http://marctyrrell.com/2009/01/14/leadership-genius-and-creativity/

http://rethinkingsecurity.typepad.com/rethinkingsecurity/2009/01/clausewitz-and-the-strategic-corporal.html

These are by Marc Tyrrell and Adam Elkus, respectively.

Thanks for your comments, gentlemen.

Semper Fidelis,
Nathaniel Lauterbach

If we must pick one “Clausewitzian” virtue displayed by Capt. Sullenberger in executing the emergency landing, after glancing back at Book I, Ch. 3, I would say it is “presence of mind”. Clausewitz tell us this includes “an increased capacity of dealing with the unexpected” and “quick thinking in the face of danger” and he tells us, under this heading, “resourcefulness in the face of danger calls, above all, for steady nerve”, which Clausewitz seems to believe is an innate personality trait. I think he is right about that. Some people are high strung, others are steady. Different fields call for different aptitudes. Operating aircraft, from what I have seen, calls for steadiness. My father was a pilot. I see some of this in his personality.

The gauges and his experience in takeoffs gave him the knowns. Looking out of the cockpit provided more. He didn’t know how accurate the gauges are after an unknown amount of damage, and he didn’t know whether conditions would allow a safe ditching.

Current reports are that there have been very few, perhaps no, successful ditchings of an airliner, and that it is less frequently practiced than other emergency procedures.

Not so foggy as war, perhaps, but not a slam dunk either.

I don’t disagree with this, nor do I agree, because we frankly don’t have enough information. But, if you are basing this on his perfect execution of a ditching procedure that saved countless lives, then you are making a mistake.

Capt Sullenberger perfectly executed an emergency procedure, and this required no special insight on his part. It did require exceptional situational awareness, but once that awareness was properly sensed (and such sensation derived from readily-available cues in the immediate environment–there was no real conflicting information), all Capt Sullenberger had to do was execute, with skill, the dual-engine failure ditching emergency procedure. He did so perfectly.

It was an act of superb airmanship, and we’re we in times when Distinguished Flying Crosses were awarded to both civilians and military aviators, he would certainly deserve one! It was an exceptional act of competence.

But it did not require any exceptional ability to deduce through fog and friction what exactly was going on. Nor did it require him to act creatively–the procedures were ready-made for him to use. It would have been an act of coup d’oeil had he not had cockpit gauges and flight instruments that would indicate a dual-engine failure, and had he not had a known emergency procedure to execute, and had he still executed a perfect ditching.

He may have had coup d’oeil, but he didn’t have a need for it in this instance.

Interesting question. Martial honor is an extension of the concept of personal honor which was present in cultures such as ancient Rome, Japan, Great Britain and the United States up until the early 20th century (lingering in diluted form, somewhat longer, in the South).

Neither the United States nor Great Britain held soldiering or large standing armies in much esteem until WWII but the strong honor culture present ( formal duels continued into the early mid 19th century) reinforced the effort to build unit cohesion in large volunteer and conscript armies on an emergency basis (Mexican War, Civil War, WWI and WWII).

Fair enough. With the de Tocqueville quote you seem to argue that democratic values, rather than bourgeois values, oppose concepts of martial honor. To me, these values are very, very similar, but that’s not really an issue.

What is more important is whether such martial values ought to be protected. It seems to me that the only way of protecting such values is to separate the military from the society it protects. This seems to be happening today, and is well-documented. (I can provide a quick reading list if anybody wishes). This raises the question of whether this separation of the military into its own caste is a good thing for the military, and for the country.

Is separation a viable solution? Or should martial values be a part of democratic values? Are there other options?

What are your thoughts?”

A logical but ahistorical assumption.

Clausewitz’s contemporary, Alexis de Tocqueville put it well:

“But men living in times of democracy seldom choose a soldier’s life. Democratic peoples are therefore soon led to give up voluntary recruitment and fall back on conscription. The nature of their way of life forces them to do this, and it is safe to predict that that is what they will all do.”
– Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Essentially military forces come in four forms:

a) Tribal – every ablebodied male is a warrior
b) Caste – high or low, birth determines the fighing class
c) Mercenaries – in the sense of professional men at arms
d) Conscripts – the Levee en Masse, citizen soldiers

In most societies other than primitive chiefdoms, only a minority of men take up arms, even in heavily militarized societies like Sparta or ancient Rome, where legionaires or hoplites actually held a certain amount of land as an economic base to support their military service.

America was no different, in the Revolutionary War, colonial militiamen and Continental soldiers ( and certainly their officers)generally had some property or were near to having it (eldest sons, journeymen craftsmen). Feudal Japan was 95 % non-combatant, Samurai and Daimyo being less than 5 % of the population with the balance made up of armed monks, ronin and bandits.

Feminist ideology and bourgeois values are hostile to martial concepts of honor but I don’t think they are the cause, per se, of such values being held in the minority.

I am glad that you focused on “Genius for War” rather than Books 1 and 2 where I think almost everyone else focused their comments. It is interesting that Clausewitz goes from the 10,000 ft question of “what is war” to a very important, but much more practical question of “who makes a good officer?” all in Book 1. Having worked for large organizations, I know how important people are to achieving success and goals- “It’s all about the people”, so assuming Book 1 and 2 get the goals right for the “state”, having the right people leading your “army” (at all levels) is critically important.

Thanks for your thoughtful perspective on something I originally didn’t give as much consideration as due.

I would not put him in uniform. But during the Second World War senior business people were heavily involved in transforming the economy for war, and necessarily became involved in war planning. These people, often from the investment banking community, made a huge contribution to victory. Also, the entertainment community supported that war, and made some contribution to maintaining morale.

It is an interesting thought — what could someone like Steve Jobs contribute if the country faced a truly mortal threat and the executives in the high tech sector of today applied their energy and talents to that hypothetical war effort. Could Jobs or Gates make a contribution on the level of James Forrestal or Robert Lovett or John McCloy? I think probably yes.

Thanks for the criticism.

Seydlitz89: I thought about addressing the formation of martial genius with respect to development of culture, but decided to keep the essay normative instead. It is worth considering, especially considering other theories out there (for example, the British had a tendency to differentiate between “martial” and “nonmartial” cultures, and these attributes had little to do with “development.” This is why the Brits invested so much into the Gurkha regiments. Clausewitz would not have made such an investment, to his loss.

Wilderness-Fair points.

Zenpundit-I wouldn’t classify Creativity as a particularly martial value. It is an attribute that can clearly stand on its own. But I do submit that it is necessarily a part of the military genius. This is clearly a topic that needs further discussion, because I’m convinced that there is such a thing as a Military Creativity, but it is probably a distinct subset of Creativity in general.

This issue of martial creativity is likely to raise a few eyebrows, as many people in the so-called “Creative Class” are clearly anti-military in nature. I wouldn’t commission a Steve Jobs any time soon, nor any starving artist! (I would also argue that few in the Creative Class are truly Creative, but that’s another essay).

Semper Fidelis,
NTL

All the posters today are going to force me to raise my game just to keep up. :)

make light of something
1. to talk or behave as if something is not serious or important.
2. to act as if something is not serious or important.

Also, it seems rather hard on CvC to say he “missed” developments which occurred after his death. Perhaps, “lacks” or “needs”?

Finally, CvC distinguishes between possessing military genius and being a military genius in the paragraphs toward the bottom of page 111 starting “Appropriate talent …” and comprising his comments on Charles XII and Henry IV.

Please do not take these admittedly minor quibbles as an attempt to diminish your excellent essay

It merits journal publication.

Agree as to one-sided nature of his dealing with “courage”. Clausewitz fails to go into any detail concerning the courage of accepting responsibility which is strange coming from a man who resigned his commission in his beloved Prussian army to carry on the fight against Napoleon serving in Russian uniform. The same man who was instrumental in achieving the Convention of Tauroggen which effectively severed the Franco-Prussian alliance at the end of 1812. He was obviously aware of the courage necessary to accept responsibility for one’s position, actions and opportunities.

I did notice that you made no comment on Clausewitz’s linking of the level of civilization with the occurrence of military genius, “the most highly developed societies produce the most brilliant soldiers”.

Domestic anarchy must be crushed with the most ruthless means available. Even now my hussars are clearing the streets and public squares with the flats of their sabers, but the dispersing crowds are sullen and unbowed, and may be back with more than bricks … .