I immediately thought of this American:
Posted on 01/24/2005 8:03:11 AM PST by iconoclast
Historians celebrate his predecessor Truman and his successor JFK as near-great. Yet, Eisenhower is ignored. A positive-passive president, he is called, at best an average president.
Yet, what did Ike accomplish? He took office in 1953 and in six months ended the no-win war in Korea. With a million illegal aliens here, he ordered them home in "Operation Wetback." They went.
He built up U.S. armed forces to where we were invincible. When the Hungarian Revolution erupted, Ike refused to send troops beyond the bridge at Andau. America stayed out, and the revolution was snuffed out by Soviet tanks. But there was no war between America and the Soviet Union.
When the British, French and Israelis launched an invasion to retake Suez from Nasser, who had nationalized it, Ike ordered the Brits and French out, threatened to sink the pound if Prime Minister Eden balked, told Israel's David Ben-Gurion to get out of Sinai or face the wrath of the man who had commanded D-Day. All obeyed.
Ike gave us peace and prosperity, balanced the budget, and went off to play golf at the all-men's Burning Tree Country Club, where this writer was a summer caddy. Once, as I was walking out the long driveway at Burning Tree to walk to River Road, to hitch-hike back to D.C., the president's limo approached.
I put out my thumb, and got Ike's famous smile and a wave as he passed by. Ike was a leader who could say no. He was what we needed after the disastrous tenure of Harry Truman, who had left office with an approval rate of 23 percent.
Today, America is a country that cannot say no. The backslapping of Republicans notwithstanding, we do not have .....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Sure, an "Operation Wetback" today? In this PC climate?
I have no idea, but I would trust him implicitly.
Only the name would be changed, to protect the "sensitive". ;o)
How ironic is it that in this context, Eisenhower can be viewed as the first of the "neo-cons" that Buchanan (rightly) despises so much today?
"He took office in 1953 and in six months ended the no-win war in Korea. "
Actually...no. We're still there and the war is not over. It's just a really, really long cease fire.
Interesting. While watching the History Channel's series about each of the 43 US Presidents on Saturday, I'm pretty sure they said Ike cut defense spending.
"Ike was was warrior first - he would have went after the enemy and destroyed them - just like the Nazis - with any PC "feeling" or restraints"
****
Ike wasn't that aggressive as a Supreme Allied commander. His "broad front" strategy during WW2 in western Europe extended the war several more months, causing thousands of Allied casualties and giving the Russians the time needed to conquer more of Europe including Berlin. One dismal example is the Huertgen Forest campaign. Also, he didn't fare so well when he commanded US forces in North Africa, especially the Kasserine Pass bloodying that Americans received.
You can draw a straight, 50-year line from that overthrow to 9/11/01. This was a popular government at the time.
Ike was the supreme commander and was responsible for all the Allies did and didn't do in Western Europe. This included the D-Day invasion, the break out of Normandy, Market Garden, the bombing of German cities (including Dresden) and executing spies and saboteurs (in the Battle of the Bulge and post WWII).
We can argue strategy all day long, but Ike took the war to the enemy and killed them.
Truman was my favorite. He was a no BS person and a no BS president. Just like the current President. The seismic political challenges, the cultural and especially technological shifts in this new century compare to the stark realities that Truman had staring him in the face as well. This 'NO BS' leadership style is vital and necessary because nothing else will work. The Enola Gay ended the world's honeymoon with technology and everything has had to redefine itself since then. Truman did NOT act arbitrarily, and neither is Bush.
BTW, in today's world, Truman would have been a Republican, methinks.
We need an "Operation Towelhead."
I think you're right. I liked the way Truman didn't take any crap from the Unions.
Ike wanted to tone back on defense spending because he knew that reports of Soviet strength were overblown at the time. The trouble was, there was no way to make it appealing to the public without compromising national security by letting out highly classified info. In other words, he put the security of the Nation first - what a concept!
**When the British, French and Israelis launched an invasion to retake Suez from Nasser, who had nationalized it, Ike ordered the Brits and French out, threatened to sink the pound if Prime Minister Eden balked, told Israel's David Ben-Gurion to get out of Sinai or face the wrath of the man who had commanded D-Day. All obeyed.**
That is a good thing? Suez was one of the biggest reasons for increase arab nationalism in the Middle East and also why we now have to do Europe's dirty work since we won't let them do independent actions. If the Brits had retaken the canel then Nasser would of fallen and guess who at one time was under Nasser's wing? Saddam Hussain.
He also didn't provide enough support to the French in Vietnam which later on cost 50,000 American lives. I won't even start to talk about the Warren Court that Ike gave us.
Ike was one of our worst Presidents in terms of how his policies effected history imo.
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.