A True Leader

What is the difference between a good leader and a bad leader? What does it take to be a leader? Have we surrounded ourselves with the best leaders possible?

The idea I want to discuss challenges the notion that you have to be in a high-ranking position to be considered a “leader” in war. Put simply, I think the answer is no. We mentioned in class that leaders should possess “experience, wisdom, hindsight, honesty, trustworthiness, and etc.” I don’t disagree with these qualities in a leader, but I think not all of these must be considered. There is more to a true leader than just these qualities, and rank is much less part of that. Further in class, we questioned the ways a warrior should act. Merging the idealized presentation of a leader and a warrior together, we can talk about Homeric characters in The Iliad, and the flaws in Homer’s thinking, and also a leader and a warrior in modern terms.

We must understand whom we surround ourselves with when going to battle. Which would you rather have, men (I am being politically incorrect) who fight alongside you or men who fight with you from behind a desk in Washington? Speaking for myself, I would like to fight with men who fight alongside me. In strictly a Homeric sense, warriors are men (in the most general sense) who fight valiantly with skill and foresight. Typically, I see these warriors depicted as leaders in The Iliad, and there seems to be no mistaking that thought. Homer leaves out of the story’s core what I believe to be true warriors or leaders or both – the actual common, “disposable” men fighting amongst characters like Achilles and Hector. In this manner, I think we falsely perceive leaders and warriors in our modern culture to be greater than they actually are, or we give them too much credit. Especially now, who are the actual leaders and warriors of our country?

I do not mean to downplay the significance of past or future leaders with rank, like the President. I can find exception to my argument by talking about Alexander the Great who fought among his soldiers across Europe and Asia. But, even if there is a modern day case of this, we must question who we surround ourselves with in battle. The very leader and warrior one needs may be himself, or his best friend shooting the M16 right next to him.

It is important to realize that not every so-called “leader” is the best or has what it takes. The superficial leaders may be easy to pick out. True leaders may not have all the experience or wisdom desired to win a battle, but that doesn’t mean they cannot win one, and with more integrity and valor than that of a leader who pretends to fight. Further, we must recognize that Homer twists true leadership in The Iliad, with characters like Achilles and Agamemnon. In my eyes, neither of them are great leaders. Patroclus acts more like a leader and warrior than anyone else. Homer idealizes what seems to me to be the wrong persona to adopt when trying to be seen as a leader. Honor through action and glory don’t have to be the underlying motives in a fighter. A person just wanting to stay alive is motive enough for me to win a battle. If we do not assume the idealized sense of a leader and a warrior, I think we could see much more progress in future wars, or in avoiding wars. Thus, I think you have to question who you surround yourself with in battle, and if that person is a leader to you --barring conventional wisdom -- and if not, where you can find a true leader.

Ideas Are Bulletproof

Many people question, “can one win or lose a war against an idea?” After further discussion in class about this question, I believe a nation can certainly lose a war against an idea, and they most certainly cannot win a war against an idea. As the character V, in the movie “V for Vendetta,” powerfully puts it, “ideas are bulletproof” (viewer discretion advised http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A7FG_QKUfU). There is no arguing with this statement. When a nation wages war against another country driven by a concept, that nation is doomed to lose. Practically, that nation can constitute the war as a victory if they have “out lived” the other side. However, they have not truly won - even if that is what the numbers and pictures show. The idea still lives on.

In my opinion, the “War on Terror” is the United States’ war against an idea. Now, while many people believed and still believe that the U.S. has probable cause to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, this is irrelevant. While it seemed that there was a good reason to wage war because of the September 11th attacks and the supposed weapons of mass destruction, I think this war is now baseless. The country has classified its war as a concept – the “War on Terror.” While our country may be fighting to eradicate terrorism, or more easily, to assuage terrorism, in theory the idea of terrorism will always be present and prominent. By way of the media, the idea of “terrorism” will always be written in our history books. Therefore, because of modern technology, we can never win the “War on Terror.”

 

The United States could try and constitute a form of victory. Yes. They have lost fewer men. Yes. They have done more damage to a country than thought possible. Yet, they have failed to truly and successfully implement democracy in a broken country. While they definitely cannot win the “War on Terror”, they also cannot spread their own idea of democracy founded by an everlasting support. This is not to say that they should not try to share democratic ideals. However, they should not rely on democracy as a reason to wage war, and much less the notion to defeat terrorism.

Furthermore, idea is not cause. In Homer’s “The Iliad,” the Achaeans and Trojans fight not over ideas, but over different causes. While the root of the war is because of a foolish cause, the fight over Helen, it still has a tangible purpose. Whereas the “War on Terror” initially had cause, it has grown to be a war over an idea. Because of this message, “ideas are bulletproof,” I think the United States is much better served fighting terrorism through diplomacy and peaceful efforts.

While it may be nice to think that the U.S. can overcome terrorism on the battlefield, the idea of terrorism will always outlast bullets and bombs. Although at first glance war may appear the most effective method to defeating an idea, it is only temporary and quickly fleeting. Eventually, the idea takes a backseat to the fighting and, the whole purpose of war is lost. A nation cannot win a war against an idea. It must resort to more methodical approaches to defeat an idea. With war, logic is thrown out the window, and the idea still remains.