Hi Rob,

Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
Good food for thought - but with us asking the question about what makes a good general - we may wind up having to qualify that by rank, position and responsibility if we only only consider the strategic level of war. Would we wind up excluding DIV and Corps CDRs if we did that? Would we be ignoring anyone below the 4 star flag? I don't know - if we say general, do we distinguish between a 1 and a 4 star. I don't have a good answer - but I am intensely interested in leadership in terms of how and where it manifests itself, where there are leadership failures and how we can best identify & cultivate it. Leaving the list open beginning when an officer becomes a generalist gives us a broader bunch to consider - some who for various reasons never rose above 1 or 2 stars.
Good point, Rob. Maybe the solution would be to use some type of a 3D matrix by functional type, operational level (tactical to grand strategic) and operational type (HIC, LIC, assault, defense, training, budgetary lobbying, etc.).

I think in some ways one question that we haven't asked is why we want to be able to classify generals as "Great". I doubt that it is solely for reasons of putting up statues . If we are looking at this then there will, inevitably, be repercussions for careers and promotion tracks.

Marc