It’s incredible that no one seems to have learned anything from Afghanistan or Iraq decades afterwards. Gen. Petraeus made the decision to use the Hamas War as the basis for his most recent book’s advice on winning readers’ hearts and minds. We discovered that good strategic leadership is essential to winning in our research on wars of all kinds since World War II. Good corporate leadership: what precisely is it? Great corporate leadership, which comes from the really top of a government and military command, must be both pragmatic and creative, as we discussed in writing Conflict. Its core is great ideas, and getting them right is crucial because without them, everything else will be built on a weak intellectual foundation. Therefore, the first task for a corporate leader is to create big ideas that reflect an astute understanding of every facet of the current conflict. War is hardly a topic for TED talks. It necessitates intelligence, popular sense, adaptability, and a thorough understanding of the battlefield, the available tools, as well as the adversary. Benjamin Netanyahu must, above all, provide good corporate leadership, carrying out the four responsibilities of a leader at the very top, and, most importantly, getting the great ideas right as he considers his options for punishing Hamas for the worst one massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. A military cabinet must eliminate Hamas, deter Hezbollah and other Egyptian allies, and be ready for drone warfare in ways that they may not yet be. Despite the two obvious pitfalls to any actual implementation of that in the short to medium term,” the big idea” for Israel to offer ordinary Palestinians who are not members of Hamas might include a resuscitation of the three-state solution, in which they are offered their own state. Needless to say, the West Bank situation has also been intractable for many years. If Netanyahu could apparently make sense of these seemingly insurmountable circles, he would become one of the greatest Center Eastern statesmen of our time. He also describes the mission he is giving the Israeli Defense Forces,” Have 1, 400 of your people really been killed ,” so it would be wise to give those in the West Bank and Gaza a vision of the future. Find a way to” vision the future” for the adversary. This is the best place to start if you want to know why we lost in Afghanistan. I’m not against Petraeus. He was probably the most capable general among the different ones, in my opinion. But because it perfectly captures a defense leadership that has forgotten its core mission, this book is really terrifying to read. Petraeus is brushing aside the real defense challenges to emphasize the two-state solution as a political and philosophical phenomenon, temporarily forgetting that it was an unsustainable delusion. The issue is appeasing enemies rather than winning a war. or capturing people’s attention. Will this operation remove more terrible guys from the streets than it creates by its conduct? This is a question that should always be asked before operations are carried out, as demonstrated by Templer’s experience and the coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks. It goes without saying that the issue looms over the campaign Israel is planning for Gaza.
In the decades since, Templer’s call for winning” hearts and minds”— a pretty large idea— has been cited so frequently that it has become cliché. However, that idea continues to be the most concise justification for winning a counterinsurgency. How many counterinsurgencies have we successfully defeated with” hearts and minds”? How many are opposed to Muslim terrorists? The saddest part is that Petraeus hasn’t learned anything. He clings to the” cycle of violence” and” hearts and minds” material that wasted but some British lives, lost wars, and wasted our resistance to terrorism in fruitless nation-building. He is giving Israel the similar advice that has repeatedly bled us without producing any results. And he doesn’t yet appear to realize how lacking it is. It’s never really Petraeus, either. Finding political and military leaders who don’t think like this would be difficult. After reading this, you must ponder whether Petraeus could actually be this naive and ignorant about, of all things, war. Later, Zelenskyy stopped Russian soldiers of the military from leaving the nation, gave the Ukrainian people motivational weekly updates, and used the entirety of his nation to fight the invaders. He has earned the right to be regarded as a leader in the likeness of Winston Churchill thanks to these choices, as well as his beautiful communications to the world, including pitch-perfect messages to key country parliaments. In fact, he made a moving speech to the U.S. Congress in December 2022, making him the second military leader since Churchill. Giving motivational speeches, directing mass mobilization, and creating a draft do not qualify as Churchill. Among other things, Churchill’s ability to predict the impending war and the futility of compromise was what made him who he was. along with the openness to making significant, unpopular, and contentious choices. like launching an attack on the European fleet to protect it from harm. Churchill made significant decisions based on his defense experience. His” inspirational” abilities were in question. Although we consider his speeches to have been uplifting, not everyone at the time applauded them. However, at the time, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was derided. In retrospect, they are powerful because they were ahead of their time. Petraeus is aware that Churchill’s dedication to corporate bombing, his determination to keep pushing and probing the enemy, and his emphasis on establishing a second front were what mattered most. Or you might assume that he would, but instead of speaking about” big ideas” and” communications ,” it seems as though those are more important than actually succeeding. We’ve made an effort to TED talk through conflicts. Finally, Israel will try to win by eliminating the enemy rather than attempting to develop novel ideas. What does war serve as a means of? Is it overcoming the enemy or great ideas?
Gen. Petraeus used the Hamas conflict to promote his latest book, offering advice on how to win hearts and minds. What is sound strategic leadership exactly? In Conflict, we argued that good strategic leadership – at the top of a government or military command – must be both visionary and practical. It is important to get the big ideas right. Without them, everything else will be built upon a shaky foundation. The first task of a strategic leader is to develop big ideas that reflect a thorough understanding of the conflict. It is not a TED Talk. It is not a TED talk. If Netanyahu could somehow square these seemingly impossible circle, he would be one of the most important statesmen in the modern Middle East. He would do well to give a vision of the West Bank and Gaza as he describes the mission that he has assigned the Israeli Defense Forces. “Have 1,400 people in your country just been killed?” Find a way to give the enemy a “vision of the future”. If you want to know why we lost Afghanistan, this is a good place to start. I don’t hate Petraeus. I think that he was the most competent general among the others. This is a truly scary read, because it captures a military that has lost its fundamental mission. Forget for a minute that the two-state problem was an unworkable illusion for a second, Petraeus wants to emphasize the two-state phenomenon as a philosophical and political phenomenon. The problem is not winning a war. It’s appeasing opponents.Or winning hearts & minds.Templer’s experience – and that of coalitions in Iraq & Afghanistan after 9/11 – reminds us that the question to ask before any operation is: “Will it take more bad guys from the streets than it creates?”
Templer’s call to win “hearts & minds” – a very large idea – has been cited so many times that it has become a cliche. Nonetheless, that concept remains the most succinct explanation for how to win a counterinsurgency.How many counterinsurgencies have we won through ‘hearts and minds’ campaigns? How many counterinsurgencies have we won through ‘hearts-and-minds’ campaigns? He is giving Israel the same advice he gave us, which bled our country endlessly and achieved nothing. It’s not only Petraeus. You’d be hard-pressed not to find political or military leaders who think this way. He has earned the right to be called a Winston Churchill-like leader for his decisions, his brilliant communications, his pitch-perfect messages delivered to parliaments in key countries, his energy, his example, and his fortitude. In fact, he was the first wartime leader to address the U.S. Congress since Churchill, and he did so in a moving manner in December 2022. Delivering inspirational speeches, ordering a mass mobilization, and a draft does not make someone a Churchill. What made Churchill a Churchill was his ability to see the war coming and his refusal of compromise. Along with his willingness to make controversial, big, bad decisions. Churchill used his military experience to make important decisions, such as attacking the French Fleet to keep it away from enemy hands. His “inspirational skills” were debatable. His speeches are inspirational to us now, but were not universally praised at the time. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, on the other hand, was vilified at the time. They were revolutionary in their day. Petraeus knew that Churchill’s commitment to opening a second line of attack, his determination to continue pushing and probing his enemy, and his commitment towards strategic bombing were the most important. You would think he’d do that, but instead he talks more about “big ideas” or “communications”, as if they were more important than winning. We’ve tried TED-talking our way through wars. Israel should try to win the war by killing the enemy, not just coming up with big ideas. What is the purpose of warfare? Is the purpose of war to come up with big ideas or to defeat the enemy?
