Posted on 09/25/2010 9:20:33 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Barack Obama is America's second wartime president from Illinois. Depictions of the first are, of course, on every penny and $5 bill. The new book, "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward, offers troubling contrasts between the way Abraham Lincoln learned to handle a war and President Obama's role in overseeing U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.
President Lincoln, whose military experience amounted to a brief and undistinguished appearance in a minor battle against Native Americans, learned about wartime leadership on the job. From the attack on Fort Sumter in 1861 through the Union victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg in July 1863, he led mainly by default, thanks to the arrogance and vainglorious incompetence of some of the worst generals ever to wear a U.S. uniform — John Fremont, John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, Henry Wager Halleck and George McClellan.
Only after the emergence of Ulysses S. Grant in 1863 did Lincoln settle into his proper role of setting overall conditions for victory and providing Grant with the men and materiel needed to win the war.
The greatest test of the Lincoln-Grant partnership was in late summer 1864, with Union forces apparently bogged down in Virginia and Georgia. The presidential election was but a few months away, and Lincoln for a time expected he'd lose. But rather than worry about his popularity, he stuck to his goal of trying to win the war and shielded Grant from those who would have meddled with his plans and strategies.
Then, in a matter of weeks during early September 1864, Sherman took Atlanta and Sheridan began winning battles in the Shenandoah Valley. By October, it was clear a Union victory was inevitable. And the same became true for Lincoln's re-election.
That leads to the key moment in Woodward's book, which, in the words of The Associated Press, "exposes the roots of an Afghanistan exit plan driven more by politics than national security and shows the president worried about losing the support of the public and his party." The book quotes Obama as saying, "I have two years with the public on this."
Therein lies the crucial difference between Obama and Lincoln. When Lincoln found Grant, he backed off and let his general run the war. Throughout the internal debates about Afghanistan strategy, Obama was receiving advice from Gen. David Petraeus, whose successes in Iraq gave him credibility comparable to that acquired by Grant in Vicksburg and Chattanooga.
But unlike Lincoln, Obama didn't like what his generals were telling him about essential troop levels and commitment of materiel. And so, unlike Lincoln, Obama chose to micromanage the war, dictating a six-page, single-spaced "terms sheet" that led inevitably to a dubious, official "exit strategy." Regardless of conditions on the ground, Obama has committed himself to starting a withdrawal of U.S. forces in July 2011. In the AP's words, that's "an arbitrary date that many in the military see as artificial and perhaps premature."
Since Lincoln's time, the U.S. military has had bad experiences with inadequate resources (think Somalia and the early years of the war in Iraq) and ill-defined, open-ended goals (think Lebanon and Vietnam). When his generals told him what would be needed in Afghanistan, what the strategy with the best chance of success was and how long it would take, Obama's duty was to commit himself and this nation's vast resources fully to that course of action, as Lincoln did with Grant in 1864, or decide the war was not in the national interest.
History records that Lincoln's patience and courage paid off. Sadly, Woodward's account of the internal debate over Afghan strategy suggests that last fall in the Obama White House, patience and courage were in short supply.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
So, Lincoln participated in the systematic genocidal removal of Native Americans from their ancestral lands...? No wonder Glenn Beck held his rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial....
bump
Many would say he learned a lot from lincoln...
There’s only one thing Obama is good at.
Agitating.
Indeed. Like how to destroy a sovereign nation. Hopefully Obama will be taken out of effective office before there is mass murder of men, women, and children, as occured in Atlanta under Sherman.
Right On Target—and more!
Semper Remember
Gunny G
aka: Dick G
***** *****
Kinda harsh FRiend.
Obama is a symptom of the larger problem.
I would say thaere is a difference between Lincoln and Barry.
One wanted to save the Nation, one seems bent on destroying it.
“Kinda harsh FRiend.
Obama is a symptom of the larger problem.
I would say thaere is a difference between Lincoln and Barry.
One wanted to save the Nation, one seems bent on destroying it.”
******************************
**************************************
WoW!
Did YOU get a wrong # !!!!!
SAy what Gunny
Why don’t you educate me then?
Oh, I have all the “CW was all about”
Nothern Taxes,
control of southern cotton, Nothern mills needed the cotton
states rights
etc, etc down.
Is there something I missed?
Actually, Obama is the third wartime President from Illinois, if you count the war with the Sioux over the Black Hills—the battle of the Little Bighorn was fought in June 1876, when Grant was President.
“thanks to the arrogance and vainglorious incompetence of some of the worst generals ever to wear a U.S. uniform — John Fremont, John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, Henry Wager Halleck and George McClellan.”
Not a fair statement. Robert E Lee made a lot of opposing generals look bad, and in fact he almost did the same to U.S. Grant in 1864.
What had really changed is that Lincoln had learned patience.
Ambrose Burnside had an accurately modest view of his own abilities. He only accepted command of the Union Armies the third time it was offered. Blame Lincoln, Lee, and the Peter principle for Burnside’s failure as commander.
And so, unlike Lincoln, Obama chose to micromanage the war
What other “great” leader micromanaged a war, was it Adolf Hussein Hitler?
I sure hope the Dhimmikrats notice the erie similarities between Zero and Adolf.
Caddis the Younger
It’s fair about McClellan, Mr. “Hey if you’re not going to use the army, may I borrow it for a while?”
It’s fair about McClellan, Mr. “Hey if you’re not going to use the army, may I borrow it for a while?”
Do you have any facts about that or do you just like sounding like a moron?
Lincoln didn't need any help ending the confederacy. Jeff Davis saw to that when he launched a war he couldn't win.
Not going to go around and around with you again. You buy the northern myth of the cause of the invasion from the north and do not want to be bothered by the facts history is revealing. But for the sake of history, Davis did not declare war, Lincoln did- illegally. Every other formally federal fort built with the South’s tax dollars was turned back over to the Southern State that had seceded. Lincoln would not give Ft. Sumter because he needed the extortionist tariffs he was collecting from the sea port. Other days of warning for the federal troops to leave the South’s sovereign soil the “fort” was fired on to press the point. It is a basic rule of law that no foreign country can occupy a sovereign nation uninvited. We just wanted to be left alone.
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.