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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Are you suggesting George Bush should be out there on the front lines, or General Raymond T. Odierno should be in the White House? if you have any doubts, go check out Odierno's photo on Wikipedia. (i know i'm not supposed to judge books by their covers, but wow....)
i know you're not by any means suggesting either of these options (thank G-d), but it's an interesting problem. We're not the Acheans, and we're not constantly at war (in theory) but should our President be more directly involved anyway? i mean, sure he visits the soldiers and whatnot, but should he ever be involved in the fighting? (Yes, i know that brings up a bazillion security risk questions, but pretend those don't exist.)
I think tess's comment can be solved with the following answer: there can be more than one type of leader. Two main ones, I think. The President leader who makes the decisions who says these troops go here at this time. And the other type is the squad commander going here at this time and carrying his wounded buddy on his back on the way out. I agree with scott that patroclus is one of the real leaders. I'd also like to say that Odysseus is one of the real leaders, bringing his men back from retreat and mental defeat multiple times.
I agree and I think your post bring up the idea that there is a difference between power, authority, and position. If you are in a prestigious title you may have authority, but you may not have power over people. You may have power over people despite not having any authority.
I want to extend a bit on Tess' post a bit. Times are different. A leader these days has to be able to lead and command. He doesn't have to be directly in conflict to be a good leader.
I think it is easy to be a leader when you are not on the front lines of the war. Sitting on a chair all day may be made for one's posture, but death is not a consequence as it is on the battlefield. If I was putting my life on the line in a war, I would want a brave leader who was fighting with me and my fellow soldiers. Achilles may be arrogant and self involved, but he goes onto the battlefield and puts his life on the line. Regardless of his timing or his intentions, Achilles is a leader who fights just as a common soldier.
I agree with you when you say that personally you'd rather have someone who is going to fight side by side with you instead of someone behind a desk. However the person sitting behind the desk in Washington, is necessary. In war, you need the high ranking people, like generals behind a desk, to make important large decisions. You also need lower ranking people to make decisions in the field of battle. In simpler terms, you need a chain of command. Responsibilities need to be shared and rather than handled by one person.
Post a Comment