March 7, 2015

Finest Hour 158, Spring 2013

Page 39

By Col. John McKay

From an address to the First Company, Brigade of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, 12 March 2012

“Tolstoy argues that Napoleon was not a cause but a product; he emerged as the dominant figure in response to the need. Like Churchill, Napoleon did not bring about the situation in which he became supreme, but when it had occured, it posed a problem to which he was the most appropriate answer.”

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

In 1940 Britain’s new prime minister found himself decorating a shy young battle hero. “You feel very humble in my presence, don’t you?” Churchill allegedly said. “Yes sir,” the lad answered. “Then perhaps you can imagine,” WSC replied, “how humble and awkward I feel in yours.”¹

Churchill was perhaps thinking of his own experiences at that soldier’s age, when he had fought on the Northwest Frontier of what is now Pakistan; had accompanied Kitchener in the reconquest of the Sudan, including one of the last great cavalry charges in history; and had escaped captivity of the Boers in South Africa and returned to their capital in the vanguard of the victorious British occupying forces.

Such experience undoubtedly gave Churchill his intense interest in the welfare of troops, and his frequent acts to improve their comfort and wellbeing. His daughter, Lady Soames, provides an insight from his 1943 journey to Cairo, when WSC was accompanied by her sister Sarah: “We travel in style and round us is great luxury and seeming security,” Churchill remarked, “but I never forget the man at the front, the bitter struggles, and the fact that men are dying in the air, on the land, and at sea.”² Churchill was supremely equipped for the highest levels of war leadership. At the war’s outbreak in 1939 he had just concluded an exhaustive biography of his great ancestor, John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough—a book the scholar Leo Strauss called “the greatest historical work written in our century, an inexhaustible mine of political wisdom and understanding.”

The uncanny similarity of Churchill’s actions as prime minister in the war against Hitler to those of John Churchill in the struggle against Louis XIV bear serious contemplation. Indeed, much of the phraseology of Churchill’s great wartime speeches was prefigured by his writings in Marlborough.

From his declaration to the young soldier we can see that Churchill highly regarded valor. Now y o u are embarking on a valorous journey, one that will require a large measure of devotion— perhaps, for some of you, as Lincoln said, “the last full measure of devotion.”

Service under arms has marked vocational elements and some, not always welcome, appearances of a profession. It is as a profession that your service can best be considered. Of all professions it is the most demanding; among all, it relies most critically on leadership—a word you have probably heard ad nauseam, but for good reason.

From the beginning of history force, or the threat of it, has been applied to the resolution of certain problems. As society grew more orderly the application of force became better ordered. I would certainly include in the need for force the attacks of 9/11. And the need shows no sign of disappearing. A society regulated by force alone is alike unacceptable and a social abstraction. But a society in which force is abjured, even for the common good, is inconceivable so long as mankind remains what it is.

Sometimes people at all levels in an armed force can be carried along by the machine itself, caught up in the structure. But when this occurs, the relationship between leaders and the led may be too weak to withstand acute strain. It is likely to break down under stress, when, as Churchill said, “self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

Knowing what is best to do is important. But knowing how best to get things done seems to me more important. At an arduous moment in World War II Churchill said: “The difficulty is not winning the war; it is persuading people to let you win it….”³

The need for professional competence among those in charge is obvious, but in a group under stress of conflict this is not likely to be as critical as what I might call personal qualities, which are distinct from professional competence. The relationship between the two is complex, and must be approached with care.

An essential leadership situation does not, I suggest, arise unless there is a recognized need to be led. A leader responds, in fact, to awareness on the other side of that need.

Shortly after becoming prime minister in May 1940, Churchill wrote to his foreign secretary, Anthony Eden: “There is a great opportunity now for picking leaders, not only among those who have had the opportunity of meeting the enemy, but also in those who have prepared themselves to do so. Men of force and intelligence and personality, who would make their way to leading positions…should be given their chance as soon as they have acquired the minimum of training. We want live wires, and not conventional types.”⁴

Let me share a piece of folklore, ill-authenticated but apposite: a commanding officer was uneasy about a particular platoon commander who had a reputation for running away in battle. This belief was shared by the men in the platoon, not without reason. But the men liked the young officer, and wished him no ill. They therefore backed him stoutly on the battlefield, so that he should feel less inclined to run. His uneasy commanding officer quickly replaced him with another officer whose courage was beyond question. When the platoon next went into action the new commander was as brave as expected—but now the men ran away!

I recall this vignette to illustrate two things: first, the very complex nature of the leadership/led relationship (which excuses me from offering a systematic analysis of it); second because it suggests the truth of what a wise old soldier, the Maréchal de Saxe, used to say: “In a knowledge of the human heart must be sought the secrets of success and failure of armies.” He added that knowledge of the heart was “very imperfect.” Would he find it improved today, I wonder?

Churchill, who sought live wires, was of course one himself. Lord Hankey, secretary of the War Cabinet during World War I, later wrote: “We owed a good deal in those early days to the courage and inspiration of Winston Churchill who, undaunted by difficulties and losses, set an infectious example to those of his colleagues who had given less thought than he, if indeed any thought at all, to war problems….His stout attitude did something to hearten his colleagues.”⁵ In that war as in the one to follow, Churchill responded to a clear need.

Leo Tolstoy addresses this point in his classic, War and Peace. Tolstoy argues that Napoleon was not a cause but a product; he emerged as the dominant figure in response to a need. Like Churchill, Napoleon did not bring about the situation in which he became supreme; but when it had occurred, it posed a problem to which he was the most appropriate answer.

Thus, whether the leader who emerges is up to the demands made upon him is a matter of chance. He may be very good indeed, like Napoleon or Churchill. And he may be less good. It is wrong to conclude that the degree of need determines the quality of the leader. Yet there is little doubt that unless there is a need, the function of a leader cannot be discharged.

How might all this apply to you? You find yourselves at a particularly interesting and challenging juncture in the history of civil-military relationships in your country. On the one hand the military is one of the more trusted institutions; yet it is also the national institution most removed from the civil polity of the country. The men and women you will lead are not necessarily representative of the official views of the country you serve. This tendency emerged during Vietnam, when the draft was still in force.

As you pursue your military careers you will be well served by keeping this dichotomy in mind. What does it mean for the nation? What does it mean for you as a leader? I cannot answer those questions. You will be challenged to answer them. In doing so you should try to cultivate, like Churchill, a temperament suited to crisis.

Of my own time in uniform I can truthfully say I was an anomaly. I had been reared outside the United States, partially educated in a Quaker school. I spoke two languages fluently, and got by in a third. Whether by studied consideration or happenstance, the Marine Corps took advantage of these facts to good effect. Most of you will be called upon to work, often extensively, in foreign lands. How many of you are fluent in a foreign language?

I began these remarks with an observation on Churchill’s respect for valor. Let me close with another of his thoughts that is also worth keeping in mind, on the problem of predicting what lies ahead:

“It is only with some difficulty and within limits,” he said, “that provision can be made for the future. Experience shows that forecasts are usually falsified, and preparations always in arrear.”⁶

Go forth ladies and gentlemen of the mess, and do good works.

Col. McKay, USMC (Ret.) was in 1995-96 commanding officer, Joint Task Force-160, U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba—an assignment he found “noteworthy and pleasurable through my interaction with Brigadier General Pérez-Pérez of the Cuban Army.” His speech to First Company was delivered as guest of honor at mess night. The author expresses his gratitude to a valued teacher, the late General Sir John Hackett (1910-1997).

Endnotes:

1. Quoted in “London: Death of a Titan,” Newsweek, 1 February 1965, 38C.

2. Mary Soames, A Daughter’s Tale (London: Doubleday, 2011), 283.

3. Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol. 7, Road to Victory 1941-1945 (London: Heinemann, 1986), 524.  

4. Martin Gilbert, ed., The Churchill War Papers, vol. 2, Never Surrender, May 1940-December 1940 (New York: Norton, 1994), 268.

5. Robert Blake and William Roger Louis, eds., Churchill: A Major New Assessment of His Life in Peace and War (New York: Norton, 1993), 135.

6. Gilbert, Road to Victory, 12.