McChrystal and Petraeus; Leadership that Influences
Great Military Leaders
Mil 301
May 25, 2013
Two of the top military leaders that were integral to military operations to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring were generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus. Both of these military leaders proved inspirational to troops in their efforts to battle global terrorism. Patraeus took charge of the campaign in Iraq in 2007 and in 2010 took over the war in Afghanistan from McChrystal. Both of these generals were pivotal in what is commonly know as ‘the war on terrorism’. As a result of their leadership, many soldiers were influenced and subsequently inspired in battle. Thus, this paper will take a
Brief look at the traits of leadership they displayed in shaping these two campaigns against terrorist networks. McChrystal commanded the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) for five years along with command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). He spent most of his time in Afghanistan and Iraq. His most noteworthy accomplishments occurred in Iraq, where he personally led special operations. In June, 2006, his forces were responsible for the leader of Al0queda forces in Iraq, Abu-musab al-Zarqawi being tracked down and killed. In fact, after his team called in the air strike that killed al-Zarqawi, McChrystal personally accompanied his team to the bombed-out hut near Baqubah to identify the remains. This was but one of many examples of McChrystal getting out from the desk and applying ‘hands on’. This was to be his signature during his time in both Iraq and Afghanistan. To hear of him going out with his soldiers on raids was not out of the ordinary. Similarly, the following story helps to illustrate the kind of leader he was. Showing not only his penchant for leading from the front, but the respect and loyalty he gave his troops, along with moral courage. During his tenure in Afghanistan, a sergeant wrote him an email stating he believed that the general didn’t get the war and had written policies that resulted in soldiers getting killed. Taking the bull by the horns, the general immediate got on the next flight to the soldier’s location. He then proceeded to go on a patrol with the sergeant and his unit. Afterwards, he held an after actions review in the chow hall. During the review, he noticed a set of rules of engagements allegedly written by himself. Besides the obvious of a general actually reading a sergeant’s email, his overwhelming respect and concern for his troops was apparent in this situation. Imagine the troops upon finding out he was to visit them and would actually go on patrol with them. In this day and age of desk jockeys, this was an unprecedented. Actions of this nature are what has led to his being viewed with awe and devotion by his soldiers. Likewise, his selfless devotion to duty, unflinching commitment to a set of values and to his soldiers can be seen in the following excerpt from his book, My share of the task (2013). “I felt the unbroken tradition of commitment to a mission and a fierce commitment to one another. Like the generations they followed and those they now lead, they come forward when called and sacrificed when needed. They did so quietly, ofton in the shadows with no expectation of reward”. As a rule, he was universally respected by his soldiers. An example is given by his command sergeant major, Michael T. Hall, in the, article, The man at McChrystal‘s side by McCabe (2013), “They knew he would truly, truly listen - didn’t always agree, but he was also a good enough leader so that he could say, Hey I hear you but let me explain to you why we’re not going to do it that way.“ His ability to communicate and empathize with his soldiers is an example of “the soldier winning the hearts of his men, rather than their fear” (Harvey, p.xxv). Harvey writes about this as being the key to leadership as one of the tree spheres, transcending the norms of their professions. By the same token, his actions in publicly requesting between 30,000 to 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan is another example of his moral courage, while at the same time demonstrating his political ineptness. Being a life-long student of Horatio Nelson, this was most ironic. Nelson was called, “politically inept and naïve” by Harvey (2008). In summary, McChrystal demonstrated great courage both on the battlefield and of a moral nature, respect of his troops and enemies, devotion to duty, and a unique ability to lead from the front. These displays of leadership inspired his soldiers to fight harder when they saw a commander that really cared. Now in turning to a similarly talented military leader, we will take a look at general Petraeus and his role in leading the troops in the battle against terrorism. General Petraeus took charge of Iraq in 2007. He is credited by many with turning around the war and building a map for fighting terrorist or counterinsurgencies. In 2010, he took over the war in Afghanistan. He is said to have been responsible for turning around two wars. Very similar in his leadership style to that of McChrystal, he has often been called ’”brilliant”. However, somewhat unlike McChrystal, Petraeus showed skill in selecting subordinates. Although both men surrounded themselves with outstanding people, Petraeus surrounded himself with a diverse staff selected based on their abilities, not necessarily their backgrounds. With this in mind, it is has been noted by many that he is quick to give praise and credit to his team members and partners. On the same token, he will take blame for shortcomings. But what kind of other leadership traits did he display? He believed in leading by example. His obsession with physical fitness is one example of this. A fanatic runner, he often challenged younger soldiers to runs and push up contest. Actions like these fueled respect from his soldiers and a desire to fighter harder. Moreover, his adherence to the principles of integrity proved themselves in the case of his son. His son, serving in Afghanistan was not placed in a place of duty that ensured his safety but instead was allowed to participate in front-line combat. His father could have easily seen to his safety. Instead, he did the right thing. Petraeus’ actions in this case solidified his standing among many junior enlisted, gaining enormous respect. Additionally, this Both of these great generals shared many of the 16 standards of maverick military leaders.
References
Harvey, R., (2008). Maverick military leaders: the extraordinary battles of Washington, Nelson, Patton, Rommel, and others. New York, New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
