1.. Military and naval history is full of effective leaders such as Field Martial KM Cariappa,SHFJ Manekshaw, Washington, Wellington, Nelson, Bonaparte, Montgomery and Rommel who rose to the top, not by preferment or substantial support from acolytes, but simply because of their abilities, both strategic and personal, which  enabled them to inspire their men and, most importantly, achieve military success.

2.. In past conflicts, battles and wars were usually lengthy. Incompetent  or  irrelevant leaders could be, and usually were, identified,  replaced  and  sometimes  even  shot!  Inspirational leaders could develop their forte and earn recognition by success. However, most recent international wars have lasted for just a few weeks, and future wars can be expected to follow this trend. NATO planners are well aware that they will have to fight with the men and materiel that they have to hand and in stock. Perhaps even more significantly though, battles will have to be directed and fought by the leaders already appointed and in place. The 'polystyrene',  empty-suit  commander  would  be found  wanting and no doubt would be identified in the aftermath during the soul-searching of 'Lessons Learned' – but at what cost? In war, a leader should not have to compromise. In war, it is unlikely that a real  leader  would  accept  compromise.  Yet  the  'Empty  Suit', whose life and career had developed out of frequent compromise and assent, would probably find the transition to the warrior's outlook in times of conflict an impossible hurdle.