When the United States becomes involved in a long, frustrating war, the obvious possibility arises that a distinguished military man might be recruited to provide national political leadership. It is much easier imagined than accomplished, however, for reasons that are as much cultural and psychological as political.
The fundamental principle of civilian control of the American military, established by General and then President George Washington, divides ambitious young people early; would-be warriors go one way (often to the service academies) and would-be statesmen to the political arena. By the time a warrior retires in middle age, it is too late to take the other professional course and begin at the top of politics.
According to Michael Korda’s excellent new biography Ike: An American Hero (Harpers), five-star General Dwight David Eisenhower, who led the Western Allied armies’ 1944 D-Day invasion against the European continent dominated by Nazi Germany, made the transition in three nimble jumps: first, in 1945, to Army Chief of Staff; next, in 1948, to the presidency of Columbia University, and finally in 1952, to the Republican presidential nomination, which he won overwhelmingly with his promise: “I will go to Korea,” implying early resolution of the stalemated “limited war.”
Is Abizaid Another Eisenhower?
The beaming “Ike,” looking every inch a hero, went to Korea and
approved a truce that lasts to this day. He had not voted in his
moving-around Army career and did not know which party he preferred. It
didn’t matter.
He was enormously popular in the fifties, the last pre-television era. The Republicans, who had not won the White House since 1928, desperately needed him as a sure winner, and so they dumped their highly principled, conscientious Congressional leader, Senator Bob Taft of Ohio, who was famously dismissed as “a grapefruit with glasses.”
As a lifelong conservative Republican, I first voted for President Dwight Eisenhower in November 1956. He was my first political hero, although I kept a warm spot in my heart for honest Bob Taft, the American nationalist who rejected foreign crusading. Ike beat Taft at home but he followed Taft’s precepts abroad. He extricated us from Korea and kept us out of a possible crisis leading to World War III for eight years of peace and prosperity. Eisenhower’s place in American history is secure.
Eisenhower, we now know, really didn’t want to be president and Leader of the Free World. He confessed as much privately in 1946 to his longtime mentor and commander, General George C. Marshall, a luminary who served as Army Chief of Staff and as President Harry Truman's Secretary of State-- and the man who gave the Marshall Plan for postwar Europe its name. Marshall had advised FDR that Ike should lead the D-Day invasion, and Roosevelt jumped the junior military man over the heads of hundreds of more senior generals, ending their careers.
.
Soon after the war, by some accounts, Ike told Marshall that he wanted to divorce his loyal, long-suffering wife Mamie, and marry his British Army WAC aide and driver with whom he had fallen in love, Kay Summersby. Marshall exploded, fiercely dressed down Eisenhower, and told him that, for the good of the nation and the Army, he would stay married to Mamie and conduct himself as a hero should. Ike saluted and did his duty.
In time, Eisenhower dutifully presided over the United States as Chief Executive, but it was clearly the anticlimax of a glorious military-centered career. What’s more, Eisenhower entitled his best-selling and widely syndicated memoir Crusade in Europe. He was the most celebrated general in a global war that America had won – unconditionally and totally.
Neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War cast up an American hero-general. General Douglas MacArthur was fired for insubordination,and he enjoyed a brief surge of fame, serenaded by the West Point cadet song: “Old Soldiers Never Die.” In Vietnam, General Creighton Abrams tried single-handedly to retrieve the reputation of the military from a disastrous, ill-conceived war without a coherent attainable purpose, but even he failed.
And Iraq? General David H. Petraeus, the current U.S. commander in Baghdad, during his much-ballyhooed Congressional testimony in September 2007 “bolstered Bush's position in the debate over the future of the war and provided Republicans a measure of political relief by recommending withdrawal of about 25,000 troops by next summer. Yet he did not toe the White House line completely, resisting efforts to portray Iraq as part of a global struggle against terrorism or predict that al-Qaeda will take over if U.S. forces pull out.” Washington Post 9/13/07.
Overall, his performance disappointed both the administration and the opposition by trying to take both sides.
Afterward, he confessed to friends that he would like to be president, a definite no-no for an active-duty officer. His former superiors and comrades call him “fiercely ambitious” and more than a little ruthless – a useful quality in a president, but we don’t know the truth yet about Petraeus’ character or brains.
Retired General John Abizaid, a brilliant strategist and military thinker, is a recent former Mideast commander, an expert who speaks the main languages of the region and knows its tangled histories. He would be a formidable candidate if he entered the presidential arena. His recent presentation on Iraq at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies made a very positive impression on many of Washington’s notables by realistically depicting the long-term nature of the U.S. commitment in Iraq – a lecture worthy of a future president who could write his own speeches.
In keeping with the tradition that the nation’s highest office seeks the man, Abizaid has given no indication that he’s interested in politics and the presidency. That would be the role for senior Republican Party operatives who “discover” the prominent General and talk him up, causing the Great Mention of his name by media heavyweights.
The younger, energetic Abizaid could possibly measure up to Eisenhower’s unique stature. He resigned before the current tactical “surge” in U.S. troop strength in Iraq because he knew it would not win any lasting, decisive political results. The recent optimistic-sounding reporting in the Washington Post and elsewhere is mainly based on the shift of Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar Province after being well-bribed, according to plans laid by Abizaid’s subordinates two years ago.
The grandson of Christian Lebanese immigrants to the U.S., John Abizaid, born in 1951, combines hands-on-military leadership with the highest levels of scholarly achievement. A West Point graduate, he also holds a Harvard master’s degree in Middle Eastern studies. His brilliant 30-year military career was climaxed by four-star rank and leadership of the Mideast’s Central Command. “He has real command presence and political savvy,” says another senior general. “He’s one of the few guys who would privately tell ex-Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld to bug off.”
Today, talking up "success” in Iraq is essential to the next phase of U.S. military strategy. Quietly, the Army is preparing to pack up and remove most of the U.S. combat troops in Iraq, except for a handful of brigades and their support units. Naturally, the Army is preparing the way out under cover of optimistic-sounding rhetoric. Informed military sources say that the logistics of the U.S. withdrawal, involving convoys extending scores of miles long, would require a year to unfold at an unhurried pace. If the Iraqi insurgents opposed our retreat, a grim prospect for U.S. leaders, the 700-mile route from Baghdad in central Iraq to the sea and escape through the port in Kuwait could become an ambush-filled nightmare. In that retreat under fire, the lives of as many as 150,000 American troops could be at stake as well as the rear-guard left behind.
John Abizaid is one of America’s best and brightest retired soldier-scholars. He would make an excellent presidential candidate for the leaderless Republicans and could lead our country honorably and safely out of the quagmire of Iraq. Abizaid may offer the Republicans their only chance of holding on to the White House.
He was enormously popular in the fifties, the last pre-television era. The Republicans, who had not won the White House since 1928, desperately needed him as a sure winner, and so they dumped their highly principled, conscientious Congressional leader, Senator Bob Taft of Ohio, who was famously dismissed as “a grapefruit with glasses.”
As a lifelong conservative Republican, I first voted for President Dwight Eisenhower in November 1956. He was my first political hero, although I kept a warm spot in my heart for honest Bob Taft, the American nationalist who rejected foreign crusading. Ike beat Taft at home but he followed Taft’s precepts abroad. He extricated us from Korea and kept us out of a possible crisis leading to World War III for eight years of peace and prosperity. Eisenhower’s place in American history is secure.
Eisenhower, we now know, really didn’t want to be president and Leader of the Free World. He confessed as much privately in 1946 to his longtime mentor and commander, General George C. Marshall, a luminary who served as Army Chief of Staff and as President Harry Truman's Secretary of State-- and the man who gave the Marshall Plan for postwar Europe its name. Marshall had advised FDR that Ike should lead the D-Day invasion, and Roosevelt jumped the junior military man over the heads of hundreds of more senior generals, ending their careers.
.
Soon after the war, by some accounts, Ike told Marshall that he wanted to divorce his loyal, long-suffering wife Mamie, and marry his British Army WAC aide and driver with whom he had fallen in love, Kay Summersby. Marshall exploded, fiercely dressed down Eisenhower, and told him that, for the good of the nation and the Army, he would stay married to Mamie and conduct himself as a hero should. Ike saluted and did his duty.
In time, Eisenhower dutifully presided over the United States as Chief Executive, but it was clearly the anticlimax of a glorious military-centered career. What’s more, Eisenhower entitled his best-selling and widely syndicated memoir Crusade in Europe. He was the most celebrated general in a global war that America had won – unconditionally and totally.
Neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War cast up an American hero-general. General Douglas MacArthur was fired for insubordination,and he enjoyed a brief surge of fame, serenaded by the West Point cadet song: “Old Soldiers Never Die.” In Vietnam, General Creighton Abrams tried single-handedly to retrieve the reputation of the military from a disastrous, ill-conceived war without a coherent attainable purpose, but even he failed.
And Iraq? General David H. Petraeus, the current U.S. commander in Baghdad, during his much-ballyhooed Congressional testimony in September 2007 “bolstered Bush's position in the debate over the future of the war and provided Republicans a measure of political relief by recommending withdrawal of about 25,000 troops by next summer. Yet he did not toe the White House line completely, resisting efforts to portray Iraq as part of a global struggle against terrorism or predict that al-Qaeda will take over if U.S. forces pull out.” Washington Post 9/13/07.
Overall, his performance disappointed both the administration and the opposition by trying to take both sides.
Afterward, he confessed to friends that he would like to be president, a definite no-no for an active-duty officer. His former superiors and comrades call him “fiercely ambitious” and more than a little ruthless – a useful quality in a president, but we don’t know the truth yet about Petraeus’ character or brains.
Retired General John Abizaid, a brilliant strategist and military thinker, is a recent former Mideast commander, an expert who speaks the main languages of the region and knows its tangled histories. He would be a formidable candidate if he entered the presidential arena. His recent presentation on Iraq at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies made a very positive impression on many of Washington’s notables by realistically depicting the long-term nature of the U.S. commitment in Iraq – a lecture worthy of a future president who could write his own speeches.
In keeping with the tradition that the nation’s highest office seeks the man, Abizaid has given no indication that he’s interested in politics and the presidency. That would be the role for senior Republican Party operatives who “discover” the prominent General and talk him up, causing the Great Mention of his name by media heavyweights.
The younger, energetic Abizaid could possibly measure up to Eisenhower’s unique stature. He resigned before the current tactical “surge” in U.S. troop strength in Iraq because he knew it would not win any lasting, decisive political results. The recent optimistic-sounding reporting in the Washington Post and elsewhere is mainly based on the shift of Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar Province after being well-bribed, according to plans laid by Abizaid’s subordinates two years ago.
The grandson of Christian Lebanese immigrants to the U.S., John Abizaid, born in 1951, combines hands-on-military leadership with the highest levels of scholarly achievement. A West Point graduate, he also holds a Harvard master’s degree in Middle Eastern studies. His brilliant 30-year military career was climaxed by four-star rank and leadership of the Mideast’s Central Command. “He has real command presence and political savvy,” says another senior general. “He’s one of the few guys who would privately tell ex-Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld to bug off.”
Today, talking up "success” in Iraq is essential to the next phase of U.S. military strategy. Quietly, the Army is preparing to pack up and remove most of the U.S. combat troops in Iraq, except for a handful of brigades and their support units. Naturally, the Army is preparing the way out under cover of optimistic-sounding rhetoric. Informed military sources say that the logistics of the U.S. withdrawal, involving convoys extending scores of miles long, would require a year to unfold at an unhurried pace. If the Iraqi insurgents opposed our retreat, a grim prospect for U.S. leaders, the 700-mile route from Baghdad in central Iraq to the sea and escape through the port in Kuwait could become an ambush-filled nightmare. In that retreat under fire, the lives of as many as 150,000 American troops could be at stake as well as the rear-guard left behind.
John Abizaid is one of America’s best and brightest retired soldier-scholars. He would make an excellent presidential candidate for the leaderless Republicans and could lead our country honorably and safely out of the quagmire of Iraq. Abizaid may offer the Republicans their only chance of holding on to the White House.
Recent Posts
- Straight Talk for McCain – Your Numbers Don’t Add Up
- Pennsylvania: Bad News For the Democrats
- For Clinton – A Single Digit Win Won’t Cut It
- McCain Clear Winner of Bitter Debate
- John Crudele: Right on the Money
- A Real Maverick Stands Up to McCain
- Bloomberg: We Need You in Noo Yawk
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif)
Subscribe to RSS feed
Post A Comment