I’ve read a lot of military history, and I have pretty strong ideas about war. I view it in strictly Clausewitzian terms…that is, the sole aim of war is the destruction of the enemy force. I am not a romantic…to me, war is simply killing, and the most efficiently it can be done , the better.
Were I a general, I would view my job much as an exterminator views his: that is, you need to kill as many of the enemy /bugs/vermin, as quickly and cheaply as possible (while suffering as few casualties, and incurring as few expenses, as possible).
I realize this is not a very nice way to view things, but I think it is the most realistic. Wouldyou serve under a general like me?
Have at me…I welcome comment from military men out there!
PS:My sole experience is a stint in the US Navy. 
To be honest, I don’t think that someone who possesses the self-belief and leadership qualities to be a good general would also be someone who would post on an internet messageboard to ask random strangers if they’d be any good at it 
You have to be craggy. Are you craggy?
It also helps if you have a swagger stick or a riding crop.
You wanna know if you’re a good general? Enter the military, go to the OCS, make general, and find out.
All I have is a baseball bat, carved from a tree split by a bolt of lightning. I call it “Wonderboy.” Will this suffice?
Sua
You’re a natural.
Excellent
This reminds me of a story, probably apocryphal, about Mozart.
A young man asked if Mozart thought he was ready to compose a symphony.
“Not yet.”
The young man protested that Mozart had composed music when he was age seven.
“But I didn’t ask anyone if I should.”
Sign on at the nearest recruiting office first thing Wednesday.
They should recogonize yor leadership qualities and put you in charge immediately. :rolleyes:
It is rare to find the man who does not fancy himself a leader of others.
Read Sun Tzu to find out the answer.
There’s more to it than just killing. You have to handle the logistics. How do I get my army where it is needed, and get the “high ground”. How do I know where to choose my fight. How do I get them there fast enough to have the advantage without running them into the ground. How do I not get there so fast that my supply line does not break down. How do I keep my side coordinated without tipping my hand to the enemy. How do I maximize air support and ensure I am not bombing my people. How do I choose tactics and strategy. Do I know the opposing strategy and tactics. How do I use my intel reports, how do I recognize useful info from noise or deliberate enemy misinformation.
The above is just a taste. Then again, as ex Navy, I don’t want you “heretics” leading my Army 
I think a truly brilliant general would be one who could win the war decisively while killing as few of the enemy as possible, and with practically zero noncombatant casualties – an achievement which might make the postwar situation much easier to manage. Remember, wars are fought for political ends, and in politics image is everything.
Sun Tzu’s view of war was very different from Clausewitz’: Don’t engage the enemy head-on if you can avoid it; if you must, make sure it’s at a time and place of your choosing. “When the enemy attacks, retreat; when the enemy retreats, harass.” Wear out your enemies by keeping them confused and off-balance. Keep it up until they’re read to sue for peace on your terms. This approach has been compared to martial arts such as Tai Chi.
The job of an army is to take and hold ground, not kill the most enemies. History is rife with examples of armies that killed more of the enemy than vice versa and still lost. In any case, you’re already exhibiting a degree of misunderstanding by talking about tactics and killing.
You haven’t told us much about you, though. Do you have these traits?
-
Intelligence. Smart generals are usually more successful than dull ones.
-
Open-mindedness. Successful generals tend to be open to information, expecially bad news, and are voracious consumers of intelligence. Bad generals like to filter out bad news.
-
Disinterest in military tradition and drill. Officers who are fixated on tradition and conservatism tend to be unsuccessful and fail to anticipate change. Officers willing to do new things tend to be more successful. Live by Grant’s comment, when asked if he knew any marching tunes; “I know two. One of them is Yankee Doodle, and the other one isn’t.”
-
Respect for your opponents. Stupid though this may sound, bad generals are frequently characterized by an unwillingness to believe the enemy is capable (often in the context of racism.) Calling them “bugs” and “vermin” suggests a dangerous propensity for believing your opponents inferior, which is a good way to get your ass kicked.
-
Decisiveness and moral courage. Many bad generals were bad because they were indecisive, such as McClellan, or Percival.
In my experience all good soldiers were intelligent, open minded, courageous (in the moral, decisive sense, not just physically), and got along well with people. IF you’re really good at all those things you’d make a fine general.
Every general wants to win wars. The secret isn’t knowing what you want to do; it’s knowing how to do what you want to do.
I don’t think you understood Clausewitz very well. You also have mentioned no understanding whatsoever of warfare in the postmodern era. I think you need more study.
“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” ~ Sun-tzu ~
Losers talk strategy. Generals talk logistics.
You’ll never make it as an effective general if you think it’s all about battles and weapons and methods of attack, etc. You have to not be afraid of delving into the boring minutiae of making sure your divisions have enough bootlaces and MREs, and knowing how to talk to suppliers to get them to deliver on time.
DISCLAIMER: These are my opinions, not necessarily official DoD policy.
As a 7 year military officer, I suport the idea that the purpose of war should be to destroy the enemy’s ability to continue fighting, not to necessarily kill as many combatants as possible. An example of this concept is the systematic Allied bombing of German oil refineries, aircraft factories, hydroelectric stations and such in WWII. Bombing population centers (i.e the Blitz or Dresden) to break an enemy’s spirit achieved the opposite and actually bolstered nations’ wills to fight. As weapons become more precise and world wide concern over collateral damage grows, targeting of infrastructure is the way to go from an airpower perspective (I’m an F-15E WSO). It’s not bloodless, but as it’s said: kill the head and the body will die.
It’s still vital to take and hold ground and my hat’s off to all those who are involved in this - past, present and future. My cousin drives Army fuel trucks from Kuwait to Baghdad twice a week. Man, I don’t know how those guys do it.
Last thought: US military personnel are under no obligation to follow illegal or immoral orders and will be held accountable if they don’t take action to prevent such orders being carried out. I doubt a “kill 'em all” policy would fly today, as long as alternate strategies existed. The Geneva conventions cover all of this in detail and we regularly recieve refresher training in the rules of war from our JAG office.