The process through which other people can be influenced in order to achieve certain targets, motivation, direction and purpose accounts for military leadership. It is imperative to note that the ability to accomplish certain government missions largely depends on how military leadership is well organized. Constitutionally, military leadership and the various roles performed by the latter are well enshrined.
In order to execute military leadership, a chain of command is paramount. This refers to an authoritative figure within military wing who is overly concerned with giving direction to subordinates. According to the United States constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Hence, position or rank enables a military commander to legally exercise leadership mandate as provided in the constitution.
Various sections of the United States constitution outline some of the basic unique responsibilities of a military leader. These include safeguarding the welfare of subordinates as well as mission accomplishment in terms of providing the much needed state security as directed in the country’s constitution.
Both written and unwritten constitutions have their own leadership challenges especially during execution. A case example can be derived from several clauses of the United States constitution whereby foreign policy calls for effective leadership style in ensuring that various needs of citizens are met.
Besides, the clause on foreign policy including military issues ensures that all important undertakings of national interest are adhered to all the time bearing in mind that sovereignty of the state is paramount and cannot be compromised.
To begin with, Article 2, section 2 of the U.S constitution has clear provisions on the role of president in matters related to foreign policies. For example, important decisions on foreign matters are constitutionally passed by the President in liaison with Congress.
Although, there is a vivid separation of powers between these two organs in the sense that each is mandated to perform specific constitutional functions to avoid duplication of roles. It is imperative to note that each of these organs has specific constitutional roles that are particularly embed in leadership ideals.
Although the US constitution outlines specific leadership roles of each of the two entities, their functions sometimes overlap. This constitutional provision may pose some challenge in leadership since any wrong decision might have devastating effects to a nation.
For instance, the president must utilize high level of leadership skills while making decisions about deployment of troops either for peacekeeping or to arrest an established threat.
Although the constitution requires the president to consult with the Congress before he/she can deploy Army or Navy troops, this is not always the case as the president is sometimes required to undertake independent actions on certain urgent matters without involving the Congress.
For instance, incase there is an eminent threat at our borders, or when other states threaten to attack, the president may have no time to consult the Congress; instead, independent decisions are mandatory during such times.
The above action demands a high level of leadership and ethical conscience so as to make the right choices when such issues arise. Otherwise, if ideal and effective leadership skills are absent, whatever decision is made might have far reaching effects for the country.
On the same note, effective presidential leadership skill that has been informed through contextual intelligence is in high demand especially with the current shift on perception of America as an autonomous superpower. As stipulated in Article 2, section 2 of the U.S constitution, the president is recognized as the country’s Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
The latter constitutional provision is indeed instrumental in discharging important and more sensitive matters of national security since he has enormous control over the military. This jurisdiction is very crucial, for it exerts the president as the ultimate determiner of how the nation relates with other nations on a military basis.
Indeed, the role calls for super leadership skills for any president to understand the times are changing, and military power is no longer the main variable to measure the strength and limits of a particular nation.
It is imperative to mention that though Article II of the US constitution does not grant the president exclusive powers to declare war for he/she has to consult Congress; there are some instances when past presidents have defied this decree. Therefore, this only amplifies that the execution of some aspects of the constitution requires a leader who is out to protect the constitution, but not to violate it.
Throughout the history of US foreign policy, there have been some instances of failure mostly arising from incumbent presidents. To eliminate such instances, the incumbent presidents must rise above the challenge by making informed decisions while selecting advisors on foreign policy matters on security.
Article 1, section 2 of the US constitution stipulates that the president has the power to appoint and dismiss high-ranking officers in the military. History has shown that most of the presidents make such appointments or dismissals based on political influence. While the move might be fruitful, it would be disastrous if the appointee fails in his/her duty; thus, ruining the reputation of the country.
Therefore, any president willing to succeed must consider learning the rigorous bureaucracies embedded in US foreign policy, so as to make informed decisions that portray his/her leadership intelligence.
Though challenging, a good leader must be able stand up and fight for his decision amidst a contrasting view by those who brag about their experience on foreign military matters. Besides if anything was to go wrong, the first blame would be on him/her regardless of whether the mistake was self or caused by others.
To recap it all, it is worth observing that there are several clauses in the constitution that are attached to leadership. On the other hand, it largely requires both personal and political will in order to fully adhere to good leadership that is acceptable to both the rule of law and entire citizenry.
On the same note, implementation of different aspects of any constitution may be a strenuous and challenging task to many world leaders. However, proficient leadership skills are essential in solving myriad of socio-political and economic problems that are often eminent when various leadership clauses in any piece of constitutional document are not implemented to the letter.
As already mentioned a critical look at the US foreign policy and how leadership has been embraced in the constitution in streamlining operations is indeed a critical example on how leadership and constitution are related. It is also vital to note that leadership directions provided in a constitutional document may. There are quite a number of leadership roles that may not be necessarily enshrined in a constitution.