Cohen identified various capabilities that led these men to foster effective civil-military engagements. Each one of the leaders had their own unique conditions that they had to contend. Still, even with different challenges, their handling of senior military leaders, shaping of national strategy, and ability to define the bigger picture led to success. We would like to discuss five of their shared capabilities, and later show how business leaders can model themselves for a more powerful presence.

1)Acceptable Losses

These men could see the bigger picture and identified when military imperatives were of a secondary concern to political ones. A military is an apolitical tool. Meaning that while it strives to avoid being drawn into the bigger political argument - that all nations have - it can't be anything other than an instrument of policy. It is reluctant to be a part of it since it finds its primary purpose to be solely in military affairs. Therefore, they will generally provide the military assessment on policy decisions and courses of action that only offer a perceived benefit to the security of the state; as far as military affairs are concerned.

These leaders understood that a whole-of-government approach is necessary to achieve national ends. Sometimes civilian leaders must override military advice and execute a decision that may not benefit, or even hurt the military instrument - favoring one of the other national instruments of power.

"Lincoln had to educate his generals about the purposes of the war and to remind them of its fundamental political characteristics. He had not merely to create a strategic approach to war, but to insist that the generals adhere to it."

2)Military Details

These leaders were avid students of military affairs. More than merely being passive listeners in discussions on military matters, they sought to become engaged in conversation and contribute to helping build a greater understanding of the military perspective - allowing them to better fit it into the array of political instruments at their disposal.

They became interested in the finer details of military operations, weapons procurement, training and organization of units, logistical support of sustained operations, etc. To them, they couldn't effectively use a tool they didn't understand, so they sought to educate themselves. This, in turn, allowed them to animate the other resources of their nations to support military requirements more effectively.

“Lincoln studying treatises on war and poring over every telegram coming into the War Department; Clemenceau visiting the front lines and talking to soldier and general alike, even under fire; Churchill ceaselessly probing and interrogating his chiefs of staff; Ben-Gurion patiently copying in his voluminous diaries every detail down to the last bullet - these men understood that they could not lead if they did not know an enormous amount about the business of war.”

3)Military Interpreters

Leaders can't be experts in every instrument at their disposal, and the complexity of the military - its structure, capabilities, technical and tactical aspects - is impossible to master. Even for military leaders who have dedicated their lives to the profession, there are areas in which they are ignorant. These leaders learned a lot on their own, but for the rest, they had trusted military assistants that could bridge the knowledge and familiarity gap.

These assistants helped translate the jargon of senior military leaders. They could navigate these complex organizations to find the points of contact to answer inquiries. They had a rapport with branch chiefs, service secretaries, combatant leaders, and more. When the civilian leader stepped out, these assistants could work behind the scenes tying up loose ends and continuing the dialogue to keep engagement constant.

"In the shadow of each of these figures stood a military interpreter - a Halleck, a Mordacq, an Ismay, and a Yadin - who had several features in common with his counterparts: they were highly intelligent, even bookish; highly literate, able to communicate clearly in writing; they had no strongly held political views; they had no (or had given up) aspirations to high field command; they were on decent, if not always intimate terms with other generals."

4)Dominate Conversation

Most in the government would not question the importance of civilian control of the military. Still, many acquiesce in the discussion of military matters over concern for overstepping their bounds into subjects they have no input. But these leaders did just that, not in the sense of dictating every tactical employment of forces within military operations - though it happened on a few occasions - but in the domination in conversations regarding policy, strategy, and military affairs. They understood that in many instances, the military leaders do know a lot more about military realities than civilian leaders do. Still, the civilian leader is ultimately responsible for shaping the military strategy that they will follow. That strategy must be unified with the other instruments of power and nested with a national strategy in order to achieve desired ends. They would heed the advice of military leaders and pay them great mind, but ultimately they would not buckle to pressures because - as stated before - sometimes military imperatives must come second to other political ones of greater importance. Additionally, they would readdress issues with military leaders as campaigns unfolded, and new information or changes in the operational environment became known.

“And in wartime in particular civilians are often too insecure about their knowledge, too fearful of public opinion, and too overawed by their military’s expertise to exercise much control at all.”

5)Explain the Situation to the People

It is up to the civilian leadership to express military realities, and these leaders were effective in communicating this to their people. They were able to justify the actions that their military had to take - or didn't take - to meet campaign objectives. They were able to communicate this in a way that their people could understand; even in the complex nature and uncertainty of warfare, they could get the people on board with a shared understanding of the realities facing them. This is because they had a comprehensive understanding of the problems in front of them- a direct result of the four capabilities mentioned above.

“The thick volumes of speeches by these war leaders reveal an interesting fact: the celebrated passages familiar to all are but a tiny fraction of the work. To a far greater extent than television-driven politicians today, these men used the spoken word to explain, at great length and in sometimes surprising detail, the meaning and course of their war.”