Like you said - the contradictory demands on the PMC inside the Empire of Lies make exhibiting these qualities in full essentially impossible, which is why most of us have never encountered them embodied in the person of anyone in 'leadership' aka management.
I found myself wondering, what does an organizational framework look like that makes these qualities possible? Very different from what we have now, obviously.
I think a few existed in the military, but I don't think any senior leaders could make it through their career without compromising themselves these days. I think about when Colin Powell put his excellent reputation on the line selling the mobile-WMD-labs-in-Iraq lie two decades ago. I think about Vietnam and Afghanistan. I think about the illegal vax mandates (both anthrax and COVID). These days you have to pay lip service to the idea that racism and extremism are significant threats within the ranks which is ludicrous politicization. Very difficult waters to navigate these days, and this framework helps demonstrate why.
I feel bad for Colin Powell. Maybe I'm stupidly naive, but I think he was well-intentioned and, after being initially skeptical, fell for the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowicz con job and really thought Saddam was developing WMD with an aim of threatening the West. Maybe he was in on it, but I noticed how after the narrative fell apart, he resigned and withdrew from public life. I think he was one of the few from that administration whose conscience was genuinely bothered by it. Of course, it could also be that he made that Faustian bargain like the others, knowing the narrative about Saddam was bullshit, and he just lived to regret it (unlike the others, who demonstrated no such regret).
Yeah, I've never heard anything bad about Colin Powell as a leader and I do think it is plausible that he allowed himself to believe that what he was selling was possible if not likely.
This may be an unpopular opinion -- and I admit that it's based more on my gut than empirical evidence -- but I have long sensed the General Petraeus was potentially one of those rare leaders, and that is why he had to be taken out with a honey-pot op.
Like I said, not based on any particular evidence (expect perhaps the timing, and the fact that he hasn't "resurfaced" the way most bipedal rats with presidential aspirtations often do),. I will add that I'd consider the source carefully when I see the masthead "Vice" attached to it. They are notable mostly for their scumbaggery.
Oh I agree that it was a honeypot, highly suspect, but definitely not because of his executive presence. He was good at cultivating an image outside the military, and the media helped with that. He was taken out when he made his political ambitions known by a competing faction. Vice didn't write that article, they just published it. The author is credible. I also know for fact that he sidelined officers who couldn't keep up with his running pace as a little guy/runner. This ruined the careers of more than one good officer and was common practice for little guys in the infantry. I have a special contempt for the conflation of distance running proficiency and good leadership in the Army. There were times in my career where I was required to run 30 miles per week at a bodyweight of ~275lbs. Against all logic and expectation I could keep up with the little guys, but you can't take a st. bernard and expect it to perform like a greyhound in the long run. As Stu McGill says, you break the dog.
This was a good review of the book and I appreciate how you personalized it to yourself and your experiences.
Interestingly - and perhaps in seeming contrast to what I've said publicly - I had many really good leaders throughout my time in the military.
Or so I thought.
They seemed to embody many of the principles laid out here. Regardless, at some point it seems that many of these "good" leaders decided to "sell out" to the organization (DoD). I don't necessarily think they did it consciously or in one discrete moment, but over time they aligned with an organization rather than truth. I'm sure they viewed the military as good and loyalty to it therefore as good as well, but because they were prioritizing things ahead of truth, they were unprepared to be disillusioned by the organization they set up as their pole star.
This alignment with truth (or lack thereof) that I mentioned above is what makes me question the candor and sincerity (to use the author's principles) of many of today's military leaders.
Exactly. The lack of principle from the top makes it impossible to exhibit all of these traits. You can exhibit some, and you can fake demonstrating all, but faking demonstrating all isn't sustainable when two are candor and sincerity. This will be exposed eventually. COVID just exposed it in a glaringly obvious way for the entire force at the same time. The fact that everyone knew GWOT and nation building efforts were total bullshit after a couple beers behind closed doors was easier to keep hidden. How can you acknowledge that privately and keep trudging forward? By sacrificing principles or not having them in the first place.
Thoughtful response, as I expected. I’d add Lincoln as a great leader, definitely Washington, as he gave up power a crucial time in our nation’s history. Trump had good outcomes, but I disqualify him entirely for the way he treated his people and for his lack of character and extreme NPD! All the best, Jamie
Yes, that narcissism is a double edged sword. I imagine that you have to be quite narcissistic in the first place no matter what you portray to even run for President. I'd also surmise that like all recent Presidents, Trump is victim to a political reality where a true balance of these traits makes you essentially unelectable.
I only didn't include Lincoln because of the picture portrayed by Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln. My deference to DiLorenzo could just be a product of my own ideological biases being a huge admirer of Mises. I think this just speaks to how complicated it gets to have a sense for an accurate overall portrayal of character traits amidst this heavy biases invoked by ideology. Thanks again for the comment and for sharing your thoughts!
What an excellent review: Grant Smith just showed up in my email (9/26/2023) and am reviewing your blog for the first time. You are fine writer, and obviously curious, honest and well-read. Question: Which U.S. President’s throughout history do you believe had the optimal balance of executive presence as described in the book?
Wow James, thank you for the kind words! As to the question, that is difficult to answer. I have an overall skepticism of history such that I am hesitant to evaluate US Presidents to such level of detail. Since you asked though I'll go ahead and speculate. I bet Washington tops the list. Based on how much weight his word carried, he must've been a true leader through and through that exemplified as optimal a balance of these traits as is possible. After that things get partisan where policy impacts people's assessment in the history books so its very hard to tell. I bet Trump has a great balance which seems evident by his success as a business executive, but I bet even saying that is enough to make some peoples blood boil. I bet there is a sort of relationship between populist leaning political leaders and executive presence. They wouldn't be able to mobilize support of the people without these traits, to whatever end. That makes Jackson and JFK come to mind. This is all totally speculative of course, I don't think I would be able to get a legit read on someone unless I worked for them directly for some time.
There’s no way to do this and be sincere but to communicate albeit indirectly that you are reciting corporate 💩 because you must. Then train for combat.
IF you can steal time back from the low rent criminals stealing your soldiers life saving combat training time by pencil whipping or using cheater codes for mandatory online training (pure criminal grifts) then do so, you’re not dishonest by Protecting your soldiers from scams THAT KILL THEM DOWNRANGE.
Your job, your duty is to protect your soldiers first. Not follow orders channeled through coward placeholders to enrich GOFO Grifters who’ve sold us out. No integrity owed to users using us checking their resume blocks and greasing their stock portfolios. They are criminals, you can’t arrest them, but you can lock the door. They are owed nothing...nothing good.
As for the 9 Executive traits; as yourself what combat veterans you know or serve with manifest them...or are they rarely passionate, mostly subdued, quiet? <<. There’s a difference between being confident and competent and holding your tongue because you know it’s hopeless, even counterproductive to speak, and that someone will get killed proving you were right.
Combat Veterans are quiet because in our system, they’re a challenge of experience and so a target of the non veteran leadership (which is most of them).
The Sociopaths aren’t facing danger, nor will they, wait for war and see - they ain’t there- so don’t waste time or opportunity.
They aren’t owed anything good.
Train for War. If it means deceit on DIE, fuck them, they sold us out.
That all makes sense, but it is consistent with my concern, namely that leaders in the military can't demonstrate complete executive presence because they're hamstrung by the spiritual corruption of senior leadership. I get that once you've signed your name on the dotted line focusing on things that will keep Soldiers alive downrange is paramount, but in terms of combat I'm more or less a conscientious objector these days, and maybe I have been throughout my military service. I talk about this a little bit with the mind matters crew. I don't trust this government to ever constrain itself to just war because traditional morality has been denuded from the PMC to the point where I don't think they know what it is. I think at this point they believe power can supplant morality, or rather that you need ultimate power in order to advance the noble cause of progressivism and the ends justify the means. The dynamic of saying 'fuck it' to the institutional training has also corresponded to an ethical numbing where all the serious folks have become quite accustomed to 'getting the job done' in spite of various red tape. In the covid context the constitution got caught up in that red tape. Coercing people to get the vax become the way these folks protected Soldiers, from covid in the minds of PMC ignoramuses and from UCMJ in the case of the practical minded leaders that 'care'. It broke this last functional dynamic that you outline here: the leader who recognizes the bullshit but is able to navigate to prepare for war. All of these types have had to confront that there is no longer a way to prepare for war without selling out Soldiers on a spiritual level. This is why all the talent is running for the exits and admonishing friends and family to not sign up.
That’s like honest Govt, its more a case of is it tolerably hypocritical and corrupt, as opposed to insane and evil as now.
The problem with sane decent people avoiding the military is who gets the artillery and nukes?
Guerrilla warfare is extremely overrated, its record of success without army and state support small. Forget the hype.
Ireland is the only case that comes to mind and ;
1) The British had been trying to leave for decades, the naysayers were the Protestants until Collins made just the North (which England will keep anyway, look at a map) and -
2) The Americans were more important than Southern Ireland.
(Churchill all but says in World Crisis vol 5 they were glad to be rid of Irish MPs).
Russia? Ludendorff.
France? The Third Estate were ARISTOCRATS who ran illegally, they are the Tennis Court, and the Duc of Orleans was backing the Jacobins (lost his head).
Vietnam? See China.
Vietnam 1975? The VC gone 5 years, eradicated, that was 22 NVA divisions, mechanized.
Afghanistan? Is not Poland, nor America...
Afghanistan 2022? Lol, that’s Pakistan, with our money.
AR-15s? Nice. Any mortar outranges...
Military service in 🇺🇸 is now a cold 3d world/ Eastern Europe calculation- safer with uniform, status for you and family than without.
Ernst Junger called his army service in Ww2- “The Army was internal exile” - safer than not.
The need for strong executive presence is highlighted all the more clearly by the obvious lack of it among our clownworld leaders, whose combined IQ is a tiny fraction of what Caligula's horse no doubt had: https://youtu.be/H6uingtAWbk
A good leader will inspire his men to follow him into hell. A great leader won’t have to ask, he will simply start walking, and his men will fall in behind him, without a word.
Thanks again for sharing thoughtful ideas and resources that will help improve lives.
It is disheartening to hear of organizations that have devolved into puddles of conformity, but sometimes they have to see the bottom of the valley, before climbing back up the ridge.
While I am no longer in a position of routine leadership/management, or leading high tempo teams when things went sideways, I will probably still enjoy reading the book. Occasionally folks still ask for advice from a guy, from "back in the day", so it may help others too.
That reminds me of the quote from Bubbles in The Wire talking about junkies getting clean. "You gotta see that bottom coming up at you" or something to that effect.
If you don't mind me asking, what did you do back in the day?
Like you said - the contradictory demands on the PMC inside the Empire of Lies make exhibiting these qualities in full essentially impossible, which is why most of us have never encountered them embodied in the person of anyone in 'leadership' aka management.
I found myself wondering, what does an organizational framework look like that makes these qualities possible? Very different from what we have now, obviously.
I think a few existed in the military, but I don't think any senior leaders could make it through their career without compromising themselves these days. I think about when Colin Powell put his excellent reputation on the line selling the mobile-WMD-labs-in-Iraq lie two decades ago. I think about Vietnam and Afghanistan. I think about the illegal vax mandates (both anthrax and COVID). These days you have to pay lip service to the idea that racism and extremism are significant threats within the ranks which is ludicrous politicization. Very difficult waters to navigate these days, and this framework helps demonstrate why.
I feel bad for Colin Powell. Maybe I'm stupidly naive, but I think he was well-intentioned and, after being initially skeptical, fell for the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowicz con job and really thought Saddam was developing WMD with an aim of threatening the West. Maybe he was in on it, but I noticed how after the narrative fell apart, he resigned and withdrew from public life. I think he was one of the few from that administration whose conscience was genuinely bothered by it. Of course, it could also be that he made that Faustian bargain like the others, knowing the narrative about Saddam was bullshit, and he just lived to regret it (unlike the others, who demonstrated no such regret).
Yeah, I've never heard anything bad about Colin Powell as a leader and I do think it is plausible that he allowed himself to believe that what he was selling was possible if not likely.
When one must lie to advance oneself, one loses either candor or passion. Reality debt exacts a toll.
This may be an unpopular opinion -- and I admit that it's based more on my gut than empirical evidence -- but I have long sensed the General Petraeus was potentially one of those rare leaders, and that is why he had to be taken out with a honey-pot op.
Ha! That's funny https://www.vice.com/en/article/znqkpa/i-was-david-petreauss-bitch-in-the-90s-and-i-hated-every-second-of-it
Like I said, not based on any particular evidence (expect perhaps the timing, and the fact that he hasn't "resurfaced" the way most bipedal rats with presidential aspirtations often do),. I will add that I'd consider the source carefully when I see the masthead "Vice" attached to it. They are notable mostly for their scumbaggery.
Oh I agree that it was a honeypot, highly suspect, but definitely not because of his executive presence. He was good at cultivating an image outside the military, and the media helped with that. He was taken out when he made his political ambitions known by a competing faction. Vice didn't write that article, they just published it. The author is credible. I also know for fact that he sidelined officers who couldn't keep up with his running pace as a little guy/runner. This ruined the careers of more than one good officer and was common practice for little guys in the infantry. I have a special contempt for the conflation of distance running proficiency and good leadership in the Army. There were times in my career where I was required to run 30 miles per week at a bodyweight of ~275lbs. Against all logic and expectation I could keep up with the little guys, but you can't take a st. bernard and expect it to perform like a greyhound in the long run. As Stu McGill says, you break the dog.
275 lbs?
Shit, Grant, are you made of concrete?
It wasn't a lean 275
VICE is aptly named
Good leader. They compromised him and burned Petreaus when he didn’t pass the Benghazi loyalty test.
Compare him with- now
This was a good review of the book and I appreciate how you personalized it to yourself and your experiences.
Interestingly - and perhaps in seeming contrast to what I've said publicly - I had many really good leaders throughout my time in the military.
Or so I thought.
They seemed to embody many of the principles laid out here. Regardless, at some point it seems that many of these "good" leaders decided to "sell out" to the organization (DoD). I don't necessarily think they did it consciously or in one discrete moment, but over time they aligned with an organization rather than truth. I'm sure they viewed the military as good and loyalty to it therefore as good as well, but because they were prioritizing things ahead of truth, they were unprepared to be disillusioned by the organization they set up as their pole star.
This alignment with truth (or lack thereof) that I mentioned above is what makes me question the candor and sincerity (to use the author's principles) of many of today's military leaders.
Exactly. The lack of principle from the top makes it impossible to exhibit all of these traits. You can exhibit some, and you can fake demonstrating all, but faking demonstrating all isn't sustainable when two are candor and sincerity. This will be exposed eventually. COVID just exposed it in a glaringly obvious way for the entire force at the same time. The fact that everyone knew GWOT and nation building efforts were total bullshit after a couple beers behind closed doors was easier to keep hidden. How can you acknowledge that privately and keep trudging forward? By sacrificing principles or not having them in the first place.
Or you can just do the right thing, see how far you get.
In war itself, these cowards are not to be found
Thoughtful response, as I expected. I’d add Lincoln as a great leader, definitely Washington, as he gave up power a crucial time in our nation’s history. Trump had good outcomes, but I disqualify him entirely for the way he treated his people and for his lack of character and extreme NPD! All the best, Jamie
Yes, that narcissism is a double edged sword. I imagine that you have to be quite narcissistic in the first place no matter what you portray to even run for President. I'd also surmise that like all recent Presidents, Trump is victim to a political reality where a true balance of these traits makes you essentially unelectable.
I only didn't include Lincoln because of the picture portrayed by Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln. My deference to DiLorenzo could just be a product of my own ideological biases being a huge admirer of Mises. I think this just speaks to how complicated it gets to have a sense for an accurate overall portrayal of character traits amidst this heavy biases invoked by ideology. Thanks again for the comment and for sharing your thoughts!
What an excellent review: Grant Smith just showed up in my email (9/26/2023) and am reviewing your blog for the first time. You are fine writer, and obviously curious, honest and well-read. Question: Which U.S. President’s throughout history do you believe had the optimal balance of executive presence as described in the book?
Wow James, thank you for the kind words! As to the question, that is difficult to answer. I have an overall skepticism of history such that I am hesitant to evaluate US Presidents to such level of detail. Since you asked though I'll go ahead and speculate. I bet Washington tops the list. Based on how much weight his word carried, he must've been a true leader through and through that exemplified as optimal a balance of these traits as is possible. After that things get partisan where policy impacts people's assessment in the history books so its very hard to tell. I bet Trump has a great balance which seems evident by his success as a business executive, but I bet even saying that is enough to make some peoples blood boil. I bet there is a sort of relationship between populist leaning political leaders and executive presence. They wouldn't be able to mobilize support of the people without these traits, to whatever end. That makes Jackson and JFK come to mind. This is all totally speculative of course, I don't think I would be able to get a legit read on someone unless I worked for them directly for some time.
I had one person in mind the whole read-- Jack Donaghy, lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Donaghy
There’s no way to do this and be sincere but to communicate albeit indirectly that you are reciting corporate 💩 because you must. Then train for combat.
IF you can steal time back from the low rent criminals stealing your soldiers life saving combat training time by pencil whipping or using cheater codes for mandatory online training (pure criminal grifts) then do so, you’re not dishonest by Protecting your soldiers from scams THAT KILL THEM DOWNRANGE.
Your job, your duty is to protect your soldiers first. Not follow orders channeled through coward placeholders to enrich GOFO Grifters who’ve sold us out. No integrity owed to users using us checking their resume blocks and greasing their stock portfolios. They are criminals, you can’t arrest them, but you can lock the door. They are owed nothing...nothing good.
As for the 9 Executive traits; as yourself what combat veterans you know or serve with manifest them...or are they rarely passionate, mostly subdued, quiet? <<. There’s a difference between being confident and competent and holding your tongue because you know it’s hopeless, even counterproductive to speak, and that someone will get killed proving you were right.
Combat Veterans are quiet because in our system, they’re a challenge of experience and so a target of the non veteran leadership (which is most of them).
The Sociopaths aren’t facing danger, nor will they, wait for war and see - they ain’t there- so don’t waste time or opportunity.
They aren’t owed anything good.
Train for War. If it means deceit on DIE, fuck them, they sold us out.
That all makes sense, but it is consistent with my concern, namely that leaders in the military can't demonstrate complete executive presence because they're hamstrung by the spiritual corruption of senior leadership. I get that once you've signed your name on the dotted line focusing on things that will keep Soldiers alive downrange is paramount, but in terms of combat I'm more or less a conscientious objector these days, and maybe I have been throughout my military service. I talk about this a little bit with the mind matters crew. I don't trust this government to ever constrain itself to just war because traditional morality has been denuded from the PMC to the point where I don't think they know what it is. I think at this point they believe power can supplant morality, or rather that you need ultimate power in order to advance the noble cause of progressivism and the ends justify the means. The dynamic of saying 'fuck it' to the institutional training has also corresponded to an ethical numbing where all the serious folks have become quite accustomed to 'getting the job done' in spite of various red tape. In the covid context the constitution got caught up in that red tape. Coercing people to get the vax become the way these folks protected Soldiers, from covid in the minds of PMC ignoramuses and from UCMJ in the case of the practical minded leaders that 'care'. It broke this last functional dynamic that you outline here: the leader who recognizes the bullshit but is able to navigate to prepare for war. All of these types have had to confront that there is no longer a way to prepare for war without selling out Soldiers on a spiritual level. This is why all the talent is running for the exits and admonishing friends and family to not sign up.
If called you must go, until then run like Hell.
Jus ad Bello 🤣
Sorry.
That’s like honest Govt, its more a case of is it tolerably hypocritical and corrupt, as opposed to insane and evil as now.
The problem with sane decent people avoiding the military is who gets the artillery and nukes?
Guerrilla warfare is extremely overrated, its record of success without army and state support small. Forget the hype.
Ireland is the only case that comes to mind and ;
1) The British had been trying to leave for decades, the naysayers were the Protestants until Collins made just the North (which England will keep anyway, look at a map) and -
2) The Americans were more important than Southern Ireland.
(Churchill all but says in World Crisis vol 5 they were glad to be rid of Irish MPs).
Russia? Ludendorff.
France? The Third Estate were ARISTOCRATS who ran illegally, they are the Tennis Court, and the Duc of Orleans was backing the Jacobins (lost his head).
Vietnam? See China.
Vietnam 1975? The VC gone 5 years, eradicated, that was 22 NVA divisions, mechanized.
Afghanistan? Is not Poland, nor America...
Afghanistan 2022? Lol, that’s Pakistan, with our money.
AR-15s? Nice. Any mortar outranges...
Military service in 🇺🇸 is now a cold 3d world/ Eastern Europe calculation- safer with uniform, status for you and family than without.
Ernst Junger called his army service in Ww2- “The Army was internal exile” - safer than not.
Don’t be little people now.
https://youtu.be/9lru1Qxc1l8
I debunk Guerrilla warfare at length for the 2A crowd.
Yes, nice idea. Ain’t enough.
Add; you save more lives in training than the battlefield.
This includes maintenance.
The converse is true also, these weasels🦝 are killing your soldiers and they’re doing it for their own selfish motives. 🦡
Need an enemy? ⬆️ there.
The need for strong executive presence is highlighted all the more clearly by the obvious lack of it among our clownworld leaders, whose combined IQ is a tiny fraction of what Caligula's horse no doubt had: https://youtu.be/H6uingtAWbk
Great essay, like always!
A good leader will inspire his men to follow him into hell. A great leader won’t have to ask, he will simply start walking, and his men will fall in behind him, without a word.
Thanks again for sharing thoughtful ideas and resources that will help improve lives.
It is disheartening to hear of organizations that have devolved into puddles of conformity, but sometimes they have to see the bottom of the valley, before climbing back up the ridge.
While I am no longer in a position of routine leadership/management, or leading high tempo teams when things went sideways, I will probably still enjoy reading the book. Occasionally folks still ask for advice from a guy, from "back in the day", so it may help others too.
That reminds me of the quote from Bubbles in The Wire talking about junkies getting clean. "You gotta see that bottom coming up at you" or something to that effect.
If you don't mind me asking, what did you do back in the day?
Short answer - firefighter, mostly wildland, about 35 years.
Longer story, is longer than a comment.
I've always been fascinated with leadership, having not had many positive examples growing up, so what I figured out was mostly by lots of mistakes.