Combat Leadership vs Garrison Leadership

Significant time and research has been spent on the two types of leadership in the military circles and whether one is often more difficult and challenging to apply that the other. Apart from the fact that the combat leadership happens in the course of the active conflict or war and the Garrison leadership is often during the peacetimes, both have distinct qualities that set them apart as well as common characteristics that bring them together as leadership styles in the military sense of it.
The basis herein is that both these leadership styles are dependent on each other and are important for the stability of the army as whole. The outstanding general difference between the two leadership style is that in the Garrison leadership otherwise referred to as peacetime leadership, the leader is not under a lot of pressure, has the time to analyze a decision and research on it before making the final decision and applying it. If the decision made is wrong, then it is possible that resources could be wasted, time wasted, people lose their jobs and credibility of the army watered down (Satterfield D. R., 2014). On the other hand however, the combat leadership has more pressure in terms of accuracy and time on the leaders since it has to be made in an active conflict situation. The leaders have no comfort of time to reconsider and analyze decisions, make wide consultations with seniors and other organizations and nations before they make the decisions hence quicker decisions are often made, most of which have no precast format. If the decision made goes the wrong way then the stakes in loss are much higher including loss of lives, property destructions and irreparable damage of reputation to the military might of the entire nation in the sight of the whole world.
However, as the thesis states, both leadership styles are significant in the military leadership circles. One factor for this assertion is that in times of war, good combat leadership can successfully and quickly bring war to an end hence avoiding further deaths and loss of property as well as expenditures to support the war. On the same note, good Garrison leadership in time of peace can help avoid war by sealing security threats that may bring war as well as portraying the significant strength of the military of the US to the world, hence this acting as deterrence to war. Both are ways and means of deescalating and avoiding violent situations.
Good leaders in both instances will lead from the front and not just tell the soldiers what needs to be done and do the opposite. Both situations the leaders will keep calm and avoid panic depending on what critical thing happens. The leaders in both situations will also are ready to effectively cope with uncertainties in the barracks or the battle field as they may occur among the soldiers or from opposing troops. The leaders in both situations need to maintain focus on the objective hence helping the team maintain their focus as well as every training or military assignment in the fields have specific objectives that need to be met, without the focus of the leaders then they will never be met (Sjorgen S., 2014).
These common factors in the two leadership styles in the military among many others are indicative of the common focus that the leadership in both situations need to have, hence emphasizing on the equal significance of the two military leadership approaches.
References
Sjorgen S., (2014). Five characteristics of a great combat leader. Retrieved August 22, 2018 from http://blog.2-5.dk/five-characteristics-great-combat-leader/
Satterfield D. R., (2014). Command Priorities: Garrison versus Combat. Retrieved August 22, 2018 from https://www.theleadermaker.com/command-priorities-garrison-versus-combat/