Warmonger I

This is coolbert:

America the warmonger!

In the eyes of observers foreign and domestic, America seems to be a nation that presents itself to the world as being aggressive, warlike, and being in a constant state of "war or rumors of war".

Is this a fair characterization??

One observation that has been made of America is that ten men that became U.S. Presidents have held the rank of General officer in the U.S. military. This is cited as being evidence that American voters have an affinity for electing a military man as head of the country.

Is this observation valid?

Well, it is true that ten men that have ascended to the office of President were at one time or another General officers in the U.S. military. Presidents Washington, William Harrison, Jackson, Taylor, Pierce, Grant, Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, Arthur, and Eisenhower all held the rank of General prior to becoming U.S. President.

This is about one quarter of the men that have been elected to the Presidency. [Ten out of forty two to date].

Some things need to be clarified regarding the office of President of the U.S.

The Presidency is an EXECUTIVE position.

The U.S. government is an executive form of government, in contrast to the parliamentary system followed in many parts of the world.

The President by design is a man who executes the laws, AND at the same time, is Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces of the U.S. A leader!!

Experience as a general officer [an executive position??] in the military would have to be regarded as a plus when voters give consideration as to whom to elect as President.

The President, as head of one of the three branches of the U.S. government, is beholden to the entire populace, just as a general would be beholden to the entire force of troops serving under him.

A man running for the Presidency having already served as a general officer has demonstrated executive ability, leadership, and of course possesses a knowledge of the military, a knowledge that MUST be considered to be again a big plus for a man assuming the duties as CIVILIAN commander-in-chief.

The President also acts as Head of State. And important consideration when dealing with foreign powers.

American Presidents that have previously served as a general officer CAN be placed into discrete distinct categories. Categories that reflect the era of the time within which they lived and served.

George Washington is undeniably in a category all by himself. I do not think that any reputable historian would disagree that without the military leadership of Washington, there would JUST NOT be a United States today. And Washington the democrat as President DID establish and set a tone of behavior for Presidents that is followed and emulated to THIS DAY!!

William Harrison, Andrew Jackson, and Zachary Taylor WERE professional military men who did ascend to the position of President. Franklin Pierce, while having served as a general officer during the Mexican-American War, did so in the capacity as a MILITIA GENERAL, not as a professional military man. These were men that seemed to transcend the sectionalism [North vs. South] so prevalent in the U.S. during the period between the American Revolutionary and Civil Wars.



Grant, Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and Arthur all served as general officers during the American Civil War.

Again, as with Pierce, not as professionals, but as men called to service during a time of conflict.

Grant was a West Point grad, but had a decade long civilian hiatus between the end of the Mex-American War and the start of the American Civil War.

Garfield and Harrison were combat commanders of state militias and Arthur, while having the rank of general, served as a QUARTERMASTER, procuring supplies and war materials for the New York state militias.

These were men who in the most MARKED fashion, at least in the case of Grant, Harrison, and Garfield, were willing to put their bodies where their mouths were. Willing to put their lives at risk on the battlefield for their beliefs. Admirable men!

Arthur, while NOT being a battlefield commander, DID demonstrate executive ability of a high order in his position as quartermaster.

Eisenhower, of course, WAS a professional military man who rose to very high rank. While NOT a combat commander in the traditional sense of the word, Eisenhower was an EXECUTIVE of the most demonstrable ability. A general with outstanding leadership ability. The ONE man, who in the eyes of some, is the ONLY President who truly understood what the military strength of the U.S. relies upon and consists of!!



Somethings should be obvious here.

Since the time of Chester Arthur to the present, just ONE man has ascended from the rank of military general to the Presidency, that being Dwight Eisenhower. For a period of over one hundred years, Eisenhower is the only man to go from general to President. That CANNOT be a sign that America has an affinity for military men as political leaders.

[personal note. Perhaps not since the time of Washington, has ANY MAN has been better prepared or suited for the job of President than Eisenhower!!].

Furthermore, during the Presidency of all ten men that have risen from generalcy to Presidency, NOT ONCE was a major war fought by the U.S. [I am not counting the American Indian wars as a major war for this consideration].

Having a President who was once a general in the military does NOT make for an aggressive, warlike nation seeking and fighting wars. This IS NOT the case. Men serving as Presidents that have previously been general officers are not any more inclined to take the country to war than would any other President. On the contrary.

coolbert.