Hyperbole should be used carefully

On the American Conservative Blog (which is well worth reading regularly), I saw this jaw-dropping opener from the Weekly Standard.

Great commanders often come in pairs: Eisenhower and Patton, Grant and Sherman, Napoleon and Davout, Marlborough and Eugene, Caesar and Labienus. Generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno can now be added to the list.

The article itself has an analysis that may be of value, but that first paragraph destroys the credibility of all that follows. There are so many problems here. The first the attempt to link past life and death struggles (US Civil War, World War for sure, Wars against Louis XIV maybe) with the current Iraq war.

Those supporting continuation of the war pitch it as a life and death struggle for the US, which is not, rather than a bad situation we created that may (or may not!) get worse if we disengage. The policy question is whether it is better for the US interest to leave or not, but people are uncomfortable with that.

Another serious problem with this statement is how we are told these generals are the Pattons of counterinsurgency and that mastery of large scale military operations is the secret to military success. The selection of the generals cited maintains the US fixation on short term military campaigns to achieve a total military victory.

As Brian Bond illustrated in his excellent Pursuit of Victory, the concept of victory is becoming outdated. Instead the focus should be on policy outcomes. In that case, our models are more likely to be Acheson and Marshall, those that helped put in place long term policies that succeeded, rather than looking for the short term and ultimately ephemeral military victory.

Finally, the authors have chosen some of the greatest military leaders of all time, who as I mentioned were engaged in titanic struggles. These are the sorts who will be studied for ages. No offense to Petraeus and Odierno, but shouldn't we wait and see how the war pans out before we award them their Triumph.