Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Would MacArthur Do?
As our editor, Troy Senik, reminded me, yesterday was the 70th anniversary of Douglas MacArthur’s return to the Philippines. Troy knows my next book is on MacArthur, and when he mentioned the date to me, it made me cast my mind back to that time and place, as well as the cause that led MacArthur to his landing on Leyte—and into one of the iconic photos of World War Two.
By that October it had been a long, hard slog from the night in March 1942, when MacArthur reluctantly followed President Roosevelt’s explicit order and abandoned his forces on Corregidor and Bataan to leave for Australia. There he arrived to take command of the Southwest Pacific Area, a stretch of ocean and islands the size of North America from Alaska to Guatemala. He had no navy, hardly any air force, and no army except the Australians, against an enemy who enjoyed overwhelming numbers, as well as air and naval superiority. Moreover, MacArthur knew that three-quarters of all future US forces would be shipped first to Europe, and that he would have to share what was left with Admiral Nimitz in the Central Pacific.
Yet MacArthur won his war, not only fending off the Japanese advance on Australia, but then taking the offensive and painstakingly building up his forces until they were strong enough to advance over 2,800 miles in a series of grinding campaigns from New Guinea to the Solomons, with a single goal: liberating the Philippines.
That task proved harder and bloodier than he had anticipated; especially the taking of Manila. But in MacArthur’s mind, liberating the Philippines was both a matter of strategic necessity—cutting Japan’s Pacific empire in two—and of American honor: to redeem the broken promise that not only MacArthur but President Roosevelt and Congress had made to the Philippine people that it would protect them from aggression.
Unfortunately, redeeming American honor is not something that our present administration spends much time thinking about—any more than it does defending our national and strategic interests. Instead, it’s allowed long-standing alliances with countries like Israel and Britain to fray and unravel, and solemn promises to protect the security and territorial integrity of countries like Iraq and Ukraine to evaporate.
Now, there are many myths surrounding MacArthur’s life and career. I’ve found most of those also evaporate on close inspection.
For example, his famous wade-ashore-landing on Leyte on October 20 wasn’t staged; it unfolded exactly as it happened, and while MacArthur and his party were under enemy fire too.
And no, he never earned the nickname “Dugout Doug” by his behavior in the Philippines. Far from living like a king on Corregidor, he exposed himself constantly to enemy fire there, and throughout the Pacific campaign.
And no, he never planned to use atom bombs to start World War Three in Korea—and that was not the reason Truman had him fired.
But there is one myth that is true. MacArthur did say, and firmly believed, “There is no substitute for victory.” Looking now at the current chaos in which America finds itself in fighting ISIS, it is intriguing to think what Douglas MacArthur would do both to turn back the tide of battle and to restore American honor.
First, as the first American practitioner (as opposed to theorist) of airpower, MacArthur would immediately step up the lackluster Obama air campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria to 24/7 intensity, in conjunction with US ground troops. He would find the current taboo about “boots on the ground” absurd and pernicious. When he said, “Anyone committing US ground forces to a land war in Asia should have his head examined,” he was thinking about an open-ended conflict with Red China and allies like Vietnam, not a containable battlefield along the upper Euphrates.
All the same, he would point out that it’s absurd to engage in a war unless you have an overall strategy, even a grand strategy, for winning that will draw together allies and coalition partners. MacArthur was appalled that Truman had no strategy for Korea other than stalemate; he sensed something similar would happen in Vietnam, which is why he warned Kennedy against it. MacArthur said, “It’s fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.” It’s a lesson Americans have had to learn far too often.
Third, and most important, that will to win comes from thinking about not just what you’re fighting against but what you are fighting for. In MacArthur’s case, those had to be the Western values of democracy, freedom, and, yes, even the principles of compassion and spiritual humility embodied in Christianity. Those were the timeless humane values MacArthur believed an America at war had to stand up for and publicly commit itself to, whether it was against Nazi Germany or imperial Japan or Communism.
Where’s that commitment today? What are we fighting for? It’s the question MacArthur would have demanded we answer before sending in a single soldier or dropping a single bomb.
Unfortunately, it’s also the question this administration can’t answer — or perhaps doesn’t dare answer.
Published in General
I suspect it is to improve polling numbers ahead of an election.
I think he’d be air dropping Army Rangers behind ISIL lines, establishing a air base deep within enemy territory and wreaking havoc on ISIL with a fast-paced and coordinated ground and air assault from all angles. They’d be toast in a month. Alas, our president lacks the capacity to take decisive action.
MacArthur may not have had the title “Dugout Doug,” but members of his own staff did refer to him as “Sarah” after Sarah Bernhardt, the famous French actress (1844-1923).
As for ISIS, he would do what he always did, find the weakest spot and attack it.
There’s a difference between a General…and a President. Presidents usually don’t set the tactics to be used in a war.
Second, what makes you think there aren’t US special forces operating behind the lines there?
Third, given today’s technology, such tactics seem rather unnecessary. Airbases behind enemy lines? To do what? We invented aerial refueling quite a long time ago.
I don’t believe there were any “solemn promises” to protect the territorial integrity of Iraq or Ukraine. And if there were, they were obviously wrong in the first place, and not worth keeping (certainly if they aren’t willing to fight themselves, why should we fight for them?)
As for the alliances with Britain and Israel, I don’t see any real problems here. Or is Israel not satisfied with the massive transfers of military technologies from the US? (which they then promptly go and sell to China…;) )
The world is a bit more complicated than this.
My only gripe with MacArthur is that he wouldn’t resupply US and Filipino forces trapped by the Japanese. He didn’t like the OSS and very reluctantly allowed a few operations, but the right man and a few resources could have save many lives.
Did MacArthur ever publicly accept responsibility for the lack of preparedness of American forces in the Philippines prior to the Japanese invasion in 1941? I ask that only because I have not heard whether he did or not (and I expect that, if he did, it would have been post-war). He certainly learned from the experience based on his subsequent campaigns.
Another question: what was his relationship with George S. Patton? (and I would be glad to read about that in any appropriate works, for the answer).
Fascinating topic.
Arthur & gts,
I think MacArthur would embrace the clash of civilizations. He would rise to the real task at hand. Jihadism is the enemy. Any non-Jihadist Muslim nation would be a welcome ally. ISIS, as the spearhead of modern Jihadism, would be target number one. Tactically, gts has it pretty well. Of course, without Turkish support it would be more difficult. MacArthur would probably want a deal with Turkey behind the scenes to prosecute the war against ISIS. Once Turkey realized that we would be leading the charge, I think they could easily be convinced. Mr. “Lead From Behind” in the White House is not someone you want to go to war with.
90,000 civilians were killed during the Japanese occupation.
“The Hour of Your Redemption is Here”
Regards,
Jim
Establishing an airbase in enemy territory would permit us to insert large numbers of group troops and armor behind enemy lines. This is precisely the sort of operation the Army had in mind when it developed the Stryker vehicles. They’re relatively light, effective on most terrain, and more than adequate to combat irregular forces without heavy arms. Perfect to fight the likes of ISIL. We could also use the base as a launching pad for helicopters and shorter range drones. I don’t know where such an airfield is located, but I’m sure there’s one somewhere in the vast swath of ISIL controlled territory. If we could insert a force like that, behind enemy lines, ISIL forces would be in a panic and would retreat to fight the U.S. invasion. They’d be destroyed in the process.
I’m making this all up, of course. I’m sure there’d be a coordinated assault from Turkey and Iraq, as well, but I feel like MacArthur might like this idea, you know Inchon and all.
gts,
You are playing the tune but I could easily dance to this music.
Regards,
Jim
P.S. This president has surely set the tactics here: no “boots on the ground,” whatever that means. Even if you consider that a strategic decision, I’m guessing the president has also set into place very restrictive rules of engagement. Otherwise, we’d be bombing a lot more than seven times a day.
Gts,
With all due respect to this president, I don’t think he could replace the batteries in a flashlight. I really don’t think anything he says is coming up from the military. It is coming down from his airhead political flacks.
Regards,
Jim
I’m well aware of that. Nowhere does it say anything about any “solemn promise” for the US to protect its territorial integrity.
This obviously has nothing to do with the election…no matter how much “conservatives” keep trying to make that point.
Nobody remotely cares about ISIS, other than on conservative talk radio.
Second, precisely because there is, realistically, no good option on ISIS, no good strategy, and very little likelihood of actually destroying such a thing…that all these criticism being thrown around are pointless.
At best pointless, at worst intentionally malevolent given the simple fact that it’s a Dem president in charge (just as it was intentionally malevolent when the GOP criticized Clinton in Operation Allied Force. Had that been Bush, the GOP would have had no criticism).
This is a clash of civilizations. ISIS is an idea that is 1,400 years old. And the criticism here is that Obama doesn’t want to deploy US troops on the ground in some God-forsaken desert hole? When we have no idea who these people are, who they work with, who their friends or enemies are, who will replace them if they are gone etc etc?
Heck. If there’s one good thing to be said about Obama is that his indecisiveness is the best thing to happen to US’s foreign policy in this situation. Why on earth would we want to get more involved with these psychopathic killers?
The best US strategy is the one that Obama has been using so far, intentionally or unintentionally. Draw as many of the countries in the region into a conflict with one another. Let them kill each other. Let Iran kill them, and them kill Iran. Let the Shiias and Sunnis figure it out on their own in Iraq.
Deal with whomever comes out the victor, later.
And you people are asking, why don’t we get more involved in the ugliest mess in the world?
AIG,
I don’t know how old you are but the answer to your question involves understanding that there is a fundamental value system that we stand for. The last time the world faced this situation it did not do very well and the results are just now being brought to trial.
Cambodian Khmer Rouge Genocidal Tribunal Begins
We should be learning from past mistakes and trying to do better. Pure calculating cynicism won’t do it.
Regards,
Jim
I did hear that, after he died, MacArthur marched up to G_d, saluted, and said “Relieving you, Sir.”
I’m old enough to remember when the GOP opposed US action in Kosovo in response to a genocide…despite these supposed “fundamental values” you speak of…all because the president at the time was a Democrat.
I also happened to live nearby there, so perhaps that has stuck in my mind.
But perhaps you can reiterate for me how these “fundamental values” come into play when…everybody is a bad guy…in this situation.
Or are you proposing that we go all in into a situation where there is no good option, no good guys, no good way of doing anything, and put American soldier’s lives at risk for no particular reason whatsoever?
That worked out real well in Iraq, last time we tried.
Or are we still pretending that Iraq was a good idea?
It’s hardly cynicism to say that the best possible strategy and outcome here is for all the sides to keep killing each other in perpetuity.
Why exactly would you want to get us involved in a war between…all our enemies in the ME?
Every president sets the terms of war. Roosevelt wanted to concentrate on Europe and Hitler made it easier for him by declaring war on December 11th. He also made, with George Marshall, the decision that an Army man would command Marines as ground troops in the South Pacific. And thank God he used his relationship with Churchill to place Europe under Ike’s command and not Montgomery. What a disaster that could have been.
AIG,
The problem with Iraq was that it was taken up as a war on terror. This is an ambiguous phrase that does not carry the meaning we need to target the enemy. The war should have been on Jihad. That is what we are fighting. If we had defined it we would not have tried Nation Building in Iraq. We would have immediately gone to the surge. All Muslims that are willing to renounce Jihad are by definition willing to coexist with non-Muslims. Since Jihadists consider Muslims who do not support Jihad to be traitors the Muslims who do not support Jihad become out natural ally. Surge tactics which allow maximum participation by local non-Jihadist States & groups are a natural result.
In the short or the long run this will give the region maximum stability and keep our casualties to a minimum. Right now I would say the American military stand a greater risk from trying to attack Ebola in Africa than attacking ISIS by a coordinated well led plan. Of course, a single act of Kissinger level diplomacy with Turkey could change everything and require very little American exposure at all. Kerry-Obama don’t appear to be able to handle anything involving real-politik. They sell our interests out before the negotiation starts.
The problem is one of leadership. George Bush was only half way there. Obama is nowhere. I wish to risk no one’s life. I wish to involve us in no wars. However, the world won’t wait for leadership forever. It was Obama recently who admitted that the US is the “Indispensable Nation”. Surely coming from him you must accept it.
Regards,
Jim
From the OP I would guess that MacArthur would make a better emperor than Truman. And certainly a better emperor than Obama. Democracies and Republics, though, aren’t very good at electing the best emperor. So why is it y’all keep insisting on an imperial presidency that protects the world? A country can be an empire or a republic but it can’t be both. Unfortunately the superiority and success of republican government tends to imbue citizens with hubris and imperial ambitions. Reference Athens, Rome, and America.
I’m pretty depressed recently at seeing how devoted y’all are to empire here at Rico. Thx AIG for talking some sense on the subtlties of policing the world here and over on that other thread, If I Was Emperor.
I hold MacArthur’s “Benghazi moment” against him. He could not be bothered to address the situation while his bombers were caught on the ground and destroyed, with 12-18 hours advance notice. He was “not to be disturbed”.
He was an heroic, physically brave man and exemplary leader who suffered horribly in WWI, and I think it unhorsed him.
I don’t know what strategy he would employ, but he would have an organized, logical strategy to win.
BDB, WW2 proved MacArthur to be anything but unhorsed.
“Respect sovereignty within its existing borders” is not the same as “promise to maintain that sovereignty”. Russia failed to honor its commitment but the US and UK did not.
But, were you talking about why he ended up as a Field Marshall in the Philippines? Was that a result of WW1? Please clarify.
Here’s a summary:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/macarthursfailures.aspx
Search for “On 27 November” and go from there.
—
I read in a book which is at home (where I am not) that he had been hung up in barbed wire or something like that in no-man’s-land for what must have seemed an eternity. He had been a tremendously brave and aggressive officer.
The problem of “lack of leadership” seems to be one shared by both sides here. Conservatives haven’t exactly provided any real leadership alternatives here either.
It seems conservatives want to get involved in every war, in every skirmish, in every conflict, anywhere in the world, no questions asked. And what develops there is the same as what we’ve seen everywhere in the ME…our enemies strengthened, and situations where we have no hope of figuring out.
We left Iraq as an Iranian proxy state. We left Egypt and Libya as basket cases open for terrorists. Now we’re trying to do the same in Syria…supposedly supporting “moderate” rebels, in a landscape where no one is moderate and everyone is essentially a terrorist.
We pump money and weapons to these groups, which tomorrow go and align themselves with ISIS.
All because we refuse to recognize the fact that there are no “good guys” in this fight, and it is in our best interests if they keep fighting each other in perpetuity.
Sometimes, doing nothing is the best option. Obama may be incompetent, but sometimes incompetence works out when the best course of action is inaction.
Nothing is always a wise thing to say and a good thing to do?
Obviously, you fail to take seriously my distinction between Jihadists and non-Jihadists. Terrorists and non-Terrorists (as well as Good Guys and Bad Guys) are words that only have meaning in the West. If the distinction was over the belief system of Jihad then we would have something to work with in seperating out, in your terms the Good Guys from the Bad Guys.
The mistakes made you quote are all Obama’s. George Bush’s mistake was to not get to the surge sooner. He fell for Nation Building. If we had clarity of mission to begin with this would not of happened. Obama has never helped define the mission, in fact everything he has done has helped obscure it.
Isolationism is as absurd a policy as there can be in a world in which everyone’s economy is interdependent, you can get on a jet plane to any country within 24hrs, and you can instantaneously send your message to over a billion people world wide on the net.
It won’t hold. A child pulls the covers over its head and hopes the bad will go away. An adult faces evil head on. I am tired of childish things. I am too old for this. You won’t be saving lives, in the end, you’ll cost more.
Regards,
Jim
I didn’t reply to that because I think you might not be aware of what the term “jihad” means to Muslims in the ME. Rightly or wrongly, going in there, buth barrels blazing talking about jihad…will make you more enemies that ordering pork ribs at a kosher deli.
They’re all jihadists.
How are they all Obama’s fault, if they were all done by Bush? Iraq was an Iranian proxy state long before Obama came on the scene.
How is Libya and Egypt etc Obama’s fault, when every war-crazed neo-con in existence couldn’t get enough of us bombing Libya, or going into Syria etc. John McCain anyone?
No one is speaking of isolationism. I’m saying, sometimes the best thing to do is not interfere when your enemies are killing each other.
A fool goes into situations where he knows nothing about, and has no idea what he’s doing.
Plenty of adults are fools.
PS: The correct term isn’t “jihadi”. That term has no meaning, since jihad itself is one of the cornerstones of Islam. It isn’t viewed “negatively” by most muslims. The correct term is takfiri.