It has been well observed in primate communities that alpha male and female members form alliances to fend off larger, stronger, and younger competition. While this may excite zoologists, as it indicates levels of sophistication and communication in the primate society, it does not necessarily bode well for that community.

While studying deficiencies in leadership in the British Army in the last two centuries, a pattern emerged. The Duke of Wellington was our last great general, two full centuries ago, who, ironically purchased his promotions in the era when commissions were sold to the highest bidder. Over 1500 generals have since held this post, with none distinguishing themselves, apart from perhaps William Slim in the defense of India in 1944. Although this could be more appropriately the result of the monsoon and Japanese supply problems, rather than his tactical genius. Montgomery’s much lauded campaign in North Africa fails to highlight that he fought with a significant mechanical advantage, and the German’s long supply lines. It was an important propaganda victory rather than a general’s victory. It was also a battle on a very small scale. Further, he performed poorly in Normandy. I am sure that amongst the 1500 there were perhaps some talented individuals for whom a conflict did not present an opportunity to shine. After all, Britain’s greatest admiral in this period was Admiral Fisher, who retired shortly before the First World War, yet he transformed and improved the British Navy beyond recognition during his tenure.

I have been fascinated and horrified that a system for selecting generals can so consistently produce such poor leaders. I sincerely believe that if they had placed a blind man in a parade ground, and randomly selected any soldier from the ranks, the results would have been better! It is when you look at extremely successful armies and compare the leadership, that one significant difference rapidly becomes apparent. The average age of British generals has remained remarkably consistent. Always hovering between 56 and 59 years of age. The average in the Israeli army was 42 in the 1950’s to 1970’s. Some generals were as young as 36. The 4 major campaigns of the Israeli army during this period rank as some of the most impressive tactical feats in the past two centuries of warfare. I firmly believe that this has much to do with the age of their generals and selection process.

The brain begins to shrink by 5% per decade from the age of 40. Neuronal cell death accelerates.  Episodic and semantic memory begin to deteriorate rapidly, with 40% of men in their 60’s recognized as having medically defined memory impairment. Cerebral vasculature also deteriorates significantly with reduced physical fitness resulting in fewer brain capillaries, and a smaller heart with thinner walls, unable to provide as much oxygen. The result, a less alert brain. Many men in the 50’s are also framing their military decisions based on technology, warfare tactics, and front line experience that may now be two decades old. The mid-thirties are recognized as when sufficient experience is finally married to high energy and cognitive levels. It is also clear that men over 55 are better suited to advisory rather than leadership roles. All of this is backed up statistically, and appears self-evident, yet no changes are ever made. Why is this?

For this we can look at our primate cousins. The old men form alliances, and fend off the younger, stronger and more capable candidates. They INTENTIONALLY undermine the natural process of selection. It is this cabal of old men, myself now included, who are responsible for so many errors, so much misery, and so much waste. The same situation as we see in the British Army can also be seen in spheres of politics and business. As the lead candidates for the next US election will all be over 70 when they begin what is effectively 8 years in office, God help us all…