You are here:   Columns >  Manchester Square > The Courage to Lead
 
 
There is, though, no denying that the West is desperately in need of leadership. The leader may face unpalatable choices—between, say, enduring prolonged bombardment of cities by rockets and risking an international outcry by retaliating, despite the certainty of civilian casualties. Nato airstrikes in Afghanistan regularly kill civilians, even without the justification of self-defence. A statesman, therefore, will refuse to take the path of least resistance, let alone appeasement. Instead, he or she will ensure that words and actions are consistent. When in 1944-45 the Nazis subjected British civilians to the ordeal of the V1 and V2 rockets, Churchill did not hesitate to continue the bombing of German cities, which killed at least half a million civilians, until the last days of the war. Churchill and Roosevelt were no criminals. Nor was Truman when he used the atom bomb on Japan. The only crime is the hypocrisy of condemning Israel for precision attacks that minimise civilian deaths.
 
Leadership cannot be analysed, but it can be recognised. Besides sincerity and authenticity, a true leader requires courage: he will not willingly yield to the oppressor. The ultimate self-sacrifice is not required of most leaders, but they must be ready to share the same ordeal as the rest. He or she should possess a certain nobility of character. Our schools and universities do not steel us for adversity. Statesmanship, nevertheless, requires a tragic sense: the price paid for the pursuit of liberty may be very high. Of Samson, betrayed and blinded, the poet tells us: “Ask for this great deliverer now, and find him/Eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves.” We know how Samson chose to end his “life heroic”. Britons like to sing that they never will be slaves. They should expect Samson’s descendents to do the same.
View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Josh90
December 4th, 2012
4:12 PM
Mr Johnson, did you ever serve in the military? You seem to think every war of the neoconservative 'right' has been a good, justifiable war. Why, therefore, did you not serve if you believed so much in the principles of the intervention? And to whom do you owe your allegiance? Israel or the United Kingdom? Israel is the only nuclear armed state in the Middle East. They can take care of themselves. Using your logic, we should be giving military and financial assistance to the South Koreans because Kim Jong Un has nuclear weapons and wants to blow his Southern neighbors off the face of the planet. How about subsidizing Japan because of China? I digress: my main point is why do you and so many neoconservatives send young men and women of to die in wars you are too cowardly to get involved in? Creedance Clearwater Revival: Fortunate Son are you?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.