Posted on 04/19/2015 5:26:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
No presidential decision is as politically hazardous as the war decision. That’s because voters are quicker and more ferocious in turning on their chief executives when wars go awry than when events become troublesome in other areas of governance. Woe be to the president who finds himself in a war he can’t win and can’t get out of, or finds that the price of war far outweighs the promised benefits, or learns that the rationale for war doesn’t hold up.
Herewith, then, a catalogue of the country’s five worst wartime presidents, men who took their country to war, or continued an inherited war, but couldn’t bring success to the war effort. In four instances, we see what kind of price they paid, or their parties paid, for their lack of success. In the fifth instance, the case of Barack Obama’s war decisions in Iraq, Afghanistan and surrounding Mideast lands, it’s still an open question what kind of price will be paid.
Of the country’s forty-four chief executives, thirteen were serious war presidents, four through inheritance and the rest through initiation. They are: Madison, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman (by inheritance and initiation), Eisenhower (by inheritance), Lyndon Johnson, Nixon (by inheritance), George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Obama (by inheritance).
Of these, the clear failures were Wilson, Truman, Johnson, and George W. Bush. Obama occupies a kind of middle territory, but ultimately he must be placed in the circle of those who couldn’t bring success to their wartime management. (Madison is subject of ongoing historical debate as to his success or failure as wartime president, but I consider him, on balance, more of a success than a failure, for reasons outlined in my book, Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
They actually have selective memory syndrome...
Bush made lots of mistakes in hindsight, going to war in Afghanistan wasn't one of them...
Going to war in Iraq was the neo-con in him...
At the time it looked like a prudent position to take...
You don’t think Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11? You may want to brush up on your history. Or cancel your account here.
Truman did what he had to do.
He was not in the “loop” if you will but he took care of business. WWII was a major event in which the military had to take the lead.
Hitler wasn’t kidding around.
You’re right. I should have read the whole thing rather than relying on the snippet posted. Sorry to those who misunderstood my poor response.
Given that George W. Bush's failures are magnified by his recency, he still has to be ranked among the worst.
I wrote this prediction on FR less that 48 hours after the successful enemy attack on the WTC (I had met W during the 2000 campaign in NH, Summer of 1999, and I was very unimpressed).
As I predicted, he chose to fight a Vietnam war in South Asia, the evil consequences of which are still with us,
Our WTC was destroyed by irregular forces of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The principal enemies still sleep safe in their beds.
LOLOL, glad to see you and others on this thread calling that troll out.
Spotted him/her a while ago.
I disagree with that assessment. He covered that place up and it was a hard fight. We had it. Obama gave it up.
But the communists were left in power. Apparently we missed a few.
Some do.
Why the FBI wasn’t alerted to satan’s army just wanting to fly and not land pisses me off.
Yes Phoenix, I am talking to you.
I’m with you HTM ... Lincoln ... America’s first tyrant
Huge mistakes are made in every war, but only non-liberals are held to account.
Mistakes by libs are flushed, with the willing compliance of a supportive media, down the memory hole.
We did what we had to do, we did it well under the circumstances, we held a general consideration to avoid civilian casualties when possible, and our troops did it with discipline.
Our military who served (and serve) should be proud.
The time has not come to carpet bomb civilian populations as it did in WWII. And because we are not (yet) totalitarians, but still ostensibly Americans, we know that difference.
You are right. This comes from the liberal notion of being able to fight a “soft war” (for lack of a better term) that doesn’t try to destroy the enemy and their ability to prosecute war, and from trying too hard to prevent “collateral” damage. The term “police action” comes to mind.
War is hell, and I don’t think most people have any idea of what hell really is. And I don’t think that they make any effort to educate themselves on this subject.
War should be prosecuted as brutally and as quickly as possible. The goal should be total annihilation of the enemy. No half measures. And no stopping until the enemy is destroyed. Totally.
This is the Western way of war. We need to remind some groups of who we are.
You're right. Bush was, and is, a good man. But if you're going to fight a war, you had better fight it to win. That's one sad lesson of Vietnam, a lesson Bush ignored.
And the mistakes made by L. Paul Bremer, the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority chief, were appalling, simply appalling. Bush appointed that man.
What happened to Clinton?
Yep. It is said that a democracy should go to war reluctantly, but fiercely. The last time the US followed that rule was in WW II.
RE: What happened to Clinton?
The only “war” he entered into was the high altitude bombing of Serbia to take out Milosevic. Otherwise, he was enjoying Reagan’s peace dividend.
Of course, many people will forget that he decided not to take out Osama Bin Ladin when he had the chance, culminating in what happened in 9/11/2001 ( after he left the White House ).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.