You are watching by tv. Next thomas ricks looks at why so many world war ii era generals are held in high regard while history is not than suband a general sick amanda troops during later wars. Its a little over an hour. Good evening everyone. Welcome and thank you for joining us. My name is Richard Konte and im the president of the center for no america security. Its a pleasure to welcome you here to celebrate the publication of senior fellow thomas ricks book the new generals American Military command from world war ii to today. Speaking of books, we have some for sale so if youre interested it will be on sale after the event. I already picked up on which i see some of you have in the ballroom lobby. Thomas ricks has been a member of of the family for quite a while serving as a senior fellow at the center. Tom writes a widely read blog called the best defense which won the 2000 National Award for best blog of the year. He is wellknown for his book fiasco the American Military adventure in iraq and as for his follow up of general petraeus in the American Military adventure in iraq. Tom spent 17 years as a reporter covering the u. S. Military for wall street journal and another aide on the same for the Washington Post and in the course of this work he reported on military activities in places as varied as somalia, bosnia and iraq and afghanistan afghanistan and is imparted to teams that won the pulitzer prize. As ive gotten i learned that he is the rarest rarest of find to disrupt the thinkers we like to say his energy and intellectual creativity combine in novel ways of thinking. He constantly pushes us to think differently in new ways, more nimbly and provocatively. That is a spirit that infuses toms new book, the generals. He explores generalship of good and bad in accountability and traces the history of generalship from George Washoe and world war ii to chosin reservoir and vietnam. To colin powell and the gulf war and the generals who commanded the iraq from 2003 on. The general argues the military is change over its years in the way it rewards good generalship and punishes bad. Toms is a provocative argument and one that we will examine in detail and nice conversation. Joining tom in this conversation is Susan Glasser one of the nations Top National Security journalist. Susan is the editorinchief of foreignpolicy magazine has done tremendous work in billing foreignpolicy. Com into a key locus of the nationals carry discussion. Prior to joining foreignpolicy susan was reported to the Washington Post and the capitol hill newspaper roll call and brings great experience and expertise to the conversation tonight. Runtime and susan were poised for an intriguing conversation about leadership generalship command and relief, tom and susan. For so thank you so much for that kind introduction and thank you to c s who is not only been a benefactor to tom but directly and indirectly foreignpolicy as we embarked on this project over the last two years. Thank you very much and i think you have given us a perfect starting point for the conversation today in your very generous and right on the mark introduction of tom and the book so i too have known tom not only as editor and a friend but as they just dropped a thinker who has lots of important things to say about leadership, followership in the nature of being an institution i think one of the things that i most enjoy personally about reading the generals is how well it relevant it is in leadership across large institutions and also bringing these questions about accountability and American Public life since world war ii which to me in many ways is really what the book is about, as well as a lot of power individual stories both of the generals we have all heard of from general marshall to general westmoreland but also those we havent heard of and historians i think need to be recaptured. Id like to go ahead and start right in in the middle if you will, tom. Lets talk a little bit about your most provocative pieces, which is that oil down to in essence theres just not in a firing going on in the u. S. Military since the end of world war ii. I will tze yes, there are is not enough firing going on but the book is not simply for firing more generals. It is a brief for accountability. If you hold people accountable for success and failure, you incentivize success in the military and i think we have lost that. Theres a real tolerance for media be. As colonel paul yang ling famously said about the iraq war, a private uses his rifle [inaudible] and the book is a cry for restoring some of that accountability the George Marshall used in world war ii that marshall gave generals about 90 days to two months to either succeed, get killed or be replaced. And that is why today people like fred and bald have been forgotten. We know names like ridgway and eisenhower. The younger officers who were moved up because they were successful and we lost in korea, vietnam and iraq. I am glad you bring up colonel again wing in iraq is that clearly is the context informs the book although it is a work of history going back to world war ii and to the present day. You make the point that there is more accountability lower down on the food chain than our general officers now. [inaudible] thats exact rewrite. [laughter] that is not in the book i dont think. How many people have held to account for the disastrous setbacks the military had early on, the failure to see things . Not really. The stunning thing to me is, good trivia question, who is the last Army Division commander relieved from combat ineffectiveness . As best as i can tell is Major GeneralJames Baldwin in 1971. Since then, generals have been fired but they get fired for basically taking down their pants at the wrong time at the wrong place with the wrong person. Its a little bit like having tenure for university professor. You can get fired fired for an piercing embarrassing an institution with moral lapses but just being encumbereencumbered in your profession is perfectly acceptable. Before we get on and i want you to step back for second a second and give people a real sense of what he wrote the book in who the heroes are and who the zeros are but just quick wafers because aspiring thing, that is what really has sort of the insiders and the military establishment really up in arms. You have gotten under their scan with this critique, this idea that the solution is firing. That has prompted some howls of outrage. Why do you think that would make things better . Why is that more accountable . Because if you dont if you tolerate incompetence you have an incompetent organization. What you want is not to fire people for the sake of firing. You want to fire people who dont succeed. You want to reward people who do succeed. What you want ultimately is adaptability. I was thinking today about h. R. Mcmaster because someone had written to me and said tom you either have a contra insurgency army or a conventional army. You cant have both. H. R. Mcmaster is one of the heroes of the gulf war and the most conventional of the characters. The battle of 73 easton. Years later in iraqi is one of the first commanders to successfusuccessfu lly adopt counterinsurgency tactics. That shows a real flexibility and adaptability and shows the ability to think strategically, to be educated about your profession not just train for your job. Training prepares you for the known and education prepares you for thee and him. H. R. Mcmaster came and to iraq prepared for the unknown. Most notably i would say that tenet general muck card of sanchez who basically had blow up in his face and went home and bitter because it was not promoted to four stars. I did my one year and im entitled to the promotion. That sense of entitlement is a new thing among generals the sense that we are above questioning. I worry a bit that as a nation, we try to honor and support the troops so much that we kind of include the generals and not understanding that one way to his ports the troops is to give them good leadership. They deserve better leadership and deserve the best leadership we can give them. We are not giving it to them right now are goes to be one of the arguments is that really we have a much faster but also more professional stormy then the postworld war i force that marshall had an imperative to turn into a fighting force to begin world war ii and that firing is not necessarily a sign of good leadership or Good Management of the Big Organization but could also reflect a failure of an organization to weed out the problems and let them simply fail upwards. Its never too late to fire a failure. And i think you really want to give people the best leadership you can find. This is a matter of life and death with the troops. Troops know when they are not well led. They sense it and in world war ii, though it was cs, it had millions of amateurs. We went from 185,000 troops in the army including the air force before world war ii to 9. 5 million in 1945 so necessarily a hugely civilian force comes in. Yet, it is adaptable. The key characteristics of the u. S. Army in world war ii was to learn. Marshall famously said in a meeting once, yes he said to a british officerofficer, our troops make a lot of mistakes but i on my chores they dont repeat them. [laughter] wasnt that the testimony of german officers after the war is that they found the americans were learning more quickly . Im a little suspect of the german officers. I would probably say you guys are great. [laughter] one great observation in the section on world war ii is this incredible speed with which this is playing out which i think bears repeating for this audience because its dramatic. We like to think today we live in the twitter age where moving at at the speed of like when it comes to our new cycle but the truth is there military isnt necessarily moving at that fasba though. Just the pace and scale of the change that marshall was overseeing. It is striking that by the time we began fighting effectively in iraq, we had been there longer than we thought. It was about four years before we actually had an effective force in iraq in terms of the strategic effect. I want to emphasize by the way im not criticizing our troops today. Our troops are wellequipped, welltrained, cohesive and perhaps the best soldiers we have ever had. They are just not as well led as they might be. One that one important thing to surfaces you do make a direct link between bad leadership and when things really go awry. You talk about some of the excesses in iraq for example or in other wars. What do you see as the consequences of some of these bad generalship is . We basically make our commander. He doesnt know where the bodies are buried. By the time he figures it out, hes got home. I cant imagine running a war that way. Can you imagine marshall seemed to eisenhower had 18 months of there. Temper some enough else have a turn. Marshall and eisenhower made a lot of mistakes and 42. They need in the exam learn from them. At one point in africa thought he might be an elite and sent a letter to his son, seen a, seeing as im an elite, thats nature of the business, dont worry about it. In fact, thats one of the critiques ive seen surfaced about your prescription to the boat is the question for x months is to fire a general schema does not mean he doesnt tolerate our mistakes, Richard Meredith suggests even our greatest leaders made plenty missed date on the personal front as well as strategic side . 155 mens to the Division Commanders in the army in world war ii. Since after many hurdles before that. About 600 officers before the war began, officers he considered dead weight. Thats the phrase used in frankfurter was talking about it. So upon hundred 55 men commanded divisions in combat in the army in world war ii, 15 were fired im sorry, 16 were fired. Five are given other divisions and combat leader in the war, which leads to want to make your areas, the way to the weekend for me i was on a john top Ends University site looking at the American Campaign in sicily in 1943 and a grad student talking about terry allen, mentioned casualty after the battle was over in the campaign was one, omar bradley fire terry allen. My jaw dropped. I just cannot abide backward nobody gets fired for nothing. Where mediocrity was our goal. Instead, i hear about the army firing one of our most affect the Division Commanders in europe and our first year that were there. Thats the threat that began the book for me, going instead meanness. Bob killebrew took me aside and said you need to learn more about George Marshall. The copy your cd i learned from the archives have been immersed myself in George Marshalls the haters really came to to admire the guy. Nothing he said particularly likable guy. The other hero of the book is eisenhower. Eisenhower is actually under rated. The job of managing the allies, and dealing with the reddish, the french. Montgomery is a piece of work. You know, at one point montgomery will come see. Im sorry, mike gummi woke me take a miss though he cant get up the plane because these french disney, so montgomery comes to see him come full text by miranda insisted she write this . Essentially eisenhower he says that if they are i airbus. Its fascinating to me how that typical relationship with the british if they are realizing we are replacing them not only a comment, but at the superpower. How eisenhower can have it send out easily, manages not, doesnt fire my komeito he sorely tempted to do so several times. If you think im exaggerating eisenhowers achievement, think of the fall of seniority but george pat and not job. Things may not gone so well. We probably wouldve ended up in more with the british. Last night so after world war ii, are there any heroes or was it a long story of decline click know, two personal heroes of mine. One is matthew ridgway, the leading protege who became world war iis marshalls morning briefer, briefing him on the state of the war. I was basically in intelligence operations brief also given to the president. Very a very interesting figure racing quickly from colonel to Lieutenant General in world war ii. But korea goes in and turns around workman it differently and put lee. My other hero of the korean war is the guy almost forgotten today, opie smith. For a moment, hes a marine general root porting to Army Generals to macarthur. Its a problem because he believes superior officers are incorrect in her sustenance situation in situation in the orators theyre giving him. He has to handle a situation in which macarthur wants him to run his marines to the chinese border, when he believes chinese are pouring in to korea and believes correctly by the way. He handles this extremely well and said the most important thing a general can do are all done before the battle begins. He does three things. He concentrates troops on the west and south type of the reservoir. He lays down a series of supply depots in case he has to retreat and he has an airstrip because it can school you on a retreat for the pants. Had he not done these things, we might very well have a 16,000 marines a chosen rest of our commode of the greatest military disasters in American History come many times the size of custers last stand and probably wouldve resulted in one of two things. Escalate nuclear against china or south korea today being a communist state under north korea. I want to have to feel schussler is in the audience tonight. Gil schuessler, correct me if im wrong, is the granddaughter opie smith. Because your father was killed in world war ii. So we have here the granddaughter race to opie smith of the genuine american hero. A bigticket opie smith and youre a round of applause. [applause] and if theres one thing i hope comes out of this book is that the Marine Corps Museum get a deriding critics a chesty poller was the commander chosin reservoir. Im so glad you raise this because for the city who havent read the book yet, this is by far the most current pain and still unrecognized story. This part of the book it is not the way it might seem, based on a powerful story. Is a true tom they should have a soft spot for the marines . He has been accused of being partial to the marines, or is it just at the army produces more about generals . [laughter] the army and marine corps are very different. The marine corps still does operate more in the nautical tradition of swift release and holding commanders accountable, just as skippers of vessels are held accountable for everything that happens on the ship. For example, the only notable really for the invasion of iraq was general madison said the other Regimental Commander, colonel dowdy. The reason i got into chosen is because i wanted someone in the book to diet down. Most of the book is at the strategic level, how generals think about wars, the first task of the commander to understand the nature of the conflict in which shes engaged. Somewhere wanted to see how that gets applied. The whole way from senior echelon counterbid tiant, companies, squads, fire chief. Chosin reservoir is interesting because it laboratory example. You have marines on the westside of the reservoir, army unit on the eastside. You have the First Division reverse a 50,000 marines on the west and south sides. Its comparing decisions made by generals. In this case, not all cases, want to save general scales of these here tonight, if not all cases did we do better than the army. In this case they did, clearly. Opie smith makes a series of smart decisions, even though he has mom and i macarthur pushing him in the wrong direction and a reckless fashion. The army unit on the east side of chosin reservoir. People forget this. 90 casualty rate. Survivors only survived if they were able to stagger on the ice at the reservoir and walked down to the marines launch for most of this out. And because a littleknown marine colonel went out with some corman and marines over the course of several days and pulled in the laudable and 80 pounds diapering around on the ice. Cheney soldiers watched. They couldve shot them them at any time. I like this marine colonel, b