General failure; what the press doesn't tell you about America's military leaders

Washington Monthly, March, 1991 by Scott Shuger

Again, there is a historical precedent that could have enriched the discussion. If there ever was a war that showed generals make a difference, it was the Civil War, in which Abraham Lincoln went through quite a cast of officers before settling on the winning leadership of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. Probably the general Lincoln found the most frustrating was George McClellan, whom Lincoin fired twice for lack of aggressiveness. "You remember my speaking to you of what I called your overcautiousness?" Lincoln once wrote McClellan after yet another occasion when McClellan could have taken Richmond but didn't because he was waiting for reinforcements. "Are you not overcautious when you assume that you cannot do what the enemy is constantly doing?" Another time, when McClellan put in a request for new horses, Lincoln replied, "Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigues anything?"

In its discussion of Waller, the press was aware of the McClellan analogy, but just barely. The sole exceptions seem to be these: In a "news analysis" piece on the Waller episode in The New York Times, Michael Gordon spends most of his time dwelling on press and spin, but in the 13th paragraph he does refer to McClellan. But that's all he does. "Critics of the military are already charging the generals with 'McClellanism,"' Gordon writes. He never says if he charges that or tries to evaluate the thesis. In his news analysis" of the episode, the Times's R. W. Apple mentions McClellan in connection with the "caution of commanders down through the ages," but Apple doesn't try to decide if Waller was just being prudent or if he was a McClellanlike disaster. In fact, Apple doesn't even venture an opinion about McClellan's ability; he just notes that his tendencies toward delay plagued Lincoln. Even in discussing a war where history's jury is pretty much in, a Timesman is loath to discuss a general's military merit--especially if there is a political angle to pursue instead.

The Dugan/Waller coverage is quite typical of the larger media trend. Being in charge of armies or fleets is just not deemed worthy of assessment or even to be of much interest to the public. That kind of coverage should apparently be reserved for politicians, rich people, business executives, rich people, movie stars and moguls, rich people-and presidential pets. (How many tactical nukes does Asher Edelman control?) In the past decade, there have been no articles on generals or admirals in The New Yorker or Esquire. During that time, The New York Times Magazine has had only five-far fewer than it has run on politicians, athletes, or actresses. During that same period, there have been virtually no analyses of generals by the influential columnists-not even in those by chest-thumping conservatives like George Will or Charles Krauthammer. Life magazine's list of the "100 Most Important Americans of the 20th Century" included only two generals-Douglas MacArthur and George Marshall-but somehow found room for Elizabeth Arden, Dale Carnegie, and Emily Post. Four Stars, a perceptive book by Mark Perry about the inner workings of the joint chiefs of staff, recently sank from the marketplace without a ripple while the bestseller list is routinely studded with such fare as Millie's Book, and the autobiographies of Donald Trump, Kitty Dukakis, Larry Bird, and Barry Switzer.