If I had to choose bewtween Sir Peter John Cosgrove AK, MC opinions and those of our Writer I would choose ... uummmm.. sorry , Bruce, you lose .

An unfair comparison, I know , similar to your comparison between our WW1 and 2 Generals and the present Border situation.

Hi (again) IMJULLIANUTTER...

I'll defer to your obvious superior knowledge of Sir John Monash, other than to agree that he was a superb leader, the specifics of which, I'm not personally aware. Apropos Sir Winston Churchill a brilliant war time PM (WW 11) however his accountability with respect to the events of the Dardanelles in 1915 will remain debatable, and to be quite honest I'm not in possession of all the facts in order to make an appropriate academic judgement.

Concerning leadership - I myself was a regular soldier and a veteran. It's the grunts, the junior and senior NCO's who prosecute a successful campaign. While it's also true there are many junior commissioned officers' who play a broad tactical and strategic role, however it's the Platoon Sergeant's and Section leaders (corporals) who do the real 'leading' in the field, you can believe me on that fact !

My friend, we could argue endlessly on this issue. I speak purely from a viewpoint, with what I saw and experienced, in Malaya, Borneo (1964/65 and South Vietnam (1968/69).

Who's side were you on in Malaya, Borneo and South Vietnam, O Sung Wu?

Good afternoon to you LEGO...

In answer to your question...The Mauritanians.

o sung wu

Sorry about my previous misspelling.

I am a pacifist, have never fought in a war and with age have learned knowledge (as opposed to experience) and the pen are far mightier than the sword.

I have read of the lives and tactics of the great leaders and generals such as Genghis Khan, Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Wellington, Nelson, Zhukov, MacArthur, Eisenhower etc.

I have come to a belief if the tactics and decisions of the leadership are wrong or ill considered there is little the 'grunts' can do that will change outcomes.

The west clearly won all of the military battles in Vietnam but lost that war due to poor tactics (failure to win hearts and minds) and bankrupt political leadership.

Yet in Malaysia in a similar campaign the west clearly won easily. Military tactics and leadership as well as political leadership were paramount.

cheers

Good afternoon to you IMJULIANUTTER...

I've thoroughly enjoyed our brief chat. Though it would seem prima facie, we're diametrically opposed to the question of 'leadership' per se. That said, I'd defer absolutely to you historical knowledge every time.

Something you did say apropos Vietnam, which I found quite refreshing ? Most people assert that we, the allies, or the US specifically, lost the war in Vietnam ? Nothing could be further from the truth. We lost the war on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne, on the campuses of most Oz Universities. In Washington DC, in Boston, New York and in Chicago etc. ?

It's awfully tough to successfully prosecute a war, when your own general population are manifestly against you, and what you're trying to achieve ? And that's not to mention the dreadful psychological effect, upon the tens of thousands of US troops, when it's made known that one of the most famous of all Hollywood Traitors, Ms JANE FONDA cavorts and romps around with smiling North Vietnam Generals in Hanoi ! All the while, just a few Kilometres away, her own citizens (captured US Soldiers) are held imprisoned in the most dreadful conditions, in the infamous 'Hanoi Hilton Hotel' prison !

Personally speaking, I sincerely hope this bitch dies slowly of some incurable disease. Does this make me a monster ? I don't know, that's for others to judge I suppose ? As a veteran though, I couldn't imagine just how bad it would've been, locked up in that 'hot' and 'sticky' hell hole ? I don't believe that I'd have either, the courage or strength, to survive under such conditions !

It was indeed nice speaking with you IMJULIANUTTER on this somewhat contentious and debatable matter.