Marine officer Stuart Scheller became infamous for his criticism of military leadership during the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. He now occupies a new role under Defense Secretary Hegseth and has recently asked: How can the United States military build a screening system (competition) to assess the performance of key leaders?
Two follow-on articles will address how leaders should be assessed as they vie for promotion: specifically, in intellectual and emotional intelligence domains. However, the Department of Defense must begin by promoting and evaluating leaders who possess—or are willing to develop—personal courage.
What Is Courage?
Fortuitously, history’s most famous military thinker, Clausewitz, offers a theory of courage:
“Courage is of two kinds: first, physical courage, or courage in the presence of danger to the person; and next, moral courage, or courage before responsibility—whether it be before the judgment seat of external authority or of the inner power, the conscience.”
Incidentally, Scheller provides an example of both kinds of courage. He is a proven combat leader. But more importantly, he exhibited moral courage—courage stemming from his conscience—which he then wielded to hold those in positions of power accountable. For this so-called public insubordination, he was court-martialed, culminating in his resignation.
Where did the inner strength come from to choose a path that led from confinement to shaping the next generation of military leaders?
Winning the Greatest Victory
Scheller won a victory over himself, which Plato described as the most brutal battle of all. For him, walking with integrity meant not only making the decisions he could make but acting on the decisions he felt he should make. This required a wholeness of character achievable only through constant self-discipline and selfless action. He understood that only he could give away his integrity.
He almost gave away his freedom—for his integrity.
His resolution, his act of courage in this instance, was possible because he had developed the habit of maintaining a balanced mind between understanding and feeling. Clausewitz affirms this symbiosis, stating:
“The mind must, therefore, first awaken the feeling of courage and then be guided and supported by it because, in momentary emergencies, the man is swayed more by his feelings than his thoughts.”
This is the difference between the ordinary leader and the extraordinary leader the DoD must identify to lead its soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardians, and Marines—and to win the nation’s wars, a responsibility that cannot be overstated.
Good Enough or Exceptional
Ordinary leaders wait for the plot twist to act. Extraordinary leaders act before the plot twist.
In his Poetics, Aristotle presents two literary concepts: Peripeteia (Reversal) and Anagnorisis (Recognition). Reversal is the turning point where an unexpected twist drives the story toward its climax. Recognition is the moment of self-awareness when the protagonist understands the truth of the situation or experiences profound self-realization.
Leaders live stories shaped by both their environment and their actions. Like most military contexts, the best stories involve plot twists, whether in war or peace. Ordinary leaders live their story, experience a reversal, and then must recognize the new reality before adjusting. In contrast, extraordinary leaders move forward with recognition, proactively anticipating or shaping the reversal. They deal with consequences but lead this way because it serves the organization and the mission.
Waiting for the reversal means the organization must endure disruption before course correction. In other words, ordinary leaders wait for the plot twist to happen before they act, while extraordinary leaders anticipate and shape it.
Proactive leadership that drives the story is not just a preference, but a necessity Americans deserve and can rely on.
Leadership in the military demands more than rank or experience—it requires an extraordinary commitment to courage, which anchors integrity and drives proactive decision-making. Stuart Scheller’s actions exemplify the kind of leadership the Department of Defense must cultivate: one rooted in personal courage and self-awareness.
Clausewitz and Aristotle offer frameworks reinforcing the necessity of leaders who act not merely in response to events but in anticipation of them. The true test of leadership lies not in reacting to the plot twist but in shaping it, ensuring that the mission and organization are best served.
As the military develops its criteria for assessing leaders in the absence of war, it must prioritize individuals who embody courage and intellectual and emotional intelligence—areas the next two articles will explore.
While courage is foundational for military leadership due to the inherent physical dangers, a well-balanced mind is the cornerstone of strong character. Therefore, men of strong minds generally possess great character. This symbiotic relationship must be the basis for assessing and screening extraordinary military leaders.
After all, extraordinary leadership is not just desirable—it is essential for securing victory, maintaining the American people’s trust, and meeting the high demands placed on military leaders.
S.L. Nelson has served from the tactical to strategic level as a military officer. His views are his own and do not represent the position of the U.S. DoD.
