Gen. Casey is pretty squared away. He's got a great demeanor. Have you ever been around the guy? Not easy to do from the IRR....

He didn't look "squared away" when he spoke at the Fort Hood funeral for 13 GIs, on national television, and in front of the POTUS, since he didn't bother to put on a service uniform -- he wore BDUs. I doubt even someone from the IRR would do that!

Sigel at least served as a good recruiting tool.

I'd have to go with Benjamin "Spoons" Butler. Incompetent in the field, and no one was more capable of inflaming public opinion.

This is not in order

1) William Westmoreland
2) David Petraeus
3) George McClellan
4) Douglas McArthur
5) Tommy Franks

Too many Union Generals & Confederate Generals to list from the War between the States. However, the Union led in numbers of poor generals. Also, these wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are building up some failures as Generals. Some of this can be attributed to politicians & the wars themselves. i.e. numbers of troops, troop rotations, etc.

Benedict Arnold in the field was Washington's best General. Strategically, Washington was a superior General to Robert E. Lee. Tactically, Lee may have had no equal.

A lot goes into defining Generalship besides actual battlefield victories.

Def. Pitiful

TODDCASEY,
I could possibly understand not being as taken with Gen. Petraeus as everyone else, but would you mind providing any sort of reasoning as to why he should rank as one of the worst U.S. generals ever?

Kind of a blot on his career, huh?
Cheers,
Tom

Indeed. But not his generalship

How they handled political decisions is part of it, I'd say.
Best,
Tom

I am not so sure that was a political decision. Wasn't it more personal? That said, its your list Tom, you can have on it who you want!

Arnold was a man of his times. As such, a person living in the United States could legitimately swing either British or American until the end of the war in 1781. Otherwise, what about all the American Tories who fought with the British throughout the war?

Now you could argue that a person shouldn't be able to swing both ways (don't blame me for your dirty minds) but isn't that what we're trying to do with the Taliban, convince them that the American way is more in their interest? Would they then be traitors or allies? The same should apply to Arnold. He simply reassessed where his interest lay and then changed his mind.

Should we assess the Code Napoleon in order to assess Napoleon's generalship?

If politics, including insubordination, is to be considered, then Julius Caesar - who disobeyed the Senate's order to disband his army and return to Rome - clearly needs to be on this list more than MacArthur or Arnold.

Neil

Seems like James Wilkinson should be on the list ahead of Arnold, being in a more senior position, a more energetic traitor (one might argue), and a worse field commander.

I'm pretty sure that Julius Ceasar was not an American.

But are do have one set of standards for how to measure an American general, another set of standards for a Roman general, another set for a Chinese general? That's not how you study military history - and at the least sets up Caesar to be rated as a great general (ignoring his politics), while MacArthur is rated as one of the worst due to his politics.

Repeated acts of insubordination to the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t count? Usually on this forum I try to maintain an element of politeness but this is one of the dumbest statements I have ever read by someone whom I assume wants it to be taken seriously. We read much about MacArthur’s undoubted foul up in Korea but even more egregious was the complete incompetence of his management of he defense of the Philippines against forces smaller and less powerful and logistically weaker than his own. More than twenty-four hours after Pearl Harbor the core of the U.S. Army Air Force was obliterated at Clark field on the ground even thought its commander pleaded with Macarthur’s HQ to allow him to disperse and attack Jap forces on Formosa. I could go on for hours but it makes me nauseous.

" We read much about MacArthur’s undoubted foul up in Korea but even more egregious was the complete incompetence of his management of he defense of the Philippines ""

Well, a few points:

The "US Army of the Far East" that he commanded was only really in existence for 6 months, after Roosevelt federalized the Philippine army. It had 2 active divisions; 10 in reserve (~22,000 forces total, but much fewer "effective" troops; they were poorly trained and equipped. compared to the Japanese); all were in the process of being reorganized to US command. (From Wikipedia)= "Training was also seriously inhibited by language difficulties between the American cadres and the Filipino troops, and by the many differing dialects (estimated at 70) of the numerous ethnic groups comprising the army"

The destruction of the air forces in the Philippines is hard to pin on McArthur directly; there was a mobilization of forces prior to the attack, but for some reason "all clear" was given and planes returned to the ground... at the worst possible moment. The traditional culprits have been considered Generals Henry Arnold and Maj General Brereton, who commanded the FEAF. McArthur was subsequently ordered out of the Bataan battle, after having been lied to by Roosevelt for months who had claimed major naval forces were coming to their aid. McArthur did continue to perpetuate this myth to his troops up until he split, and if there is anything you can stick on him directly, that would be one major blow to his leadership. However, the truth is that there was no support forthcoming from the US, and McArthur was being hung out to dry. He wasn't the only one under the misimpression that US forces were mobilizing to their rescue. His retreat to Bataan and the ensuing standoff with the Japanese was considered a brilliant strategic move by his peers at the time, and confounded the Japanese. He left Bataan because he was ordered to. (from Wikipedia) ""MacArthur was ordered by President Roosevelt to relocate to Australia. MacArthur discussed the idea with his staff that he resign his commission and fight on as a private soldier in the Philippine resistance but Sutherland talked him out of it"" ""Washington asked MacArthur to amend his promise to, "We shall return". He ignored the request.""

So yes, he obviously was resentful of the President, who had lied about reinforcements for months, leaving Filipino and American troops to be wiped out, captured, and die in concentration camps. If this is "dishonorable dissent", I dont quite see it. He had a legitimate beef. And if he was considered a 'failure' for losing the Philippines, it does seem odd that he was appointed (over some objections by Australians, who represented a large contingent) Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific Area. Its also odd that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for his defense of the island, and his peers such as General Pershing spoke glowingly of his strategic decisions in the campaign.

In short, I think the case of the Philippines being an unmitigated failure that was entirely his responsibility is weak. No doubt there are other examples that could be used to cast him as "worst general", but I do not think this is one of them.

Its also worth noting he was more or less the father of modern Japan, having oversaw the occupation for nearly 7 years, and functioning as the defacto ruler of the country for the first three. He redesigned their government, established land reform after hundreds of years of feudal control, broke up the Zaibatsu (economic cartels), and established individual rights for citizens vis a vis the state.

I recently read the biography, "American Shogun", which may color my view on the quality of his leadership. If anything, he was characterized as an egomaniac, but a largely successful egomaniac. The book did not cover the Korean war, which I know little about.

Anyway, I would like to see a more detailed argument about why McArthur qualifies as #1-worst general (particularly vis a vis McClelland) rather than accept that offhand. I would think there should be some truly glaringly poor decisions to point to, rather than an aggregate of things that may have arguably been out of his control. I also dont get the Benedict Arnold point, which others have noted actually probably has nothing to do with his Generalship and rather his loyalties. Everyone agrees Robert E Lee was a master general; was his joining the losing side a slight on his skill? I do see how Arnold was different, but nevertheless, the fact of his treason still has little to do with his military leadership while serving.

Well McClellan was the worst because his actions (or really inaction) were directly the result of sympathy for the enemy. He was a Copperhead who had no business being in a leadership position against the South. Burnside and Hooker were equally atrocious.

But many "great" generals are guilty of insubordination at one point or another. McClellan and MacArthur are obviously some of the most glaring. But Winfield Scott was awful during the Mexican-American War, and negotiated his own foreign policy contrary to the one negotiated directly by Polk's envoy to Mexico. Nonetheless, he was a brilliant tactician and won resounding victories that win him consideration as an all-time great. Wesley Clark was insubordinate in Kosovo. Patton was insubordinate in WWII (and he has my vote for top 3 greatest). The problem is, most of these guys (minus Patton, who's motives were personal glory for history's sake) wanted to be president and acted inappropriately to advance their goals.

Also, Custer was a great general at Gettysburg, its only his actions as a lt. colonel that deserve rebuke.

You can't blame Franks for being undermined by Rumsfeld and civilian authority in Iraq. Likewise, Westmoreland was handicapped by strategic limitations placed on him by Johnson's cabinet (rightly or un-rightly so) that didn't allow him to pursue victory through total war and an invasion of the North.

MacArthur's botching of Korea wasn't his fault. The CIA told him China had 30,000, not 300,000 troops massed at the Yalu, and so he rightfully dismissed Mao's threats as insignificant.

Washington deserves to be on that list for not embracing Fabian tactics when he should have. He really got lucky more than anything else that he had brilliant generals beneath him (Greene and Arnold) who were able to alter the landscape so that the French would step in. Not to say Washington didn't have his moments, and the end result should matter, but he was like the guy who shoots 15% and hits a miracle buzzer beater to win.

MacArthur's father earned the Congressional Medal of Honor at Missionary Ridge as an 18 year old voltiguer. Rallied his entire regiment charging the crest with Old Glory and gained a battlefield brevet to Colonel.

Tough act to follow

My dog could have planned the invasion of Iraq. The Iraqis couldn't have fought their way out of a wet paper bag, and Boy Scouts could have taken the place. His total failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq cost 4,000 American lives. His stupidity also allowed Osama bin Laden to walk south for the winter, single-handedly destroying any possibility of avoiding a decade-long debacle in Afghanistan. At least Joe Hooker, who was equally dismal at the operational level of war, had the decency not to write a book about being a modest hero. So far Franks' idiocy has cost the United States $1 Trillion dollars and 5,000 lives, and neither war is over. My choice for worst general in American history.

Could not agree more. Clark's initial breakout from Anzio toward Valmontone could have crushed much of the German 10th army; and the advance was going very well. But once he had broken out far enough, he slowed the successful operation and reduced it's size dramatically to divert his forces directly toward Rome. Predictably, they ran into heavy opposition in the advance toward Rome, where most of the German 14th Army was positioned; and the Germans got away through Valmontone. All that because of some fear of the British taking Rome first (not sure how he could see that, since even if he had gone to Valmontone first, he still would have been the commander positioned to take Rome - not the British 8th Army, which still would have been southeast of Clark; and not the couple British divisions on the far left flank, which couldn't have taken Rome themselves and were under Clark's command anyway). Another general who got distracted by glory and by symbolic or territorial objectives at the expense of destroying the enemy's army; and an especially egregious example. This plus the blunders with the 36th at the Rapido definitely qualify him for the list.

JOHNNYLUNCHPA, I what basis?

LeMay targeted civilians, whole cities. Even he admitted the strategy made him a war criminal. See the great movie "Fog of War."

Well, then the entire USAAF and the British RAF would certainly have to fall into the category of war criminals. Both strategic forces under all their commanders bombed civilian targets throughout the war.

1 - he was a Colonel at the time, so he doesnt count

2 - Fog of War is a great movie, but I believe the characterization that comes out of the film is more Errol Morris' than MacNamara:

e.g. ""Robert McNamara describes LeMay's courage and character, when discussing a report of high abort rate in bomber missions during World War II:

One of the commanders was Curtis LeMay—Colonel in command of a B-24 group. He was the finest combat commander of any service I came across in war. But he was extraordinarily belligerent, many thought brutal. He got the report. He issued an order. He said, 'I will be in the lead plane on every mission. Any plane that takes off will go over the target, or the crew will be court-martialed.' The abort rate dropped overnight. Now that's the kind of commander he was.[2]""

Among other things he was also in command of the Berlin Airlift.

If you really wanted to go after LeMay, it should probably not be his leadership in WWII, but his advocacy of preemptive nuclear war, first against russia and later against Cuba. People like him were responsible for the nuclear arms race and 40+ years of the cold war.

I didn't say he bombed civilian targets, he bombed civilians. The goal was to kill as many as possible, with no real military purpose. The Navy was far more successful with their submarine blockade that starved rather than killed civilians.

So you're saying that killing civilans (and destroying the dispersed industries mixed into civilian areas in Japanese cities) from the air is wrong, but that starving them with a blockade is okay?

The starving and the bombing of civilians in the Pacific Theater amounted to fundamentally the same endstate-- namely dead non-combatants. One way was slow, one was fast. The tactics LeMay advocated (as a Major General) against Japan are similar to what Japan did during their occupation of China in the late 30s/early 40s and what the Germans did during the Spanish Civil War (ref Guernica) and to the Brits during World War I and II. From a strategic perspective, it was authorized and condoned. LeMay was definitely a "break glass in case of total global war" type leader that reflected the military thought of his time. Thankfully we have moved beyond non-precision strategic bombardment.

Deliberately murdering 3,000,000 civilians is more than a war crime, it's genocide. With the exception of the small number of USAAF personnel who did something which actually contributed to the war effort (which strategic bombing has been conclusively proven not to have done) such as Close Air Support, they all were.

"Dugout Doug" MacAurthur earned his nickname as a snivelling coward by skulking in the bowels of Corregidor while valiant American and Philippino troops ate tree bark and threw rocks at the Japanese on Bataan. he saw the sun only once during the course of the campaign. He did NOT do island-hopping in the Pacific, the Marines and Navy did. As great historians like Ronald Spector have pointed out, MacAurthur's insistence on a second axis of operations in the Pacific was the biggest strategic mistake the United States made in World War II. The retaking of the Philippines was totally unnecessary, as it was a giant self-feeding POW camp for the Japanese, and it constributed NOTHING to the outcome of the war. His idiocy in going north of the Yalu in Korea in direct disobedience of his orders (a court martial offence) was the sole cause of the Korean disaster, and his pathetic reaction to the Chinese assault cost thousands of lives. Only the great Matthew Ridgway saved the United States from complete disaster. The only reason this buffoon got two CMHs is because his mother and his powerful political connections lobbied for them shamelessly. MacAurthur's CMH for desertion in the middle of the night in a PT boat is the most egregious award in the history of the medal. He was an incompetent, arrogant, meglomaniaical, insubordinate buffoon.

Really? A coward? He remains one of the most decorated men in history for his actions in WWI. An ego maniac, yes, a coward. Hardly. Remember, his defense of the PI caused a delay in the Japanese time table from which they never recovered. While he may not have invented island hopping he almost perfected joint warfare and even the most rudimentary study of his campaigns show that he had fewer casaulties and covered more ground than Nimitz campaign. Somehow the Navy had the odd skill to attack every major strength of the Japanese and squandered thousands of lives. Should we even mention the brilliance of Inchon. Politically he was out of his league, strategically he has few rivals.

We all love Ike because he was a political general that didn't make waves, but from a military perspective he wasn't that good. His broad front strategy probably lengthened the war and directly led to disasters like the Hurtgen Forest.

After re-reading the post I need to recant my previous statement: You do not need to read a book, you probably need to read several books to get the facts right and understand how to study history in context.

PI - The defense delayed the Japanese time table from which they never recovered. From that point on they could not regain the initiative and thousands of troops were drawn from elsewhere to finally take the islands. As for retaking the PI, several Japanese leaders attest to the blow this had on the war effort. What effects to Pelilieu, Tarawa, and other disastorous victories have on the war. MacAurthurs WWII campaigns were brilliant.

Korea - Inchon is still considered one of the most brilliant strokes in military history. The UN forces never went north of the Yalu. MacArthur was ultimately relieved becuase he challenged the civillian authority by debating policy and overtly coveting political office. MacArthur's greatest and unforgivable military blunder in Korea was misreading the Chinese, which by the way also happened in DC. To put it in context MacArthur was a proponent of ulitmate victory, the same forieng policy that was brought to a successful conclusion in WWI and WWII, the formative years for MacArthurs career, and was the policy in the beginning of the Korean War. However, Truman couldn't stocmach what it would cost and changed the policy, no less than three times, to accept a limited war. Truman can probably be credited with establishing the policy that limited objectives were ok, thus leading to Vietnam and Iraq.

Medal of Honor - It is the Medal of Honor, not CMH. It is bestowed upon the recipient in the name of Congress. MacArthur received only one and it was a political decision made by Roosevelt and Marshall for deserting the Soldiers in the PI and leading them on as if they were going to be relieved. MacArthur did not skulk away, he was ordered to leave and was even going to resign his position to fight on the front until FDR and Marshall assured him that he would lead a relief effort.

So MacArthur had hus faults and committed some acts that were inexcusable for a militayr officer, namely questioning the civilian authority and formulating policy. However, the same crowd that will crucify MacArthur for insubordination are the same crowd who ask why the generals didn't question policy in Iraq.

Great topic but in the end it is meaningless because it is not contextual and is too focused on one aspect of generalship (albiet pretty damn important).

Your post is so full of historical error, it's hard to know where to start. Yes, MacArthur only got one Medal of Honor (colloquially abreviated MOH or CMH), but he was nominated twice before. Most of his other decorations were bogus. The Silver Star was a campaign device before MacArthur got it upgraded in the 1930's, then he awarded himself seven of them for having sat behind a desk in seven campaigns for which the little ribbon device was awarded. His mother worked ceaselessly and obsessively, often 12 hours a day, writing letters to her friends in Congress to bestow more medals on her son. MacArthur received a Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) just for having landed in Korea in an airplane, as Time magazine pointed out in the 1950's. MacArthur was only too happy to skedaddle out of Corregidor, and giving him a medal of any type for slinking away in the middle of the night was and is disgraceful. I am finishing my PhD in Military History now and it's safe to say, having passed my Comprehensive Exam after reading more than 400 books just for the examination, that I have read a Hell of a lot more -- and know a Hell of a lot more -- than you ever will. MacArthur and his mother wove a mythology around him which many uninformed people still buy, but he was a self-aggrandizing, incometent buffoon.

"MacArthur was a proponent of ulitmate (sic) victory, the same forieng (sic) policy that was brought to a successful conclusion in WWI and WWII"

Of course. That's precisely why we had to number our World Wars...and likely why Korea is still divided over a cease-fire...
There are no "ultimate victories" merely pauses in perpetual war pursued by "gods in uniform" looking to write their own mythos.

Conflict with presidents or ego aside, check out MacArthur's divisions combat casualty percentages compared to objectives achieved. During WWII his combat units have some of the lowest casualty percentages compared with other units in any other theather. And his command was in the Pacific removing dug-in, fortified Japaneese on remote Islands. This fact alone shows he was a great strategist!!! Compare those rates to Pattons 3rd Army in Europe. I believe that the 3rd Army had casulity rates of 55 to 60%. Mark Clark should have went to prision for the percentages of casualties per unit under his command in Italy. At least Pattons army captured their objectives. From a soldier perspective, the "worst" Generals are those who spill blood needlessly for vanity or self glory. MacArthur doesn't belong on this list.

Casualty rates have to do with tactics, not strategy. Strategy has to do with your overall plan to win the war, not your plan for taking out a Jap bunker, which is tactics. MacArthur's strategy in WWII was crap, as many historians have pointed out. Start with Ronald Spector's "Eagle Against the Sun." None of MacArthur's objectives in his "southern strategy" did anything to win the war in the Pacific, and all those men died in vain. Splitting the Pacific effort into two separate thrusts was undoubtedly the biggest US strategic blunder of the war, and it was done solely to accomodate the galactic ego of Douglas MacArthur.

What brought about the collapse of Japan was the surrounding and blockading of the home islands, which was accomplished by the Navy and Marine Corps. The US submarine fleet had literally run out of targets in Japanese home waters by the spring of 1945. MacArthur having troops slog through pestilential jungles in New Guinea contributed the square root of zero to that. Being a good general isn't about keeping casualties low in the wrong place to fight, it's about picking the right place to fight in the first place. And in that regard, among many others, MacArthur sucked.

Let's not forget the part where Gen. MacArthur accepted his own MoH for "heroically" huddling inside Corregidor, then blatantly passed over the real hero of the whole debacle, Jonathan Wainwright, for the same recommendation. Not sure how Mac could look himself in the mirror after that. His meltdown after getting bombed by the Japanese on the Philippines (well-documented that he completely froze and locked himself in his office for hours) isn't a great testament to his leadership, either.

Congratulations for "almost" having a PHD, that's quite an acomplishment and obviously the online program is working for you. You're only 10 years behind and obviously very impressionable... but you'll catch up one day.

I assume for your love of Ronald Spector you have only read one book on MacArthur, I recommend you diversify your reading and actually study the subject for yourself and draw conclusions from the historical record. Good luck to you, but in the end you are a hell of a lot less knowledgeable than I thought before.

In the end MacArthur was an egotist, politically naive, and at the end of his career maybe even a little senile, but to deny his military genius is just stupid.

where they accept 3 candidates in 400 every year into their PhD program -- one which you do not have the slightest chance of getting into if you are reincarnated a thousand times. MacArthur was a genius at making stupid people like you think he was a military genius, but not once in his career as a general officer did he display anything remotely approaching even sound judgement, let alone genius. In another three years I'll have my PhD, before I'm 60, but you will still be an idiot.

I think you are mostly full of it. The more I read the slop you write the more I am convinced you are most likely a community college drop out that enjoys the history channel and playing Axis and Allies.

The fact that you are unable to even objectively discuss history, provide any sound arguments, or provide any evidence other than one book by a guy with a very clear bias and agenda just reinforces my belief.

But you're right, I must be an idiot for exchanging posts with someone of your obvious limited intellect and ability to look at other view points.

McArthur was the most decorated U.S. soldier during World War I. He was recommended for the Medal of Honor but turned down by Pershing on the grounds that the award should be reserved for junior officers and enlisted men. I'd sure hate to see Ricks' list of best generals.