Would Patton or Montgomery be effective battlefield commanders in the twenty-first century? Does the changing character of warfare drive transformations in the ways in which senior officers exercise command of their formations? What explains the change from command as a traditionally individual endeavor to something that is best described as “collective command”?
Dr. Anthony King joins this episode of the MWI Podcast to discuss these and other questions. Dr. King is a professor at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, where he is also the director of the Strategy and Security Institute. He is also the author of the book Command: The Twenty-First-Century General. As he explains, the exercise of command should be understood as something that changes over time—something that looks substantially different today than it did for much of the twentieth century.
You can hear the full episode below, and if you aren’t already subscribed to the MWI Podcast, find it wherever you get your podcasts—Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, TuneIn, or your favorite podcast app!
Note: This episode was originally released in 2019.
Image credit: Sgt. Michelle U. Blesam, US Army
In general, does Dr. King's concepts suggest that:
a. Because our endeavors today are designed to achieve more "global" (rather than just "national") objectives,
b. Today we need divisional (etc.) commanders who are "team-builders" (like Eisenhower?) — and not egotistical, charismatic commanders (like Patton and/or Montgomery)?
(As to this such "summing up" question, see beginning at Page xv — and ending at Page xvi — of the Preface to Dr. King's book "Command: The Twenty-First-Century General" — which I found at Google Books.)
Another way, I believe, of looking at the matters presented by Dr. King, this is by considering that the divisional (etc.) commanders — much like the governments that they work for — these folks are working to provide for the wants, needs and desires of global market society — and not, therefore, working to provide for the wants, needs and desires of their — and/or any other — individual nation-state?
(Thus, "diffusion of power" indeed !!)
Thus, the divisional commanders ultimate loyalty — much like that of his government — is not to his/her individual nation-state — but, rather, to protection of and the projects of global market society?
It is in this regard, thus I suggest, that we might come to understand why Dr. King says that we need a "team-builder" (of numerous, cooperating, states and their militaries — all working for market society); this, rather than a champion working for (a) an individual state and (b) its individual wants, needs and desires?