The Warriors flaw...
"A general’s greatest flaw has nothing to do with his ability to wage war. That is only triumphed equally by his monumental failure in his inability to avoid the need of going to war; this is where his fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed…"
This is the ultimate expression of leadership, in the military sense. I have this obsession with leadership. I primarily study the military form of leadership because its example in the most wide practice. To date I have yet to think of the civilian or corporate form of leadership as a useful example.
Even in the military as the greatest practitioner of leadership, they are; at the same time the ones with the most delusions of its actual implementation. You have two very distinct groups in any modern military, the enlisted corp. and the officer corp. Some countries have conscript enlisted corp. some don’t. Some forces have their actual educated and vetted professionals only in the officer corp., on the other hand you may find the opposite in other forces such as those in the majority of NATO military community. Much of this I will expound on at other times. But what often seems to be the flaw in modern professional forces is that the officer corp. will often be referred as the leadership, much in the same way as that the civilian corporate world has its “management” blue collar force as its leadership.
Right now I will leave it at that for the time being, back the flaw. I think of the this flaw in leadership, and I wonder about the picture of the "Warrior Statesmen"...certain prominence comes to mind, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Churchill, Eisenhower. These were all men with both military and statesmanship backgrounds.
When a nation goes to war, or is put upon the path, is it not best to have a leader that has been both of these substantive qualities? I have this obscure thought that only a general can avoid war, not a statesman alone. In modern times in "civilized" nations, the generals have no say. They are told and they do. A general knows all about war (by the time one achieves the rank of general, you can literally say they have at least earned a true Doctorate in warfare) and wouldn’t you think a professional of that caliber would be the best in finding a solution for peace in lieu of war?
This leads me to my notion; to eliminate the flaw, should every Prime Minister or President have the prerequisite of a Generals Doctoral degree? Much like the Kings of old (as bad as this example really is) that were raised and educated in both warfare and statehood. Is a (and this is a very obscure thought so far) democratic monarchy of sorts, the solution?
This is the ultimate expression of leadership, in the military sense. I have this obsession with leadership. I primarily study the military form of leadership because its example in the most wide practice. To date I have yet to think of the civilian or corporate form of leadership as a useful example.
Even in the military as the greatest practitioner of leadership, they are; at the same time the ones with the most delusions of its actual implementation. You have two very distinct groups in any modern military, the enlisted corp. and the officer corp. Some countries have conscript enlisted corp. some don’t. Some forces have their actual educated and vetted professionals only in the officer corp., on the other hand you may find the opposite in other forces such as those in the majority of NATO military community. Much of this I will expound on at other times. But what often seems to be the flaw in modern professional forces is that the officer corp. will often be referred as the leadership, much in the same way as that the civilian corporate world has its “management” blue collar force as its leadership.
Right now I will leave it at that for the time being, back the flaw. I think of the this flaw in leadership, and I wonder about the picture of the "Warrior Statesmen"...certain prominence comes to mind, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Churchill, Eisenhower. These were all men with both military and statesmanship backgrounds.
When a nation goes to war, or is put upon the path, is it not best to have a leader that has been both of these substantive qualities? I have this obscure thought that only a general can avoid war, not a statesman alone. In modern times in "civilized" nations, the generals have no say. They are told and they do. A general knows all about war (by the time one achieves the rank of general, you can literally say they have at least earned a true Doctorate in warfare) and wouldn’t you think a professional of that caliber would be the best in finding a solution for peace in lieu of war?
This leads me to my notion; to eliminate the flaw, should every Prime Minister or President have the prerequisite of a Generals Doctoral degree? Much like the Kings of old (as bad as this example really is) that were raised and educated in both warfare and statehood. Is a (and this is a very obscure thought so far) democratic monarchy of sorts, the solution?
posted by The Practitioner at 3/27/2006 01:26:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home