Comparisonof Military Leadership Throughout The Ages
Essay Preview: Comparisonof Military Leadership Throughout The Ages
Report this essay
COMPARISONOF MILITARY LEADERSHIP THROUGHOUT THE AGES
No leader should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader is full of caution.
– Sun Tzu
Introduction
Tommy Franks, general of the American Army states that soldeirs should have a high competence
in their workplace, are caring, direct to their peers and sub-ordinates, hard and tough in all conditions, thoughtful to the people of all and most importantly a leader. He states “You would have to be a coward if you were a commander and you were not afraid for your men”. Understanding that statement leadership is not the same in all levels. Majors and Leuitenant Colenels are not leading a section into battle, but on the flip side you dont see a lance corporal moving battalions stragecally over the battlefield. This is the fact that leaders of all levels sometimes forget, that everyone in the army is a leader of some respect.
Although there are obviously many inspiring leaders, although the following leaders chosen have different appraoaches to the way that they led their country. These leaders show the way that you can bring a country from strength to strength with leadership skills. These include the up and down life of Sadaam Hussein, Triumph and loss of Adolf Hitler, the coming from nothing to the conquering Napoleon and finally the comparison of the great to the poor leaders.
This essay will enlighten the issues of leadership of well known leaders and compare them with the text leader from the Australian point of veiw. It will also bring current leaders into a perspective to compare them with the leaders of yesteryear and provide an argument where they may have gone wrong.
What is a leader?
Australian Defence force definition
of leadership is; leadership is the continuous influencing and directing of men in tasks which they accomplish their willing obedience, confidence, respect and loyalty in the manner urged by the leader. Qualities of leadership involve leading by example with the use of the following traits; Motivation, Courage Ð- physical and moral, Decisiveness, Responsibility, iniative, integrity, judgement, knowledge, loyalty, selflessness and the ability to communicate.
These traits, skills and abilities and ones self personality has the overall effect of how the leader goes about doing what the leader has to do and because of this reason is why its pottentially dangerous for an inexperienced leader to lead and conduct tasks after observing another leader. A leader if he personally possesses
the above qualities otherwise the ability and success of the task is minimal.
Army leaders, no matter what level they are, which unit they belong to or what their job entails always have to keep learning new and additional skills of leadership as they gain more experience and increase the ranking structure. The majority of the greatest leaders of today and yesterday started at the bottom working their way up gaining expeirience and the loyalty of their men resulting in making them a better leader.
SADDAM HUSSEIN
Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq for the past two decades, has the dubious distinction of being the worlds best known and most hated Arab leader. The greatest and most successful dictator of his time Saddam, responsible for approximately 2 million deaths throughout the world in his quarter of decade of power has many traits that a leader should have, although he is noted to be extreme in his measures. Saddam thought that to get power in his country it would be best to put the fear into his men so that none would contest his position.
A former Iraqi diplomat living in exile summed up Saddams rule in one sentence: “Saddam is a dictator who is ready to sacrifice his country, just so long as he can remain on his throne in Baghdad.” Few Iraqis would disagree with this. Although none living in Iraq would dare to say so publicly. In his first role as the Iraqi president Saddam invites all the members of the Revolutionary Command Council and hundreds of other Baath Party leaders to a conference hall in Baghdad and announces that membrs of the audience are have not been loyal to Iraq. Sixty-six “traitors” are identified on the spot, arrested and removed. Among those arrested are five members of the Revolutionary Command Council. They and 17 others are publicly executed. This is Saddams only tactic. Put the fear of life into people and command from there. Although Saddam might defend his style of leadership, by arguing that nothing else could have kept such a vast and diverse nation united, he did bring the economy of the oil and the price of land in Iraq to a record low.
Saddams positive traits such as strong oral communication skills and his attempt at modernizing his country, were heavily dampened by his weaker traits including selfishness, not leading by example and ruling out any threat to himself with death. This proves that Saddam does not have the qualities of a leader that you need to have in the modern day. “Read over and over again the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caeser, Gustavas, Turenne, Eugene and Frederic. This is the only way to become a great general and master the secrets of the art of war.” With these leaders successes and sadams defeats it is obvious that this passage is true.
NAPOLEON
Unlike the most of the greatest leaders throughout the past, Napolean had no birthright, wealth or recources to propel him forward. Throughout his time in leadership, Napoleon was a brilliant strategist and a larger-than-life leader. He proved this by revolutionising battle of his era in two significant ways.
Napoleon broke tradition and made the Ðcorps darmД©e. This is units of 10,000 men to 30,000 men internally forming miniature
armies of infantry, artillery and cavalry. This was first seen in Napoleons earlier years as a leader. It allowed him to have his men equally dispersed, allowing him to give clear and concise orders to all of his men and gave him the flexibility to respond to the way the battlefield was forming. For Napoleon to alter such numbers within his