Dwight David (DD) Eisenhower on the eve of
D-Day. The General among his troops.
The military men that made it to the Exeuctive Branch of the USA that actually had good policies were all Generals. And even then other than Eisenhower the 'quality' of their presidencies are in question.
George Washington's service as a General doesn't really count. He lead a 'colonial' army in resistance to the British occupiers BEFORE there was a USA. So, his service as General is noted, but, it wasn't 'exactly' within the definitions of the USA in its entirety. He had to win the war before he became President. A little bit different than the generals below.
John McCain's highest rank was captain (click here) and there hasn't been a General in the Executive Branch of the government since Eisenhower.
Rutherford B. Hayes (elected in 1876) was a major general who served under Philip Sheridan in the Shenandoah campaign.
James A. Garfield (elected in 1880) was a major general who served under George Thomas at Chickamauga.
Chester A. Arthur, was a brigadier general who served as quartermaster general of the New York State Militia in the Civil War.
Benjamin Harrison (elected in 1888) was a brigadier general who served under Joseph Hooker in the Atlanta campaign.
I actually think this is a dead issue, except for the Christian Conservative voters for McCain. In recent history the 'ranks' of the presidency was as follows:
Walker Bush was a 1st Lieutenant. That didn't seem to teach him a darn thing about appropriate war time diplomacy, but, only 'desperate' tactics like water boarding and torture.
H. W. Bush was a Lieutenant. He threw Saddam out of Kuwait with the help of Powell, but, he didn't have any kind of a viable Homeland economy and was in office for ONLY four years. Bush, Jr. didn't have any kind of a 'real' economy. He had some wartime economics and then he 'blew smoke' up everyone's skirts to falsely inflate the 'idea' of a booming economy and then the housing 'bubble' burst.
Ronald Regan was a captain. He was stateside during the entire WW II episode and then in the Army Reserves until he was discharged. Let's face it, Ronald Reagan had no policies either EXCEPT deregulation. He was responsible for the Iran-Contra Affair. You know, Ollie Gate and all that mess.
Jimmy Carter was a Lieutenant, but, that didn't help with the Iran Hostage situation. I mean he tried to rescue the hostages, but, the desert operation was a disaster.
Gerald Ford was a Lt. Commander during WW II. His time in the Executive Branch saw the end of the Vietnam War. So it would seem his 'insight' from his war years was to 'end it' in the face of exploitive economics that were developed by Nixon and Bell Helicopter. McCain was a prisoner in Vietnam. I would think he would find the example set by Ford more than inspiring. "W"rong !
Nixon was a commander during WW II. Even the Dilantin he took to treat his psychosis didn't help. Do the soldiers returning from Iraq get their Dilantin without cost? Do they get treatment in time to save their lives? No? Why not?
Lyndon Johnson was a subordinant Lt. Commander during WW II in the navy reserves. We all know what happened there. He continued to be subordinate and succumbed to pressure to engage in a war in Vietnam. He was wrong to do so, but, here again we are looking at a Texan that simply wanted to make money. There was a lot of pressure on the Executive Branch to enter Vietnam. It was 'sorta' on the heels of the Eisenhower presidency whereby the nation thought generals were peachy-keen. But, Vietnam was a royal disaster and McCain can thank a Democrat for his bragging rights to his POW status.
And before we get to the ONLY General to become President that wasn't a joke, there was JFK. We lost him. He was a great man. He 'took on' the ESTABLISHMENT with his brother Bobby at his side. Barak in many ways walks in Jack's shadow. They are both historically looking like brothers of 'Traditional Democratic' values. The both distained the 'DC Insider' government that propagates corruption as on K Street. It is a little scary to realize Barak, now forty-five years after Jack was killed IS challenging a nation to move beyond its prejudices and reach to a day when the USA returns to its luster as in the Kennedy years.
JFK was a Lieutenant in the Navy. We all know about his injuries and how it plagued his life even in the Oval Office. His 'battles' during his Presidency weren't necessarily 'glorious' when one looks to The Bay of Pigs (click here), but, the Russians weren't successful in Cuba and he simply 'pissed off' Khrushchev (click here). I mean Khrushchev was in the United Nations banging his shoe on the table in frustration of Kennedy.
I'll tell you something and Vladimir won't like this, but, he could use a little reflection on the actions of the former SOVIET's leader. This isn't exactly a clear analogy and one has to be careful to bring up the name of al Qaeda these days. Or maybe not. I mean Osama bin Laden is still out there and wanted by the USA intelligence networks with a price on his head of $25 million. You know Halliburton should double that bounty, don't you think?
But, back to the Soviets under Nikita and Putin's much needed reflection that should 'inspire' image makers to work on Russia's 'likability' quotient.
Khrushchev was a bit 'al Qaeda like' but on a much larger and sophisticated scale. The Soviet Union was a Superpower after all. But, he looked at a young Jack Kennedy and the royal failure of the Bay of Pigs and decided 'he could get one over on him.' So, he tried to load nuclear weapon silos into Cuba. Those tactics by Nikita were completely an attempt to be 'sneaky' in HOPES that Kennedy was to naive to even detect the trouble. That says something about 'the idea' of naivety and the success of a President.
Barak is a Senator. He is not naive to any 'intelligence' in the community of the USA government. I am confident before he voted "NO" to the invasion into Iraq he read carefully the 'lack of intelligence' that existed to support such an invasion. The Iraq invasion was completely unjustified and we all know that. I do believe John McCain voted to invade Iraq, did he not? I am sure he read the SAME lack of evidence as Barak. Right? It would seem as though there is more naivety by McCain regarding Iraq than there could ever be of Barak. Hello?
And last but not least, is Dwight David Eisenhower. Dwight, sounds like one is studdering trying to say White. But, to not be glib. Eisenhower was no joke. He was THE General of the Army. He was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and his career lasted just shy of forty years. He had seen it all and he never turned from the dedication of being a military man. Forty years of dedication is one of the most significant lives in USA history. He defeated Hitler. He was the man. What else do you say? Others helped, but, if Eisenhower hadn't gone into Europe, Churchill or DeGaulle would not have been sitting by his side, okay? Yes? Yes.
We all know that Bill Clinton never served in the military. As Barak hasn't. But, Clinton and the generation of Democrats POST Vietnam, turned away from 'glamorizing' the idea of 'the military.' As we all have witnessed with Bush's huge warring blunder, 'terrroists' can't be thwarted by 'Conventional' warfare. They can't be captured by a 'Surge in Iraq' when the enemy is in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
To prove even further the 'lack of success' conventional warfare plays in stopping and capturing terrorists that live in the most remote areas of the world, when Osama bin Laden was heard on 'walkie-talkies' in Tora Bora, he was nearly at arms length to capture and what did the military do? Well, you have to know that if bin Laden was captured, that the war would be over. We would then have 'The Terrorist' most responsible for the attacks of September 11th. There would be no excuse to move into Iraq. Right?
So, in regards to Tora Bora, it looks to me as though Don Rumsfeld intentionally 'blew it.' He had bin Laden in his sights. This was the terrorist that was the reason why we invaded Afghanistan. Yes? Yes. Definately yes. And while CIA was radioing to others their NEEDS for a successful military campaign in Tora Bora to capture or kill bin Laden; Rumsfeld was downplaying those demands and sent in woefully far less than was REQUIRED to stop The Terrorist Network of al Qaeda. Amazing. He sent in Daisy Cutters. Daisy Cutters. Do you think our 'ground military' could even maneuver in the region KNOWING that Daisy Cutter bombs were going to be dropped near their location? Heck no. What the HELL did Rumsfeld think he was doing, EXCEPT, loss the battle. Don't tell me that Rumsfeld 'misunderstood' or 'didn't have the experience.' I mean EXCUSE making for Bush's Blundering Wars is OVER, people ! Over !!!!!
So, to look at all the presidents of the USA. I mean all of them and their 'expertise' in office in leading the USA, there doesn't seem to be a correlation to their military service, now does there? Of the majority of presidents that served in the Oval Office that were involved in the military sometime as an American, there is little to NO correlation between their success in war as Commander and Chief. If anything, the USA is more a blunderer in regard to wars since Eisenhower, than any other descriptor one can find.
Hitler was defeated. He was defeated by Eisenhower. The world learned of the greatness of the USA due to the career dedication of ONE MAN. The world learned that despicable people with the ability to dominate global populations need to be watched. The world learned that putting such people 'on trial' according to the Geneva Conventions at The World Court was far better, even if not perfect, than allowing countries to be dominated by Mad Men and 'risking' war without end on a planet shrinking in its ability to sustain growing populations of humans.
The 'idea' that war is a necessity in the year 2008 is hideous. The efforts to end terrorism are far more intricate than anyone speaks of these days. In actuality, it is the sovereignty of nations that will defeat terrorist networks and NOT invading armies. Invading armies will INCREASE the likelihood and propagation of terrorist networks. War and impoverishment doesn't stop terrorists, it assists them.
The USA needs to 'get over' its 'idenity crisis' when it comes to choosing a President. The USA needs to stop defining 'that defining moment' in the Voting Booth as one that has to indicate a choice of a great military career to enhance the powers of the Executive Branch. I propose the idea that 'affilaitions' with military might only corrupts power. While a President has to make decisions in advise of his generals, we need a President/Commander and Chief that can also 'get along' with generals and keep them from retiring every six months. A President of the USA has to be willing to ACCEPT the advise of his generals and not demand them to ACT according to Executive Branch 'political agendas.'
WW II was NOT a political agenda. Iraq definately was and continues to be.
The issue regarding the military is whether or not we have a RETURN to Peace Time and that REQUIRES diplomacy and not strong arm military tactics. Wesley Clark is looking somewhat like the 'attention seeking' Reverend Jeremiah Wright long about now. Is Wes vying for Vice President? I don't believe he'll be Barak's first choice.
end
