What do you guys think? which should be valued more in the US when they are in conflict. examples in history would be nice.

Diversity of opinion is priceless in wartime. Most of the great military blunders in recent history can be traced to the ruling individual(s) dismissing doubting voices (or not permitting such voices to emerge in the first place).

A few examples:

Hitler - 'nuff said really ;)

Churchill - ditto

Stalin - see above

FDR - was imfamous for encouraging diversity of opinion. He often gave serval people with differing views the job of each drawing up policy proposals on issues, so that he had a better chance of making an informed decision. While this had the side effect though of slowing the decision making process and occupying the efforts of lots of talented people, it did ensure that he was relatively open to dissenting points of view.

Truman - achieved fame (and the vice-Presidency) through a campaign against war-profiteers.

LBJ - ignored officals opposed to increasing the level of involvement in Vietnam and other experts who were trying to warn him that events in South Vietnam differed greatly from what he was telling the public.

Bush administration - ignored and sidelined experts who differed from their view that the post war administration of Iraq would be orderly and fairly easy.


In general, it seems that diversity of opinion is a real asset during wartime. This probably explains why dictatorships almost never defeat democracies.

Originally posted by Case
Diversity of opinion is priceless in wartime.


Probably you have in mind diversity of methods to achive a goal, not the diversity of goals during a war ? :confused:


Churchill - ditto


In fact probably without Churchill personal determination "separate peace" would be a option ...


This probably explains why dictatorships almost never defeat democracies.

Interesting ... :rolleyes: ... but then why did Western Allies rely so much on USSR during WWII ?

Regards

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
Probably you have in mind diversity of methods to achive a goal, not the diversity of goals during a war ? :confused:

I have both factors in mind. Arguments over goals generally result in better outcomes then arbitralilly chosing a goal without regards to the alternatives.

[b]In fact probably without Churchill personal determination "separate peace" would be a option ...

Sure. OTOH, by ignoring doubting voices (many of them from his experts) Churchill commited British forces to numberous disarsterous campaigns. For instance, if he'd been open to counter-arguments, the Greek disarster could have avoided.


Interesting ... :rolleyes: ... but then why did Western Allies rely so much on USSR during WWII ?

Because they lacked the strength to deal with Germany by themselves (they couldn't even land sufficent troops to face the Germans until 1943). In general, democratic nations win wars against dictatoral oponents.

You need both. Without diversity, your administration fails to be innovative and progressive. Without unity, your nation falls apart and cannot stand up for itself. Lincoln's secretaries were chosen because they were so very diverse (pro-war, anti-war, pro-slavery, anti-slavery, pro-England, anti-England, etc.), but they also needed to maintain a certain unity, thus Lincoln's expanded wartime powers and the censoring of many journalists and others.

I've got to agree with Benderino that both are needed.

Depends on how you look at it. The German people were united during WW1 +2 and determined to reach their goal- Germany still lost. The U.S. was divided during Vietnam and lost. Are you talking about the general population or its leadership?
Maybe unity amongst the general population for a common goal but a bit of diversity in the higher echelons.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at, and I think Lincoln did his best to accomplish that.

u need diversity; without the "bi-partisan bickering" the Hawks always complain about, you have a one-party system. but we also must be unified through Nationalism. but that doesn't mean that everybody has to agree with the leader.