Leadership is the thing that wins battles. I have it, but I'll be damned if I can define it. It probably consists of knowing what you want to do, and then doing it and getting mad as hell if anyone tries to get in your way. Notwithstanding its intangible nature, leadership is often the singular, decisive element in achieving battlefield success. Other factors, including weapons, technology, logistics and industrial capacity, significantly aid an army in overcoming an adversary. Moreover, these environmental necessities are strategic objectives that a nation develops to support its armed forces and are usually beyond the immediate control of a commander. Leadership, however, is the driving mechanism behind the structural factors that a country provides to its commanders and it alone, is the "thing that wins battles.
All else being equal among armies, superior leadership will allow one army to defeat another. More importantly, superior leadership can inspire a weaker army to overcome logistical and physical disadvantages and thus defeat a force larger in terms of numbers and equipment. Leadership is the catalyst of the underlying reactions whose ingredients include, but are not limited to manpower, logistics, morale, and technology.
Logically then, the question arises: How can we improve the level of leadership in such a way that we, as an army, maximize our potential as a fighting force? Our methodology presumes that the best way to prepare the leaders of the future for battle is to study successful leaders in battles of the past.
Utilizing the "trait" approach to leadership theory, certain common, demonstrable qualities will emerge to assist in the understanding of what it takes to become a superior military leader. We shall examine the lives of Stonewall Jackson and George Patton to unravel the common qualities of America's two finest military tacticians. These Soldiers.....
