How many generals? Cannon Fodder?

  • News
  • Thread starter denverdoc
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Cannon
In summary, the highest rank lost in Iraq has been a colonel, with some exceptions such as a Marine Major who was the highest ranking female killed. The top level theatre commanders usually stay in the Green Zone or in Kuwait, relying on modern technology and communications to make strategic decisions. The use of chess as an analogy for war is flawed, as the decisions are made by someone outside of the battlefield. There is concern about the effectiveness of our deployment strategy and the lack of risk to the lives of decision-makers. There have been calls for a draft without deferment to expose the entire population to equal risk.
  • #1
denverdoc
963
0
I have played chess since childhood. I know the absolute value of protecting the king and the relative gain on occasion of sacking a queen. I also know the value of being on the front lines. Indespensible. So I was wondering if anyone knew by breakdown among the casualties by rank? what has been the highest rank lost in Iraq?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
denverdoc said:
I have played chess since childhood. I know the absolute value of protecting the king and the relative gain on occasion of sacking a queen. I also know the value of being on the front lines. Indespensible. So I was wondering if anyone knew by breakdown among the casualties by rank? what has been the highest rank lost in Iraq?

The highest ranking officer that I can google was a colonel.

There was also a Marine Major who was the highest ranking female killed.

The top brass stays in the green zone or in Kuwait
 
  • #3
General David Petraeus lead his troops in Iraq during the combat phase, and later he was based in Mosul. Certainly the top level theatre commanders stay in the Green Zone or in Kuwait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Petraeus
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Petraeus
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html

Leader of the Fabled 101st to Command in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6730560
 
  • #4
denverdoc said:
I have played chess since childhood. I know the absolute value of protecting the king and the relative gain on occasion of sacking a queen. I also know the value of being on the front lines. Indespensible. So I was wondering if anyone knew by breakdown among the casualties by rank? what has been the highest rank lost in Iraq?
The highest rank killed has been colonel.

Here is a site listing all US dead including their rank. If you import the list into excel and parse it you can sort it by rank. http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_NAMES.aspx [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Keep in mind, in chess the queen has sujper powers none of the other units possess.

Similiarly, once you're promoted past the rank of lieutenant colonel, you have laser vision and can fly.
 
  • #6
denverdoc said:
I have played chess since childhood. I know the absolute value of protecting the king and the relative gain on occasion of sacking a queen. I also know the value of being on the front lines. Indespensible. So I was wondering if anyone knew by breakdown among the casualties by rank? what has been the highest rank lost in Iraq?

Chess is a really poor analogy, since the 'king' is nothing but a piece of plastic, wood, or stone. The thinking is done by a piece completely outside the game.

The person making the decisions has to be located in a spot where he can see what's going on. In past wars, the general had to be near the front where he could get a good view of all the action with his own eyes, plus have a good cavalry to bring observations of things beyond the general's own eyes. Today, the general relies more on the modern equivalent of the cavalry to bring him a bigger view of the battle - except the modern equivalent requires a communications infrastructure and the means to process the observations.

You see more if your infrastructure isn't destroyed by enemy fire than you do if you stand on a hill to personally view the battle.

I take it you suspect generals use a strategy designed to protect their own life rather than a strategy designed to win? Or you suspect the lack of risk to their own life makes them more willing to sacrifice their troops?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
BobG said:
Chess is a really poor analogy, since the 'king' is nothing but a piece of plastic, wood, or stone. The thinking is done by a piece completely outside the game.

The person making the decisions has to be located in a spot where he can see what's going on. In past wars, the general had to be near the front where he could get a good view of all the action with his own eyes, plus have a good cavalry to bring observations of things beyond the general's own eyes. Today, the general relies more on the modern equivalent of the cavalry to bring him a bigger view of the battle - except the modern equivalent requires a communications infrastructure and the means to process the observations.

You see more if your infrastructure isn't destroyed by enemy fire than you do if you stand on a hill to personally view the battle.

I take it you suspect generals use a strategy designed to protect their own life rather than a strategy designed to win? Or you suspect the lack of risk to their own life makes them more willing to sacrifice their troops?

I'm not sure what I suspect here, I was just curious as to whether our own deployment strategy was hampering our efforts in any way--either from the standpoint of bringing this mess to a "successful" conclusion or in recognizing the ultimate futility. I suppose at some level I am bothered by the abstract nature of calling the shots from within a safe bunker or green zone. Then it does become somewhat like a chess game. I'm not suggesting that the brass does't grieve the loss of every soldier, but its far different than experiencing on a daily basis the absolute chaos that seems to reign at the moment.

My real ***** has more to do with a system where non-combatants call the shots ultimately with no risk to their lives or even those of their sons and daughters. Its been said often enough to be a cliche, but apart from a few brave exceptions to the rule, it's not the neocon's kids or even the congressman and women's that fight wars like these. Personally, I'd rather see a draft without deferrment, that exposes the entire population to equal risk. I suspect that we might be more circumspect in the long run.
 
  • #8
BobG said:
Chess is a really poor analogy, since the 'king' is nothing but a piece of plastic, wood, or stone. The thinking is done by a piece completely outside the game.


The person making the decisions has to be located in a spot where he can see what's going on.
Maybe not quite so poor - I saw a "60 Minutes" piece a year or so ago that talked about the command and control center for the Iraq theater. I think it was in Florida...

It is like chess except that their king/queen are on the board, but ours are not.

edit: found it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Central_Command
Of the five American regional unified commands, CENTCOM is one of two regional unified commands whose headquarters are not within its area of operations. It is at MacDill AFB, in Tampa, Florida, although a forward headquarters has been established at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar to serve American strategic interests of the Iraq region.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Two remarks,

Firstly, what are the odds in the ranks triangel of having casualities in the few stars ranks out there?

Secondly, those generals are of the "been-there-done-that" category, having been cannon fodder in Bosnia or Gulf War I or something similar.
 
  • #10
The odds increase dramatically because you know that an enemy will be looking to take out the leadership.

It is like chess except that their king/queen are on the board, but ours are not

Bad analogy... according to this, it appears as if we're fighting with less firepower, but at the same time it's impossible for us to lose. I think neither are actually true
 
  • #11
Yeah, it is still a stretch. I've seen movies where the board is life-sized and the players are people. If you're the king, you're the decision-maker and a player, though a nearly useless one. In the Iraq war, CENTCOM was a decision-maker and was invulnerable - but it wasn't exactly a player.
 

1. How many generals are there in the military?

The number of generals in a military can vary depending on the country and its organizational structure. For example, the United States military has over 900 active duty generals, while smaller countries may have significantly fewer.

2. What is the role of a general in the military?

A general is a high-ranking military officer who is responsible for overseeing a large group of soldiers and leading them in combat. They are typically responsible for planning and executing military operations and providing strategic direction to their subordinate units.

3. How are generals chosen in the military?

Generals are typically chosen through a combination of merit and experience. They are often promoted from within the ranks based on their performance, leadership abilities, and specialized training. Some countries may also have a selection process that includes exams and evaluations.

4. Can anyone become a general in the military?

No, not everyone can become a general in the military. In most cases, one must have a certain level of education, experience, and leadership skills to be considered for a promotion to general. Additionally, there may be age and physical requirements that must be met.

5. Are generals considered to be "cannon fodder" in the military?

No, generals are not considered to be "cannon fodder" in the military. This term is often used to refer to expendable soldiers who are sent into battle with little regard for their safety. Generals, on the other hand, are highly trained and skilled leaders who are responsible for making strategic decisions and ensuring the safety of their troops.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
59
Views
11K
Back
Top