Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, JULY 3, 1943 LEADERSHIP IN WAR

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 78, 3 July 1943, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, JULY 3, 1943 LEADERSHIP IN WAR

THE success that has attended the operations of the New Zealand Division in North Africa, and the glowing tributes paid to Sir Bernard Freyberg as its commander, suggest a consideration of the qualities that go to make a great military leader. Not that General Freyberg himself represents the orthodox type of army commander, for his popularity among his men is due less to his skill as an organiser and tactician than to his personal dash and courage. He is the exemplar of an older tradition, when commanders of armies fought in the line with their men, and often decided the issue of battle by their own individual skill and bravery. The qualities that won him the Distinguished Service Order as a naval sub-lieutenant, and the Victoria Cross as a battalion commander, have been as evident in this war as in the last. His headquarters have always been well forward, and he has constantly been under direct enemy lire. He was wounded in the famous charge at Mersa Matruh just a year ago, when the New Zealand Division, by massing their transport, broke through the encircling enemy force; and probably no incident in the desert warfare has given him more personal satisfaction than the occasion when the tank in which he was travelling unexpectedly encountered three Italian tanks and forced them to surrender. It is little wonder that the men of the New Zealand Division are proud to serve under a commander who typifies in himself the most obvious of soldierly qualities. A parallel is found in Livy’s description of Hannibal as one who was endowed equally with the courage of a private soldier and the skill of a commander. But physical courage is only one essential in a military leader, and with it must go other qualities of a less exciting kind. One is personality; another is self-confidence; most important perhaps is cool-headed determination to see the fight through to the end, though defeat seems in- I evitable. It was this quality that j made Washington’s reputation as a general. Nothing we read of him suggests that he had an exceptional degree of military skill, but all authorities agree that, but for his patience and tenacity, the Colonial

troops would not have survived the first two years of war. The same attributes explain why Hannibal is ranked higher than Scipio, who de-. feuted the Carthaginian general the only time they ever met in battle. Hannibal’s most wonderful achievement was not the epic march over tiie Alps, or the crushing victories of Trasimene and Cannae, but the marvellous way in which he hung on in Italy for thirteen years with a : dwindling army, with almost no help j from home, and with his enemies ! moving inexorably towards success, j It is in defeat rather than in victory that the qualities of a military leader are most thoroughly tested. These physical and moral qualities must be backed up by unusual mental gifts. This is a good deal more than merely knowing one’s job, though that is perhaps the first essential of a good officer. In the higher command particularly it involves a degree of pure intellectual ability. It implies adaptability, for ! in modern warfare conditions are constantly changing, and our own army has already provided some melancholy examples of generals who proposed to fight this war with the weapons of the last. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the methods which served two and three years ago are already in some cases out of date. Another requirement is readiness to delegate responsibility. It is no longer possible, with the speed and complexity of modern warfare, for an army commander to hold all the strings in his own hands. He must be prepared to indicate to his subordinates what he wants done, and leave the details to them. Only by doing this will he have time to ponder his problems and concentrate on the things that matter most This is a point that is well understood by General Montgomery, who surprised everybody by turning up in Cairo at Easter, when the fighting in Tunisia was at its height. He explained, however, that all his plans had been made, and once the battle was joined, the result depended entirely on the unit commanders. In the past this intellectual flexibility has been rare among our military leaders. The system has encouraged orthodoxy, and the good routine man has generally risen to the top of the tree. People who were in close contact with Kitchener and Haig in the last war were amazed at the slowness of their comprehension and the rigidity of their outlook. Fortunately we have in Mr Churchill a Defence Minister of discernment and judgment, and the appointment of men like Alexander and Montgomery to the key commands shows that he realises that a good leader must not only be strong in body and character but must have a quick-thinking brain and bold though prudent initiative as well.