War and the role of leadership

GENERAL David Petraeus and Andrew Roberts’s talk about their new book, Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine, drew a capacity audience to the huge Phyllis Court Club marquee.

Petraeus is most famous for his counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq — the “surge”. Interestingly, he told us that it was inspired by the “hearts and minds” strategies pioneered by the British to defeat the uprisings in Malaya and Dhofar.

The war in Afghanistan was much tougher. Nevertheless, pulling out was a catastrophe. It sent a signal to Putin that it was safe to invade Iraq. It would have cost little to stay; the allies only had 3,500 troops there and in the previous 18 months had suffered no fatalities at all.

Both authors thought it essential to win the war in Ukraine. In Petraeus’s words, it was “about as close to right versus wrong as anything in my lifetime”.

He was applauded when he said that we should do everything to hasten the day when Putin becomes open to serious
negotiation.

He and Roberts put strategic leadership at the top of the list of qualities needed to win wars.

Zelensky, with his inspirational speeches and frequent visits to the frontline, provided leadership which was Churchillian.

It wasn’t just Ukraine at stake. Roberts reminded us of Putin’s historical essay last year harking back to Russia’s greatness under the czars and the soviets.

He said that with dictators, it was always wise to read what they had actually said. Chillingly, the essay contained no fewer than 17 references to Lithuania. If Russia won in Ukraine, Lithuania would undoubtedly be next.

While strategic leadership was vital, it was important to have an army to lead. Roberts was horrified by the way in which the British army had been run down from 82,000 to 75,000 soldiers. Furthermore, we had only 20,000 shells — the same number that were being expended by Russia and Ukraine every two days.

John Carrell