what qualities make a good war leader?

Answer 1

Poor diplomacy and communication skills to get you at war in the first place.

Answer 2

I assume you mean 'civilian leader in wartime' not 'military commander'.

For Churchill, see my answer in 'Most Over-rated in History'.

Depends largely on the type of war, and the relationship between the interest groups. David Lloyd-George was a very good, and very well-regarded, war leader but he spent most of his time undermining his own commander-in-chief, Haig, who was quite pedestrian and determined to kill every British soldier put under his command. Lincoln also had great trouble dealing with his military, but like Lloyd-George he recognised the limit of his responsibilities. Lyndon Johnson was a bad enough leader to be fighting a war that was fundamentally misunderstood by everyone in America, but he had to guts to say 'enough'.

Leaders like Churchill are able to articulate the aims of the war and motivate the population to them, which is important in a just war that is also very difficult. John Curtin was able to stand up for Australia and put aside years of unquestioning tradition to take a tough decision that was in the interests of the country- to take troops from the British army in Africa to defend Australia.

Stalin was able to impose his will on a massive and near-defeated country, and rouse/cajole the population into feats that are almost beyond our understanding and imagination- like moving thousands of factories by railway, hundreds of miles.

Eisenhower- always more politician than general- kept a difficult alliance of vain men together and functioning.

Some have judgement, some have humanity, some are great communicators and motivators, others were dealmakers.

George Bush is none of these things, of course.

Answer 3

how anyone could put Churchill and overrated in the same sentence is beyond me. I offer the following, William Manchester on the mortal danger facing England after the Dunkirk evacuation:


But wars are not won by fleeing from the enemy. And British
morale was still unequal to the imminent challenge. These were the same people who, less than a year earlier, had rejoiced in the fake peace bought by the betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich. Most of their leaders and most of the press remained craven.

It had been over a thousand years since Alfred the Great had made himself and his countrymen one and sent them into battle transformed. Now in this new exigency, confronted by the mightiest conqueror Europe had ever known, England looked for another Alfred, a figure cast in a mold which, by the time of the Dunkirk deliverance, seemed to have been forever lost.

England’s new leader, were he to prevail, would have to stand for everything England’s decent, civilized Establishment had rejected. They viewed Adolf Hitler as the product of complex social and historical forces. Their successor would have to be a passionate Manichaean who saw the world as a medieval struggle to the death between the powers of good and the powers of evil, who held that individuals are responsible for their actions and that the German dictator was therefore wicked.

A believer in martial glory was required, one who saw splendor in the ancient parades of victorious legions through Persepolis and could rally the nation to brave the coming German fury. An embodiment of fading Victorian standards was wanted: a tribune for honor, loyalty, duty, and the supreme virtue of action; one who would never compromise with iniquity, who could create a sublime mood and thus give men heroic visions of what they were and might become.

Like Adolf Hitler he would have to be a leader of intuitive genius, a born demagogue in the original sense of the word, a believer in the supremacy of his race and his national destiny, an artist who knew how to gather the blazing light of history into his prism and then distort it to his ends, an embodiment of inflexible resolution who could impose his will and his imagination on his people — a great tragedian who understood the appeal of martyrdom and could tell his followers the worst, hurling it to them like great hunks of bleeding meat, persuading them that the year of Dunkirk would be one in which it was “equally good to live or to die” — who could if necessary be Just as cruel, just as cunning, and just as ruthless as Hitler but who could win victories without enslaving populations, or preaching supernaturalism, or foisting off myths of his infallibility, or destroying, or even warping, the libertarian institutions he had sworn to preserve. Such a man, if he existed, would be England’s last chance.

In London there was such a man.

Answer 4

The willingness to send a few thousand men over to a country that they never been to so they can slaughter people they never met just because they think that these other people may have the same thoughts about them.
And must not really care about the families of the men and women having to go to this place as long as they get the glory.

Answer 5

must be able to prevent a war and find the best possible solution to make peace between the countries

Answer 6

ability to see the big picture. ability to communicate and inspire confidence. courage and judgement. strong moral framework. compassion.