In my continuing study of great men and women in history, I would like to share one of my favorite stories about the life of General Douglas MacArthur. His leadership exemplifies the type of courageous leadership we desire to build within the LIFE Business. With leaders like Chris Brady, Tim Marks, and Claude Hamilton, I am confident we are on our way. I hope you enjoy the article and keep growing personally and professionally to fulfill the purpose God created you for.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

General Douglas MacArthur

General Douglas MacArthur was one of the greatest generals in American history. His bravery, boldness, and strategies won many battles for America. Interestingly, one of his most most daring battle strategies was one of his last. Pretty impressive when one considers he served in the military for over 40 years. The events leading up to MacArthur’s moment was North Korea’s invasion of South Korea in the summer of 1950. United Nation (UN) forces pushed back and pinned down in the tiny southeast corner of the Korean peninsula, called the Pusan Perimeter. With little room to maneuver or conduct offensive operations, men were being slaughtered on both sides with no breakout in sight. General MacArthur’s plan, an amphibious landing at Inchon, was not only was genius in its conception, but courageous to the point of foolishness in execution. Indeed, rarely does God create, in a person, a stronger mixture of brains and bravery than Douglas MacArthur.

Why did the proposed amphibious landing at Inchon border on madness? For many different reasons, namely, every significant factor the navy researches before amphibious operations pointed against the proposed landing at Inchon. From a narrow approach channel, strong currents, massive fluctuation in tides, city landing with sea walls instead of beaches, and an easily mined bay, these concerns made even the most courageous cower in fear. In fact, one of the gunnery officers said afterward, “We drew up a list of every natural and geographic handicap – and Inchon had them all!” The communications officer concurred, remarking, “Make up a list of amphibious ‘don’ts’ and you have an exact description of the Inchon operation.” MacArthur, undaunted, ignored such criticisms, noting the Japanese had performed amphibious landings at Inchon back in 1904. Naval officers were at a loss as to how to explain to MacArthur that, in 1904, ships had a significantly shallower draft than in 1950.

When the Joint Chiefs were informed of MacArthur’s planned invasion point, they were not amused, quickly sending several members to MacArthur’s to temper his “rashness.”  I will quote William Manchester’s masterful description of the scene from his classic book American Caesar:

Lesser naval officers took the floor to point out that the General’s objective violated all seven criteria set forth in the USF-6, their amphibious bible. CINFE’s officers (MacArthur’s men) were glum and silent. Finally, after nine critics had completed an eighty-minute presentation, MacArthur rose. Afterward he wrote: “I waited a moment or so to collect my thoughts. I could feel the tension rising in the room. Almond shifted uneasily in his chair. If ever a silence was pregnant, this one was. I could almost hear my father’s voice telling me as he had so many years before, ‘Doug, councils of war breed timidity and defeatism.’”

Of the thirty-minute performance which followed, Doyle said, “Of MacArthur had gone on the stage, you never would have heard of John Barrymore.” The General began by telling them that “the very arguments you have made as to the impracticalities involved” confirmed his faith in the plan, “for the enemy commander will reason that no one would be so brash as to make such an attempt.” Surprise, he said, “is the most vital element for success in war.” Suddenly, he was reminding them of a lesson they had all learned in grammar school: “the Marquis de Montcalm believed in 1759 that it was impossible for an armed force to scale the precipitous river banks south of the then walled city of Quebec, and therefore concentrated his formidable defenses along the more vulnerable banks north of the city. But General James Wolfe and a small force did indeed come up the St. Lawrence River and scale those heights. On the Plains of Abraham, Wolfe won a stunning victory that was made possible almost entirely by surprise. Thus he captured Quebec and, in effect, ended the French and Indian War. Like Montcalm, the North Koreans would regard an Inchon landing as impossible. Like Wolfe, I could take them by surprise.

MacArthur was scintillating, converting nine skeptics into new believers through his belief and oratory powers. At one point, MacArthur pointed to an Inchon Map on the wall and said he would take full responsibility for failure and would withdraw the forces immediately if necessary. The men objected, saying it wouldn’t be necessary because they would get the job done. Minutes before, these same men were hesitant and fearful, now under the leadership spell of MacArthur, they believed they could pull of a miracle. Intuitively understanding when to finish, MacArthur closed, whispering, “I can almost hear the ticking of the second hand of destiny. We must act now or we will die. . . Inchon will succeed. And it will save 100,000 lives.” Over a minute of dead-silence followed before Sherman, one of the Joint Chiefs sent to dissuade MacArthur, answered, “Thank you. A great voice in a great cause.” Inchon was now moving forward and South Korea’s future hung in the balance.

As MacArthur predicted, the Inchon landing, on September 15, 1950, caught the North Korean’s completely by surprise. In the subsequent battle for the city, 566 men were killed and 2,713 wounded on the UN side. In contrast, the North Korean’s lost over 35,000 men killed or captured. Advancing inland, the UN forces captured Seoul on September 25, breaking the North Korean’s stranglehold. Thanks to the courageous landing at Inchon, the 8th army broke out from the Pusan Perimeter, sending the North Korean’s into a hasty retreat out of South Korean land. In fact, MacArthur men crushed the North Korean army, forcing China to enter the fray to save North Korea from extinction. Despite great risk to his reputation, his men, and his country, MacArthur’s bold plan had, not only saved South Korea from annihilation, but reversed the fortunes of the entire war.

Few men in history, especially this late in a great career, have displayed courageous leadership any better. General Douglas MacArthur was a man who followed his convictions, despite potential downside risk. He believed right makes might, not might makes right. Because of his leadership and strategy, South Korea is free today. Does leadership matter? Just ask the hundreds of thousands of men who are alive today because of MacArthur’s leadership. In today’s society, we need thousands more men and women who will lead like MacArthur. His example inspires each of us to step out of our comfort zones and lead. The ability is undoubtedly already inside of us, the question is: will we bring it out?

The following is another research assignment I have been working on. One of the cool things about owning a leadership and personal development company (LIFE Business) is that I am constantly working upon projects personally and professionally. In other words, one cannot develop others in an area he isn’t developing himself. I am excited about the lessons learned from Churchill’s life and want to share them with you.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

In World War I, the Germans and Austrian pushed the much larger Russian army back towards Moscow, eventually forcing the Russians to sue for peace and launching Lenin on his communist misdeeds. The success of the Germans and Austrians against the numerically greater Russian army was due to two main factors:

1. The superiority of the German strategy
2. The inferiority of the Russian equipment

The first factor was unchangeable from the Allied perspective; however, the second factor could have been altered if only England had followed the advice of its young First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. In fact, Churchill, alone among the statesmen and generals of the First World War, bore the distinct marks of genius in his global-vision of the war.

Churchill had perceived the Russians, despite their superior numbers, would be no match for the double-barreled benefits of strategy and equipment held by the Germans. Churchill was the first to see that England had to deliver better equipment to Russia or lose the Russians to a separate peace. However, the only effective way to deliver equipment to the Russians was through the Black Sea currently blocked by the Turkish enemy at Constantinople. Taking Constantinople would accomplish several strategic benefits in one stroke. First, it would all-but eliminate Turkey from the Central powers alliance. Second, it would ensure the safety of the Orient and third would likely secure additional countries to the allied cause. With Constantinople in Allied hands, arms and ammunitions could be shipped through the Black Sea to Russia, Turkey would sue for peace, and Rumania, Bulgaria, along with Greece would most likely join with Serbia on the allied side and march against Austria.  Three dominoes, in other words, would fall by knocking over one.

Unfortunately, as is the price of genius, smaller minds with smaller conceptions could not see the big picture. Churchill, Field Marshall Kitchener, and Sea Lord Fisher were all for the plan; however, the British government was reluctant to support such a daring venture. Validating again that half-hearted measures committed to half-heartedly rarely produce the desired results, the British set up committees to discuss strategies. Not surprisingly, the committee delayed its final decision destroying proportionally the element of surprise for every month of delay. Additionally, the British resolved to strike quickly and resolutely was tamed through the committees less courageous members. Although the operation was neither simple nor straightforward, the strategic advantages obtained through proper execution should have overcome British reluctance. Nonetheless, the committee dithered away its strategic initiative, eventually agreeing to an invasion with too few ships, men, and resolved to complete the task.

One of the British concerns was the possibility of their ships penned within the Dardanelles channel – 37 miles long and only 2 1/2 miles wide, connecting Constantinople with the Mediterranean Sea. The northern shore was called the Gallipoli peninsula and on the southern shore lay Asia Minor.  War demands risk and the rewards, in this case, were certainly worth the risk.  Remarkably, even with the delays, the British still caught the Turks unprepared and acted upon quickly would have changed the course of the war. Instead, lacking courage, initiative, and resolve, the British suffered one of the greatest setbacks of the First World War, sacrificing tens of thousands of men on the altar of committee leadership. Sea Lord Fisher, in frustration at the committee, had written to Churchill that never in world history had a committee won a victory; one man was needed. One man, in other words, with the courage to lead. In contrast, the British received numerous second-guessed decisions leading to one disaster after another. Practically every conceivable mistake imaginable ensued during the Battle of Gallipoli, costing men’s lives through lack of leadership.

England’s first mistake occurred when, contrary to Churchill’s pleas, the English warships bombarded only the outlying forts, giving the Turks advance notice of an impending invasion. In response, 60,000 Turkish men entered the peninsula with the German General Liman von Sanders assigned to command the troops. After a further month long delay, giving the Turks plenty of time to prepare, sixteen British and French ships attempted to force the Dardanelles entrance. The ships had an overwhelming superiority in guns over the resisting forts (58 to 18), but the forts maintained stiff resistance, preventing the Allies from clearing the floating mines at the inlet. Three battleships were sunk outright and three others were badly damaged causing the British squadron to retreat. Strikingly, although the Allies lost a few ships, they were on the verge of a major victory. The Turkish guns had only 8 shots left for each cannon and all of the available mines had already been laid in the straits. Because the chances of procuring more ammunition and mines was slim to none, the Turks contemplated surrender, but received a reprieve with the Allied retreat. In truth, the premature disengagement by the Allied fleet changed Britain’s greatest victory into its greatest defeats of the war.

General von Sanders intuition, that the British would attempt troop landings on the Gallipoli peninsula to breakthrough through the Dardanelles entrance was accurate. He exclaimed, “If only they give me a week’s time!” The British Cabinet, more than complied with his wish. Thus, the second big mistake of the Gallipoli campaign – political infighting leading to costly delays of the troop landings. In essence, the loss of the battleships hurt the pride and prestige of the British Navy, increasing resistance and decreasing the resolve to complete the campaign. Committee members, attempting to save their political skin, placed the blame on anything and everything outside of themselves. The Army and Navy bickered back and forth and the troops invasion date was delayed several times in the process. Finally, a full month too late, 50,000 men landed in Gallipoli and upon the Asia Minor coast. General von Sanders, by now amply prepared, met the invaders with stubborn resistance on all fronts. The attackers, with heavy casualties, progressed no further than three miles inland and stalled. Despite Gallipoli being no more than three miles wide and thirty miles long, the British lacked the leadership resolve to complete its bold undertaking.

The coup-de-grace was reached when, instead of firing the committee, Churchill was relieved of his post and sent into early retirement. Apparently, bureaucratic committees. rather than accept responsibility, choose instead the political short-sighted measure of shooting its best men with the best ideas. Churchill would be persona-non-grata for over twenty years and Russia would sue for a separate peace with the Germans. This was Churchill’s reward for daring to think boldly in a time of war. The lesson here is clear, namely, the greatest minds with the greatest ideas will be snubbed by the smallest minds with the smallest ideas. Leaders must be prepared for this. Fortunately, Churchill bided his time until his genius blossomed before the world during his courageous stand against Hitler in World War II. When a person with big ideas strives to do his personal best, he must expect to meet with the resistance of smaller people with smaller ideas. Nonetheless, a person must never drop his dream to fit in with the crowd. This, in fact, is one of the big secrets of success for Churchill’s life. He had big dreams, big failures, and big accomplishments and it was the courage of his convictions that maintained his equanimity during each phase. Learn from his life the value of following one’s dream, knowing that the failures on the journey only strengthen the character and resolve one will need when his moment of destiny arrives.