby an agent is not responsible for direct consequences which are merely forseen, but not intended. Attacks against infrastructure, though, are not necessarily attacks which directly lead to the deaths of noncombatants. Nor do I wish to advocate actions which will lead indirectly to the wisespread deaths of noncombatants. However, actions wich, intended to reduce or eliminate the ability of the enemy to maintain hostilities, and as a side-effect reduce the quality of life of non-combatants, might be permissible. And if the non-combatants in question are willing supporters of the war, this can only add to the permissibility of the action.

The real moral problem with such actions is the problem of collective punishment, which we all agree is impermissible within civil society. I confess that I do not have a good response to this, save that within the context of a state of war, the range of permissible actions changes. Not wholesale, to be sure. There are limits dictated by considerations other than military expediency. I would hold that the vast majority of our rights remain: the right to privacy, physical integrity (given that we are non-combatants), and so on.

As for Sherman, you are right about the paucity of records with respect to our knowledge of the deaths resulting from his march through the South. However, it is generally conceded that his army did not engage in widespread murder. As for your charge that he wasn't innovative, perhaps others in history had used the same techniques, and perhaps he had studied these techniques. At the time, however, his actions were unorthodox. Let me offer an analogy: were I to subscribe to Plato's theory of the forms, though such a theory had been proposed by another centuries ago, my adherence to it would be unorthodox (given that almost no modern philosophers subscribe to it). Now in Sherman's case, what he adhered to resulted in significant practical gains. Moreover, those who are experts in military strategy, both the commaders and the academics, study Sherman's techniques, and deem them to be brilliant. Now, while I don't wish to get all credentialist on you, that does indicate something.

Finally, to say that Sherman was well supplied because he foraged off the land of his opponents is playing with words. He stole the supplies that were to go to his enemy. He did not begin his march from Atlanta well supplied by the Union.  

by Tullius on 08/22/2008 01:40:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
All very nice (none / 0)
It was deemed brilliant because it worked.

If the South had had an effective leader defending Atlanta it could have been deemed a disaster.

Sherman marched virtually unopposed through a region that has never been exposed to war and was poorly defended.

As someone has pointed out before me Sherman never won a battle, but he never lost a campaign.

Now as to his being well supplied, let's see what Sherman himself had to say about it.

From "Memoirs of W. T. Sherman"

The country was sparsely settled, with no magistrates or civil authorities who could respond to requisitions, as is done in all the wars of Europe: so that this system of foraging was simply indispensable to our success. By it our men were well supplied with all the essentials of life and health, while the wagons retained enough in case of unexpected delay, and our animals were well fed. Indeed, when we reached Savannah the trains were pronounced by experts to be the finest in flesh and appearance ever seen with any army.

Of course he looted the land, ALL armies looted the land, but to argue that a Union soldier did not enter the war better equiped than the Confederate counterparts is just silly.


As to the comparrison to 9-11 I wasn't attacking you I was merely pointing out it's all a matter of perspective.


They had their perspective and we have ours. I apologize if you took it personally, but it IS a discussion.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/22/2008 08:23:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Please (none / 0)

I didn't say that in general Union soldiers weren't better supplied, my point was that Sherman's armies in the South weren't measurably better supplied due to any advantage held by the North. If they were well supplied, it was because they lived off the land - and this was something that any Southern army could have done as well.

Your apology rings hollow, but I accept it nonetheless. I came more than ready to have an intellectual discussion (this is the sort of thing I do for a living). You infected the discussion with personal attacks (you didn't merely say that my position would lead to advocating 9-11 style attacks - you compared me to jihadists and G.W.B.), and then cry "Sorry if you took it personally." In future dealings, keep your comments helpful and relevant. I know having discussions on the internet is hard, as the sort of standard impediments that tend to keep discussions in the real world polite are missing, but let's make an effort.

by Tullius on 08/22/2008 09:50:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay (none / 0)
my point was that Sherman's armies in the South weren't measurably better supplied due to any advantage held by the North.

Let's see, the North was an industrial center who was able to produce the things armies need. uniforms, guns, ammunition, ect.. They controlled the Supply lines leading into the South.

The South had very little industry and the North had effectively block-aided the ports that supplied the South and also allowed them to ship products to sell to pay for the war.

Okay you win the North and South were equal when it came to supplying their Armies.

You infected the discussion with personal attacks (you didn't merely say that my position would lead to advocating 9-11 style attacks - you compared me to jihadists and G.W.B.)

Again you said

I do not see why a civilian population who cheered on a bloody war ought not be made to feel its consequences.

George Bush said that those who do not support us would be considered to be supporting the terrorist and treated accordingly. In other words made to feel the consequences of the actions of the terrorist.

The terrorist viewed the attack on The World Trade Center as taking the war to the civilian population so that  the civilian population who cheered on a bloody war ought be made to feel its consequences.

It wasn't meant to accuse you of siding with the terrorist it was menat to demonstrate perspective is everything.

Of course the vast majority of civilians in EVERY war pretty much just want to live their lives, and when war comes to them it has nothing to do with their politics.

I came more than ready to have an intellectual discussion (this is the sort of thing I do for a living).

Well excuse me, I didn't know I was dealing with a real live intellectual. And so humble too.

Perhaps my less than intellectual ramblings are just too for beneath your obviously superior thought processes.

In future dealings, keep your comments helpful and relevant.

I'll try but it's really hard when I'm trying to talk above my level to honest to God smart people like you to know what would be considered helpful and relevant.

One thing my inferior intelect does know is pompous when I see it.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/22/2008 10:44:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not pompous... (none / 0)
I'm just not willing to take shit from some random guy on the internet. Sorry if you took my comments personally.

by Tullius on 08/23/2008 12:35:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't take it personally (none / 0)
You did.

I came more than ready to have an intellectual discussion (this is the sort of thing I do for a living).

Perhaps Pompous was the wrong word, how's pretentious sound?

I wasn't trying to give you shit, I was trying to have a conversation.

You wrote


I do not see why a civilian population who cheered on a bloody war ought not be made to feel its consequences.

How is that different than the stated goal of the designers of 9-11 who wanted to make a statement by targeting NOT CIVILIANS but The World Trade Center so that the civilian population who supported the policies in the Middle East would feel the consequences?

Exactly how is it different from George Bush telling civilians all over the world that if their country doesn't march goose step in line with our interest we will treat them exactly like we would treat terrorist and they would feel the consequences?

Again it's all about ones perspective.
If the roles had been reversed I wouldn't have reacted like you did. I would have defended my position pointed out the flaws in your logic, and laughed.

I've been accused of much worse by our conservative friends on this board and didn't get my feelings hurt.

Again I apologize for hurting your feelings, it was not my internt. My intent was to have an interesting conversation.







"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/23/2008 08:15:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hubbs (none / 0)
Is there anything John McCain could do to get your wife to vote for him?

by KenTX on 08/23/2008 09:10:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
More blatant pandering by McCain (none / 0)
I heard that too.  McCain doesn't even know when he is telling tales anymore, but that makes sense because he is doing that "regressing" thing that old people with dementia do.

by desertpear on 08/20/2008 01:23:42 AM EST

One thing I can give McCain (none / 0)

He is an optimistic son of a bitch, idn't he?

I mean he keeps running stupid shit like this out day after day and just trusts that no one is gonna call him on it.

On Saturday night alone he dropped this idiocy + the cross in the dirt bullshit + pulling John Lewis (who he apparently doesn't know from Joe Louis, whose first fight McCain attended I hear) out his ass + lying about cheating.

If I were John McCain I would be wracked with fear and paranoia that my easily disproven stupid lies would blow up in my face.  I wouldn't be able to sleep at night but not Grampa Death.  He just rolls through it all looking vaguely confused and thouroughly terrifying with his giant grin and tiny arms.

by ProfRich on 08/20/2008 01:39:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
he truly frightens me (none / 0)

He is like the puppet nominee of the Republican party, willing to morph to whatever position they deem necessary to win.  He lies outright, then those beady black soulless eyes blink 12 times (it's secret code to Freemasons), and he gives that cheshire cat "smile" and sometimes you get a little Bush-like "heh heh heh" thing at the end (sounds like a red-breasted nuthatch).  I think maybe he might actually already be dead and they just have this new military technology thing going on.

by desertpear on 08/20/2008 02:13:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Geeking Out (none / 0)

I think maybe he might actually already be dead

That would make him undead.  Considering his power and leadership aspirations I would call him a lich.

Look it up in your Monster Manual.

by ProfRich on 08/20/2008 06:57:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I looked it up (none / 0)
Armor Class 0.  Real badass.  Spells and shit.  But I don't think McCain can use magic, otherwise, he would just wave that magic wand that makes the gas prices go down.

"Like lipstick on a pig"

by TJD on 08/20/2008 10:20:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Leaders without historic perspective (none / 0)
I'm pretty sure McCain was pandering (then again what does that say about his character), let's hope so, BUT in case he's like Bush and really starts believing his delusions:

I believe that leaders without historic perspective will almost always be bad leaders, especially when confronted with crises and definitely when confronted with war. Because those people will undoubtely make the same mistakes people before them already have made.

Judgment has less to do with gut feeling and more to do with accumulated knowledge and/or experience.

Bush had none: no experience and no knowledge result: disaster
McCain doesn't seem to have historic perspective if he thinks Petraeus is anything special in history and that Vietnam could have been won if the US had stayed longer (something he has said often)

of course having mountains of knowledge combined with bad motives will still bring you disasters depending on which side you are. Cheney for instance has been a disaster for the Iraqi and American society, but has been a blessing for oil companies and defense contractors

by callisto on 08/20/2008 09:00:15 AM EST

McCain and the past (none / 0)

Its not clear to me McCain really believes in the past.  Almost everything he says falls into two categories.

Lies I can disprove with about two minutes on the Google and lies I can disprove with what I already know.

His hubris seems to stem, in part, from a belief that everyone else is really stupid and can't fact check him.

Last month he claimed to have "led the fight" to establish MLK Day.  It's staggering how stupid he thinks we are.  Kind of makes sense though as he is a giant elitist. 

by ProfRich on 08/20/2008 09:11:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
how much of his behavior (none / 0)

Is personal unfamiliarity with how the internet works and how easy it is to fact-check?  That could explain a lot, really. 

Narcissist too.  I think another factor in his elevating Petraeus is that he really thinks he is riding on a predestined wave to the presidency, where he will be a great war president, etc. etc.  It justifies his time spent suffering in the POW camp and seems like God is leading him on to the future he deserves.  Elevating his contemporaries to greatness and calling things like the Georgia/Russia event the biggest crisis since Genesis or whatever, is narcissistic since he sees himself as being so important and in the middle of it all.

by desertpear on 08/20/2008 02:03:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain has no clue about military history | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: