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 ...
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the enemy center of gravity.
Conquer them, the enemy falls.
Afghanistan needed a simple punitive expedition. Iraq should have been our ally in the conquest of Saudi Arabia. Turning the whole al-Saud clan over to Uday and Qusay could have been put on pay-per-view.
So, I don't know about Mr. Dog, but according to me, we should have declared war on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan by 9/16/01 at the latest.
That night, when Bush 43 addressed Congress, they would have given him anything he asked for.
As of 2009 10 of the 19 ‘hijackers were still alive. Who planned the demolition of the trade center, including building seven? Who put the entire nation’s radar grid into a fake ‘drill’ during the comandeering of the planes? How did people call and talk for twenty plus minutes using cell phones which do not work at the ascribed altitudes of those planes? How many of the growing refutations of the official lie can you answer?
Do yourself a huge favor and watch episode 250 of CARAVAN tO MIDNIGHT, the interview John B. Wells did with Timothy Wood. The stealthy rise of technocracy as planned by Bzrezinsky is a reality we would do well to identify so we might fight it. The episode is still up at Youtube, if you’re interested. JOhn usually charges $.98 per episode but that one is so important that he is giving it away to anyone who will watch and learn.
pingalingaling
I think you were the one that pointed him out. Same comments, style, and wording.
As I recall Clinton was off crying because thousands of Americans weren't incinerated on his watch, the narcissistic prick!
People who use the term “neoconservative” hate Jews (er, Israel),
hate classic Anglo-American ideals, and
(almost always) support Muslim extremists and terrorism.
Allowed the murdering of our educated, middle class young men and gave ALL money to Congress to spend as it wills .... pretty much covers every base
I'm not following. Are you saying that neoconservatives hate Jews? Or are you saying that the Jew-haters are those who call others neoconservative?
Nah, not me. I thought your posted double entendre was brilliant and had to comment on it.
I pegged it as a troll a while back but never thought of 'ol non sequitur....I think you nailed it.
Wilson led the US to victory in WWI...it was the peace settlement afterwards which was a failure ("the peace to end peace").
Merry, fleeing your house before it's burned down doesn't make one a successful president.
I guess maybe we can get beyond the 19th century territorial idea that having your capital taken over by the enemy automatically means losing a war, but still, dude, you can't exactly hold your head high if something like that happens on your watch, especially if the war wasn't the most necessary of fights.
Bearing in mind that Truman probably does get too much of a pass as it is from historians and the public, I'd put Madison on that list of worst war presidents.
I'd give TR a pass for the Philippines. Voters supported McKinley's policy in the election and TR was just following through. We can object now, but at the time, it would have been hard to reverse course.
Not sure if I'd give Nixon a pass, but the greater blame for Vietnam goes to Johnson (with Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Truman also carrying their share).
What about the moral aspect, though? Polk must have been a superior wartime president, but the morality of Mexican War has long been called into question.
Not so much. But Merry also puts him on his list of the five worst presidents, and that verdict won't stand the test of time.
Yes.
"Neocon" is virtually a curse-word itself as used by progressive/extremist/liberal democrat press corpse writers and TV heads today.
As I recall, a lot of that stuff was Torrecelli and Jamie Gorelick...the latter of which sat on the investigative committee...and was at the core of the Fannie Mae debacle.
He also turned a successful completion of mission in Somalia into a debacle.
After the Bush administration’s failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,.....Left and lying.
Nor were the Japs. My dad T/5 Frank Arrigio, fought under MacArthur for 6 yrs. 5 major battles, and put the first US Flag back up on Corregidor under sniper fire with PFC Clyde Bates on a telegraph pole. Bronze Star recipient.
My BIL fought for 6 yrs under Merrill, clear though to Myitkyina.
Before Truman no VP was in the loop, they were more ceremonial in function.
I think that fighting terrorism falls under the same category as WW11. It may be more scattered, but it has to be treated the same. We do not need another ‘lets make friends’ president or vp. 0 has done enough damage to our Military.
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.