The last blog I went briefly into the difference between how a general and a president must see a war or even a battle. This is arising now because many on the right have been saying that Obama should have done whatever McChrystal said was needed.
Obama said it well during the campaign. Presidents and generals have two different sets of responsibilities. A good example would be when MacArthur wanted to use the nuclear bomb on North Korea. His reasoning was that the military had napalmed the countryside and it had the people hiding in caves, but China was still able to supply them. A nuclear bomb of a certain sort would make northern Korea unreachable by land and easy resupplying by China for 90 years.
MacArthur was looking at winning a war. Truman looked at the consequences both in this country and how the world would see the United States for making the nuclear bomb standard tactics in a war. Today we might argue over who was right but one man had a different set of obligations than the other. Truman fired MacArthur and some said MacArthur, for how he had addressed this debate publicly, could have been charged with treason in addition to being fired.
Most likely every president engaged in a war faces the same issues as does every general trying to fight battles with the least possibly losses. Although I have my own doubts about McChrystal (based on his handling of the Pat Tilman friendly fire death, torture in Iraq, and publicly making his case for more troops), he has a set of responsibilities that must be about winning the war in Afghanistan. His reputation and career rest on that. He doesn't have an obligation to figure out the ramifications at home or abroad.
This is why we have a separate military and domestic power structure with domestic over the military-- or have had. Not sure how Republicans would like that in the future. Once in awhile though we have had generals who also rose to the top of the political structure. They offer a unique view then of responsibilities, having been on both sides. Until I got into considering this issue of military and domestic concerns, I didn't realize we have had twelve generals who became presidents. Most came out of the Civil War.
1. George Washington, Revolutionary War; 2. Andrew Jackson, War of 1812; 3. William Henry Harrison, War of 1812; 4. Zachary Taylor, Mexican War; 5. Franklin Pierce, Mexican War; 6. Andrew Johnson, Civil War; 7. Ulysses Simpson Grant, Civil War; 8. Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Civil War; 9. James Abram Garfield, Civil War; 10. Chester Allan Arthur, Civil War; 11. Benjamin Harrison, Civil War; 12. Dwight David Eisenhower, World War II.
Men who have learned to fight wars, win battles, and also take on political power might just have something to teach us for today. The last of those men (for now), Dwight D. Eisenhower was there to see the rise of the military industrial complex and expressed his concern not only about that but about war as a solution. Many of his quotes are well known, but in choosing a few of them to come together as a body, they make a philosophical statement:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
I have one yardstick by which I test every major problem - and that yardstick is: Is it good for America?
I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him, he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone.
If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order.
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?
In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.
Pull the string, and it will follow wherever you wish. Push it, and it will go nowhere at all.
The United States strongly seeks a lasting agreement for the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests. We believe that this would be an important step toward reduction of international tensions and would open the way to further agreement on substantial measures of disarmament.
The world moves, and ideas that were once good are not always good.
There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs.
This world of ours... must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.
Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.
War settles nothing.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America.
When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.
Think he could be nominated by the Republican party of today?
27 comments:
I like Ike !! :-)
What amazes me is how many powerful words have been spoken by so many powerful people against war, and yet the words have gone unheeded.
I liked Ike!!!! He saw the handwriting on the wall unlike a certain president who I need not mention because we're bearing the brunt of his ineptitude.
Here's another appropriate quote:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -- George Santayana
This is a wonderful post, Rain. I have often quoted Eisenhower on the warning about the military-industrial complex, but didn't know many of the others. Thank you for your research.
We don't know all the details. Maybe McCrystal was told to make the request public to help give Obama cover with the anti-war left. If Obama was really mad at him he could have fired him like he did with his predecessor. Who knows what all the secret details are.
Ingineer, I really hope you are wrong about Iran because this country is not willing to pay for any of its wars now. Can you imagine what that would cost?
And McChrystal has publicly said he's happy with the surge which means perhaps he asked for more than he needed. And you might be right about why he said it. I am losing a lot of faith in Obama right about now on anything. I realize it would have been worse with McCain or *shudder* Palin but don't we ever get a real choice?
Here's what I can't figure out, how come people who are so in favor of the wars are not in favor of raising taxes to actually pay for them? If we become the policemen of the world, something that goes against all of America's past beliefs, where do we find the jobs to cover the cost of this huge military force that goes around the world dealing with every rising dictator while we try to hide from the cost?
We are suffering a job loss as we try to compete in the world market for anything but wars. Do you think the other nations will pay us to be their mercenaries and doesn't that thought make you a little sick inside if you think it might be this country's future?
If you read Eisenhower's quotes, you see it was his fear even back then and I am guessing based on the pressure he was getting to deal with Vietnam like a domino, not like human beings. He had the strength to resist it because of his experiences. Some say Kennedy would have pulled out the troops that were beginning there (who knows about that) but Johnson bought the logic and left us with a guns and butter philosophy that should have taught us something about its consequences.
(Not you on this set of logic, but does it seem a bit strange to you that the people who worry so much about abortions are also the ones who often are gung ho to send those babies off to wars as soon as they are grown?)
It seems to me the right is stuck on operating exactly as Eisenhower said doesn't work and can't see a way out of it except bigger and better guns. In the end it will destroy us as it has every other empire building nation and whether we occupy them all (we are occupying quite a few right now if you count the peaceful occupations) we bring in our corporate interests who set up jobs there to enrich (theoretically) our stock market. What happened to us as a people? It makes me a little sick to see it. Is it possible to elect a leader that won't do this or do the majority of Americans somehow relish it as their gladiator sport and they will vote for more of it when they get another chance? I don't want to believe that but if we truly don't want to go around the world fighting wars for other nations, then we better look at where this is heading.
Oh and for those who think that going around the world fighting these wars will keep us safe and don't care about anything but that, Desert Storm came before 9/11. The kind of terrorist attacks we see in Iraq today or Mumbai more recently don't take a big army to do. They just take humans willing to die to do it.
Again you and I do not fit the profile of the extremists on either side of this debate, but I guess it is the same type of logic that people who think they have a constitutional right to a government financed on demand abortion do not think that the government should kill murderers and rapists.
Eisenhower sent “advisors” and military aid to Vietnam in the 1950’s. He wanted to help the French and did not want the region to fall into communist hands, but he refused to send direct combat troops unless other allies would do the same. And I have heard that Kennedy was considering de-escalating the military effort in Vietnam. But Johnson was more Gung Ho. Kind of like the Bush 43 administration. But the domino theory of Communist domination was a very real threat back then, but it was mostly fought by the CIA in ways that most Americans do not know about.
I am in favor of fiscal responsibility for our entire budget including wars and all programs. I think that the current tripling of our deficit will be a huge problem in the future, but by that time Obama will either be out of office or not able to run for election again so it will be someone else’s fault. Kind of like the proposed health care reform and climate change rules will not take effect until 2012 after he is done campaigning.
We cannot be the world's policemen, but we should live up to the agreements we make. We told the citizens of Afghanistan that if they helped us get the Taliban and Al Qaida that we would help them do just that. Do you think that now that we have greatly reduced Al Qaida's ability to attack the mainland United States that we should say thanks for your help, but now you are on you own. We have a long history of doing that in this country and we appear to be doing that in Iraq, but Iraq does not make the news here anymore. It is as if it just went away. Four car bombs killed over a hundred people in Iraq this week, but you have to read the UK Guardian to get a story on it.
Today, the only logic in Obama's stand that we must defend liberty all over the world, is the strategy of following what you don't like to the extreem, is to make the direction so absurd that all the people will finally rally against it.
What is the impetus for most wars ? National Self Interest. In large part war is about money. Remember the military Industrial Complex Ike had it right. War will always be around us somewhere in this world. Given a choice most of the powers that be opt for war. Read your history books.
Ingineer, where do you reference your statement that we made an agreement with the Afghan people that if they handed over al Qaeda, we'd stay and help them take their country into a democracy? What I see is we set in place a corrupt leadership in Karazi who cannot win an election without threats and cheating. We basically did not ask the Afghan people to cooperate. We told them what would happen and went after the Taliban who were on our side in previous problems but now were not handing over bin Laden. I do not think we had any agreement but would like to know your references for it. What I think is we did it and we never finished it and worse we tolerated a very bad group to run the country and now I am not sure what we can do about any of it. This is a country that has sucked dry the energy of powerful countries and might ours. They are not welcoming us at the moment and we will have to force our way as we forced a corrupt leadership on them. I don't even know who we fight if our own contractors are paying the Taliban for safety. So who are the good and bad guys? Isn't this what went wrong with Vietnam... and there was no domino effect. That was the usual fear talk that Eisenhower ignored but others either believed or let us think they did for economic gain.
No. Indeed he could NOT be elected by the Republicans. Reading all of these things that Eisenhower said gives me a re-newed respect for him. Thatnk You, Rain. Thank You Very Very Much!
Could FDR or John Kennedy be elected by the Democratic party? Probably not. They were way too religious and conservative and counted on people to take responsibility for themselves for todays Democrat party.
My reference is the book Horse Soldiers by Doug Stanton. We made deals with the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban.
How can you say there was no domino effect? Cambodia, Laos, Burma and Bangladesh fell into communist rule after Vietnam. Communist rebels were in many other Southeast Asian nations. And the communists were also engaged by the CIA in Africa and Central and South America.
So, ingineer, you want to go around the world fighting wars wherever the people might choose communism as their governing choice? I say no domino effect because as I understood it, the fear was China would occupy all those countries and it did not. What it did take over was earlier (Tibet) and nobody seemed to care about that. Vietnam today and all those countries might have leaderships we don't approve (is that required? Half of Americans don't approve of their own. Do they want to send in an army here too?). They are today potential trading partners with no outside rule that I have heard about. Burma which is today Mynamar is ruled by a military junta which we might not approve? How many Americans should die there to change it if we could which we generally cannot.
In my opinion, a very strong one, we have no right to go around the world deciding what government countries can choose. And if you think we do have that right, then I would say you are heading to a country that is all about mercenaries, where unemployment and education opportunities in the private sector is kept low so that the young people have no choice but to become part of the military. I am not sure how we pay for that with less jobs but then keep the military pay really low would help, I guess.
There is obviously a faction in this country that does want exactly that. How interesting that they also are those who don't want to pay taxes for it. They don't even want the rich, who might benefit the most from these opportunities to exploit, to pay for it. I am not sure how they plan to pay for it. Maybe you know. I am guessing you will say stop programs that benefit our elderly and our poor. You are definitely the anti-Eisenhower because his big point was that war robs those very people from help.
As for Kennedy and Roosevelt, I'd bet both could be elected in the Democratic party of today. Religious men? lol Think mistress for Roosevelt who was at his side when he died and many women for Kennedy. Not religious
As for the deal to defeat the Taliban. You are talking warlords and in the end, they didn't defeat the Taliban. For all we know they had secret deals with them all along. That is the problem with this kind of war. IF they got in power, would they be different? That is the question for Afghanistan
I was speaking historically, when communism was advancing around the world. Vietnam is practically an ally now, because they have learned that the free market and trade with the western world is the way to prosperity. Once the Soviets quit propping them up and closed all of their bases there they needed to support themselves and the west was the solution to that problem. Most of the rest of the world that has tried Communism/Socialism (China, Russia, France, India, Vietnam)is moving away from it, but we seem to be moving towards it.
And I would love to have a sustained period without any major wars. But that will not happen until we have significant victory in the ones we are fighting. We didn't stop fighting Germany and Japan just because their ability to attack the mainland US was greatly diminished. We finished the job and defeating them so bad that they had no other choice than to submit to unconditional surrender. And that turned out to be not that bad for them, because Germany and Japan are economic powers now and that is what the war was fought over in the first place. Personally I would rather be spending our tax money on sending astronauts to live on the Moon and explore Mars if I could make it rain gum drops and get the Muslim extremists to stop attacking us.
Just because those presidents were unfaithful does not mean that they were not religious. Both spoke publicly about God and prayed publicly more than W ever imagined. The anti-God wing of the Democrat party would have a hissy fit if they tried that as much as they did back then. More importantly they both were for much more personal responsibility and the welfare wing of the Democrat party would have a major problem with that. Other than for the UAW the Democrat party is no longer for the working man like they were in the first half of the 20th century. They seem to be more the party of the welfare recipient and the highly paid University Professor and Hollywood elite crowds.
PS I would like Ike as a president. He would not take any crap from any tin horn dictator like Ahmadeenijad or from the folks in this country that are trying to fleece the taxpayers. And unlike our current president and the previous 2, I would like to have a president that has been in combat. He would know the seriousness of his actions and when he went to the Pentagon ceremony on the 9/11 anniversary he would not act like it was something that he was forced to do and an inconvenience to his schedule and when he spoke about the Fort Hood massacre he would not start by giving a shout out to his buddy in the front row.
Apparently you have never listened to Obama talk religion, which he does pretty often, nor talk about personal responsibility like children to their education. Do right wingers ever listen to what the 'other' guys are saying or just get it interpreted for them?
AND there was no domino effect or what you are saying about those countries would not be true today. It was a lie and Eisenhower saw it for what it was with a lot of what he said.
AND who did you plan to fight with this great victory you need so we can 'feel' good about ourselves? Since terrorism is not a country, where do you fight this battle? I hope you understand that when we leave Afghanistan and Iraq, they will work out their own future and terrorist bombings and civil wars may well be part of what they have to deal with. We cannot fix it!!! And especially we cannot when guns are our solutions. When we go into a country with our factories, do we improve their lives or ignore safety standards and pay them poverty wages because we can? Do we actually exploit them as much as any empire? I think if you look at history, you will see ours hasn't been all that exceptional. We are run by humans with the same greed and all the rest as well as those who mean well but make mistakes. And as long as people like you talk as though a victory with guns is the only solution, it won't change.
Ike had a lot to say about that too (if you had bothered to read his words). Try on this one: 'Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.' or '
Pull the string, and it will follow wherever you wish. Push it, and it will go nowhere at all.' OR just go back and read them all again because it's nothing like you are talking here.
Actually I have listened to Obama talk about religion, he has the same view about gay marriage as John Sydney McCain, but the media and the left gave him a pass on that because they prefer style over substance. And he also said that he didn't really listen to all those anti-American sermons while he was sitting in church.
I would prefer a political or economic victory. And when we go into a country with our factories sure they do not start out paying UAW wages of $75 an hour for doing work that requires a fifth grade education, but we do improve the standard of living and when the economic situation improves it improves the political and human rights situations. Look at Japan. They used to make all the cheap crap that we bought but then they improved and now they make high quality everything and then the cheap crap was made in Korea and now they are making high quality products and now it is China and they are driving cars and using the internet and sending rockets into space and are a world power. We export prosperity. Are we perfect, no, do we make mistakes, yes, but the United States is still the best country on Earth and the place that most everyone in the third world dreams of coming to. Whether it is just to open a simple news stand or drive a cab or pick fruit people the world over strive for the American Dream and I will not apologize for that.
What America has been may not be what it continues to be with so many people unwilling to pay the cost for what they do. People like you promote war while you resist the taxes to cover the cost.
Where did you get the idea Obama got a pass on his stand on gay marriage? He did not. It was well publicized and not popular with people like me.
When people loosely talk of wars to change other governments, promoting fighting places where we have no business being, when they choose to not face the wrong things we have done, they won't be leaving behind a culture that was like the one they inherited.
You sound like you are taking credit for a lot that happened around the world which doesn't seem to me to be our doing.
Are you also taking credit for the rich becoming more dominant here, while most of the middle class disappear into the poor?
It frustrates me when people talk as though war is a solution-- especially when they aren't out there fighting it and they didn't want to even pay for it! I suspect our conversation is going in circles and won't ever really get to any kind of shared wisdom. I thought what Eisenhower said was very convincing about the risks we face, about what might happen in this country and the dangers of these preemptive wars, but you clearly didn't see it the same way.
Here is an Eisenhower quote for you. It is his speech to the troops on D-Day.
Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon a great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened, he will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man to man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to victory!
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!
Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
-- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
Yes this man could get elected by the republican party of today.
I will give you one example of Obama getting a pass. On the Ellen show, McCain was grilled by her for his feelings about gay marriage. But when Obama was on she said nothing about gay marriage or anything of substance and spent his visit dancing with him.
Eisenhower was a general when he said that. He was a president when he said 'There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs.' As I have said, they have two different sets of responsibilities. He clearly understood that.
Yes we are going in circles, like we often end up doing, but I appreciate the debate anyway.
And who cares about the Ellen show? I don't think that's the criteria for whether Obama got a pass overall. I disagree with them both. We need gay marriage. Unfairness to one set of people is never going to be rewarded in the long run. The hypocrisy amazes me how so many straights have these serial marriages and affairs and yet they think gay marriage will damage marriage. Ridiculous but it's what the right uses to get people to support things that make no sense and to not look at what they should be looking.
Well sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree which is where this seems to be right now.
Yep except on the gay marriage thing. I was just for civil unions, but changed my mind. Why not let them get married. Straight people have made a mockery of the institution so why not let them have the chance to be miserable too. :-)
Interesting, ingineer, as I felt the same way about civil unions but have changed my mind also but not for the misery part. *s* It changed for me because while it isn't that important to me what we call it, it is to them, and maybe important to the culture. I see loving couples who are gay and been together a lifetime and those who are straight and likewise. It's the lucky few though as many straights just hang on. Those exceptional lifetime relationships are like the few with exceptional talent in a sport, exceptional intelligence, or whatever. Maybe it's the luck of the draw or a certain personality type that can make it work through what amounts to several lifetimes given the ages we live to these days.
As for politically, we probably agree with a lot of things, but it's how we get there that might vary more. On Obama I am still taking a wait and see. I am not happy with what I see with him right now, but I expected a learning curve. It cannot go on much longer though or I will also be looking for someone else to vote for in '12.
Post a Comment