Abstract: Abstract : The operational commander answers to two masters. Those below him deserve the full weight of his combat savvy, the full measure of his devotion to their cause, and the full strength of the United States national will unleashed through military force. Those above him deserve his leadership, guidance and advice. Those above him also owe him something in return: a clear definition of precisely what the mission is, the means to accomplish it, and honest explication of why it is worthy of the sacrifice of the Republic's greatest treasure. The successful operational commander Ulysses S. Grant and Matthew Ridgway are examples has both the driving talent to win a synchronized total war, and the full faith and measure of the President Lincoln and Truman, here to do so. Those operational commanders who fail, no matter how talented, often do so in opaque wars because of uncertain, ill-defined missions demanded of them by those above. General David Petraeus is such a commander, but Iraq is such a war. No matter his military success, General Petraeus has been placed in a situation in Iraq in which he cannot win, because the President has not given him a strategic end state to achieve. Battlefield victories notwithstanding, General Petraeus will leave behind a failed state. The American success, followed by the American failure, in Iraq clarifies the operational art.
Publication Year: 2007
Publication Date: 2007-11-06
Language: en
Type: report
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot