Operational Command Is Something That Anyone Can Do--
an in-depth study of The Mask of Command
PART 6: Conclusion
* * * to admit Purpose, Direction, and Motivation --FM 22-100 * * *
In the end, Keegan can not be criticized for his in-depth portrayal of lead and how it reflected societal changes over two-thousand years. Where he is at fault, however, is in his portray only the qualities he wishes to exploit to fulfill his Hero titles; therefore, departure the reader with a façade of the overall characteristics of these four men. Without a doubt, his best character sketch was of Alexander the Great, and aside from a real disappointing conclusion that summed up the career of a twenty-one year old Warrior-King, who subjugated the greatest particle of the Earths surface ever by a single individual, as simple Savage Nobility.
Obviously, with such careless word choice, Keegans surface to Command by way of degrees of heroism was faulted from the close of the first chapter. If Alexander, the bum for the remaining mens categorizations, is a mere savage, then how true can the remaining three chapters of Keegans work possibly be? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines hero as: an illustrious warrior [or] a man look up to for his achievements and noble qualities.
Clearly, by Keegans own narratives, Alexander, Wellington, Grant, and Hitler were all heroes--albeit, heroes to different slew for different reasons, but heroes nonetheless. As morals, values, and beliefs are all compiled to chip in a persons character, it is obvious that one mans hero may very well be another mans villain, and it is this simple truth that makes Keegans examine to classify these four mens military leadership in such a warped sense of perspective that he provides an injustice to his readers.
The United States Army defines leadership as...
If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderessayIf you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.
0 comments:
Post a Comment