tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post4040917259815201421..comments2024-02-27T02:19:19.667-08:00Comments on rethinking history: The Essentials of GeneralshipNigel Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-5139426322436965782022-01-31T06:44:40.109-08:002022-01-31T06:44:40.109-08:00Loved reading tthis thanksLoved reading tthis thanksAmy Castillohttps://www.amycastillo.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-71163881647498755262013-09-09T04:28:38.434-07:002013-09-09T04:28:38.434-07:00Dear Segun,
Excellent question. I can only answer...Dear Segun,<br /><br />Excellent question. I can only answer from my own 'feel' for this, because, like you, I find a lot of the discussion in textbooks and lectures to be more propaganda (positive thinking stuff… you can will this to be...) than real. But I am a professional educator, who has worked with all age groups on many different educational goals - history, politics, music, woodwork, dance, sales, discipline, expression, etc, etc., so I will give it a go.<br /><br />I believe that if you are born with certain basic skills, and are educated and brought up to emphasize those skills, then you can be trained to be good at whatever requires the maximum application of those aptitudes. But if your personality lacks the basics, you cannot. I don't think you can ever be taught against your nature. ( I can teach music composition for instance, but my compositions are crap.)<br /><br />I know in my case that I would not make a good executive general, because I lack the self confident decisiveness (or arrogance if you wish) of someone like Brooke, Patton, Montgomery or Truscott. I prevaricate and reconsider until I am certain. No amount of training will make me less cautious and analytical. That is just who I am.<br /><br />At best I could be trained to be a good chief of staff (2IC) to an executive general, as that would be working with my natural strengths. <br /><br />Had I gone on from cadet CSM/under-officer and reserve drill instructor to the full military training (Duntroon in Australia), including staff college, and gone right through the system, I still believe I would have been born a natural 2IC, not a natural executive leader. Command decisiveness, particularly under crisis, is just not my aptitude.<br /><br />I like to think that I would even recognize that, and decline an executive appointment I thought I wasn't the best person for. (Another sign I lack of 'self confidence/arrogance' to be great?)<br /><br />On the other hand I will point out that many completely self convinced and self righteous military leaders were completely wrong about their abilities, and many many people have suffered because of it. Those who appoint generals must have good judgement too, not just accept the persons propaganda at face value. (Marshall saying of the dreadful General Fredendall 'Il like that man, he's a fighter' is one example). Which is another way of saying that the worst generals get there because those that uncritically accept them and then appoint them are idiots.Nigel Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13176570029569275055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1977310098529084891.post-86317050932367503802012-07-17T05:35:22.614-07:002012-07-17T05:35:22.614-07:00Generalship is definately key,but can generalship ...Generalship is definately key,but can generalship be taught?,Does promotion confer true and genuine generalship? Or are generals born?<br />These questions are important to me because decisions made by an incompetent general will result in a failure to acquire the objective and lead to preventable and avoidable loss of lives.segunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18129104942945889264noreply@blogger.com