|
Post by quincannon on Nov 12, 2011 10:50:00 GMT -6
Britt: We have a fellow like this on one of the other sites I frequent. He reads a lot of the Osprey Books on naval warfare, which were never meant to be anything more than superficial popular history. They make no pretentions at scholarship and are more a compiler of bits and pieces of long public, some very suspect, material. He then goes on and trys to debate the Battles of Midway and Coral Sea for instance with guys who in some cases have PHD's and specialize in this area of study. This person is not qualified to ask the questions much less understand and absorb the answers, yet he takes offense that his views, which are usually way out in left field, are not given the same weight as those who are subject matter experts. The real kicker though is that when people point out that he should do in depth research on a given question, his answer is always the same, I don't have the time. Well if your not willing to buy at bat, ball, and glove, as well as learn to use them, you should not play baseball.
Do you remember a fellow named Dexter Manley? He used to play for the Redskins. He was a graduate of the University of Oklahoma and could neither read nor write.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Nov 12, 2011 10:59:04 GMT -6
I remember him Colonel, and that doesn't surprise me a bit. If I recall he was suspended for trying to break Brett Favres neck by pile driving him into the ground. I believe he was eventually banned for substance abuse. Real credit to the human race.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 12, 2011 11:49:06 GMT -6
Yes, and he became the poster child for Barbara Bush's litteracy efforts. Poster child my ass. Somebody ought to have made him the poster child for all that is wrong with our large universities, and their emphasis on football trumping their charter to educate. And now we see this same thing play out in all of the sordid mess that is going on at Penn State. No you can't clean house when there is someone who molests children in your midst, because what will the football program do, what will the fans think, what will we do without all that money that comes pouring in every Saturday. I am a fan just as much as most here are, but this kind of crap, where we condone stupidity and criminal behavour, in favor of the allmighty dollar has got to stop, or we as a nation will end up on the ash heap of history.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 12, 2011 16:57:26 GMT -6
Dexter Manley's last year in the NFL was Brett Favre's first, but I'm not sure they played against each other. It's to be doubted that anything he did in his crippled later years could have been as bad as Matt Millen on the Raiders clobbering the Bear's Jim McMahon from behind long after the whistle and nobody was moving on the field. I won't mention their race though, although by merely just bringing it up I can leave the impression, because I'm so clever, to insinuate that one - the evil one - was black or at least not white, much as bc does in his heartwarming tale. Alas, they were both white, and Millen went on to be a really bad general manager.
In any event, Manley admitted he couldn't read and write for no particular reason except to coincidently expose the crap that football acting as an NFL farm team at taxpayer expense has done to colleges. Manley had more dignity and courage than the bastards that waved him through every year, but he was no more vicious than Butkis and there has never been a dirtier player than Sam Huff, always kicking someone in the head as he walked by. Manley also had a brain cyst, discovered in 1986, but not operated on till 2006, to who knows what effect.
Speaking from authority, if you think paying people to do research papers is just or mostly for 'ethnics' in community college, you're naive beyond the pale. First, because it costs a lot of money which 'ethnic' athletes tend not to actually have, legally anyway, and second because nobody would dare piss off the rich parents in Ivy League college or prestigious prep school who hire classmates to do their kids' work by calling them out, which is far, far more common.
And THAT was before the Internet. Now, you can just rewrite stuff over a couple of hours and hand it in and despite software to catch plagiarism and services to assist teachers catch it, it's a worse problem now.
The recent incident speaks to that. He was hoping for a cut and paste Afternoon Activity.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Nov 12, 2011 17:08:37 GMT -6
Dark Cloud, Leave my #70 alone. To me Conrad Dobler or Tatum and Atkinson would fit the bill. (OK Sam could be a little unclean from time to time, but it was an accident) Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 12, 2011 20:51:24 GMT -6
I wonder if Sam and Sonny still broadcast the Skin's games on radio?
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Nov 12, 2011 21:05:45 GMT -6
When we talk about Custer and his leadership. I can't help but wonder how it looks to all the troops when Custer brings along a bunch of dogs and relatives. This does not sound like something every officer was able to do. Was this the norm for everyone or did Custer take this to a new limit?
I think( but not sure) Custer sent one letter to Libby stating that it was a shame she was not with them. It sounds like a picnic outing more than a serious campaign to get the Indians. I am not sure they ever expected to be able to catch them.
With Custer just getting out of hot water, it seems odd to me that he was able to do the things he did on this trip.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 12, 2011 22:48:59 GMT -6
Some of our friends on the other board equate leadership with conduct in combat. That is certainly part of it, a very big part, but not all. In this particular scenario as Montrose loves to point out and I agree with, the command climate in the 7th Cavalry was just plain miserable. That is part of leadership. Montrose also points to the state of training. Now we are not talking training in a modern sense but training as it was done then. I don't think a hard look at the 7th Cavalry would uncover any great depth of training. That is part of leadership. And this could go on into several other areas a well, for the sum total of leadership is the demonstrated ability of a unit to function efficiently in battle. There are far to many indicators pointing to the conclusion that the 7th Cavalry was far from a smoothly operating combat ready unit by even the standards of that day. So the virdict on Custer's performance as a leader considering all these factors is that he was a failure as a leader.
Now there are those who will see this and say well George was brave in battle and his men would follow him anywhere. It does not matter how true that statement is and I do believe it to be true. To those I would say that if that is all they look at then they don't understand the first thing about leadership., and no being a leader does not mean taking the dogs and your relatives along.
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Nov 13, 2011 9:17:49 GMT -6
It seems to me that no leader should be condemned or exalted simply for one characteristic that may appear as a "flaw" to others. George Patton had many aberrations of character yet, he did quite well until he slapped a soldier in sick bay.
Under the archaic standards (not present day criteria) of his time Custer was considered by many (to include Sherman and Sheridan)as a successful Indian fighter until the battle of the Little Big Horn in which his stock dropped dramatically.
As a Civil war General, his promotion to Major General must have been based on something other than his flamboyant dress and extreme love of dogs;don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 13, 2011 10:18:12 GMT -6
Reddirt: Leadership cannot be determined by looking at only one aspect of a man. It is the sum total of his performance and more importantly the sum total of his unit's performance.
Patton did not slap a soldier in "sick bay". It was a hospital tent. Sick bays are on ships or naval installations. He did not slap one. He slapped two on two different occasions, emabarassed the President of the United States twice, and sent good men to be killed to rescue his son-in-law from a German POW camp. Then there is the alleged story of him getting angry with his wife and throwing her down the stairs at the officer's club at Fort Benning. I say alleged, for this conduct has been long rumored. The story was still going around when I was there in 67. To my knowledge it has never been formally reported or verified so it must remain a rumor. Every leader has their flaws Reddirt. The question is do the flaws outweigh, the good they do.
I am sure that Sherman and Sheridan fell somewhere between liking and putting up with Custer. A whoopsie like LBH does tend to change your mind though, and keep your distance.
There were some promotions to Major General that were based on much less combative qualities than flamboyant dress and love of dogs. In fact I consider Custer's love for dogs one of his better, if not his best quality.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Nov 13, 2011 22:08:49 GMT -6
I just got to thinking about the question our Norwich student asked about 10 leadership qualities of Custer. I wonder how many qualities there are to choose from? Sounds like he was doing a top ten of good qualities on Custer. Seems like it would be easy to come up with 10 qualities both good and bad. Picking ten good ones may be a little tuff.
bc
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Nov 13, 2011 23:11:47 GMT -6
BC,
His design was to use 10 leadership variables, then pick 3-5 leaders as cases studies. You rank your leaders against your variables.
It is hard to pull these types of studies successfully. A very good thesis that became a book was written by Bill McRaven. It is titled case studies in special operations, or something like that. He used a similar methodology.
I thought about using a similar design for discussions here, but in most cases we can not even agree on facts.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Nov 14, 2011 1:53:18 GMT -6
When we talk about Custer and his leadership. I can't help but wonder how it looks to all the troops when Custer brings along a bunch of dogs and relatives. This does not sound like something every officer was able to do. Was this the norm for everyone or did Custer take this to a new limit? I think( but not sure) Custer sent one letter to Libby stating that it was a shame she was not with them. It sounds like a picnic outing more than a serious campaign to get the Indians. I am not sure they ever expected to be able to catch them. With Custer just getting out of hot water, it seems odd to me that he was able to do the things he did on this trip. Rosebud Allow me to pull a Herman Cain here: I don't have the facts to back this up, but I believe it was common enough. Sturgis had his own son in the regiment, either by his choice or his son's. Colonel Robert Hughes was Terry's aide and also his brother-in-law, but I don't know when their relationship began. Given how it seemed that officers tended to marry the relatives of other officers they worked with, I wouldn't be surprised if they met that way. Either way, Terry had his brother-in-law as an aide. Phil Sheridan had his brother, Captain Michael Sheridan of the Seventh Cavalry, on his staff. While its probably not the best example, Custer, while a rather young general, had his brother transferred to his command in the Civil War. I'm seriously just going on a hunch, but I'll just guess that it was pretty common for officers to have pulled strings to get his favourites or his relatives in their command. It'd be interesting to see other examples. As for the dogs and such, I'd also guess such things were common among the commanders. Crook spent some time hunting and fishing while on campaign. Custer had his wife with him throughout the Civil War. That's all I got. I'm not going off an extensive research here, just the gut feeling I've got about the Army of that time period. Maybe its just too much reading about Custer, but given how much freedom he had to hunt, bring along dogs, reporters, have his own personal battleflag, bring along and/or employ relatives, get his brother in his commands, get Yates into the Seventh, etc, I'd just guess it wasn't that uncommon.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Nov 14, 2011 9:21:38 GMT -6
With respect to nepotism.
It is not illegal or improper to have relatives in the Army. The question is whether of not they were doing something appropriate for their rank CPT Sheridan serving as his brother's aide created a ghost slot in the 7th. It is not illegal, but pushing the envelope. LTC Fred Grant was serving far from Washington, in various staff jobs. LT STurgis served with his company, far from his father. CPT Custer served with his command in garrison, and served as an aide to his brother in the field. This is slightly wrong, LTCs are not authorized aides, but within a commander's range of action.
LT Crittenden is an interesting case. He flunked out of West Point. His father pulled strings to get him a commission, then called in more favors to have him assigned to the 7th for the campaign. As we know he died fighting on Calhoun Hill, with the company that put up the strongest fight on the Custer battlefield. His last words were probably not "Thanks, Dad".
On the civilian side, this get uglier. Custer hired relatives unqualified for their duties, and made no pretence that they were fulfilling this function. He hired his own father in Texas, his brother in 73, and brother and cousin in 76. This practice is illegal, but I have no indicators that any prosecutions, or even reprimands were ever conducted for this practice over the period 1866-1898.
It is in this area that Custer's actions are not normal. No one else abused the civilian side to the degree that GAC did. He was an outlier here, an exceptional rare case.
Custer's superiors knew what he was doing, and took no action to stop it. So they tacitly accepted his behavior.
SO I see no technical criminal acts, but I do see an enormous arrogance and sense of entitlement on behalf of GAC. It is like Joe Paterno: may not have broken any laws, but there are reasons to question his judgement.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 14, 2011 9:27:59 GMT -6
I don't think it was at all uncommon. On this very day in 1942 the five Sullivan brothers were all killed in the sinking of U.S.S. Juneau in the aftermath of the Second Battle of Savo Island. You find a lot of brothers serving together in our National Guard and Reserve forces. The same was true in the ACW in the volunteer regiments. The fellow you often see on the Military Channel, who was awarded the MOH in Normandy (I can't recall his name at the moment) was serving in the same battalion of the 1st ID and his brother was killed on D Day. So I do believe that there are plenty of examples in the past. I think brothers serving together are very limited now days because of the Sullivan incident.
I also agree with Montrose. When someone uses their position to foster the career or employment of a member of their familiy it has a certain smell about it, a very unpleasant smell.
|
|