The Difference Is Craftsmanship

April 25, 2016 by kmabarrett

Like any art, the craft of battle requires proper tools, good craftsmanship and a little inspiration. In this case, the proper tools are good weapons, sound tactics and effective organization. Although these differ a bit from army to army, there is little to be gained by any one, or any combinations of them against a corresponding combination in the enemy’s bag. In other words, systems, tactics and organization are about even.

What makes the difference in battle? It is the excellence of the craftsmanship and the combined inspiration of soldiers and leaders. It is the excellence of the training, the quality of the leaders and the courage of the soldiers, there is no doubt. The problem is to get that courage harnessed in usable fashion and put to work on the battlefield. That is a problem for leaders. May I further suggest that the day of the instant hero is gone – the time when charisma alone can be made to suffice for technical skill and excellence in battle is past. Certainly, this is so when one considers the number of competent leaders who will be required to win in modern war. A few may be charismatic in addition to being technically competent; many, many more will not. Therefore, the leader problem is likewise a training problem. Quality leadership comes from sound training of leaders.

Sergeants are leaders. Sergeants’ business is leadership. Therefore, the sergeants must be trained as leaders – not as administrators. The cement that binds together good weapons, sound tactics and effective organizations into winning battle teams is training. Training develops excellence in the skills of leaders and soldiers, to the end that they have both the capability to fight the tough battles and win, and the conviction that they can and must fight hard and well, and that, if they do, and have a little luck, they will win against all odds.

— General Donn A. Starry
U. S. Army

.
On This Day In:
2015	However Vast The Darkness
2014	The Omnipresent Teacher
2013	Don’t Waste
2012	Earning Thanks
2011	Fuzzy Vision
2010	Movies and Book

Posted in Leadership, My Journal, Philosophy | Tagged General Donn A. Starry, Leadership, Military Leadership, My Journal, On Sergeants, Philosophy, Quotes | 2 Comments

2 Responses

on April 25, 2016 at 11:17 am | Reply russtowne

I have to ask: Any idea as to whether the general works/ed somewhere in the Training Command within the Army? I agree that training is crucial, but so is, for example, logistics (soldiers need food, water, gasoline, ammo, etc.) or they will quickly lose no matter what their training. I’m not suggesting that you don’t already know such things, just that the general seems to be laser-focused on a single key element.
- on April 26, 2016 at 12:09 pm | Reply kmabarrett
  
  Hi Russ,
  General Donn A. Starry was a four-star general when he retired in the 1980’s (died on Aug. 26 2011). This quote dates back to the 1970’s when I was a sergeant in the Field Artillery. I was serving (1976-1978) in a town called Hanau, about 30 “clicks” (kilometers) east of Frankfurt. My battalion was assigned to the 3rd Armored Division (“Spearhead”), which in turn was under V Corps and was responsible for defending the “Fulda Gap”. General Starry was in command of V Corps in Germany (1976–1977), and later he assumed command of the (relatively) newly formed Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) 1977-1981. I believe he was their second commander.
  
  He was the chief architect of the cold war military strategy for repelling a tank-heavy Soviet invasion of Western Europe via non-nuclear means, and, as an expert in tank warfare, also helped write the specifications for the Abrams battle tank.
  
  General Starry wrote several articles about military leadership and the role of the NCO as the backbone of any military service branch. Even back then, I used to read “trade” publications to get a broader feeling for my role in whatever industry I was working in. This quote was from one of those articles. Unfortunately, back then, I wasn’t particularly fastidious in attributing sources in my personal journal, so I can’t be more specific without a lot more work / research.
  
  Post Vietnam and with the inception of the all-volunteer force, the Army was suffering from a severe image / public relations problem. Basically, you were an officer or you were nothing. Senior command countered this with a multi-pronged response to build up the leadership training and responsibilities of the NCO to restore them to their historic place of authority within the service. I believe the success of these efforts have resulted in the elite corps of NCOs now present in each of our military branches.
  
  General Starry’s comments are reflective of that effort, not in any way a denigration of other strategic (logistics) requirements.
  
  Thanks for the question / comment!