D.B. Grady argues in the Atlantic:
…He would be the first man to hold that rank since the revered Omar Bradley in 1950. It would require authorization by the president and confirmation by the Senate. In practice it wouldn’t change the job of General Petraeus. But it would not only show that President Obama believes in Petraeus — that he’s not simply throwing America’s best general into the arena for political expediency — but would also reassure soldiers and civilians alike that this White House expects this man to win. This man’s plan to work…
…as General of the Army, he will be given an unambiguous mandate with the unfettered support of the president and the nation.
I’d have to say, “no”. If General Petraeus does pull out a win in Afghanistan to add to the laurels of Iraq, then that would be a grand and glorious thing, but still not something to place him on the same level of Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower or Omar Bradley. It would put him ahead of George Marshall, who seems to have gotten his fifth star mostly on the fact that it would be unseemly to have the Army Chief of Staff outranked by two theater commanders…but just because we awarded one before without just cause doesn’t mean we should do so, now.
MacArthur, Eisenhower and Bradley led vast armies in the liberation of huge areas of the globe. MacArthur’s drive in the southwest Pacific was akin to a general moving an army from Miami to Seattle – but harder as the area was mostly water and what wasn’t wet was some of the densest jungle in the world. Our fifth star should be reserved for officers of stupendous achievement.
What do you think?
Blogs For Victory 