RIP Norman Schwarzkopf

And, of course, the Scud Stud, Arthur Kent.

 

That take came largely from Schwarzkopf himself. In his autobiography he talked about how Vietnam vets thanked him for changing the public's perception of the American military from a bunch of drugged-out bungling losers (post-Vietnam) to a bunch of go-anywhere, can-do defenders of freedom.
Maybe that perception was changing through the 80s, but there was still some skepticism leading into Gulf War I. The U.S. military hadn't really been tested on a large scale since Vietnam. The way it went into Iraq and kicked ass for all the world to see -- and fighting the good fight, like we did in World War II, without the murkier motives of our current conflicts -- elevated the United States to a place it hadn't been in a very long time.
I'd go out on a limb and say it's as popular as the country has been, on a global scale, since the post-WWII years.
So, yes, I'll give Schwarzkopf credit for playing a large role in that time period.

 

Schwarzkopf didn't make it OK to be an American; Lee Greenwood did.

 

Fair enough, although I'd point out that serves as an explanation for why Vets may've been more proud of the U.S. Military after the Vietnam stigma, but not why the rest of us should've felt like it was "OK to be feel proud to be an American again."

And, fwiw, the notion that Gulf War I went so well because it was better run, or the US military performed so much better, or because of any Schwarzkopf expertise, is largely bullshit. The reason GWI went better was quite simply because it was a thousand times EASIER to win than the wars that went less well.

We had the ENTIRE DAMN WORLD behind our back against one little pariah state and, to declare victory, all we had to do was remove Saddam from Kuwait and get his back where he belonged. It is SO much easier to win a war when you've those narrow and clearly defined goals and your job is merely to REMOVE the invader, instead of BEING the invader and occupier as we attempted in Vietnam, Iraq II, and Afghanistan.

If you want to give Schwarzkopf credit for supposedly being smarter than our generals in our "quagmire" wars, fine by me. But, truth is, it's largely BS. His war went better simply because he was assigned a far easier task.

 

I realize this makes me a bad, bad person ... and possibly part of the "liberal media" ...

But a reporter and I had quite a few laughs Thursday evening belting out "War Pigs" in the newsroom, changing a few words to "honor" ol' Stormin' Norman.

What the hell, for old times' sake ... No Blood for Oil.

 

Another claim to fame for Trenton, NJ. Birthplace of Stormin' Norman.

 

Very competent general. But one of my HS teachers, who I trust completely, served under him when Schwarzkopf was a lower-ranking officer in Vietnam. He said Schwarzkopf sent them on a lot of completely unnecessary search and destroy missions, needlessly risking their lives, to up his "kill" count to call attention to himself. That he put his personal ambition over lives of his troops and the overall mission. But he did do a masterful job in the Gulf.

 

excellent point. Schwarzkopf kicked the crap out of an undermanned, under trained poorly equipped and unmotivated army by essentially avoiding a head on confrontation and picking the Iraqis off from behind and in isolated pockets of action. Great strategy but hardly the stuff of myths and legends.

And if he were truly the military hero he's made out to be, he would have been able to take Iraq in the first war. Once again politics reigned over military strategy

 

I'm sure there's an example, but what general's finest moment WAS a head-on attack against the bulk of an enemy army in prepared defensive positions?

 

D-Day

Norm was Ditka and the '91 US Army was the '85 Bears and the Iraqi Army was Auburn, a good solid SEC program, but no match for '85 Bears

 

A huge part of D-Day's success hinged on massive deception efforts to convince the Germans that the invasion was coming elsewhere.

Obviously clearing the Iraqis out of Kuwait with the arsenal at his disposal isn't among the world's greatest military achievements (or this country's), but I don't think he loses points for how he did it.

 

Of course in the run-up to the war all we heard was how battle-hardened the Iraqis were because of their war with Iran. It was never true but it didn't stop the pre-war story from being reported that way.