The Language of Leadership

When one considers the indomitable spirit of the English people during the crisis in Europe after the fall of France and the threat of invasion, the German blitz and terror bombing of London and other English cities, the question is begged, why? Why did they remain steadfast? They, an island nation, stood alone with but a sliver of water between them and the enemy sworn to crush them. They with few resources - a tiny army, an air force hurriedly trying to catch up in materiel and training of pilots, no place for retreat - stood immovable and determined.

Consider the words of Winston Churchill - the force of his leadership coming through his oratory and moving the very will of the people and stirring a courage in their hearts.

Steven F. Hayward, in his book, GREATNESS: Reagan, Churchill & The Making of Extraordinary Leaders, offers the following.

"...Churchill is recalled for his stirring oratory.; in Edward R. Murrow's memorable phrase, Churchill 'mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.' Robert Rhodes James offers a good summary of the powerful effect of Churchill's early wartime speeches: 'It is often said that speeches do not affect votes in the House of Commons; this almost , though not quite, is true... What will always be remembered as the "blood, sweat and tears" speech was a real turning point... It was Churchill's outstanding quality as a war leader that he had made the struggle seem not merely essential for national survival, but worthwhile and noble. No one - not even a child, as I was - who was in England in the summer of 1940 will ever forget the cheerfulness of the people. One caught Churchill's infectious spirit that this was a great time to be alive in; that Destiny had conferred a wonderful benefit upon us; and that these were thrilling days to live through.'"

Words are powerful tools. What we say makes indelible marks on others. Let's choose carefully, then, our words, and use them for good. Churchill understood truth is the best kind of speech and he unabashedly called evil " evil"   and did not water down the realities. But, grim as those realities were, he understood his words would inspire courage and grit in the face of those realities. He and the British people forged an alliance, linking arms to stand in the face of tyranny and not blink, not back down. And they won.

For the Greater Good

I spoke with a friend - a fellow history lover - who asked about favorite people. History offers the opportunity to see the triumphs and trials of the great and small alike and the subsequent repercussions. Wisdom is available for the taking.

But his question brought many figures to mind. Our conversation taught me about Mr. Churchill and the two-volume William Manchester series which includes a work called The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940 chronicling the dark years out of the public eye. I look forward to reading this.

George Washington came to mind, however. As mentioned previously, Washington never commanded my attention because the time period never grabbed me. But David McCullough's portrayal of his leadership in 1776 demands attention for the outstanding leader he was. In fact, his apparent failures and his his grander vision which compelled him in the face of those failures, are a study in leadership.

One incident McCullough records (from memory) involves the criticism of some of his closest generals/advisors. They created an undercurrent of fault-finding and would have led lesser men to quit. Washington mistakenly received letters written to one of these men from another. He read them, thinking they came addressed to him. They did not. The letters contained harsh words directed at Washington and he would have been right to discipline the men or be angry. He was neither. He simply returned the letters to the rightful recipient without a word. The greater good and unity demanded, in Washington's view, to let the issue pass. The greater good and unity - we must weigh carefully the affect of our decisions and responses to perceived wrongs. Washington showed the true meaning of considering the needs of others  (to keep going forward againt the greater enemy - the British) before his own (for vindication). History took care of vindicating General Washington.

Seventeen years ago this month, an al-Qeada operatives, including Ramzi Yousef, executed a car bomb attack on the World Trade center with the intent of destroying the twin towers. The attack killed six and injured more than 100 people. The towers did not come down, though the powerful bomb extensively damaged the parking garage.

According to The Looming Tower  al-Qeada and the Road to 9/11, by Lawrence Wright, the F.B.I. agent most keenly aware of al-Qeada's desire to finish the job was John O'Neill. O'Neill tenaciously pursued the then little-known al-Qeada connection in his investigation of the USS Cole bombing.

Wright says this of O'Neill: "O'Neill was right about the threat of al-Qeada when few cared to believe it. Perhaps in the end his capacity for making enemies also helped al-Qeada by destroying the man who might have made a difference."

He felt strongly there was a pending attack with the onset of the millennium. No one else saw things the same way - at least not then F.B. I. Director Louis Freeh who "repeatedly stressed in White House meetings that al-Qeada no longer posed a threat. Bin Laden did not even make the F.B.I.'s most wanted list until June 1999."

Wright tackles a detailed and difficult subject in a compelling way and tells, among many other stories, the story of O'Neill's eventual retirement from the Bureau in the summer of 2001. As would be expected for a man of his tenure and skill, he had several offers for security work. The one he settled on was Chief of Security for - The World Trade Center. He retired knowing "they'll never stop trying to get those two buildings." He started the new position in the last week of August and was on his post when the 9/11 attacks occurred.

I don't know if ABC's The Pathway to 9/11 is available, but it followed Wright's book fairly well and portrayed the intelligence and diplomatic failures which contributed to the success of the endeavors of Bin Laden, to the chagrin of some of the key players who did not shine.