Comments by "Keit Hammleter" (@keithammleter3824) on "AP Archive" channel.

@outdooradventureHungary : He was indeed an artillery officer early in his career. But blaming that on his rotten performance and his lies to the President, Congress and the press as General Commanding in Vietnam is like rating Gen Macarthur a reconnaisance specialist, or Winston Churchill a horse expert or even just a news reporter. Or rating Paul Keeting, one of the best prime ministers Australia ever had, a mere rock band manager (of some pretty ordinary bands), for that was what he initially was. Or regarding some ivy league university chancellor a mere restaurant waiter, should that have been how he paid his way in his 20's. The fact is, once ANY military officer gets to multi-star general rank, what he did initially is long behind him, and they all had to start somewhere. Pershing and Patton began in cavalry - by the time they were generals they had probably forgotten what a horse looked like. Eisenhower was a football coach - which does not on the face of it explain anything. Westmoreland was a "rock painter" - a general that would severely criticise an officer for not having the correct, neat, and clean uniform and ignore the officer's first hand field report about something urgent. Westmoreland was obsessed with numbers and blind to reality - characteristics which are not inherent in artillery and just as undesirable in artillery. More of a fault acquired later when he was promoted way beyond his ability.
3
Outdoor Adv: It appears so - and that is very unusual for an American general. Perhaps it is because deep down inside, he knew he had no idea how to run a war. He was, after all, a notorious "rock painter" as American soldiers called their dud officers.
2
@gorankatic40000bc : I'm not sure what your point is here. If you mean that a leader must display confidence, must be committed, you are of course completely right. If you mean that stubbornness will win the day, well, it is most certainly not that simple. Westmoreland was very stubborn. He just kept plugging along until the politicians pulled him out. But he lost the Vietnam War because he was stupid and had no effective plan.
2
@gorankatic40000bc : Certainly personality matters. Leadership techniques can be taught - I was taught leadership myself, and I found the methods work. But I believe all real leaders of men are born that way - they exude confidence and they inspire others - inspire confidence in others and inspire them to do their very best. Unfortunately that is not me. It is essential in tough situation that the leader exudes confidence - to do that he must have confidence in himself, in his men, and HAVE A DEFINITE WORKABLE PLAN. One of the outstanding WW2 leaders was Churchill, whose methods we studied. Early in the War many of importance in Britain thought Britain would inevitably loose. But Churchill didn't, and he convinced everyone by his own force of character keeping them busy, giving precise instructions and by having a definite plan (the plan essentially being: Make Britain difficult to invade, keep the Germans occupied until Hitler made a mistake, and most importantly, get the Yanks involved.)
2
Orville: A lot of people have wondered why Westmoreland was kept in charge. One theory is that of the various candidate 5-star generals available, none except Westmoreland would accept the job.
1