I’ve read a lot of material on history, mostly American. When I was younger I tended to focus on the Civil War and World War II. Over the last decade, I’ve refocus on two other conflicts, The American Revolution and The World War (aka: The Great War or World War I).

As an adult over the last twenty years, I’ve read a large number of books on The World War, with a focus on the American involvement. When reading history and peoples approaches to solving problems, I was taught it’s important to not impose modern values on history and historical figures. That lesson, sadly, does not seem to be in vogue today. Still, despite all the changes the world has seen over the last century, people remain pretty much the same

Recently, I’ve begun to expand that American-centric outlook a bit . I’ve been fascinated by the “Lions led by Donkeys” debate that came out of the UK. I’ve noticed a lot of Donkeys running loose lately. To understand the UK experience, I’ve been reading primary source documents, contemporaneous histories, and biographies, particularly from the British Government, about the start of The World War.

My first adult act was to sign up for a hitch in the US Army. Later I received an honorable discharge. I credit the US Army, which at the time, in 1981, was just getting over its Vietnam experience and the first two years of the Carter administration, with teaching me much about leadership and management and how they are different. When I looked around the parade ground, it was abundantly clear to me as a private soldier, which NCOs and commissioned officers I could trust not through away my life without purpose. Conversely, it was easy to identify those who would.

After the Army, I attended Gettysburg College. It was the mid-1980s, I was a political science major, who took more than a few of American religious history and general history courses. I thought I wanted to be a lawyer at the time, sue me. I recall a class given by Dr. Basil Crapster. It was a tour de force history class on the subject of The World War. Prior to that, I don’t recall reading much about The World War, the Second World War experience dominated the culture of the 1960s and 1970s. As I read those histories about the start of The World War now, it jogs the memory about what I learned nearly forty years ago.

Post-Bachelor of Arts, I’ve spent nearly thirty years leading teams of technical specialists. These teams have ranged from a team of one, me as an individual contributor, to small team of four to ten individuals, to leading relatively large programs of forty to sixty persons. I’ve never felt a calling to lead anything larger.

In my world, the consequences of poor leadership are usually not as dire as they are for a wartime military. Other people’s money get burned, not other people’s lives. Yet some lessons still apply. This brings me to actual topic.

Right now I’m reading Gary Sheffield’s “The Chief”. It’s a biography of Field Marshall Douglas Haig. Haig led a Corp in the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and later the entire BEF. A salient point is that Haig wished to withhold some of the junior commissioned officers and senior NCOs in Great Britain to train the troops coming up. He was overruled. So at that point-in-time, Haig was didn’t seem very donkey-like.

Like many biographers, Sheffield seems overly empathetic with his subject. I’m only one-third of the way through it, so I don’t have any final judgements yet, about Haig or the book.

In September of 1914, the BEF, was withdrawing from Belgium and into France. They were retreating in the face of overwhelming German superiority and it was sensible. The goal, at that point, wasn’t to beat the Germans, it was to preserve the BEF as a fighting force. An incident was reported to Haig on 20 Sep 1914. It seems the men of the 1st West Yorks, broke and ran during a German attack. It is reminiscent of the American experience the ground at the Kasserine Pass 18 years later. The quote below jumped out at me.

difficult to write in temperate language regarding the very unsoldierlike behaviour of the W. Yorks on the 20th inst. Apparently they fled from their trenches on the appearance of some 150 Germans. This is the worst incident of which I’ve heard during this campaign. I do not know Lt. Col Towsey but in view the high character which he holds it may be well to give him another chance, but I recommend that he and his Battalion be strongly rebuked and that they be told that it rests with them to regain the good name and reputation which our infantry holds, and which they have by their conduct on the 20th forfeited.

The only data point I have is what Haig wrote and what Sheffield reports. Haig, an apparently believing Christian, reacted with moral outrage rather than concrete action. Yet the cause was obvious enough.

Green troops and ineffective leadership.

In the US military being relieved of command is a big deal. We didn’t see much of it our recent middle eastern adventures, shamefully. Still, during World War II, the American Army became very good at recycling those whom had been relieved. Sometimes they were sent to stateside training or logistics commands, other times, those relieved were given a second chance with combat units months later. I don’t remember ever reading about a general officer being relieved twice.

So why didn’t Haig have Towsey relieved? My suspicion is not that Haig was a donkey, but a sin nearly as bad, he was far too agreeable.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt in the business world, is probably not a bad idea, it’s “just” money. In the military world of active warfare, agreeableness just leads to future captured, wounded, dead soldiers, or civilian casualties. The time for being agreeable is before the bullets fly, during training.

Apparently, Haig did not relieve Towsey. Haig didn’t send a subordinate staff member to investigate. He did not apparently take any further action. Later, Towsey was promoted to Brigadier General.

Compare that to similar scenarios; other British units facing the Germans at the time and the Americans four years later at the Second Battle of the Marne. Effective leadership made the difference. You can read more about it here and here.

Fourteen years later, a similar situation confronted Dwight Eisenhower, the leader of the entire Allied effort in North Africa and a Major General Lloyd Fredendall. The events at the Kasserine Pass unfolded and American troops ran. Eisenhower canvassed Fredendall’s subordinate general officers, to find out what had happened. Fredendall was ultimately relieved, without a reprimand, him and replaced him with George Patton. I think it is fair to say Patton was not excessively agreeable and Eisenhower showed how to be diplomatic, decisive, but not overly agreeable.

Excessive agreeableness causes failure as often as donkeyism does in war and I’d add, given current events in the Middle East, diplomacy.

A historical side-note. A younger Captain George Patton was on General John Pershing staff as the Americans entered The World War in 1917. The American team met with the British team in London. After meeting Patton, Haig called Patton a “fire eater”.