My original argument was (and still is) bounded to supreme commanders at war-a very different matter than the scenarios they raised, including, say, Gen. Perhaps the biggest reason Danford and Leach’s response suggests a disagreement that may not actually be there is because the terms of my argument and theirs differ. But as I read their piece and reflected on my own, I realized that the response suggested the presence of a disagreement where there really isn’t (or shouldn’t be)-and in so doing this might just warp understanding of what successful supreme commanders need to be and do.
I appreciate their effort and find that they’ve raised some important points, questions, and anecdotes. Leach and Danford should be applauded-whereas too many others are content to lazily launch one-liners from the sidelines or ad hominem remarks on social media, they’ve taken the time and effort to mount a thought-filled response. In response, Ryan Leach and David Danford co-wrote an essay that disagreed, arguing that, instead, America should seek out cynical generals, or, “leaders who will paint the situation in the worst possible light.” “Once more, unto the breach,” wrote Shakespeare, a fitting sentiment for an essay aimed at continuing a conversation that has unfolded over several articles, one of which has already alluded to Henry V.Ī few weeks ago, I wrote an article describing the merits of optimism as a character trait of supreme commanders.
0 kommentar(er)
