Corey0372
AH fanatic
It describes a few, Mark Clark and George McClellan come immediately to mind, but personally I think that is largely wrong. Generally, American troops have been pretty well led over those two plus centuries.
One of the best displays of leadership I've seen in the past couple of decades was SOCAF setting the bar in the CONOP approval process insanely high after the Tongo Tongo ambush. A lot of dudes saw this as them getting benched/ leaders being too risk averse. I saw this as leaders saying "If we're going to put guys in harms way in the middle of nowhere with nearly no support, it had better be worth it."
Especially when you consider most lawmakers didn't even know we had troops in Niger (which wasn't exactly secret).
I think lately what's been more important than tactical or logistical brilliance for a leader to posses (the US can kind of force most of that) is the ability to navigate the Attention Deficit Disorder that is DC policymaking. As well as not letting State Dept or other government and non-government entities steer military operations in a direction they shouldn't be going. A really good EOD tech buddy of mine used to teach his younger techs that it's just as important to brief the commander on what you can't/won't do as it is to tell him what you can do.
Point is, military leaders can't just be "Yes men", speaking inconvenient truths and the courage/ability to say "this isn't going to work" or "who is making this decision and why" to the highest levels is very important.