Patton was harshly critical of Montgomery to the Press.

He said Montgomery was the best general the English had.

Walt

I recall the "Monty is the best general the English have..." line from the Patton movie. That was in front of the Press (okay it was a movie).

You are right, Tom; He did also say that Ike was the best general the English have but maybe not to the Press. :)

Walt

I do believe that Montgomery himself raised American hackles on at least one occasion with an unwise remark about the US military's quality. There was even a story, presumably true, about Einsehower himself putting his hand on Montgomery's knee and saying something to the effect of, "You can't talk to me like that. I'm your boss." In any case, prima donna attitudes of general officers irrespective of nationality hardly had infleunce, limited or lasting, on Allied co-operation during World War 2.

This particular general's rant was, I suspect, particularly unwelcome but not because he had harsh words for the hapless Mr Karzai but because of his rather slighting language towards the Afghan military AND various civilian officials. His preoccupation with protecting US wealth, if not blood, from rapacious Afghans was doubtless highly patriotic, he could, though, have been a little less strident. It's a telling commentary on the opacity of US aims in Afghanistan that those charged with its implementation publicly shoot themselves so in the feet.

There may be some who are dissatiasfied with HK. Sad to relate, HK was basically selected to be Afghan President the first time around (it is notorious that the UN collaborated with the US to remove any candidate willing to oppose him, usually by muttering 'war crimes trial'; thereby exclusinf one and all -- or at least people who had actually had something to do with persuading the Soviets to leave the country. As for provocation, is it not true that even during the Bush Presidency Democrat Congressmen went out of their way to hector HK during a Washington visit?

...that this is a case of "should have known better"? I find it hard to believe that those were "oops" comments--coming as they did from the deputy CC of one of the most politically-sensitive billets in AFG (NTM-A). Stranger things have happend, I guess.

Maybe MG Fuller should have employed some of those mind-controlling psyops gurus who served LTG Caldwell so faithfully at NTM-A? "_These are not the inflammatory remarks you're looking for..._"

And the breathless comments below the S&S article are also pretty rich. I love the selective application of the "speak-truth-to-power" righteous indignation.

General Fuller should drop retirement papers and on the next day file his papers to stand for election to the Senate. Would that more officers were able to speak such necessary truths rather than repeat political talking points that we all know to be absolute and total lies.

It looks like we are trying to fit this argument into a context that does not exist. We are not fighting WWII. From the scale of the conflict, the political aims and resources we are willing to commit everything about the current fight is different.

Interesting speech by General Mattis this weekend after this story broke.
“A sense of humor is one of your best defenses — it’s as good as the helmet on your head,” he said. “A squad leader who can keep his sense of humor and sense of calm is worth more than a thousand generals.”

“You want some new ideas? Read some old books.” Specifically, he recommended books by and about leaders like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Interesting topic and reading selection. Connection here?

might be when Joseph Stilwell was recalled from China resulting his conflicts with Chiang Kai-shek.

History proved that Stilwell's opinion of Chiang was right on. What will happen with Karzai? I suspect the Afghan version of Mao Zedong will be even less U.S. friendly.

I heard it from a little bird that MG Schloesser resigned in silent protest after the findings came back on Wanat. Word was that he believed someone should accept responsibility, and if it wasn't going to be assigned to his subordinate commanders, then he'd take it. Didn't make a big deal about it, but apparently those in the know got the message. Even if it's not true (and I can't confirm, heard it second-hand), does something like that even make a difference?

....we would not have the interest in their comments.

We seem to have pushed a phalanx of generals across our diplomatic and military portfolio of leader positions more appropriately filled by civilians. They have become confused on their responsibilities.

Could they be mouthing pure tin ear opinions because they might actually deem themselves on the pedestal to do so? Did the executive abdicate overseas governance to people who wear speckled grey green pajamas to work?

MG Fuller must have known what he was doing. Perhaps, realizing the futility of his job (training) he wanted out. We are always asking generals to tell the truth and he did. I imagine that both generals Allen and Fuller are good men, but Allen lied and Fuller told the truth. He knew he would be fired - he had to after McChrystal.

The father of Market Garden was a great general? After the Battle of the Bulge, Montgomery had a press conference in which he made it sound like the British saved the day, but the Americans, nonetheless, are good soldiers. Ridiculous! Look at the casualty figures. I think that the Brits suffered 2602 killed - my god that man had gall or was mentally ill!

Rooney got the Bronze Star for his work at the front - period. Patton was an extraordinarily complex man. If you want to applaud him, there are qualities worthy of applause. If you want to intensely dislike him, there are many things to dislike. I'm not aware of any reason to criticize his tactics - maybe the race to Messina?

Patton made intemperate remarks and he was penalized for it. Those remarks were far more opinionated and dangerous (to the Alliance) than what MG Fuller said. What's worse, everybody knows that he's right. I didn't think he had to mention the money - especially when we are paying in blood, but everything else is common knowledge.

What should be the appropriate disciplinary action for those generals and civilian officials who got ISAF and the United States stuck with Karzai a full decade after the Taliban government fell?

I understand about proper subordination and the chain of command, but policy failures are subversive of national institutions, too. The reaction to them, by a foreign policy and national security establishment long grown used to officials failing upward, is that, well, war is complicated, and we must stay whatever course we're on. And of course insubordination must be punished harshly, because if it weren't how could the military sustain ten years of mucking around in a place like Afghanistan?

It is possible to polish a turd for so long that eventually there is no turd left, only polish.

The Afghanistan adventure may not end up as any big victory for US/NATO, but it will certainly have produced a battalion of world-class turd-polishers.

Go ahead and fire the general -- appearances must be maintained -- but make sure nobody hears Hamid the K laughing his a** off about it.

When Americans reflect on war in Europe the man most often thought of is George Patton, and most regrettably this Patton has been George Scott's caricature in the motion picture of the same name. Recent books beth jones purporting to be serious history of war have made reference to the movie rather than to the man.

The father of Market Garden was a great general? After the Battle of the Bulge, Montgomery had a press conference in which he made it sound like the British James Stone saved the day, but the Americans, nonetheless, are good soldiers. Ridiculous! Look at the casualty figures. I think that the Brits suffered 2602 killed - my god that man had gall or was mentally ill!