The normal theory of civil-military relations contends that politicians should declare a military operation’s objective and then step aside leaving the business of war to the military. In his book, “Supreme Command,” Eliot Cohen deviates from this normalcy theory by arguing that active statesmen make the best wartime leaders, pushing their military subordinates to succeed where they might have failed if left on their own. According to Cohen civilian intervention at both strategic and operational levels was essential for military success. While Cohen’s account of civil-military relations in both Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln supports his general argument of supreme command, I find Churchill’s case more supportive based on the way he
…show more content…
Though uncertain of the outcome, he always made sure that his wish was followed. Lincoln was by far the abler manager of men. A far more revealing letter than that of Grant on April 1864 is his 26 January 1863 letter of appointment to the blustering General Joseph Hooker. In his letter Lincoln tells the General that he believes he does not mix politics and profession and praises him on several other qualities. He talks of a dictatorship and promises to help Hooker through the government. The letter clearly portrays Lincoln as a leader dealing with a flawed, willful, but energetic and useful subordinate. In this case, Lincoln portrays crafty character of making use of able but flawed subordinates who could not abide one another. Lincoln is portrayed as an exceptionally unforgiving boss from the way he treated his military generals. This direct meddling was characterized in Lincoln’s leadership style on all the wars that he trumped. His strength was in the choice of his generals by which he made sure that he well understood them and they would make him achieve his political goals. He selected generals who managed to mobilize the rest in achieving his strategic goals without being seen as getting influenced from …show more content…
Churchill served as a minister of Munitions and later Secretary of State for the war. He had a strong passion of war as reflected in his book “The World Crisis.” On 21 June 1940, a twenty-eight-year old London Scientist working in the field of scientific intelligence, was summoned to report to the Cabinet Room. He met with high ranking state and military leaders who were discussing the possibility that the Germans had developed a means of all-weather precision navigation to drop bombs through cloud cover. This was scientifically explained to Churchill and though the eminent scientists present and the Marshals of the Royal Air Force expressed doubts, Churchill probed it. He wanted to know what could be done and the implications thereof. Once convinced, he gave orders and his guidance alongside making it clear the kind of feedback he expected. Very little interference is seen in this even though there existed doubts both within the civilian and the military leadership. On other occasions, Churchill involved himself in decision making without having any insight of what was happening. This created discontent from military leaders even from his own chairman of the Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Imperial General staff, Allen Brooke. This discontent was evident not only in Brooke’s diary, but
Though uncertain of the outcome, he always made sure that his wish was followed. Lincoln was by far the abler manager of men. A far more revealing letter than that of Grant on April 1864 is his 26 January 1863 letter of appointment to the blustering General Joseph Hooker. In his letter Lincoln tells the General that he believes he does not mix politics and profession and praises him on several other qualities. He talks of a dictatorship and promises to help Hooker through the government. The letter clearly portrays Lincoln as a leader dealing with a flawed, willful, but energetic and useful subordinate. In this case, Lincoln portrays crafty character of making use of able but flawed subordinates who could not abide one another. Lincoln is portrayed as an exceptionally unforgiving boss from the way he treated his military generals. This direct meddling was characterized in Lincoln’s leadership style on all the wars that he trumped. His strength was in the choice of his generals by which he made sure that he well understood them and they would make him achieve his political goals. He selected generals who managed to mobilize the rest in achieving his strategic goals without being seen as getting influenced from …show more content…
Churchill served as a minister of Munitions and later Secretary of State for the war. He had a strong passion of war as reflected in his book “The World Crisis.” On 21 June 1940, a twenty-eight-year old London Scientist working in the field of scientific intelligence, was summoned to report to the Cabinet Room. He met with high ranking state and military leaders who were discussing the possibility that the Germans had developed a means of all-weather precision navigation to drop bombs through cloud cover. This was scientifically explained to Churchill and though the eminent scientists present and the Marshals of the Royal Air Force expressed doubts, Churchill probed it. He wanted to know what could be done and the implications thereof. Once convinced, he gave orders and his guidance alongside making it clear the kind of feedback he expected. Very little interference is seen in this even though there existed doubts both within the civilian and the military leadership. On other occasions, Churchill involved himself in decision making without having any insight of what was happening. This created discontent from military leaders even from his own chairman of the Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Imperial General staff, Allen Brooke. This discontent was evident not only in Brooke’s diary, but