Leading as Commander in Chief

Originally posted on Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership Forum

Our next President’s role as Commander in Chief will entail at least four unique leadership contexts and responsibilities.

Balanced application of the elements of national power. All Presidents balance the elements of national power to execute strategy in an international context. Among the government agencies that represent elements of power, the military is among the most responsive and broadly capable. Yet such responsiveness and capability makes the military tempting to employ in place of other governmental agencies whose role is required, but whose capability may fall short. An example of this is the current situation in Iraq, where the development of economic, political, and social stability is being aggressively pursued by military forces in addition to their traditional security mission. There are tough questions to be answered about how the next President will reform the ability of the United States to apply multiple elements of power to avoid open ended military engagement.

Leadership of defense principals. The President of the United States bets the future of our Nation on the competence and candor of senior defense officials and flag officers. Although four star decision makers are top tier leaders in their own right, only the President can develop and maintain the climate that ensures honest and forthright assessments about defense strategy and capability. In such a leadership climate, no general or admiral should fear that an honest professional assessment will be interpreted as disloyalty by the President or senior defense officials. Likewise, the President must not tolerate those whose military assessments are based on popularity, partisanship, hope, false assumptions, servility, or other inappropriate foundations.

Leadership in contexts where lives will be lost. Our military is uniquely responsible for operating in settings where the loss of life is not only imminent, but virtually guaranteed. The ability to lead in such contexts moves beyond international relations and defense management into authentic leadership that spans social and political boundaries. Presidents must be able to confidently task the Joint Chiefs to commit forces on the same day that he/she grieves one-on-one with bereaved families. Questions about such capacity are very challenging to answer. Candidates must somehow demonstrate their capability to make life or death decisions, and must be careful not to be caught in embellishments because of the dishonor that accompanies public perceptions of false valor. In the context of the 2004 Presidential election, an editorial in the February 15th 2004 New York Times cited the need for candidates to demonstrate the capacity to operate in extremis: “People need to feel that the President is not going to be fazed by life-and-death situations. And the only way you can demonstrate that is by showing that you’ve made some.” Such capacity is even more important in 2008 than it was four years ago.

Stewardship of our capacity for national defense. Ongoing operations have extended our ground forces well beyond a sustainable pace. Even if every Soldier and Marine returned from the Middle East today, it would be a long, expensive, and arduous task to restore our volunteer military to its former capability. Casualties and departures due to the stress of repeated deployments have created a context where the next President will be the principal steward of restoring our force. The task will require a long term vision because of the extended time it takes to develop excellence in human capital. A jet fighter or a ship can be replaced in a day—as soon as the equipment can be produced, the replacement is made. In contrast, it takes 22 years to build a Colonel-level commander, assuming that the right person is retained as they progress up the ranks. Military human capital has to be recruited, developed, educated, inspired, and retained over time. The President has to be able to lead the American people to the commitment to rebuild a tired military in its most valuable (and expensive) commodity—the human dimension.

Thomas A. Kolditz, PhD
Colonel, U.S. Army

The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the position of the US Military Academy, the Department of the Army, or the Department of Defense