As an outsider it has puzzled me to see the unthinking reverence the US people express to their military men and women. They are all heroes, titans, pluperfect exemplars of the American way of life. All politicians who have served use their service as proof of their suitability for power.
What basis is there for this attitude though? Timothy McVeigh was a decorated war hero, the Beltway Sniper John Muhammed served without distinction but was given an honourable discharge on his separation from the service.
A successful military man doesn't have the same way of thinking as a successful politician; he doesn't negotiate with subordinates, he doesn't question orders from above. It may be the switch from soldier to "man of the polis" can be achieved but few if any characteristics of a good soldier will survive the transition. We have only to look at the disasters elsewhere when the top politicial leader of a country is wearing a fancy uniform and ruling because of his command of the amed forces of that country. Their generalship does't seem to translate into decent stewardship of the nation.
I doubt Eisenhower ever appeared as President wearing his General's uniform so why does his military service make him better than, say, non-serving Clinton at running a country? The Bush presidents both wore a uniform and served their country militarily, Ronald Reagan never did.
It's a puzzle.
Posted by robert Sneddon at January 15, 2006 03:43 AMYesterday I happened to be at an all-day reading of the Iliad, and as I was listening, I realized that Agamemnon was a perfect example of a George-Bush style chickenhawk--taking all the booty (literal and figurative) he could get his hands on that was won by real soldiers, but hanging back and always being scared.
Posted by SheRa at January 15, 2006 05:07 AMOne factual note. I believe Lyndon Johnson was a World War II vet, in the Army Air Corps on B-17's, and even won a Silver Star, which he always wore in his suit lapel. If he was, he was no stranger to the horror of war; the casualties among the men on flying the B-17's were utterly horrendous.
Posted by Joseph Marshall at January 15, 2006 06:13 AMDamn pessimist, you and steve gilliard must have breakfast at the same pancake shop or something.
The post pretty much states why Bush isn't a dictator but more like a CEO running a business and very poorly at that.
As usual though your post is a wealth of information for those willing to click-through and get their learn on.
Posted by Adam at January 15, 2006 06:54 AMI believe Lyndon Johnson was a World War II vet
Nice try, Joseph Marshall! Mr. Johnson 'won' his Silver Star for going on ONE bombing raid in an ARMY B-26 over Japanese targets in New Guinea as a NAVY Lt. Cmndr on a Congressional 'investigative mission'. He did 'face combat' on that day as his plane was shot at by Saburo Sakai, Japan's leading ace, but after that trip, he went back home and returned to Congress. The only B-17s Johnson ever saw were the ones that brought him into New Guinea and later took him out again.
Had he stayed in New Guinea longer, I doubt he would have been so quick to go into Vietnam. He would have known what a hell fighting in the jungle is.
Posted by pessimist at January 15, 2006 09:27 AMDamn pessimist, you and steve gilliard must have breakfast at the same pancake shop or something.
He buys!
As usual though your post is a wealth of information for those willing to click-through and get their learn on.
Thanks, Adam! It's nice to know that someone appreciates my hours of effort to put something like this post together.
p, I do also. I'm not into commenting much lately. I'm preparing for some oral surgery, root canals. It's the only thing I'm getting out of the VA lately without a 6 months wait. Their Dental facility is overstaffed and not nearly busy as the rest of their medical sections.
Posted by bbtb at January 15, 2006 06:45 PMA fine example of how America is supporting our troops!
Posted by pessimist at January 15, 2006 07:23 PMJimmy Carter was in the US Navy. Please give credit where credit is due. He may not be well-known for his military exploits, but Carter served with honor.
Posted by MJ at January 15, 2006 07:35 PMYou missed the point, MJ. Carter never served during an active conflict. His experience was thus limited. It might have made a difference in the way the attempted Iranian hostage rescue was conducted if he had been in combat himself.
Carter did serve with honor, and I believe him to be a good Christian man. He just wasn't a very good president.
Posted by pessimist at January 16, 2006 03:06 AM