Moses And The Promised Land Test Of Leadership

Press, Volume C, Issue 29454, 4 March 1961, Page 6

Moses And The Promised Land Test Of Leadership

[By VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN. K.G.] JJEFORE we try to draw some conclusions from the thoughts on leadership which I have expressed, let us have a look at Moses. I have often examined his career as a leader and found it a fascinating studv. It can be read in the earlv books of the Old Testament—the Books of Moses. We shall have to tackle his activities in a somewhat different way, because the information and facts are not so clear as in the case of the other leaders we have discussed. Also, of course, I did not know Moses!

According to the historians, the children of Israel arrived in Egypt about 1720 8.C., and the date of the Exodus under Moses was about 1290 B.C. Between these two dates, a period of some 430 years, Israel lived in misery as slaves of the Egyptians, being dragooned into forced labour. “And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: and they made their lives bitter with hard bondage in mortar and bricks, and in all manner of service in the field.” It has always seemed to me ■that Moses was given a most *llOOll task to lead Israel, shepherd people, out of •ypt and into the land of '.naan, which would be their aew home. I have never believed that, once they had got clear of Egypt, they wandered aimlessly about in the Sinai desert for 40 years—lost. I reckon Moses knew very well that he could not carry out the second part of his task, one which would almost certainly involve much fighting, until the old grumblers had died and a new generation had grown up. imbued with a fighting spirit and trained to war. “A New Spirit Has To Be Born” He knew that a slave peooie cannot be turned into a fighting race in a few weeks or months: a new spirit has to be born; for this, time is needed; it would have been useless to embark on the invasion of Canaan without a sound plan and one which could be carried swiftly to a successful conclusion without any reverses. This latter point was important; defeats in battle might well cause a loss of confidence in his leadership. The story takes us back over 3000 years and it ean be put together as follows: Moses decided that he must first gain some information about this new country, and he sent scouts ahead, one of whom was a young man called Joshua, who was later to succeed to the supreme command of the host of Israel. ‘‘And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them. Get you up this way southward, and go up into the mountain and see the land, what it is: and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many.” This was pretty good for somebody who was not a soldier by profession. The scouts spent 40 days on the task and brought back information about the opposition which was likely to be met—large populations, strong men. and fortified cities “great and walled up to Heaven.” Here was confirmation of his thinking on the task ahead. The immense and difficult problem which faced him was now clear—he knew for certain that he had to turn his nation into a fighting race and train them for battle. A further and disturbing factor ■was that the report of the scouts had a demoralising effect; morale, never high, became very low. “And all the congregation lifted up their voice and cried, and the people wept that night And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses. Wherefore hath the Lord brought us into this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? And they said one to another. Let us make a captain, and let u« return into Egypt”

This was a pretty how-de-do! Not only low morale, but also almost a mutiny. And food was scarce too. All they remembered was the good living in the delta of Egypt: they seemed to have forgotten the misery of the forced labour. "Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full.” “Who shall give us flesh to eat, for it was well with us in Egypt?” That must have been a difficult period for Moses, knowing as he did that there was considerable unrest, particularly among the older people. Despite their new faith, the children of Israel were not yet welded into a (disciplined community with a fighting spirit; also they were poorly armed, having only the tnost primitive weapons.

battle, and their morale, became gradually built up. A new plan had been made, to invade Canaan from the east. This new route involved passing through the territories of certain rulers, whose permission was sought. One of the earliest was the kingdom of Edom. “And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom . . . "Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country . . . we will go by the king’s highway.” Great Military Victory Permission to pass through Edom was refused, and Moses decided not to risk battle but to make a wide deviation. Latar they came to the kingdom of Amorites. Again they asked for permission to pass through, "along by the king’s highway.” Again permission was refused. Moses was now pretty sure of his forces and he decided to fight. The result was a great victory; morale was restored, the children of Israel became conscious of their strength, and they were not again defeated in battle until the task was completed. Moses now had to hand over the command. He was not allowed to enter the Promised Land, but he was allowed to see it from Mount Nebo. I have seen that view from the top of Pisgah. I went there with my wife in 1931, when my regiment was stationed in Jerusalem. What Israel now needed was a good strategist, one who could wield effectively the weapon forged by Moses —and they found him in Joshua. Trained by Moses, he also sent out scouts to reconnoitre Jericho, the strategic key to entry into Canaan from the east—and, indeed, the key to the conquest of all Canaan. The fact that the two scouts billeted themselves in the house of a harlot should not be allowed to detract from their scouting ability! Joshua’s battle for the city, his first, established his reputation—even if the tacties were somewhat unusual.

“And it came to pass, when the people heard the Bound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, and they took the city.”

Probably it was an earthquake which shattered the city about 1230 8.C., since it lies in an earthquake zone. But whatever may have been the cause, when the walls did fall down Joshua quickly assumed credit for having produced such a tactical rabbit out of the hat—and took full advantage of it! While everything and everybody in the city was destroyed by fire and the sword. Rahab the harlot who had sheltered the two scouts was rewarded with her life—and all her family too. What can we say of Moses before we leave him? What was his contribution to leadership?

He had been brought up by a princess and was highly educated. He may possibly have had something to do with the Egyptian Army

At any rate, he was a good judge of what was possible in war, and what was mot possible with the resources

available. He refused to launch Israel into battle until he was ready. He had the wisdom and the insight into human nature to realise that the best way to raise morale in an army is by victories in battle; soldiers will always follow a successful general. In the tactical sphere he understood that time spent in reconnaissance is usually justified—and in his case it certainly was. His method of command in battle would hardly be suitable today. In the battle against Amalek he entrusted the tactical command to Joshua. He himself sat on a nearby hill, holding up his hands. So long as they remained up, Israel gained, the advantage; when he became tired and his hands dropped, the enemy prevailed. Once this became apparent. Aaron and Hur took care to see that his hands did not fall—they held them up! The point here is that, having done all he could, he prayed for his men as they fought. And I presume that his staff saw to it that the C.-In-C. was not disturbed by visitors, V.I.P. or otherwise! And when the battle had been won, Moses gave the victory a new name—“ Jehovah Nissi,” the Lord my banner. I have always admired Moses for his leadership and insight into human nature. In my opinion he has a sure place among national leaders. And he was firmly convinced that "The Lord is a man of war”—which the pacifists might note. I said earlier that my first thought had been to discuss Moses and de Gaulle together; but it would have been difficult to compare the two since they were very different personalities.

Moses often despaired, and he could be accused of vacillation on occasions.

De Gaulle can never be accused of these bad habits: he knows exactly what he wants to do. and does it, waving all opposition aside. But in both men we see sincerity and selflessness and a total lack of anything mean or underhand—which surely are essential requirements in a national leader! We must note, however, that whereas Moses completed his task successfully, de Gaulle has not yet done so. I sometimes ask myself the question: "If de Gaulle had lived 3000 years ago, with his present personality and make-up. would he have been able to achieve what Moses achieved?”

My answer would be “No.” Nor could Moses do what de Gaulle is doing today. Moses was exactly right for his own times—and in France de Gaulle is right for his. In fact, man ia the product of his age. [Copyright Bernard Law. Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. 1981.1