Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief

[Americano]

An interesting article on some of the military obstacles Lincoln faced in the US Civil War and his solutions:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Commander-in-Chief.html

[Michael]

Yes, very interesting read. I've only previously heard references to Lincoln's military genuis, never a summary or explication of it. Indeed, it appears that he understood war better than any of his generals, save only Grant and Sherman.

Personally, I've always avoided studying the full details of the US Civil War because of the ineptitude of the Northern generals. My heart is with the North all the way, and to read the details of how they were out maneuvered and out fought by the Confederate Army, over and over again is almost depressing.

As for the 'political' issue involved here, I think Lincoln understood perfectly what is meant by 'civilian control of the military'. The politicians are meant to appoint/choose the generals, pay the bills and point the direction of the war. The generals run the battlefield. The politicians ALWAYS must control the strings. It is necessary for democracy.

[Michael]

I might add here, at great risk of a treadjacking, that GW Bush actually was a proper Commander-in-Chief, according to correct tradition. He dismissed generals he didn't like and replaced them with generals he prefered. That's his perogative. And for the most part, Bush played "hands off" on the battlefield as he is supposed to and just pushed the political side.

Bush's problems were many, but his 'role' in playing commander-in-chief was properly conducted, just poorly advised for strategy. (slight understatement)

[Americano]

I might add here, at great risk of a treadjacking, that GW Bush actually was a proper Commander-in-Chief, according to correct tradition. He dismissed generals he didn't like and replaced them with generals he prefered. That's his perogative. And for the most part, Bush played "hands off" on the battlefield as he is supposed to and just pushed the political side.

Bush's problems were many, but his 'role' in playing commander-in-chief was properly conducted, just poorly advised for strategy. (slight understatement)

IMO Rummy took the role of commander-in-chief.

[Michael]

IMO Rummy took the role of commander-in-chief.
Indeed. From all accounts, it was Rummy who made all the strategic decisions regarding the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The proper role of the SoD is to provide for the equipment and maintenance of the military. The Joint Chiefs is where strategy/tactics are supposed to be decided.

[Americano]

Indeed. From all accounts, it was Rummy who made all the strategic decisions regarding the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The proper role of the SoD is to provide for the equipment and maintenance of the military. The Joint Chiefs is where strategy/tactics are supposed to be decided.

If Pentagon recommended strategy/tactics disagreed with what Bush/Rummy had in mind they simply replaced dissenters, much as Lincoln did, but with far different results. Lincoln needed to crush a rebellion while the Bush administration merely put a temporary political facade on Kurd and Sunni rebellion with cash money (borrowed).

Lincoln knew casualties would be extremely high and accepted that fact to achieve success while the Bush Administration limited ground actions to eliminate politically sensitive US casualties by the use of indiscriminate air power. Which, with massive civilian casualties, obviously increased resistance and hatred of the US. That's fine with a war to the death such as ww2, but no way to build a democracy.