I have always been a quarter of an hour before my time, and it has made a man of me.It got me thinking about what other military leaders had to say about it. Here's the famous Marine General John Lejeune:
In war, procrastination is a crime, and promptness is a handmaiden to victory.
I would not go so far as to draw a direct parallel--as it is in 'war' so it is in 'War in the Modern World. Nobody's actually going to die if your essay is late. But still there is a not-so-tenuous link. My view 'On Promptness' in academia is this. Procrastination is the main cause of poor performance. Occasionally you have absolutely genius students and sometimes you have students who are just genuinely thick. Yet more often than not the difference between an excellent student and a poor one is the difference between someone who has started early enough on a task that they have the luxury of subjecting the penultimate draft to one more round of 'sobre second-thuoght' and someone who has left themself no time at all.
'Promptness', that is meeting deadlines in our context, is to some extent a relative rather than absolute virtue. It is absolute in the sense that managing your time in order to meet your obligations and work within the time constraints set for the assignment is a 'transferable skill' (to use the jargon) which we are meant to inculcate in our students. However, I do see it also in relative terms. Or perhaps 'relational' terms is more to the point in the sense that a deadline is a contract which defines a part of the relationship between you and me. You meet your obligations to me, and to your colleagues, and I reciprocate. In this course, we also try to make things work in relation to your Real World day-job. What it boils down to is this:
- You should endeavour to meet all deadlines, notably for the submission of assignments and first and second posting in the units in which you are specializing;
- When you can't meet a deadline for reasons relating to, inter alia, your health, work or personal life you let me know so that,
- We can 'renegotiate' the terms of our contract in a way that is mutually acceptable.
9 comments:
David
You wrote: 'Britain's greatest military leader, Admiral Nelson (anyone want to challenge that?).'
Tell me, what do youy define as great?
Nick
Uh oh, what am I getting myself into? Nick, I am coming to understand that you are a 9th Dan GrandMaster of the RTFQ technique. But I did issue the challenge... So, great: most remarkable in ability and character.
Okay, Nelson. Why not?
I would not for a moment pretend that I know enough about British
history to argue.
However, it is worth considering the importance of celebrity when assessing the degree of remarkability that Nelson's character and ability had and indeed still has.
I am reminded of Gen Sir Peter de la Billiere's recent book 'Supreme Courage' which tells the story of the Victoria Cross. Courage, as any good soldier intuitively knows is the key virtue of leadership (the virtue of virtues). Gen Sir Peter says: 'War, by its nature, offers opportunities for courage and the making of heroes that seldom present themselves to the person on the street. At the same time, outstanding courage in battle, where risking life and limb is part of one's duty, is bravery of the very highest order. In most cases it is accompanied by an exceptional display of leadership unrelated to rank or position.' He later states that 'every VC is won with the backing of luck - luck enough to stay alive long enough to do the deed...luck to be noticed...luck to have the opportunity...'
I wonder how many of great acts of leadership, like acts of courage, go unnoticed, how much of great leadership is the product of the public's desire for the hero and celebrity (facination with celebrity is nothing new). Does rank and status make the great leader? What sets Nelson aside from the humble section commander who compels his soldiers to do the unthinkable? Do you have to do something 'good' to be great. Hitler compelled an entire nation to do the unthinkable - we do not celebrate him. He was a bad man, does that make him a poor leader?
Hmmmm... I was all fired up to argue my case but you've attempted to turn my flank in a most creative manner causing a rethink in strategy. Right, first thing is to hold the centre: it is stipulated then that the opinion of this comments section is that Nelson was Britain's greatest military leader.
Now, to the points you have raised: tell me, what do you define as courage?
Hope you don't mind me joining the debate, but being a student/enthusiast of insurgeny warfare (...those small wars that bring down powers or birth new states) I would humbly suggest: Orde Wingate, who Bernard Fergusson descibed in the following manner:
"His was a complex character, but two things are sure. First, he was a military genius of a grandeur and stature seen not more than once or twice this century. Secondly, no other officer I have heard of, could have dreamed the dream, planned the plan, obtained, trained, inspired and led the force. There are men who shine at planning, or at training, or at leading; here was a man who excelled at all three, and
whose vision at the council table
matched his genius in the field."
David
Ah, the path to intellectual dislocation opens before me. Shall I be lured by the great Dr Betz or simply try and fob him off with a random quote from 'Serve to Lead' or something that Montgomery or Slim had to say on the matter? I could quote British Military Doctrine, talk about the moral and physical dimensions of courage and the qualities of leadership but that would only serve to bore.
I do not condsider myself to be a military historian, and have only very limited ambition as such. I do recall an earlier post however where you stated: "While I for one would not suggest that the Cold War was 'bad' or required 'excusing' (not a proper function of the historian anyway, IMHO) it could be taken as such."
Is the assessment of military leadership greatness a proper function of the military historian?
Nick
'Is the assessment of military leadership greatness a proper function of the military historian?'
Well, I think it depends on the intention of the assessment. Have you seen the movie High Fidelity? It's set in a used record shop. The main characters spend a great deal of time composing lists of great songs based on varying criterion for no other reason than that they enjoy exercising their knowledge of music and debating minutiae of musicology with those of similar taste and depth of knowledge. They do it aimlessly and harmlessly because it's fun.
For example, Sergio's plug for Orde Wingate has got me thinking. I'm an admirer of Wingate; I often stop by his statue when I pass the MOD. I'm inclined to agree with Sergio until it occurs to me that Wingate served under Slim whose claim to greatness is equally strong. But then it occurs to me that Edward III's victory at Crecy in 1346 was extraordinary too and highly significant as an example of a great change in the art of war. Is this going anywhere? No, not really but I enjoy it.
It needn't, however, be idle curiosity. What makes great military leaders great would seem to me a very good question for military historians to ask. (Which is probably why they keep asking it).
Courage? Surely that must be a part of it. But what sort of courage? How does a leader show it? By standing highest on the parapet?
It occurs to me that the first academic paper I ever wrote was in first year Russian history. The assignment was to assess the importance of Peter the Great as a military leader. Peter's great rival Charles XII, King of Sweden, has gone down in history as a paragon of military virtue (althuogh he has also been called a belligerent lunatic). In terms of personal courage, tactical acumen, ability to inspire his troops and in most other ways in which we tend to describe military genius he was superior to Peter. Yet, I concluded that Peter was the greater leader for the simple reason that he, unlike Charles, was extraordinarily conscientious about owning up to and learning from his mistakes. He screwed up to be sure, but never in the same way twice.
I still think that this is a hallmark of greatness which is why Hitler was not a great military leader--althuogh he was successful for a time--because he learned from none of his mistakes (indeed he also learned the wrong things from his successes) whereas Stalin was and so too was Churchill for that matter.
Thank you.
I am glad that you mentioned fun. Perhaps you have identified another item to add to clinical diagnostic, practitioner, philosophical and pragmatic in your ever growing list of categories of people who study war. How would you describe someone whose principle motive for study is fun? Indulgent?
Fun must be quite a common motive, even if we don’t immediately think of or admit to it. Surely, it can’t be cool.
I'll have to now think of a great military leader to champion so that I can join the fun, stop sniping from the periphery and commit more of my combat power to the arguement. Surely the Army has a great leader that will trump your matelot. I'll go away and give it some thought.
An interesting discussion going on here!
I suppose the answer revolves around; what actually constitutes "leadership" and what is "greatest" in this context? On whose opinion is someone's leadership deemed great? Public opinion, the media, the government, historians (of the winning sides), superiors, peers or perhaps, dare I say those that are actually led?
The greatest test of leadership must be when "victory is snatched from the jaws of defeat". A little like my football team although they seem to be able to snatch "defeat from the jaws of victory!". The ability "to turn things around" when all is seemingly lost must be the key. Nelson must surely feature highly although some may say that he was lucky to win at Trafalgar (although clearly not for himself!). "Make your own luck", etc and wasn't it Napoleon who said that the most important thing he wanted in his generals was that they were "lucky"?
Perhaps a leader can be defined as realy great when he has been able to convince other people to do what he/she wanted them to do (and letting them think that it is their idea is even better)and when they wanted to do something else. Or maybe that is just effective leadership. Something like the Spartans (by no stretch of the imagination British)or indeed Spartacus springs to mind but maybe that is only because of the films? Also, William Wallace or Robin Hood but again more probably due to Mel Gibson and Kevin Costner and respective scripts. One is, however, also immediately drawn to Slim through his book "Defeat into Victory" but it was HIS book.
Getting someone to sacrifice their own lives when they don't want to is certainly extremely effective leadership but maybe not "great" leadership. e.g. Bin Laden. Does it therefore have to be leadership in a "good" cause in order to be "great" and by whose definition of "good" anyway?
Who really is the judge? If the judges are "the people", then the greatest British military leader was, without doubt, Winston Churchill. The "country" (or at least those "tuned in" to the programme in question) voted on this last year. When all was seemingly lost in WW2 it was he who rallied the troops and the country. In the UK, we live in a liberal democracy don't we and he got my vote anyway? But was he truly a "military" leader, I hear you ask.
Enough, I've got some reading to do...
Pip
Post a Comment