4 ms·

The real leaders in a war of aggression are those who don't show up or fight on the other side. "Leadership" and "excellence" and all that wank is really just t

The real leaders in a war of aggression are those who don't show up or fight on the other side. "Leadership" and "excellence" and all that wank is really just that, wank. It's a compensation price for those who got broken as kid and never mustered any resolve worth a crap later on. > He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. -- Albert Einstein Prove me wrong. Me, directly, instead of hiding behind each other. In other words: lead, follow, or get out of the fucking way.

arethuza 9y ago
Eistein apparently wrote that in 1931 - but in 1939 when faced with the appalling prospect of a nuclear armed Nazi Germany he co-authored a letter to FDR with Leo Szilard recommending that the US research atomic weapons. I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, war is literally hell and the people I know who feel this more strongly are combat veterans, but outright pacifism in the face of a relentless aggressor like the Nazis would have achieved nothing but utter disaster and a "sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age". Edit: From my own perspective I think our potentially fatal weakness as a species is how easy we are to lead. With a powerful enough leader people will do anything - good or bad.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  > he co-authored a letter to FDR with Leo Szilard recommending that the US research atomic weapons. That should clue you in about how this has nothing to do with "pacifism". It would be more pacifistic to not express disgust than to express it, and it would be more pacifistic for me to not comment. Yet here we are. To oppose death and its apprentices, you do NOT have to march in rank and file, and you DON'T need "heroism on command". You have to organize, but there is nothing there that cannot spring from strength and cooperation. It doesn't have to be weakness and obedience under the guise of "leadership" and "team spirit".
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    but leadership doesn't demand obedience, it earns it. A good leader sets an example that others want to follow, they don't shout orders at people with no justification for following them. In fact, one of the traits mentioned in the article is that an effective leader tells their people why they are doing what they are doing, which is much more humanistic than the """leadership""" expressed in most large organisations (which is really just superficial authority, rather than leadership). > You have to organize, but there is nothing there that cannot spring from strength and cooperation Even spontaneous militias (and civilian groups) have leaders.
    - thinkfurther 9y ago
      > A good leader sets an example that others want to follow So does any random decent person, no leadership or subordination required. > one of the traits mentioned in the article is that an effective leader tells their people why they are doing what they are doing, Except they don't. They are repeating the rationalizations and their weak-ass half-truths that were hammered into their head. I doubt this guy told his men that they're there to control oil and whatnot. > Even spontaneous militias (and civilian groups) have leaders. Except the second they're unfit, they have nothing to say anymore. Because it arises naturally. Compare to the military where disobeying orders doesn't result in "Oh well, I should have made you want to do this, it's my fault you don't want to do it. Don't worry, we're cool."
      - beaconstudios 9y ago
        I think your hostility towards the military is getting in the way of discussing these ideas as they would apply outside the military. Just because the failure mode of a military leader isn't the same as a civilian leader, doesn't mean that advice for actually-beneficial leadership in the military doesn't apply to civilian life.
        thinkfurther 9y ago
        > I think your hostility towards the military is getting in the way of discussing these ideas No, your unwillingness to address something like this does: > Except the second they're unfit, they have nothing to say anymore. Because it arises naturally. Compare to the military where disobeying orders doesn't result in "Oh well, I should have made you want to do this, it's my fault you don't want to do it. Don't worry, we're cool." My hostility doesn't keep me from speaking my mind, it's your excuse to not respond to it, and you're welcome to it. I'm hostile to water so I can look fire in the eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjxcWKa4sow&t=22m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjxcWKa4sow&t=22m40s You can pry my connection to the innocent from my cold, dead hands, and I will not sabotage it by being too friendly to those who lick boots.
PeanutCurry 9y ago
None of what you said actually makes sense. "Real leaders in a war of aggression are those who don't show up or fight on the other side", then what about people who command from the field? What about the massive ability of a General's ability to affect the outcome of a war from the planning rooms? Even your final phrase, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" makes no sense because there are literally no other courses of action available and you make no real defense of any of the three beyond preceding that statement with a quote from Einstein which you seem to feel is sufficient simply because... Einstein said so?
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  > what about people who command from the field? What about the massive ability of a General's ability to affect the outcome of a war from the planning rooms? What about it? > Even your final phrase, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" makes no sense because there are literally no other courses of action available and you make no real defense of any of the three beyond preceding that statement with a quote from Einstein No, I preceded that with "if you disagree, deal with me, don't hide behind others". > a quote from Einstein which you seem to feel is sufficient simply because... Einstein said so? Not because he said it, but because he said it well. I can and have put this in my own words. I can write you a book about it. But why not quote Einstein? I mean, this is in a thread about an article with a whole lot of gibberish such as "Leaders find a way to win by taking extreme ownership of a situation and raising the expectations of those around him. That is a hallmark of true leadership." -- and we're supposed to even give it a thought because some Navy Seal said so? Hahaha.
  - bitexploder 9y ago
    Sure, that quote with no context is reduced to meaningless platitude. The context is that no matter what a leader, the person responsible for making decisions and owning them owns it all and never puts blame on a subordinate for failure. If something goes wrong, the buck stops with the leader. When a team can rely on it's leadership to take responsibility for failure and to share the success broadly and generously amazing things can happen. It really is not so different in philosophy from Adam Grant and his whole take on givers and takers. Takers are basically selfish and focus on themselves. Givers give freely to others and seem much more likely to be good leaders willing to take responsibility and negative consequences onto themselves to spare their team, but also to understand a failure and improve. It also allows teams to share success and is in my book a "proven" leadership style that yields results in the real world. Edit: Also -- it is a fair practice to be skeptical of any group that gets beatified in the media and by military PR wonks. But I have read his book and listened to his words and directly applied his general principles to my day to day life and it has helped me personally. It did not change my political views or dislike of military culture one bit.
bitexploder 9y ago
You are falling into a classic fallacy of dismissing the information due to it's source. The fact is the war happened and these SEALs learned what they learned, working as one of the most effective units in the war. What you wrote could be true, while everything Jocko has to teach you can be true and useful too. I was extremely skeptical, but I read his book and there is value in what he teaches. It isn't all trite militaristic BS. Some of it is, of course, he has his world view, but that is easy enough to separate from what made them so good in a chaotic environment. I encourage anyone reading this to put aside their well earned bias against most military figures and dig a little deeper if the topic of leadership and personal responsibility are of interest.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  No, I'm dismissing it based on content. And the war didn't "happen", it was all actions of people. One element of it was Colin Powell sweating as he made his bullshit WMD presentation in front of the UN. Anyone with half a brain and half a gut would have seen all that crap for what it is. It's great he's such a great guy within the larger context of being a shitty guy, but that's like being a very good doctor on the Titanic -- you'd save more lives by telling people to not go on that ship. > It isn't all trite militaristic BS. Wait, so I'm supposed to judge the article based on a book? Gift it to me and I'll read it. Otherwise, nah.
  - damnfine 9y ago
    If we wrote off every great thinker who also thought or did 'bad stuff', we would be quite poor technologically and philisophically. Think further man.
    - thinkfurther 9y ago
      Nothing that makes sense in what he says I haven't heard put better by better people, who don't apply it in such a limited way. Oh, and then there's people dismissing something just because Einstein said it, too. That's dismissing something because of someone being too good.

arethuza 9y ago

Eistein apparently wrote that in 1931 - but in 1939 when faced with the appalling prospect of a nuclear armed Nazi Germany he co-authored a letter to FDR with Leo Szilard recommending that the US research atomic weapons. I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, war is literally hell and the people I know who feel this more strongly are combat veterans, but outright pacifism in the face of a relentless aggressor like the Nazis would have achieved nothing but utter disaster and a "sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age". Edit: From my own perspective I think our potentially fatal weakness as a species is how easy we are to lead. With a powerful enough leader people will do anything - good or bad.

thinkfurther 9y ago
> he co-authored a letter to FDR with Leo Szilard recommending that the US research atomic weapons. That should clue you in about how this has nothing to do with "pacifism". It would be more pacifistic to not express disgust than to express it, and it would be more pacifistic for me to not comment. Yet here we are. To oppose death and its apprentices, you do NOT have to march in rank and file, and you DON'T need "heroism on command". You have to organize, but there is nothing there that cannot spring from strength and cooperation. It doesn't have to be weakness and obedience under the guise of "leadership" and "team spirit".
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  but leadership doesn't demand obedience, it earns it. A good leader sets an example that others want to follow, they don't shout orders at people with no justification for following them. In fact, one of the traits mentioned in the article is that an effective leader tells their people why they are doing what they are doing, which is much more humanistic than the """leadership""" expressed in most large organisations (which is really just superficial authority, rather than leadership). > You have to organize, but there is nothing there that cannot spring from strength and cooperation Even spontaneous militias (and civilian groups) have leaders.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    > A good leader sets an example that others want to follow So does any random decent person, no leadership or subordination required. > one of the traits mentioned in the article is that an effective leader tells their people why they are doing what they are doing, Except they don't. They are repeating the rationalizations and their weak-ass half-truths that were hammered into their head. I doubt this guy told his men that they're there to control oil and whatnot. > Even spontaneous militias (and civilian groups) have leaders. Except the second they're unfit, they have nothing to say anymore. Because it arises naturally. Compare to the military where disobeying orders doesn't result in "Oh well, I should have made you want to do this, it's my fault you don't want to do it. Don't worry, we're cool."
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      I think your hostility towards the military is getting in the way of discussing these ideas as they would apply outside the military. Just because the failure mode of a military leader isn't the same as a civilian leader, doesn't mean that advice for actually-beneficial leadership in the military doesn't apply to civilian life.
      - thinkfurther 9y ago
        > I think your hostility towards the military is getting in the way of discussing these ideas No, your unwillingness to address something like this does: > Except the second they're unfit, they have nothing to say anymore. Because it arises naturally. Compare to the military where disobeying orders doesn't result in "Oh well, I should have made you want to do this, it's my fault you don't want to do it. Don't worry, we're cool." My hostility doesn't keep me from speaking my mind, it's your excuse to not respond to it, and you're welcome to it. I'm hostile to water so I can look fire in the eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjxcWKa4sow&t=22m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjxcWKa4sow&t=22m40s You can pry my connection to the innocent from my cold, dead hands, and I will not sabotage it by being too friendly to those who lick boots.

PeanutCurry 9y ago

None of what you said actually makes sense. "Real leaders in a war of aggression are those who don't show up or fight on the other side", then what about people who command from the field? What about the massive ability of a General's ability to affect the outcome of a war from the planning rooms? Even your final phrase, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" makes no sense because there are literally no other courses of action available and you make no real defense of any of the three beyond preceding that statement with a quote from Einstein which you seem to feel is sufficient simply because... Einstein said so?

thinkfurther 9y ago
> what about people who command from the field? What about the massive ability of a General's ability to affect the outcome of a war from the planning rooms? What about it? > Even your final phrase, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" makes no sense because there are literally no other courses of action available and you make no real defense of any of the three beyond preceding that statement with a quote from Einstein No, I preceded that with "if you disagree, deal with me, don't hide behind others". > a quote from Einstein which you seem to feel is sufficient simply because... Einstein said so? Not because he said it, but because he said it well. I can and have put this in my own words. I can write you a book about it. But why not quote Einstein? I mean, this is in a thread about an article with a whole lot of gibberish such as "Leaders find a way to win by taking extreme ownership of a situation and raising the expectations of those around him. That is a hallmark of true leadership." -- and we're supposed to even give it a thought because some Navy Seal said so? Hahaha.
- bitexploder 9y ago
  Sure, that quote with no context is reduced to meaningless platitude. The context is that no matter what a leader, the person responsible for making decisions and owning them owns it all and never puts blame on a subordinate for failure. If something goes wrong, the buck stops with the leader. When a team can rely on it's leadership to take responsibility for failure and to share the success broadly and generously amazing things can happen. It really is not so different in philosophy from Adam Grant and his whole take on givers and takers. Takers are basically selfish and focus on themselves. Givers give freely to others and seem much more likely to be good leaders willing to take responsibility and negative consequences onto themselves to spare their team, but also to understand a failure and improve. It also allows teams to share success and is in my book a "proven" leadership style that yields results in the real world. Edit: Also -- it is a fair practice to be skeptical of any group that gets beatified in the media and by military PR wonks. But I have read his book and listened to his words and directly applied his general principles to my day to day life and it has helped me personally. It did not change my political views or dislike of military culture one bit.

bitexploder 9y ago

You are falling into a classic fallacy of dismissing the information due to it's source. The fact is the war happened and these SEALs learned what they learned, working as one of the most effective units in the war. What you wrote could be true, while everything Jocko has to teach you can be true and useful too. I was extremely skeptical, but I read his book and there is value in what he teaches. It isn't all trite militaristic BS. Some of it is, of course, he has his world view, but that is easy enough to separate from what made them so good in a chaotic environment. I encourage anyone reading this to put aside their well earned bias against most military figures and dig a little deeper if the topic of leadership and personal responsibility are of interest.

thinkfurther 9y ago
No, I'm dismissing it based on content. And the war didn't "happen", it was all actions of people. One element of it was Colin Powell sweating as he made his bullshit WMD presentation in front of the UN. Anyone with half a brain and half a gut would have seen all that crap for what it is. It's great he's such a great guy within the larger context of being a shitty guy, but that's like being a very good doctor on the Titanic -- you'd save more lives by telling people to not go on that ship. > It isn't all trite militaristic BS. Wait, so I'm supposed to judge the article based on a book? Gift it to me and I'll read it. Otherwise, nah.
- damnfine 9y ago
  If we wrote off every great thinker who also thought or did 'bad stuff', we would be quite poor technologically and philisophically. Think further man.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    Nothing that makes sense in what he says I haven't heard put better by better people, who don't apply it in such a limited way. Oh, and then there's people dismissing something just because Einstein said it, too. That's dismissing something because of someone being too good.