Orders, Duty, and the Ridgway Benchmark

the man has things to say

Life is short. There is so much to learn with so little time. So many great men with so many stories—and yet, there stand their stories in the library, keys to understanding, just waiting for fate to grant you more time.

There are some names that wander in and out of your reading. Often just for humorous moments like learning their nickname.

For instance, a U.S. Army general known to his men as, of all things, “Old Iron Tits.”

Of course, I’m speaking of General Matthew Ridgway, USA.

A grenade, a first aid kit and … is that a battle ascot?

Anyway, back to topic.

I mostly remember his advice about Vietnam. He was instrumental in keeping us out in the Eisenhower administration, but with the war engaged a decade later and Johnson looking for a way out, he advised—properly—that losing an unwise and unpopular war was even worse than starting one.

I’ll let that sit, but let’s shift to a different subject he was strong on.

The last year or so there has been a lot of talk about what General or Flag Officers should or should not do. What they “should” agree or disagree with.

What has been lacking in this discussion is a a review of leaders who have found themselves in this position over and over and over in their career—all the way to the very highest levels.

I recently ran into Conrad C. Crane’s article from May, 2021 in the U.S. Army War College’s Parameters, titled Matthew Ridgway and the Value of Persistent Dissent.

“civilian authorities must scrupulously respect the integrity, the intellectual honesty, of its officer corps. Any effort to force unanimity of view, to compel adherence to some political-military ‘party line’ against the honestly expressed views of responsible officers . . . is a pernicious practice which jeopardizes rather than protects the integrity of the military profession.”

Ridgway elaborated on this position in later pages. “I learned early in my career that it is not enough, when great issues are involved, to express your views verbally and let it go at that. It is necessary to put them down in writing, over your signature. In that way they become part of the historical record.” Ridgway believed civilian leaders had the authority to disagree with military advice and take a different course, but he also believed they should bear the responsibility for any outcomes. He condemned “a deliberate effort to soothe and lull the public by placing responsibility where it did not rest, by conveying the false impression that there was unanimous agreement between the civilian authorities and their military advisers.”

…

Here Ridgway was specifically referring to his open disagreements with the Eisenhower administration on its New Look defense policies, which led to his tenure as chief of staff of the Army lasting only two years. As he also stated in his memoir, “Under no circumstances, regardless of pressures from whatever source or motive, should the professional military man yield, or compromise his judgment for other than convincing military reasons.”

He applied similar logic to his treatment of directives from his military superiors. In 1966, Ridgway gave an address at the US Army Command and General Staff College in which he counseled the assembly about opposition to orders. He acknowledged military services properly

deal harshly . . . with failure to carry out orders in battle. . . . Yet when faced with different situations from those anticipated, as well as in the transition from plans to orders, there sometimes comes the challenge to one’s conscience, the compelling urge to oppose foolhardy operations before it is too late, before the orders are issued and lives are needlessly thrown away.

Ridgway asserted the hardest decisions to make were “those involved in speaking your mind about some harebrained scheme which proposes to commit troops to action under conditions where failure seems almost certain, and the only results will be the needless sacrifice of priceless lives. . . . For a battle commander to ever condone the unnecessary sacrifice of his men is inexcusable.”

Quoting General George C. Marshall, he observed, “ ‘It is hard to get men to do this, for this is when you lay your career, perhaps your commission, on the line.’ ” For Ridgway, it did not matter if the “harebrained scheme” came from civilian or military leaders.

In his 1966 address, Ridgway cited two examples where he battled to stop “needless sacrifice[s]” while commanding the 82nd Airborne Division in Italy. In one case, he opposed a proposed attack by his division across the Volturno River, over open ground with enemy fire from both flanks and the front, which he considered a suicide mission with only a small chance of success. He initially discussed his opposition with General Lucien Truscott of the 3rd Infantry Division, who agreed with Ridgway’s assessment. Following that discussion, Ridgway took his complaints to his corps commander, and then to the Army commander, before finally getting the operation cancelled. And opposition based on best military judgment did not cease just because a decision had been made to execute the operation.

In the second example, Ridgway’s division received orders to drop on Rome in September 1943 for Operation Giant II, in support of landings in Salerno. General Sir Harold Alexander, 15th Army Group commander, told Ridgway he should expect ground forces to link up with him “in three days—five at the most.” Assumptions included light opposition despite six German divisions near the city, and help from the Italians who were ready to sever their alliance with Germany.

Ridgway was appalled. The mission would place his division outside the range of supporting fighters and dive-bombers. Moreover, he knew ground forces would never reach the city in time to save his soldiers from a dreadful mauling. While his troops continued to prepare for the operation, Ridgway mounted his campaign to stop it. He reached out to a strong proponent of the operation, General Walter Bedell Smith, then chief of staff for the theater commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Bedell Smith recommended Ridgway approach Alexander. While he did not cancel the drop, Alexander did approve the dispatch of a clandestine delegation, led by Ridgway’s artillery commander Brigadier General Maxwell Taylor, to Rome to assess Italian preparations. Taylor was horrified by what he found and sent four cables supporting cancelling the operation, the last one mere hours before the first aircraft were to take off.

By this time, Eisenhower had received further intelligence about the lack of Italian capability and readiness, and after Taylor’s last message, Alexander sent an order to Ridgway cancelling Operation Giant II. But no acknowledgment was received. Eisenhower ordered Brigadier General Lyman Lemnitzer, Alexander’s American deputy, to deliver the cancellation order personally to Ridgway by air.

Sixty-two transports were already circling the airfield at Licata when Lemnitzer arrived, and he started frantically shooting flares to get everyone’s attention. The takeoffs stopped, Lemnitzer landed, and he found Ridgway wearing his parachute, preparing to climb into a C-47. Ridgway had spent the day reconciling himself to an operation that would destroy his division, after his failed attempts to dissuade his leadership from this course of action. Immediately, Ridgway recalled paratroopers in the air, while the rest were returned to their bivouacs. “Exhausted and relieved, Ridgway stumbled into a tent where one of his officers sat trembling on a cot. Ridgway poured two drinks from a whiskey bottle, and as darkness fell and calm again enveloped Licata South, they sat slumped together, silent but for the sound of their weeping.”

Give Conrad’s article a full read.

As for Ridgway, I need to read his book.