Trust in military leadership

When I contemplate the kind of education military officers get I do not get a sense of confidence in them. I get worried.

Perhaps because they are trained to be direct and decisive. And given the right support, they produce results. Compare that to politicians (enough said) or business leaders (show me a general who makes even $150K/year, much less $10 million)

Military leaders are honest to their jobs to the people who work for them and to the Country. Politicians squabble in public and are so greedy for power that they would let the interests of the people and country take a back seat. The business leaders are thieves. They have disproportionate income for little or no leadership, they gain from connivance with politicians. The people are not stupid, they just dont have the time to deal with them. But in time, if the disparities increase further - the repercussions will be felt by the businessmen and politicians.

This is because Americans are basically fools. Military leaders may be less corrupted than business or politician leaders, but they are pretty much the bunch of dim light bulbs who can't think outside the box and, therefore, can't really solve our problems any better than other leaders. The stupidity of involvement in Afghanistan is proof of that.

It's fairly simple: media, government, and business are all torn down through competition. Fox rips on MSNBC; MSNBC rips on Fox. Democrats attack Republicans; Republicans attack Democrats. Apple one ups Microsoft; Microsoft tries to reciprocate (let's not forget the spectre of Wallstreet crashing). This polarization renders all parties untrustworthy since people gravitate to that which their biases are predisposed.

The military, conversely, is criticized by a very small percentage of American citizens. Moreover, the media and government elites treat them as somthing close to sacred. And lastly, interservice rivalries play out among the military academy football teams, for the most part. As a result, you have an entity that is respected and therefore trusted.

Military training emphasizes character and integrity as more important than academic components. The honor code at the service academy trumps everything. Each service has a specific set of values that revolve around integrity and character. I'm not saying all military leaders are exemplars of integrity and character, but at least in military training it is a central point of emphasis. Does anyone get the sense Harvard Law or MIT Engineering Schools do the same?

I am a civilian, and have no real idea as to what it's like to be in the military.

But, I can venture a guess.

Perhaps military people are more likely to approach a task head-on, and do what they're told, without worrying too terribly about their own politics or machinations? That is, they approach the mission at hand, and have only a goal of accomplishing that mission.

No politics, no outward complaining, just taking orders and getting the job done with the resources they're given. Am I close?

Military leaders are more trusted because:

1. They are not in it for the money.
2. They serve America and not a party
3. They tend to be very well educated and prepared for their jobs.
4. They earned their jobs by performance and not an election.
5. Duty, honor, country

The Nazis trusted their military leaders also...and look where it got them. Evil minds create evil results. These men are evil murdering sociopaths that Jesus would spit in the faces of. They are responsible for children being killed...they all deserve to die painful, agonizing deaths. Then they can take their places in Hell with all the other murdering warlords.

Military leaders have extensive education and training in science and leadership of men an women in difficult conditions as they made their way through the ranks. On top of that they have attended many courses and may have advanced degrees in political science or international relations. The latter will be respected even by the various academic establishments. I will take them anytime to not just advise others, but actually lead a country out of its doldrums.

Rabbitman: My reply to you is that the Germans trusted their top military people and they did OK with what they had until the sheer numbers of everything that the Allies threw at them forced the end. I am talking about the regular military and not the killers of the SS. Remember too that in most cases the generals and admirals have to finish what the politicians and the UN (especially the UN) will not do through all their words and wringing of hands.

It's a No-Brainer - Military leaders serve the country selflessly, not an agenda, not ideology, and certainly not the lure of a big pay-off. They tell the truth, they don't sugar coat it, and they act on the decisions of the civilian leaders of the country without ambitions of greater power. They are for the most part concerned about the wellbeing of those below them, and they do the hardest jobs known, under the harshest conditions, without complaint. They don't ask of their subordinates that which they haven't already done themselves or would not do themselves. They do all of this for comparatively little pay, even less real thanks, and they do it willingly. It is that kind of service that earns respect. Little has been done lately by the media, business, or politicians that has earned our respect. Military leaders are human, and thus fallible, but as a group they engender some of the best attributes of our nation.

And JJEDIF – Your statement shows your ignorance. It was the civilian leadership that took this country to war, and then neglected Afghanistan in favor of Iraq. The military leaders act on the orders of the President as outlined by the Constitution. I would suggest that the “dim bulb” is you. Military leaders have to think outside the box in order to make due with poor policy and short resources. They make life and death choices every day. I doubt you are up to the challenge. You do them a disservice by your words. I am not a hard core conservative, but I know first hand the sacrifices they make every day, and will not let what you said slide. You have every right to your opinion, but be sure that your anger is directed at the right people. Politicians take us to war, military leaders get us out.

Primarily, Americans have an innate belief in our military leaders because we trust their motivations. The military is not immune to being "bribed" by the lobbying efforts of big defense contractors, but that said, our hope is that military leadership is apart from and above the majority of partsin bickering. We want and need to believe someone is.

Military service during Vietnam suggested to many that the military had learned to lie a lot, e.g., about body counts. That was hardly leadership; it was self-serving career management and dabbling in politics. The warped culture that lead to those lies is fully documented, admitted--but forgotten, I am afraid. Military officers remain comfortable with bending the truth, in my experience; they do so about the cost of weapons systems, the readiness of their units, the prevalence of religious zealots at the AF academy, the maintenance of nuclear weapons, and many other things. In prolonged dealings in, and with, the military, one can also grow tired with: "this conversation did not happen." But there is indisputably honor in being a warrior. Honor alone does not make good leaders. But we have ample proof that being a warfighter does not mean high trust in the honesty sense. And military officers are known to try to put political officials in a box, e.g., McChrystal re the Afgh surge leak. That's not honorable. Nor was his lapse of memory regarding the Tillman Friendly Fire coverup. When it comes down to it, I suppose the military is no more honest or dishonest than the next labor category. But they serve, and we thank them for it. Their leadership skills are tactical, not strategic. But even that gets fuzzy, as the standard today seems to be virtual intolerance of taking casualties, so a lot of risks are not taken like they used to be. It was getting people to expose themselves to death (risk), and to follow leaders into hell that we are missing today in some parts of the military. The problem is mainly in risks not taken in the first place. As for business leaders, that's a pretty short story because of the Wizards of Wall Street and the pigs in banks and insurance company. But business is no more rotten/or trustworthy than the military is. The majority of people in both are fine folks, but that does not make them leaders.

Be wary of placing too much confidence in military leaders. There were other general officers who should have stood with General Shinseki, but lacked the moral courage to do so.

Axolotl: You said: "But even that gets fuzzy, as the standard today seems to be virtual intolerance of taking casualties, so a lot of risks are not taken like they used to be. It was getting people to expose themselves to death (risk), and to follow leaders into hell that we are missing today in some parts of the military. The problem is mainly in risks not taken in the first place". Quite true! It is for this precise reason that policy made up by a good military leader, who knows that casualties will mount if collateral damage is not allowed, will always be superior to that of a civilian.
Truman should have allowed bombings of the Yalu river dams; and Johnson should have allowed Haiphong to be obliterated; and Bush should have allowed the Iraq-Syria border to be closed with more troops. All decisions made by politicians against wise military wants and needs.

Military leaders are more trusted because to few men & women have served in the armed forces. No one for whom "lifer" is a pejorative trusts them an inch.

Pure and simple -- America is a militaristic nation.

Doesn't make a shred of sense to me why we would rust militry leaders more than elected officials. more than corporations or corporate leaders? I'd trust a crack addicted hooker before those folks. Our Founding Fathers thought that a standing army was the greatest threat to freedom. Given the amazing amount of wealth we pour into the ceaspool of the Pentagon I'd be inclined to agree.

AND BEING A LIMPWRISTED FREAKING LIBERAL DOESN'T MAKE YOU A LEADER. MAO WAS RIGHT WHEN HE SAID THAT POLITICAL POWER COMES FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN. WE AMERICANS NEED TO CHOSE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG. I STAND WITH THE MILITARY. AND SO DO THE MAJORITY OF THE 300000000 GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY. LIKE IT OR NOT LIBS,THATS THE WAY IT IS.

This is not news to me. I agree with many of the previous posts that we probably do trust military leaders more than leaders in any other field precisely because they put DUTY TO COUNTRY, HONOR, COURAGE, AND INTEGRITY above all else. I've also always admired the military because they work as a team, and they instill that in their members across the board, regardless of rank. Members of the military realize that's the only way that a job or mission will get accomplished is if everyone is cooperating and working in unison to achieve a goal. They focus on getting the job done in the most expeditious and efficient manner possible.

may be from the personal stand pt.

a general has a lot of education, military, service, wepons, logistics

also in their daily military lives and decision making they make decision where soliders whom they live and serve are putting their lives on their for their country and mission

other officers and solider trust the general with their lives and they are willing to make the sacrifice base on the judgement he makes.

also if the general makes wrong decisions others suffer and he is also accoutable for a higher authority leve.

on the other side in the civlian world the big shot - type guy will have a LAWYER who will try to get him out of the messhe got into. and legal matters can linger for years

as in well he said.... but he was mis-understood... or it was not implemented .... or the wokers did not follow orders .. or did not exeut.
never ending legal discussions

I don't know enough about our current crop of military leaders, but to follow-up on donbl's comments, leadership is about taking care of your troops, the leader doesn't eat till his/her troops are fed. If the ship is going down, the leader is the last one off - or even goes down with the ship.

Our business and political "leaders" have no concept of the social good. They eat first, and leave the left over crumbs for the minions. If the ship is going down, they get in the lifeboat first, taking as much wealth with them as they can. The minions are left to drown.

We don't have real leadership today.

The trouble with U.S is its reliance on military power in its foreign policy. The U.S has been using force for a long time. The early settlers from England used their superior weapons technology against native Americans. They have been in so many wars that many Americans living now must have served in the U.S armed forces some time or other. They are conditioned to working in a top down structure obeying orders from superior officers all the time. No wonder Americans respect Military leaders more than any other leaders. For example Eisenhower had no trouble winning the presidency. I know this deference to military on the part of ordinary people has been very harmful to this country. But the Americans will never be free from this bias.

Generals Shinseki, Petraeus: courage of speaking truth to power,and competence.
Vs.
CEO's obscene pay packages despite performance, and those political leaders rented by cited CEO's.

Trust the military? Sure, they're not corrupt, they get things done, and they do as they're told. The thing is, they also require that the people under their command do as they are told and follow orders.

Those who think that that military leadership is better than civilian, you may want to think what happened to Chile when General Pinochet took over, what happend to Pakistan when Musfarrah took over, Greece at the time the military junta took over there, Generalissimus Franco of Spain wasn't exactly friend of civil rights either and while there are those who claim Hitler got the trains to run in time in Germany, I'm not sure his leadership is exactly something we want to emulate.

Military leaders are highly trained, intelligent people, but they are also trained to lead people that are trained to do as they are told, march when told to march and kill when told to kill. And they are not allowed to question their orders.

Those of you who would rather have a military ledership, are you sure you want want to follow orders instead of insisting having a right to think for yourself? Political squabble may be a pain in the rear, but it is a freedom to be able to have an opinion and to be able to express it. Expressing your opinions, squabbling and not following orders is not something the military likes.

But of course having a military leader as a president doesn't mean that he becomes a new Generalissimus Franco, does it? Of course not, but the reason why we don't have military leadership is most likely due to the fact that the military leaders are not very good with underlings that insist having opinions, or dealing with political parties or soliciting votes. It's a lot easier to lead an army that does what it is told to, when it's told to and how it is told to. It's a lot harder to try to keep the peace.

Trust the brass? Trust the brass who smeared a dead seaman with being gay and committing suicide because of a gay lover's spat, like they did with gun turret explosion of the battleship USS Iowa, just to save their precious little weapons program? Trust the brass who lied about Pat Tilman being killed by the enemy when he was killed by friendly fire? Trust the brass who cover up weapons system cost overruns and failures in order to keep their resumes spotless? Trust the brass who dissed their lawful CinC Bill Clinton because they didn't like his politics while expecting their subordinates to kiss their derrières? Trust the brass who lied about Jessica Lynch and her being sheltered in an Iraqi hospital? Trust the brass who think lying to Congress is the mark of success? Trust the brass who would rather send their men and women into combat shorthanded than allow gays to serve and fill the needs of the grunts who die every day?

Trust them? Are you nuts? I'd trust a Pfc long before I'd trust a flag officer. The higher the rank, the less trust is deserved.

It's strange to me that on the one hand Americans trust military leaders more than politicians, yet McCain, Wes Clark, Bob Dole, Kerry, Bush 1, (I know I'm leaving some out here) all lose--and decisively--in presidential elections since 1992. And look at who won: Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. Not exactly distinguished military acumen there.

I think there is a limit to just how much Americans actually trust military leaders. When it comes to politics, we want politicians and we're willing to experiment with businessmen. Bush 2 was going to be the CEO president, Bloomberg flirted with a run, Perot could have won in '92 if he hadn't been such a flake.

Would our attitudes towards military leaders change if we actually elected one as President? I think he would then be seen as a "politician" more so than a general in short order.

Americans trust military leaders to be just that: military leaders.

There is an inverse correlation between economy prosperity and confidence in military leaders.

During times of economic uncertainty, populations turn to the certainty, rules, discipline, etc., of the military.

Look at Germany or Japan before World War II during the Great Depression.

It's a fairly consistent pattern.

There is an inverse correlation between economy prosperity and confidence in military leaders.

During times of economic uncertainty, populations turn to the certainty, rules, discipline, etc., of the military.

Look at Germany or Japan before World War II during the Great Depression.

It's a fairly consistent pattern.

Duty, Honor, Country

Pick eight white guys and ask 'em what they think about leadership...nice.

Military "leadership" is sort of a silly concept - since it depends entirely on obedience (with heavy punitive results if not), it's just giving orders.

Military men should give military advice to the President, then SHUT UP!. MacArthur learned this lesson. The politcal and long-range decisions are the business of civilians. "Gotta Have a War to Get That Other Star" often flavors the judgement of the military, with a feel of a need to completely conquor Afghanistan. Viet Nam got out of control, looking for an impossible military victory. We need to bring our troops home. Bin Laden is probably not in Afghanistan. He baited the trap and we fell for it. The type of government of Afghanistan has is not any of our business and we have no right to invade another sovereign nation for the purpose of looking for the bad guys. What would we do if Russia, etc. invaded the U.S. to try to find someone who they wanted? Constant war and waste of our young people must stop. We should send troops only after Congress declares war, reinstate the draft and raise taxes to pay for the military action!

Infantry Vet of World War II in Europe.

Military men should give military advice to the President, then SHUT UP!. MacArthur learned this lesson. The politcal and long-range decisions are the business of civilians. "Gotta Have a War to Get That Other Star" often flavors the judgement of the military, with a feel of a need to completely conquor Afghanistan. Viet Nam got out of control, looking for an impossible military victory. We need to bring our troops home. Bin Laden is probably not in Afghanistan. He baited the trap and we fell for it. The type of government of Afghanistan has is not any of our business and we have no right to invade another sovereign nation for the purpose of looking for the bad guys. What would we do if Russia, etc. invaded the U.S. to try to find someone who they wanted? Constant war and waste of our young people must stop. We should send troops only after Congress declares war, reinstate the draft and raise taxes to pay for the military action!

Infantry Vet of World War II in Europe.

Perhaps there is a general understanding that the military experience teaches that honor and the good of the group and country trump personal self interest.

That is something that neither politicians nor business leaders seem to consistently demonstrate.

And to those who think that the military experience is solely about following orders, then they don't understand. As a Marine I was part of an organization that was designed to build the capability of the lowest ranks to assume leadership when it is needed. It's not just the Marine Corps that does this. Any student of recent history will know that is one of the strengths of the American military.

My experience has been that military personnel are "wired" differently than politicians. The notion of leadership -- "Follow me!" -- has a profound meaning to those who have chosen harm’s way as their workplace.
Intelligence, compassion, decisiveness, and truthfulness distinguish combat military personnel from the politicians they serve. Each art has a distinct, coexisting role in the balance our society.
Adding an equal measure of combat military personnel and politicians to the guest list will illuminate the most dour dinner party.
Tim Nixon, MSgt., USA/USAF Ret., a member of the State Bar of California

The question deals with public perception which may or may not be based in reality. TV and the movies have a greater influence on our perceptions than we would like to acknowledge. In TV drama businessmen will do anything for a buck and will kill anyone who is about to expose their foul deeds. Government leaders are depicted as philandering, corrupt and willing to do anything to get elected. Likely they are also part of a giant secret conspiracy to do in the American people. The media is shown to be only interested in ratings and has completely sold out. On the other hand the military on TV and in the movies is brave, self-sacrificing and extremely competent. Also the news media treats soldiers and their families almost universally as heroes instead of ordinary people.

Subliminally we treat our entertainment as an exaggeration of reality instead of the total fantasy it really is. An example of what I mean is the furor over “terrorists on American soil”. On shows like “24” and other programs terrorists are evil geniuses who outwit the sum of US law enforcement for an extended period while wreaking vast havoc. In reality they are dumber than the average Joe. For all I care you can put the Guantanamo prisoners in the regional jail five miles from my house. These prisoners pose less of a danger than my local car thieves who would blend in better if they escaped.

This isn’t to say that some of the perceptions aren’t true. Businessmen are greedy. We all are. None of us would turn down a seven figure bonus no matter how poor our business decisions were. Most of us just aren’t in a position to satisfy our greed. Most of us would be like many politicians and have girl or boyfriends on the side if there were attractive and accommodating young things who wanted to be with us because we were powerful. The media does chase the sensational story instead of showing us the boring but ultimately important stuff. If they didn’t we wouldn’t watch. And partisan ranting, if it fits our preconceptions, is more fun to watch than an unbiased examination of the facts, which requires too much thinking. Politics isn’t about governing it’s about our side winning.

Successful politicians worry only about how things will look in a 30 second sound bite. They spend all their time raising money so that they can buy TV ads that lie about their opponents. If they did otherwise we wouldn’t elect them. Be careful who you blame.

The military leaders that I have gone to school with (US Army War College - civilian) and worked with are more intellectually honest, better educated, more honorable, harder working and more open to ideas and criticism than any group of leaders than I have ever met. They know more about the Constitution, American and World History than most other groups of leaders. I would guesstimate that most of the people bashing these people have never met a military leader, and that their perceptions are based upon the depictions of the media (movies, TV and press).

When I was a civilian at the Army War College, one of the things that the officers repeatedly stated was that there were no excuses for wrong, whether it was a decision by another soldier, or by the elected officials. Wrong was wrong, and there were many people that mocked Ollie North on some of his issues.

Leadership seems to be an alien concept to the overwhelming majority of politicians.

The US Military (if not those of other countries) has a filtering system that pretty much gets rid of those without sufficient leadership capacity.

It's not just "giving orders" ~ the modern soldier given the responsibility of bringing maximum firepower on an enemy, or the enemy's infrastructure, is pretty capable of figuring out what his job is, and his Generals must lead him to do that job.

"Fragging" doesn't happen often, but a real leader doesn't have to worry about it.

I am delighted that WaPo would scrutinize this site carefully.

To me, there's no question of trust and leadership with the military. They're tested in ways we can barely imagine, even with all the movies pretending to be the REAL THING.

Country, Honor, Tradition, Family are ingrained in them. They are the best of us. Even simple things - they know how to fold a Flag. They do not leave their fellow soldiers behind. They never forget what we have never known. They never complain. They have given their lives for us. Camus once said, "The things worth living for are the same we die for". Freedom.

They don't forget. And, neither should we forget them. Ever.

They are the best of us.

I'm amazed my comment was not accepted. I'll try again before I file a net wide complaint about censorship.

The military are the Best of Us.

at a certain paygrade it turns polictical for all military officers.very political.

One starts with the fact that leadership is different from management. Leadership requires duty, honor, and loyalty, else, a leader cannot be a leader, a manager, maybe, but a leader, never. It is the way of getting the most of a team, a group, a batallion, or an army, to make the team do anything necessary, while allowing the junior members to develop their leadership skills. It is leading, while developing your subordinates to do the job as well or better than you to replace you on your job.
Such leadership is less common today, with a minority Americans having put on a uniform to serve the country.

It used to be that the professions, before they became businesses, also depended upon such factors. In the old days, lawyers dealt with each other with handshakes, instead of 30-50 page documents. Today, many who see law as a business instead of an art (a Darwinian devoltuion) could not imagine such a world.

But military leaders, who have to deal with fulfilling a mission while serving their troops, think outside the box far better than many in the civilian sector. Many in the civilian sector believe that if somebody else does not share thair opinion about Fact X, they must be dim bulbs, and can be safely ignored. IN the military, that can get on killed. Military leaders have learned to do the best with the resources that they have on hand, whether they have more or less than they expected.

Leadership is not a "dumb bulb" exercise, or a matter of "following orders". There were privates and corporals ihe 82nd and the 101st who were leaders when confronted with being dropped miles from their targets, with a mission left to do. Their training was to take the resources at hand and complete the mission. There were many German Generals who were not leaders, as they were simply waiting for orders from their superiors in Paris and Berlin.

Military leaderhsip is not generally a situation of "not being able to think for oneself" but rather is a situation where an issue is discussed, consensus is reached, but once consensus is reached, alll support the mission. THis is in contrast to the position from some civilians that if others do not agree with them, they are "uneducated", "don't know the real facts", "get too much of their information from Fox News", "wear swastikas", etc. I wonder how many of these civiilians actually talk and get into a discussion with those who opinions they disagreee. A good miltiary leader ensures that all points of view are discussed.

In discussing military leadership, some discuss Hitler (failed corporal, opposed unsuccessfully by the German Army staff, most sucessful attempts against led by German Army Officers), or Pinochet or Musharaff, while forgetting Roosevelt (Japanese internment) or Lincoln (locking up of thousands without writ of Habeas corpus). Military leaderhsip occasionaly does arise under similar circumstances.

Above all, one of the differences between military and civilian leadership is that civilian leadership will be more likely to say "mistakes were made", while true military leadership will say "it happened on my watch".

Having lived in Great Falls MT for the past 6 years where the economy is totally propped up by US Tax dollars going to the Air Force and National Guard personal here I can see why rural America likes the military. It pays bills and they can live in a place where there is no manufacturing.
As America becomes a military state our power will decline as we become beset by our new enemies who used to be our closest friends. All militaries need enemies, its as old as history. Our founding fathers tried to set up a government of civilian control but their system has been subverted by the cold war, atomic technology, fear and blind stupidity, and 19 guys armed with box cutters.

"A new survey out from the Harvard Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership shows Americans have significantly higher confidence in military leaders than leaders in government, business and the media -- and that this confidence rose over the past year"

So why is this?

A lot of allegiance is being transferred from business to the military by people who were under Ronald Reagan's spell until the economic events of 2008.

Government consists of people who get elected by telling people what they want to hear. It's a fundamentally dishonest profession.

Business aims to make a profit come Hell or high water. It's like watching sausage being made.

Those who have never served in the military imagine a bunch of people living up to some high code of honor in a context where life and death decisions are made every day.

There's your answer.

Oh - and if they knew the gluteus maximumus covering games that are played by military people at all levels to get past inspections and investigations by general level officers and the civilian government, people would go back to putting their confidence somewhere else, or nowhere.

The military is the classic government run enterprise. Any purported soldier sailor or marine who can't tell you horror stories of inefficiencies is probably a charlatan who never served.

We trust military leaders because they are results-driven and lead by example. Blowing smoke just doesn't cut it.

Utterly amazing how ignorant the folks criticizing the military here are about what the military actually is and does. I am an officer and we do not want mindless robots following us. We want people who follow the rules, but are not afraid to take the initiative and make proper, independent decisions within the framework of rules and regulations. I encourage independent thought and actions in my subordinates.

As for the Nazi and Chilean comparisons, frankly those are offensive. We have perhaps the most well trained, well educated, most professional military ever. Our NCOs are better trained and more professional than most officers in most other nations. The Nazis were led by civilian madmen. The military foolishly followed.

Body counts in Vietnam. Sorry, that was Mr. McNamara's (a civilian) idea. Again, I agree the chiefs of staff foolishly went along and should have spoken up.

Baby killers? We have intense training on the laws of war and the ethical application of force. Yes, civilians dies and it is a horrible consequence of war. But if we really didn't care then why have we invested billions in weapons systems designed to cut back on collateral damage. As an officer trained in the application of force the number one rule I learned in targeting school was economy of force. Use the bare minimum of force to get the job done, and do so in a legal manner in accordance with internationally accepted laws of war.

Why do Americans rate military leaders so highly? Because you are a patriarcle, militaristic society. You view all generals as tho they all were reincarnations of Eisenhower or Marshall. Forget about Macarthur. Admit faults? Read Franks. Honest? Read about Tilman. Why do not necessarily succeed in civilian life? Because they are used to being obeyed. Order and it shall be done is not good training for a politician. My biggest reservation is that you don't see and judge the man just the uniform. And frequently the uniform is larger than the wearer. The military man is still just another human being with all his frailties.
Please forgive my lack of PC

The simple reality for me is that the military personnel that I know and have known have chosen service to the nation and to its ideals. I believe the public is looking for leaders that are honest, straightforward, and who put the interests of the nation first. Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line for this principal, and they are to be commended for their willingness to do so.

Miltaries are, at best, necessary evils. To worship, admire or trust them is insane.

I wish this country, and humanity in general, would get over its adolescent crush on uniforms and its belief in the nobility of war.

Nobody alive in the military today has served this country one tiny bit. They have served the political and economic agendas of politicians of both parties, and sometimes for the express benefit of specific companies like KBR or Haliburton. The soldiers may have meant well, but they were fooled, just like we all were at one point or another.

One of the most effective and innovative management leadership development courses I have ever seen was originally developed for the military. It is put on by the Letterman Institute in Maryland.

If you think that military leaders (at least in medicine and medical services) are robots and have no place in the business world, you need to see this training in practice. It is totally servant based "outside the box" training that would do anyone proud.

I am not a member of the military and I found it to be one of the best leadership development examples I have ever seen!

If this is the "new" military direction, it is great!

The chief reason military leaders are trusted is because few Americans remember Vietnam and fewer still actually read and understand what the military has done in Iraq. In the words of a recent Commandant of the Marine Corps, the military is designed to "kill people and break things." Whenever they stray from that basic role - say, towards country-building in Iraq or detention of non-combatant prisoners - things go haywire. Much as I love the military, it's an incredibly expensive and wasteful institution that promotes on cronyism and is rife with corruption. To believe anything else is naive.

Perhaps Americans love the military because it is the only occupation that has not yet been outsourced to India and China. (Just wait a few years, perhaps ...)

Or could it be that the reason that Americans love the military is that, despite lip service to "liberty" and "independence," Americans are deeply conformist, conservative, and cravenly subservient and obedient to authority? They certainly are easy prey to fear propaganda about terrorists, drugs, gay marriage, "socialist" health care, and anything else that political demagogues vomit up. On the whole, Americans are undereducated and ignorant of history. Even the history they lived through is soon forgotten, such as the Vietnam debacle. So they shower love on authoritarian organizations such as the military and the police. Were it up to the average American and the right-wing agitators that are everywhere, the Bill of Rights would soon be a relic and the authoritarian grip on the nation tightened into a fascist tyranny.

The old paradigm of "Humans Resources" fosters the concept that we are disposable.

However, in reality WE ARE THE ASSETS
and the perceived value of our services are exchanged as the results of relationships, wisdom, experience, currency and commerce .

ENLIGHTENED LEADERS are stabilized in truth, integrity and love and possessed by Knowledge. These leaders are aligned to their soul’s highest purpose as imagined by the Almighty for them and are imbued by Nature with a unique art of creating value for others. These leaders catalyze diverse forces, create solutions, and shed light to dispel confusion and darkness to help others fulfill their highest purpose and when this is accomplished they are richly rewarded.

Enlightened leaders continuously learn, adapt, serve people, and use money to create increase and enjoy abundance of prosperity which is oppositional to desire and pride driven persons with the concomitant drudgery of cunning self centered base survival. They practice the art and guide others to find their own personal “assignment” where their craft becomes joy of living or what is known as the “effortless effort.”

Kind regards,,

Charles Pixley
http://ny1.com/9-staten-island-news-content/ny1_living/employment/

Military people are taught to lead and think to achieve a MILITARY goal. The over-riding political goal must be set out by civilians. A General who publicly makes statements, which are critical of the aims of his Government, should be fired. General MacArthur learned this the hard way. Long-term geopolitical goals are not the same as a short-term miitary victory.
Our foreign policy must not be influenced by the "Got To Have A War To Get Another Star" idea. A large cadre of high-ranking officers requires a very large active
military to justify itself. A world at peace is a lonely place for many ambitious generals.

A World War II Infantry Vet

"No fact is more firmly established than that lying is a necessity of our circumstances-the deduction that it is then a Virtue goes without saying." On the decay of the art of lying.

The military has superb liars. Scientific lies should be taught in the public schools and in the newspapers. The children are now being taught not to engage in lying. This will make the United States uncompetitive. Deception aids competition and builds character.

Though I have little interacting with the military branch of government, I believe (through media, opinions, etc.) that they are doing a fine job.

However, it would be interesting to know what the goals of the military are.

How will they support troop movements out of Iraq? What will they use to measure overall (not individual) success?

In addition, beyond Afghanistan, are there other parts of the world where the military (in conjunction with the DEA) can stop the spread of drugs?

National political office and the military both require leaders of intelligence and character. Education and core beliefs have a great deal to do with effective leadership. I am especially concerned with higher education. Traditionally, many of our national leaders have come from Harvard, Yale and Princeton Universities. The service academies have given us some of our greatest military leaders. It is my observation that these sources of leadership are not as good as they once were. Harvard, Yale and Princeton are all cesspools of liberalism, Marxism, arrogance and intellectual stupidity. They are the greatest supporters of diversity, multiculturalism and political correctness. In the past twenty five years, these treasured institutions of higher learning have produced more than their share of ideological idiots. Many of these ivy league graduates are not leaders. They are mindless morons pushing a particular point of view. As a voter, one of the things I will be looking at is where candidates received their college education. I am not going to vote for anyone that graduated from the "big three." It is time to begin transferring power to ordinary citizens. We need more congress men and women that graduated from state universities. We also need to elect fewer lawyers. Most of these people are clones of the snobbery they were exposed to in college. It is time to return to the virtues of the common man. Let the ivy league graduates look down their noses at the unemployment line. These intellectual bigots need to be taught a lesson in gratitude and decency. Unfortunately, the same attitudes of ignorance have bleed over into the service academies. Political correctness in the military encouraged the recent murders at Fort Hood. If these paragons are so sold on diversity, multiculturalism and political correctness, let them provide guarantees to the common folks, and to the troops they command that they will be safe in the future. Otherwise, we need to pull more of the officer corp from the ranks. Let the service academy graduates clean the toilets for a few years. Maybe they can regain the qualities of leadership they have lost to ignorance and misplaced moral superiority.

AUM.
Leadership is the art of achieving the impossible. When soldiers are tired and donot wish to march forward, but a leader, that is an army officer in command of that body of troops, feels that moving forward is a must and he succeeds in motivating his men to march forward, this will be called successful leadership.This kind of leadership will be noticeable only in the Army or another uniformed service.
Leaders in the army are made; they are not born. Before the two world wars the fallacious view was that only the Royalty and the nobility can produce good leaders. However, the lasting war over a large theatre of action needed more officers than what the royalty could provide. The army had to draw leaders from amongst the latent talents in the commoners, train them and motivate them.This experiment was successful. Since then the dictum is; Leaders are made, they are not born.
A leader in the army cares for the safety and honour of his country first, then cares for the safety and welfare of men he commands and last of all cares for his own honour, safety and welfare. An officer from the rank of a second lieutenant to a Field Marshal who follows this golden rule rises in rank and status and wins battles by leading his men into action with success.
Loyalty begets loyalty. If an officer is loyal to men he commands, his men will be loyal to him.
Finally, an officer should develop a reading habit to improve his professional knowledge, encourage his men to follow suit, be in good health physically and mentally and be spiritually robust. trust in God and more than half of the battle will be won.
Should you have a query, please write to-upvanom@yahoo.com Thanks.