Certainly I think that how things turn out help us assess the decision to stay or abandon the course! I suppose that’s really my point – we shouldn’t assess a course of action merely because on the basis of the iron will with which it is pursued by a “leader,” although many military and other commanders are broadly admired for their steadfast courage in the face of adversity.

My point that it isn’t their personal characteristics – nor certainly that one of uncompromising steadfastness – that wins the day. Or, at least, not alone. And certainly such a trait can conceal many potentially ghastly shortcomings.

The link in the main post is to a discussion of MacArthur in Korea – his determination was consistent, but the results of the actions he pursued with it contrasted greatly between the victory and Inchon and the retreat from the Yalu.

I just finished a very good book about the Pacific Theater in WWII whose author is very critical of MacArthur for this same characteristic causing so many problems then, although he grudgingly admits the same man was brilliant – almost a genius – as military governor of Japan after the war.

So, this post is a part of my campaign against the uncritical adoption of certain designated “leadership” traits – especially when they derive from studies of military leaders whose characters and actions can be difficult to replicate in the civilian world.

Thanks for stopping in with that!