Since the detonation of the nuclear bomb in World War II, United States leaders has lived with the knowledge that poor judgment can put half the world in jeopardy. Looking at past and present historical events, one can speculate that the thought process of Cold War leaders and modern day leaders has transformed. As the times and conflicts have shifted from ones of strategy to today’s boots on the ground conflicts, the transformational leader has played an integral role in the United States’ share of successes and failures as it relates to world conflicts. By comparing Cold War leaders versus modern day leadership methods there is one single concept that sticks out, Cold War leaders were singular minded and modern day leader battles are fought
…show more content…
Although Harry S. Truman was the Vice President for only three months before assuming the Commander-in-Chief position, it was his 37 years of military experience which included field artillery battery command that helped get his unit through the First World War (Keenum, 2002). By taking appropriate risks and inspiring noncommissioned officers to hold subordinates accountable for discipline, his unit followed him loyally for the rest of the war. Albeit, Truman was held in high regard as a military leader, as President, his approach was not well received. General Douglas MacArthur, commander of United Nations Forces during the Korean Conflict successfully led the Allied forces in the Southwest Pacific during World War II. It was his public statements contradicting the Truman administration’s policies which led to him being relieved of command in April 1951. Although policies are made by elected officials, not military leaders, General MacArthur proved time and again his public disdain and unwillingness to accept policies of the administration. By putting his ego above the needs of the mission and leadership, MacArthur lost sight of the vision of President Truman. Further, in contrast, President Truman lost sight of an important concept of getting the buy in of every subordinate in order to effectively carry out the
Although Harry S. Truman was the Vice President for only three months before assuming the Commander-in-Chief position, it was his 37 years of military experience which included field artillery battery command that helped get his unit through the First World War (Keenum, 2002). By taking appropriate risks and inspiring noncommissioned officers to hold subordinates accountable for discipline, his unit followed him loyally for the rest of the war. Albeit, Truman was held in high regard as a military leader, as President, his approach was not well received. General Douglas MacArthur, commander of United Nations Forces during the Korean Conflict successfully led the Allied forces in the Southwest Pacific during World War II. It was his public statements contradicting the Truman administration’s policies which led to him being relieved of command in April 1951. Although policies are made by elected officials, not military leaders, General MacArthur proved time and again his public disdain and unwillingness to accept policies of the administration. By putting his ego above the needs of the mission and leadership, MacArthur lost sight of the vision of President Truman. Further, in contrast, President Truman lost sight of an important concept of getting the buy in of every subordinate in order to effectively carry out the