From Nicholas Evan Sarantakes, RealClearBooks: “A long time ago—at least by American standards—the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote: “In War the Result is Never Final.” Clausewitz was arguing that victory creates new problems, and that the beaten might soon be looking for ways to reverse their defeat. After reading Robert Gerwarth's "The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End" (FSG, 2016) about the last days of World War I and the first days of peace, all one can say is: Boy, Howdy!”
From Steven L. Foster, Strategy Bridge: "World War II is not without its exemplars of leadership across all levels of war: tactical, operational, and strategic. Volumes of text have examined the command styles of Eisenhower, Patton, Macarthur, and Bradley at the theater and field army command levels. Likewise, historians have tracked the experiences of companies of infantry soldiers and their non-commissioned officers, lieutenants, and captains. That said, a cursory examination of available texts suggests most explore World War II leadership through a tactical or strategic lens, ignoring the operational level of war and its role as the link between strategic objectives and the battles needed to achieve them . . . "
From Mick Ryan, War on the Rocks: “Two centuries ago, Carl von Clausewitz described the need for able intellects to lead armies in his work, On War. He noted that any complex activity, virtuously executed, requires the gifts of intellect and temperament, as well as two other indispensable qualities. First, “an intellect that even in the darkest hour retains some glitterings of the inner light which leads to truth.” And, second, the courage “to follow this faint light wherever it may lead.””