Having spent a fair chunk of time in the service, I think I’m somewhat astute at sizing up leadership qualities. I believe leadership is inherent. You can enhance it, perfect it, but essentially you either have it or you don’t. My take:
Trump: Purest and most obvious leader amongst them all. Head and shoulders above anyone in the field. You look at Trump and love him or hate him, know he is in charge and that he has a plan and can get people to execute it. Strategic general.
Cruz: at the moment a number 2 guy. He’s your equivalent of a tactical planner. If Trump is MacArthur or Eisenhower, Cruz is Omar Bradley. Trump sets the strategy, Cruz executes it. You need people like this and why I thunk Cruz would be an excellent VP. Bradley was actually the last of the 5 stars so think of Cruz as a potential president, just not in 2016.
Jeb: classic example of the senior officer placed in command of something not on merit or leadership qualities but based on who his connections are. The boss’ son. Most troops or employees would hate him and spend endless time complaining about him. No moral authority to get anything done. Might have a few minor successes but without the help of the team.
Carly and Kasich: I lump them together because they are the same personality wise. Loud, obnoxious, arrogant and think they know more than you but with little practical achievement. You would come out of a meeting or plans meeting with them hating them because they would not listen to you and insist that their way was right. Would listen to you but then tell you everything was wrong. They’d be the equivalent of a brigade or division commander who had some occasional success but after not listening to anyone got their troops chewed up pretty bad with an ill conceived plan.
Rand: There are Rand Paul’s all over the military. Solid people with good ideas who are either just a bit out there or who argue some point over and over and who become annoying and then get marginalized, these people usually flame out at Colonel because they do not have the leadership skills of a general (Trump) or the butt kissing skills of one.
Rubio: simple for Rubio. He’s the guy who tells you one thing and then does the other. Will assure you that he is on your side, will agree with your perspective then go into somewhere and come out and tell you he got overruled while he was the one who sold you out. Typical political general, worried about his next promotion.
Carson: Ben is the civilian in a military organization. They are all over as well. Oftentimes great adminstrators, good ideas and perspectives but not leaders
Great analysis.
Number 1. Thank you for your service.
Number 2. I think your analysis is very impressive and spot on.
Excellent analysis.
I agree. An excellent analysis.
I do believe that leadership can be trained, that experience is crucial, and that vision makes all the difference in motivating troops.
Trump has a vision of a United States as a sovereign nation.
Cruz’s vision is the same.
Rand Paul wants an independent, individual liberocracy.
Rubio envisions a well-oiled social engine.
Fiorina sees a functioning machine.
Bush sees a social democracy.
Kasich is the same.
Carson sees a wholesome, safe community.
What about David Patraeus?
I agree. Great post. Had I been you, I would have posted your post as my post, but I think we’re on the same page.
Trump is heads above them all. HE has the instincts of a warrior.
There is a lot to him also. I mean look at his upbringing. He is very very much like young Patton.