Thank you for reading it. I am glad i wrote it. A little different than past books, but i am excited is finally done. Host so, tell me, how do you define a savior general . Guest the word savior is not is kind of ambiguous. Has to be kind of lost to begin with. Save year as a title means that it should be saved. So great generals, we are not sure that they should have saved the things they did. Trying to do two things, described generals who were put in a position where things did not look too good and they did not stop the war and their cause was worth saving. Host so, tell me a little bit about what inspired you to write a book about save your generals as this moment in time and history . We have this 19th century genre of great captains and leaders. We read about alexander the great and helen campbell. Napoleon and wellington. We are supposed to distill lessons from a military genius. Why did napoleon when . Why was he able to do that . We have the antithesis, the 19th century anatomy. Very popular in the 20th century. The worst generals. We dont really look as situations in which generals prevailed but we look in strategy or tactics, logistics, manpower, Technology Company and very unenviable positions, especially in consentual societies with a Public Opinion and the bureaucracy or the elected technocracy had given up on the causes. Wanted to find people throughout history who should not have one and were not responsible for the situation inherited and yet prevail and salvaged. Maybe it did not win it, but they saved it. Host not want to go back and talk more to about those great captains. I would like to hear a little bit more. Guest everybody asks me that question he saved the be 29 campaign. Save the American Army after the humiliation and north africa. I was looking particularly at situations that had a chronological sweep. Themistocles, athens, all the way to David Petreaus and the surge, but i was also looking for things that were completely pessimistic. We could have won without patent, without lemay, but i dont think you take away themistocles burn down athens and twothirds of greece occupied, the greeks would have even fought. Without belisarius the Emperor Justinian would not have recovered much of the western part of the byzantine empire. I dont think there was a Union General alive who could have taken atlanta at the cost that we took it, very small cost compared to what was going on in virginia. I know anyone in could have done what Matthew Ridgway i wish i could say there were american generals, but not very many it could have done. Looking at unique individuals draft history chronologically. Trying to remind us that even a therapeutic sociological era of hightech, these human qualities remain constant across time and space. Host to few historians, the people that you select were in the saviors of their countries. I think themistocles is a great example. Undoubtedly he saves the greeks. But they might argue with some of your other choices, such as bridgeway because the original strategic outcome in three of, not actually achieved. So how do you respond . That criticism would be valid for all five of them because they are not winners. They save the situation for others to loser to win. For example, themistocles save the great cause. He was almost immediately forgotten and it was up to the spartans and that the indians at puente the next year. The height of his powers he was relieved of put on trial, died in a blind beggar. As you point out, he was only their 100 days. He made a strategic choice not to go across that 38 parallel. He defended it in a very strange way. He said the American People were with macarthur when everything was going well. They raced up the 400 miles. As soon as the chinese crossed we have a great bugout, the first time that word got currency. Then they turned on him. Now theyre behind me. If i go back up to the north, the same logistical strategic tactical situation that macarthur face, whether that was a juror not to my dont know, they will turn on me because theyre not willing to sustain this type of war this long. In retrospect we look at the threat of north korea today and we can question his judgment, but he felt that the time that the nation was not end the political frame of mind to support what would be needed to crush the North Koreans and chinese north of the 38 parallel, and the same thing is true. David petreaus save the american cause but left it to others, whether there were going to take that legacy and leave a residual force and try to make sure it became a consentual society in the way we had done in the 40s and 50s. We chose not to do that. But i dont think that necessarily tarnishes his achievement. Host i would love to go back to your discussion about ridgway making a judgment and a calculation that is, in fact, strategic, perhaps grand strategic and is important not just an operational decisions, but something so momentous as this. One of the really important components of the United States in the way the democratic system is organized is a degree of civilian control over the military and a perception, a responsibility for civilian leaders to make such decisions. So how did you evaluate ridgways decisionmaking about something as sensitive as Popular Support and figuring that and to operational calculations . Well, ridge where would answer that and say, i got us back to the 38 parallel. When i arrive on hundred days of their people want to evacuate. People have given up on the war. Public support was less than it was in 2006. And in his way of thinking he allowed the possible to happen. He had a little bit north of the 30th parallel and then he gave his appraisal and waited for the civilian response. It was the collective decision of harry truman and the joint chiefs omar bradley to lightning joe cullis not to go beyond that later the general said that we should have, but remember car ridgway then with the demotion and relief of macarthur in april of 1951, he became the heir to meant theater commander in tokyo. We had that war for two more years. Anybody could have said, lets break the stalemate and go across the 38, but they didnt. Bridgeway later s. C. Reflected back on his career said, well, it is not really fair to me to say at one point in time i should have crossed the 38 parallel and down all the way to china. I save it for you guys. You were the civilian overseers. The next 24 months you decided not to do something that was against my advice. He took my advice and now youre criticizing me for not doing what you said that i should have done. So he are the civilian relationship and made it clear that while he liked macarthur personally and respected his military acumen, he was in error because he jeopardized that very valuable relationship and tension between civilian and military authorities. I would love to hear a load of more about the tension and that support between the leaders of the states that you discussed and the commanders that you discussed. Is that kind of is full support necessary to have a severe general . Guest it is. These are general succumb and at the 11thhour with the policy. Usually the commanderinchief, president , or emperor, never the political system has in charge, it is a referendum that something has gone wrong. People are going to say, what we have to go there in the first place . If bridgeway is cents in late in the game when were almost guard to lose the kutcher for the third time people said what was chairman doing . Why do we have to take atlanta when a grant should just take richmond and in the work. There are referendum on fail civilian policies which makes him suspect because if they do very well sherman after he takes atlanta on september 2nd, almost everyone hates grant. Mary lincoln says that he is a butcher because he is basically destroying the army. These on proudly places like the wilderness, arbour. Sherman is a man of the hour. Even lincoln as a little bit suspicious of them even though he said the election of 86 to four. German bridgeway was on the cover of time magazine. No need to mention David Petreaus. As soon as he comes back in late 2008 people are suggesting in the wall street journal he should get five stars, president ial candidate, the president ial primaries he is still being mentioned even though he is not interested. Higher ratings than any other candid. So by definition political generals and have to navigate between the being independent and, well, people are going to resent me for being successful if i increase my stature to the point that people are talking about me as a savior in political terms. It is tricky, and they usually do not end up well. Talk about that tension in a slightly different political system. The Emperor Justinian. Well, justinian has what we would call a senate, but it was a nominal seven. There were courts and assemblies did not buy can quite absolute. It was not hereditary. After his and that was it. So the emperor was usually pegged to by consensus of nobles or aristocrats and then have some limitations on his power. Of the case studies, he is the most authoritarian. His relationship was very bizarre. They each had married controversial and highpowered women. Theodora in the case of justinian and antonin in the case of pulsars. There relationship, they were both glad native speakers and came from thrace and had women that were of ill repute and powerful. As long as those things, that dynamism was there those hours to get away with being the guy who saved the Eastern Front and get rid of the vandals in a matter of weeks, the man who retook sicily, the man who is on his way up to the northern italian border, once that formula such a breakdown antonio pulled away, theodora died. There was a tension, and suddenly he became a threat to the emperor. He was recalled at the height of his power. He was put into exile for ten years. He was brought up to save the capitol when a rogue attack of hunts, but he was always suspect because he was more popular than justinian and and magnanimous figure, a political figure in an age where people were not magnanimous. He was highly popular among the constantinople streets. Do you think that this is naturally the case that the savior generals will always, perhaps, be the more popular than the and the alike absolutely. More popular for a moment. There was a key moment in early 2008 where patraeus was the most popular man in the notice is commercially more popular than his predecessor. Much more popular than george bush. That lori is fleeting because they are in an untenable situation where success is an unfavorable referendum. You have they have certain personality qualities, ambitions, visions that make them suspect. Theyre sort of like this 19th century western figure that we see in 20thcentury phones, whether its shane in nine men, Ethan Edwards and the searchers, magnificent seven, the man who shot liberty valance. We bring these people and then they are suspect figures. We all want shane to do something to get rid of the cattlemen and save them, but after its over its better that he walks out the door. It is better that he takes the bench. So whether we like it and not, they did not end well. Themistocles committed suicide 20 years later in persia and service of the enemy of try to destroy greece. Bella source in debt a beggar on the streets of constantinople. Humiliated by his temper. Sherman was called crazy, hes been most of his postwar career trying to defend or did. He was not popular. Poor Matthew Ridgway was not made chairman of the joint chiefs. Eisenhower wrote a memoir worry actually said that bridgeway did not take south korea. The flea did. It was not bridgeway. He was not even in the theater. How audacious can you be . He lived to be 97, but he got involved in a cemetery controversy under reagan. He finished the manuscript. The editors and people who read it. Well, patraeus and it up happy and everything went well. And of course he had some problems. So there does seem to be a profile. These people are controversial. After their signature achievement it is hard to sustain that. Society is ambiguous. The signature achievement is obviously extremely interesting. Challenging. Perhaps you could tell us a little bit more about how wages or in the what traits some of these a exemplars had that made them able to go into a situation that needed saving and actually have the courage and imagination to do so. The names of all of the ingredients that these all of personality traits, the educational criteria, all of that, the one signature personality trait seems to me, there were a means of Public Opinion. Almost suspect everyone everyone says athens is lost and we have to join the spartans and go across the isthmus and give up greece, a themistocles is distrustful. The same thing. Eastern front collapsed or when they tell sherman that lincoln is not going to win the election whether you like it and not mcclellan will be president and the better adjust to it. People tell ridgway is time to go back and to settle things down, get everybody out. The 30th parallel, take them back. When patraeus went. Even the steadier said that it was hopeless basically. They had this idea. I dont trust of most people say and very i guess they do their homework. Very meticulous students. So the strategists at not just saving the particular war, but a vision of something called counterinsurgency. You know better than i do. Transcended. Youre going to be in time and space in the 21st century rehab to have a different tactic in the middle east. Ridgway was an author of this very radical doctrine, not radical now, but believe me, after 1946 people said we dont need a marine corps, we all need carriers. We have a nuclear force. There will be no more conventional weapons. Automatically in dues and a clear response. And he said, no, we will have more conventional, messy and dirty and we better get a doctrine of how to confront communism in places we dont want to carry and that was just heresy at the time. Same thing with sherman with this idea that i will attack the plantations and the infrastructure of the confederacy. These are the 3 to cause this sort. Makes no moral sense to me to kill the 97 percent who dont of slaves in Northern Virginia when i can go down the pen to georgia and humiliate this society. Machiavelli said people will forgive you if you kill their father, but not if you destroy their patrimony, and that was a radical doctrine. It was seapower, imperialism, and powering the poor of athens. So they were revolutionaries beyond that sense. King students. Very well spoken. To read it shermans written communication, we know that petreaus, ph. D. , same thing with bridgeway. There were not just of didactic but often formal students in a very serious manner, very area that people unspoken communicated well, row well than they did not trust your site. If somebody told patraeus this is selig is or you come home, he did not just that. He made sure that he double checked and a triple checked, quadruple check, send the west german. There were empirical. I think that is a very important trade and a Constitutional Society. Subject of 51 percent of the people governing on any given day. Public opinion. Continue. These great savior generals. The characteristics that they have. Is this not the genius that is talked about . And then not the same traits that are required of were experienced and general such as ours and of the great or Julius Caesar or havel or napoleon or wellington . A different type of general and havel or napoleon or even wellington. I am not suggesting that the look at a particular battle and not the policy a larger theater in at that theater they see a larger strategic situation and with that they have a political ambition. Much more narrow. I have a particular group of skill sets and theyre is a particular problem, and this problem is absolutely fundamental from society to be resolved in a favorable light. Most people have given out. Most people have no deep beliefs. They simply respond to winners. People winning. And that clouds peoples judgment. I am going to look at this and zero in on it and look at the situation empirically and use my speaking, writing, and qualities to turn this thing around. They look very empirically and say, you know what, if i am Matthew Ridgway in the chinese came 400 miles of the way down and we are panicking, we went 400 miles up to china and get in trouble. So why are they going to be unsure what . A time when everyone sang their supermen. If cited night. We went too far for our supply and to close to the chinese border, their in the sense situation that we were three months ago and we will do to them what they did to us. So there kind of indian. I dont think that they are strategic thinkers necessarily. If you ask bridgeway, word you want to go after or how does curious a west berlin or if he said to petreaus, well this vision that you have to be replicated in afghanistan . Is this something we can do . Maybe. They have these doctrines that people could build on, these philosophies. I dont think theyre necessarily interested in a sustained military career, the type of u. S. Grant or George Patton are Something Like that. It is interesting to you should mention grant because one of the things that i really want to ask you is, why not grant . Controversial. Please. After vicksburg and gettysburg everyone thought the north win in six months up to july average is 62. It was fabulous. They won in the west, they defeated robbery lead at the height of his power. And in the war drags on. So they bring grant to the hotel and washington and march of 86 teefor. He has his grand vision, going to go richmond. My most brilliance aboard and is now taking over the army. He will go to atlanta. Two prongs. I will take richmond. He will take atlanta. The war will be over in a month or so. And in the unexpected happens. Richmond is pretty close to washington. Atlanta is a lot longer. Good transportation and roads. Atlanta is and this socalled wilderness of the georgia pine wood. Grand kiss near richmond, but then we have these names that even today make a shudder. Cold harbor, wilderness, spotsylvania, petersburg. And if you look at the army in may of 1864 and you looked september, almost 80 percent is killed, wounded, or missing. The reputation of grant is changed. People Mary Todd Lincoln is calling him a butcher, murder. You get the impression that although that is a very much more difficult task to fight right in front of richmond, he has done something that is not politically sustainable. Suddenly you have fremont on the left. He says that lincoln should not be nominated. Forestrys says he should not be nominated. The new york times, all the newspapers turnon lankan. He has for the resignation of his cabinet. All of a sudden the colin comes back on the scene as a candid on the democratic side and says, i won at antietam, get closer to richmond then grant ever did and lost your people to be you said i was a butcher. And sherman is saying to himself , i have to get to atlanta before the selection and i have to do it by not lose in the army of the west. I can suffer the type of casualties the grant has taken. While there criticizing for not fighting in a linear fashion, outflanking people. Except for one or two mistakes he takes atlanta and September September 2nd. Says a telegram, atlanta is ours and fairly one. Everything is turned topsyturvy mcclellan is disgraced, call the copperhead. He wanted to allow the sultan of slavery. Sherman is a man of the hour. Lincoln will be reelected by near landslide and then he does a very interesting thing. When people are calling grant a butcher, sherman basically says, no, this was planned all along. He was going to go directly and where down the confederates. I was going to go around the flank. I had one way and grant had another. They are synonymous. They are complementary. And he really restored the reputation of ulysses s. Grant. What i am getting at is that brand did not have sherman, think that there would have lost the election of 1864. And think we wouldve had initiated still make. By saving the election filling can he save the nation in a way that weather was fair or not grand had almost lost it. They both fought at shiloh in april of 1862 and both of very different lessons. Sherman was surprised and looked at the bloodbath, more People Killed and all the battles and the americans up to that date and said, im never going to let Something Like this again. We will bring people across the tennessee river, more manpower, the next day we love number, but organization, supply and they did. His lesson, i think, was the union has more manpower and you have to find the enemy, find them, targeting, gresham. After shiloh grant took that direction. I think in this particular case had sherman fought like grant did and headed right straight for atlanta in a series of fraud on battles and of judge johnson had opted those who would not have had a union like we have today. One of the things that some of these generals including sherman and grant and general patraeus is a willingness not to give love in the face of the common or popular perception that things are lost. How was it that kind of tenacity is cultivated by people who have such broad education and have such military experience and encountered such awful things on the battlefield. It is hard to know whether it is part of their genetic make up. One of the things i noticed, i just watched and looked at what is averaged a was. Said to myself, that is not sustainable. The man is on the sleeping three of four hours a night if that. Later he had health issues. No one has that tenacity, physical endurance, but there is something about him that was unusual. And not all generals can do that. He was the same thing in the way that macarthur was an age old man. If you look, what he had to do on the Eastern Front, the same thing. You get the first thing that comes across my mind, physically theyre like some politicians. Impervious to a lack of sleep or food. Excellent physical condition, but they also have a sense that i paid my dues, i was in the shadows. I did not kid may be what i deserved. By any fair measure katie should have been supreme ground commander much earlier than he was. The surge was necessary, but it could have, your to our earlier if there had been justice in the world. The same thing was true. Although he was elevated very rapidly, he was not given a fair chance prior to that partly because of his own psychological problems. And i think they get this idea that i have one chance and only one chance and i am here in a way that does not quite make sense. Bridgeway never thought he would be given that chance, but i waited my whole life. You watch what im going to do. Theyre in hyper speed toward speed. And for a brief moment i dont think it is sustainable. The men of the el or. And they saved the situation. Elected diplomats, the joint chiefs, the general staff deal with the victory in a way that stupider smart. As you take a look at that kind of extraordinary save, i mean, really extraordinary change of fortunes for a political leader as well as for military force, what do these save your generals to to help their military force actually achieve their vision and to turn the tide in a way it they think can be done. Its across time and space. Theyre is a continuity, paradigm. They feel that the generals are separate from the soldiers in the field. Bridgeway is called old iron tits. You put your grenade here and your health care here and get to the front. More brutal winter uniforms are regular mail, any general that is now willing to be a but the front should leave. He restores the morale. In distinguishable. He was out all the time with the soldiers. They called sherman uncle billy. Many anecdotes that people saw sharon and did not believe that he was the general of the army but the thought he was just a private. He was like rant in that sense. Themistocles was a renegade guy. There were one with their soldiers combat the front and they cared about the daily needs. That is why people almost immediately in terms of endearment culture monopoly. That name was earned in georgia. That was one thing. They had to remind the people why there were there because when you say save your generals, we mean lost worse, unpopular wars, wars that are not clearly defined. Sherman said, whether you like it and now we have to go down. These people as for the war. And going to make war and run synonymous. Whether you agree with the not commit that there are going to go down there and destroy the plantation. The first major engagement that congress had not authorized. The congress does not say this is a war. What is going on . And so as soon as ridgway got there he said committees of the talking points. He had a manifesto that he gave to every soldier. I am here legally because the president of the United States has the ability to authorize this war. Im here internationally because the u. S. Approved it. Im here morley because we gave our word to the south Korean People that there would have a shot of some plan for a constitutional system. I am here morally and ethically the stop whether we think it is silly or not godless communism. That really galvanizes people. When you add it all together, here is a man that you can see every day with this sharing the same risk. The pc can win. He tells us why. The cares about us enough to make sure were close to well and well fed. He gets people around and that is another thing that i really tried to emphasize. I dont know where they came from, but i dont think we have ever seen a brilliant array of kernels like petreaus assembled around him. Kara 20 of them. In the same thing with bridgeway. He brought in a group of people that thought that we could win a conventional war that going to clear. Sherman had a wonderful staff, much better than grants. And that think those are the qualities. We forget about it. Were in a therapeutic age of sociology. The nsa or some type of new Technology Makes them obsolete, but i am also worried. You, perhaps, no more than i, but it seems that four of the most dynamic 19th century journals that we have had in the west last 30 years of driving within the army bureaucracy. Not using their talents. They said something that was dangerous nor did not show discretion. I think there has to be room in the military command eccentricity. Tell me a little bit more about how that kind of independence was cultivated . Ive had the privilege of working with petreaus and have seen him. And not a clear idea of what it is that he believes needs to be accomplished. Also a vision of independents. Independence of thought is something that should be tolerated. At some point in our careers refine that we hit a brick wall and incurred jealousy or people are out to get us. True or not or imagined or real and depends on how we react to that. One of the most common, that may do the necessary obsequious atonement. Let me get back into the bureaucracy. All of these people, sherman had a complete mental breakdown. His wife save them. He was given a shot again. Is recovering moment. Bridgeway got alongside everybody. Even though he had been a world war ii hero. The campaign. I am getting at all of these people, at some point there was the crux where people did not like him. I dont know why David Petreaus, just what we needed him, was brought back to kansas. He worked on the manual, but i think he could have made the argument that we needed in there. People argue whether he was influential. There were people who were suspicious of him. He reacted in very different ways. He bided his time about to my file will be back in the United States to use this time to assemble a group, formula my thoughts because when i do go back well think he ever thought he wouldnt go back. When bridgeway was sitting as vice deputy chief of staff of the army and the stories were war two victory, he was writing these memos on how to fight a war and a place like. Bring that guy over here who has these crazy ideas that were going to have to fight in a nonnuclear fashioned in a place like area. And he was ready when he got there. A cocktail party. Go to carry a. The ever been . No. Go. He did. He had this idea that if i ever get a chance again to my and 90 about making total war on the infrastructure. A class and our society to horsemen and cavaliers. I can humiliate that southern aristocracy in a way that will be very dangerous to the cost. So they have an idea. And i dont know if its narcissistic or arrogant, but there are transcending the situation and will get their shot, but only one shot, one window of opportunity in a make the most of it. As we think about studying save your generals and reading about them, i think it is important task why steady generals in this century . Thats a very good question. We have two different views of human nature. Human nature is set. The increased diet, brain chemistry, psychotropic drugs. Very minor to the fact that we are well we were 2500 years. The other group of people who believe that with greater education, sensitivity, health care, whenever, we can change the nature. I think that the latter view, a leader nations are united nations, the utopian at center registered to say we created a new man, National Socialist man areas immune from these pressures inappetence. 200 something conflict revolutions. I dont think that there is any record of success. We study the past because it keeps telling us there are a small amount of people keep telling us it is no good. They will take things that are not logical. You cant explain to them that it is not in their interest to take that piece of land because sometimes its your selfinterest. To baldhead men fighting over,. It makes no sense. The islands of china. Worthless. No, there are about as variable as dans a is for hitler. You did not needed, but he surely did for matters of prestige in the motion. That is what wars are fought over. Very logical, do not make sense under only prevented by deterrence, alliances, the balance of power and by convincing somebody not to do that because youre going to pay a high price. The generals to see that and the methodologies are timeless. And so history offers a more salutary helpful antidote to modernism and the social science. Tell me that tells me a little bit about why to studied military history. Because it was in the nature of human beings and states to fight but why steady generals rather than other people . Well, i have written a lot about the average person, what it was like in the ancient world to fight in the western way of war or our culture determines the way people fight or not fight, but the fact of the matter is i get older and understand that the mind of one person can get a lot of People Killed in a lot of people saved. If your alexander the great and youre out number five to one, you have a force multiplier effect. You will win that battle because that person is mind, take out zander way and you lose. If you are persian and have five to ten times more you will be killed that day because somebody does not have the mind of alexander. There are a lot of people alive today because of patraeus. And him not being there, take him out of the equation and i do not think that day i no there are people like yourself and others that were responsible for him being there, but take bridgeway out of the equation. I am afraid we would have lost three of. In this particular case the plan as lineup. Maybe it is a perfect start of the situation, but one ran man can get a lot of People Killed or a lot of people saved. It becomes an important quality. Human beings respond to other human beings. Then make people think that they can do things that they otherwise dont think the could. I think that is important to. So when we studied generals and when you think back to the 19th century studies of the great captains are the early 20thcentury studies, very often we can look at the authors who wrote books and say that they are engaged in hero worship. How did you avoid doing that . Obviously i admired them a great deal, but one of the criticisms the book is just out of a war of the criticisms will be that i was ambiguous and my partner because i did say that they ended badly. They ended badly in in predictable fashion. If you were to collate all the things that Matthew Ridgway wrote you would think that he is going to get on the wrong side of bradley, the wrong side of eisenhower, the wrong side of lightning joe and he did. And if you look at uncle billy sharon and what he said he will say, you know what, why did you have to say make georgia synonymous with roy and or all of these things that were a little bit over the top. Patraeus is different, very sober and judicious in his speech but if you look at his appointments prior to that, he married the superintendents daughter, got very astute appointments that emphasize education and the new type of fighting rather than just armored artillery, although he was gifted and almost everything i guess something to the effect in that when petreaus was in a room everyone knew that he was the best educated and the smartest and he knew that he was. That created a lot of jealousy and envy. So commander stood that it takes a lot of confidence in ones powers to think, if you would just let me come in and clean up the mess because that is what were getting down to. Bridgeway is basically saying, everybody else grew up. Im going to go over there and give the United States a second chance. Katie never said that, but when he took the position it is either he cleans up the mess over through. Sherman it takes atlanta or lincoln will be elected. The border could secured and we take back the west were justinian, it will be a losing story. You didnt cause the problem, but if you dont save it is down to the peloponnesus in defeat. Now, correct. They have these traits, great qualities, but they can only appear in a dire situation that needs saving. So what are your thoughts . Of the we preclude the need . Well, i think that syria is a good example. People were arguing about whether we should intervene. What would happen with japan. In a Constitutional Society that is predicated on what 51 percent of the people want, whether it be midterm or direct elections are the media, it is incumbent for a leader to tell people that if you sign on to go and, if you what, things that can happen. Ups and downs and it will not be as easy as we think. Usually wars are not. Things will happen that we did not anticipate. If you prepare the public and tell them that we dont have to be perfect morally, ethically and we dont have to win every battle but the victory will go to the people with the greatest moral and conviction in their cause, it is very essential that what happens so often, we said we will go in there and do this and this and the oil will pay for it or we are done. In three weeks. Theyre gone. We need at this critical moments, leaders to come and say this is the beginning, not the end. We should expect that things to happen because if you look at what lincoln said or what churchill said or what fdr said, there were always trying to prop the public, almost like they were in condescending fashion thinking these people turn on us at any moment and then know what they will do, so i am going to prepare myself and them not to of bit too exuberant, the great leader of all time, the great portrait. This second book, a genius because when the athenian get very excited he knew how to calm and down. When they get reckless senior not to say, it is not over until its over. When that kind of situation, that kind of crisis, you focus a lot on Public Opinion has the center of gravity essentially for success. It raises a question for me that occurred to me while i was reading the book and talking to you. The will of people. It is not even true only in consentual society. If we had this conversation in june of 1940 in germany, we could not find a german who did not approve of hitler after the stunning success in france and poland. We had this conversation in 1945 we could not say to find a german who said he was ever for a look. Hitler was said there. Even more devious, but the reason the sense of success was not there. Lincoln was a hero and july of 1863. He was ago in july of 1864. He did not change. What happens is we keep thinking that the people are ideological or political, deepseated opinions that are based on convictions and principal. As i get older thats about 20 . Most people want to identify with a winner and want to a distance themselves from the loser. Victory has a thousand parents in the feed is an orphan. People have to understand. One of the things i appreciated about reading and watching, he was the only one that i was alive and to appreciate. Although they understood the political situation, petreaus never got in a situation, i have to protect bush. I should not have to go in front of the Senate Committee in the call. A suspension of disbelief and a liar basically. There should not have to put up with. His attitude was basically as i understood it, these things happen in consentual society because the battlefield is not doing well. And the battlefield is not doing well people will jump in and tried to distance themselves. If i change the battlefield and theyre going to say that it was maybe with enough from. I will be well liked. It wont have any more, and there werent. And yet then they are mature and responsible enough not to be vindictive and say i have contempt for you people. They probably do privately, but they dont. He was so brilliant people thought that along with ryan crocker, you could not pigeonhole them as antilock. The same thing with sherman. They just said most people will not do what i want to do. Most people not take this job. Most people dont care about korea. Theyre want us to win and feel good about winning in defeating communism and they do not tow it about losing an seeing soldiers humiliated. Thats my job. They dont have a lot of confidence in human nature. Critique these generals. You have given us lots of reasons why they are extraordinary human beings. Given us lessons about how they became the way that they came to be in the circumstances that there were and the reasons of character and history that help them pull through. Surely not only were they not perfect human beings because they came, but there were not necessarily perfect generals. How would you critique and in a military sense. Few of these extraordinary example eyes. Well, he had gone up before the battle. He had not done well. There were certain things that he was not good at, and one of them was conducting an Infantry Battle or leading a large expedition on his own or even leading as the expedition in joint command. He was very weak as far as alliances are working with other big city states. He was lucky that he gambled and offended the spartans in current the ins and they were ill to defer to him. That was not a sustainable mentality. He was the antithesis of Dwight Eisenhower and thats why he disappeared and did not figure in all. That was a real drawback. I think in some sense he was naive. When there was dissension about the emperor he was in a position where we want you to take over because justinian as a plague in will die and you can do all these wonderful things politically in domestically. He deferred. He was loyal. But he did so in such a way that could be interpreted by the emperor. He put himself into all vulnerable position. He did not realize that victory causes in the in jealousy. So he was now even a political sense to an extreme degree and a cat in exiled in a way that he was not valuable for byzantium. Sherman, his problem was that he did not quite understand the role of the media. He said things would be reported in a way that petreaus never would. He would have never said something outrageous. It would only create problems politically. Matthew ridgway was a very strange guy in the sense that he understood he was part of the bureaucracy. He did not understand that the joint chiefs and the people that were his superiors were there for reasons that would never make him one of them. A sober and judicious and careful thinker and talker. So was joe collins, george marshall, dwight d. Eisenhower. And when there were certain areas integrating the troops, stopping the 50th parallel. Later on the question of women in the military, how to fight a conventional war. He thought he could appeal to reason or appeal to the merits of an argument rather than the political instincts of a career or the desire ability to be liked. He did not care about being liked. Heated care whether he had a career afterwards, and he suffered for it in no way i think you would have been valuable with for five more years in the military. He was alienated from our american discourse on Critical Issues because of that. Petreaus, i think, thought that he could navigate through this impossible political situation with the senate and the Democratic Senate on one hand and bush had 32 percent and he would be such an upright and honest guy that everybody on both sides would honor him, and he did that successfully. I think that explains why he took a very enviable task in afghanistan. He was willing to trade positions. He came back to the cia. If you look at it for my historical point of view you can see that there were Larger Forces at work, politics, fears about the political resonance and not sure that he appreciated zero wanted to, but im not sure that his at some point all of these people arkansas survivalists. After words theyre not sure how all of these currents of fame and attention and jealousy and in the project. I think the conflict is an extraordinary interesting. I enjoyed reading the book. You portray phenomenal characters. The forces to think about history in the brief moments that we have left you can tell us whats next. Im working on a book called the end of all things. I am interested in there are thousands of wars. What gets the romans to say thats enough and there will be corrupted. Cortes defeat the aztecs . What is lemay said it will burn down the citys in japan. A frightening concept is. Im looking at 45 cases that explains how were evolves. Im looking in war as an existential and of all things. Thank you for your contribution to military history thank you for having me. That was after words, the Signature Program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed. Airing every weekend on book tv at 10 00 p. M. Saturday, 12 and 9 00 p. M. On sunday, and 12 00 a. M. On monday. You can also watch online. Get it booktv. Org and click on afterwards in the book tv series and topics list on the upper right hand side of the page. Representative greg walden. What is on is our reading list . I just finished the victory lap. Political stuff on the side. That talks a lot about how the world of campaigns is changed. I am hoping this summer to get to the biography on jefferson which i have in my pile. And i have a new one on roosevelt. A big fan of Theodore Roosevelt and the Reform Movement in his energy and style. And so i am one bad deals, i think a minute with this time down in south america. It should be interesting. Let us know what youre reading. Youre watching 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on the cspan2 book tv. The next three hours a your chance to talk with author and journalist marry roche. A popular explorer of taboos and topics will talk about living in space in zero gravity trying to prove the existence of an afterlife and the strange world of the human digestive system. The author of five books including best sellers. How did elvis died . There are different theories