,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. This is tangential, but I'm always puzzled by the amount of credit people are willing to give to loser generals like Lee & Rommel.
2. The argument is something like "putting aside the cause they fought for, they showed tactical genius." Which is odd, because they lost.
3. Then response is "sure, they lost, but circumstances against them. They did best with what they had." if so, they shouldn't have fought
4. In war, as everywhere, ends & means have to be aligned. If you don't think you can win a war, you shouldn't fight it.
5. Rommel & other Wehrmacht generals knew from start Hitler's wars un-winnable but went along. That's opposite of good military leadership
6. Compare the fetishization of Lee & Rommel with the fact that Võ Nguyên Giáp rarely discussed as a great military leader.
7. Giap defeated the French, the Americans & the Chinese: A European power, a North American power & an Asian power. Without precedent.
8. If we want to separate out political cause from military leadership, Giap was clearly one of the greatest military leaders in history
9. I think this is right. Lee & Rommel comport to a certain aristocratic ideal of military leadership. Giap doesn't
10. Plebes who win wars (Zhukov, Sherman, Omar Bradley, Giap) don't get honored as much as aristocrats who lose (Lee & Rommel).
11. To paraphrase the president, I like generals who win wars.
