Will there ever be another Military Hero in the Oval Office?

[brizz]

When I teach U.S. history, one thing I note to my students is how many future presidents used their military service as the launching pad to the office. Often they actively sought victory on the battlefield in order to gain the notoriety for a run. One reason Custer went headlong into suicide was his belief that it would give him the cache for a bid in 1876. Many of our presidents were known for distinguished service in American Wars:

Washington
Monroe
Jackson
Harrison
Taylor
Pierce
Grant
Hayes
Garfield
Harrison
TR
Eisenhower
LBJ
Ford
Carter
Bush (I)

Only WWI and Vietnam failed to produce a military hero as President. There's still a chance that a Vietnam Vet may become president, but I doubt it. If there ever is another, I just don't see how it could be a Ike/Grant/Jackson kind of gung ho Military Man.

Thoughts? Any candidates for future runs? could either Iraq war produce a viable candidate?

[TheMadMonk]

Bush proudly defended the Texas border from invasion during the Vietnam war.
According to Tony Snow, George W. Bush is on the front lines in Iraq.

So, he is like twice the hero those other guys are!

[pedagogue]

Bush proudly defended the Texas border from invasion......

I'd like him to do this NOW!

Oh, and whoever gets all of the guys out of Iraq ASAP should be considered a hero.

-p

[Ranger]

Bush did serve in the military though not much was accomplished from that duty.

Kerry did come very close to winning in 2004.

There's probably a few people in Congress who have some military experience and a chance of becoming president in the future - probably not in 2008.

[DVD Polizei]

I doubt there are any "military heroes" other than my fave, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. Current politics wouldn't permit such a man to get things done.

[IMRICKJAMES]

The way wars are fought now they won't ever produce the type of military heroes that war used to make.

I'm sure we will have a president in the future that has fought in a war, but I doubt it will be a legendary hero type of figure. War just doesn't produce that type of person anymore. The military doesn't have the propoganda machine it used to and it certainly wont get help from the mainstream media to pump someone up during a war into that legendary military hero status.

It's only going to get harder and harder to produce a military hero president too. I mean, at the rate technology is going how are you going to be able to label someone a military hero with the ranks of past military presidents when all they did in service to the country was press the ENTER key on a computer to drop a bomb on the enemy. Thats pretty damn hard to romanticize.

[Rockmjd23]

No, only rich pricks can become president now, or sons of rich pricks, or wives of rich pricks. Go nepotism!

[Tuan Jim]

When I teach U.S. history, one thing I note to my students is how many future presidents used their military service as the launching pad to the office. Often they actively sought victory on the battlefield in order to gain the notoriety for a run. One reason Custer went headlong into suicide was his belief that it would give him the cache for a bid in 1876. Many of our presidents were known for distinguished service in American Wars:

Washington
Monroe
Jackson
Harrison
Taylor
Pierce
Grant
Hayes
Garfield
Harrison
TR
Eisenhower
LBJ
Ford
Carter

Only WWI and Vietnam failed to produce a military hero as President. There's still a chance that a Vietnam Vet may become president, but I doubt it. If there ever is another, I just don't see how it could be a Ike/Grant/Jackson kind of gung ho Military Man.

Thoughts? Any candidates for future runs? could either Iraq war produce a viable candidate?

Looks like you forgot Bush (I).

[nemein]

Looks like you forgot Bush (I).

And Kennedy...

[Rockmjd23]

Nixon was in the navy during WWII.

[Venusian]

If McCain gets elected, you'd have your Vietnam hero

[AGuyNamedMike]

... I mean, at the rate technology is going how are you going to be able to label someone a military hero with the ranks of past military presidents when all they did in service to the country was press the ENTER key on a computer to drop a bomb on the enemy. Thats pretty damn hard to romanticize.

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/1913/1st18us7.jpg

"The enemy cannot push a button if you disable his hand. MEDIC!"


Back OT, I agree with the spirit, but not the reason. The vast military community relies on teamwork and cooperation to get the mission done. There's not much room for mavericks and standouts as in centuries past. The maneuvering that has to be done at the upper echelons is much like civilian politics anymore, so even if we do get a "war hero" candidate, they're likely to be more like that "fair-haired boy" Wesley Clark, who appears to have roadmapped his entire career to get into high office after retirement, albeit unsuccessfully (whew!).

[NCMojo]

Will there ever be another military hero in the White House? Of course. Valorous military service is almost always a golden ticket to political office. I think Jim Webb may stand an excellent chance at becoming President some day, along with John McCain and some of the new "Fighting Dems" elected in 2006.

But will there ever be another military leader in the White House -- a general like Washington, Grant, or Eisenhower? No. I don't think so. And considering their track record as President, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. While there have been some military leaders who have become strong Presidents (Washington, Jackson, Roosevelt), there even more who have had only middling success (Taylor, Eisenhower) or were outright failures (Grant, Harrison).

[Venusian]

Are we talking about William Harrison or Benjamin Harrison? I wouldn't call William Harrison an outright failure, the guy never had a chance

[classicman2]

I believe George H. W. Bush was more of a military hero than was LBJ, Ford, or Carter.

Why isn't he on the list?

Does the mere fact of being a POW make you a military hero?

McCain is because he delcined a chance to be released if he would just 'cooperate.'

I think Truman should be on the list also. He was an infantry captain in WWI. Was Eisenhower ever in combat?

[TruGator]

Was Eisenhower ever in combat?

I'm reading "D-day" right now, by Stephen Ambrose, and he mentioned that during WWI Eisenhower was in the US in charge of a training school. In WWII, he was a commander in Italy/North Africa before he became the commander of the AEF. So I'm not sure if he was ever actually a company commander or in the thick of the battle...hell of a tactician, though.

[Red Dog]

Don't know. Don't really care. I'll just be happy when we get to a point in time where the "what you were doing during the Vietnam War" question becomes irrelavent in the presidential contest.

[nemein]

Don't know. Don't really care. I'll just be happy when we get to a point in time where the "what you were doing during the Vietnam War" question becomes irrelavent in the presidential contest.

Of course it's only going to be replaced w/ "how did you feel about/what did you do doing the two Gulf Wars"...

[wendersfan]

Of course it's only going to be replaced w/ "how did you feel about/what did you do doing the two Gulf Wars"...
Without a draft it's not such a big deal. The main reason for the contentiousness surrounding the Vietnam era is the perception, generally accurate, BTW, that rich kids got deferments while poor kids died in a jungle.

[Red Dog]

Of course it's only going to be replaced w/ "how did you feel about/what did you do doing the two Gulf Wars"...


I thought about that but since there was no draft then, there can no potential for draft dodging or evasion.

[nemein]

Without a draft it's not such a big deal. The main reason for the contentiousness surrounding the Vietnam era is the perception, generally accurate, BTW, that rich kids got deferments while poor kids died in a jungle.

Once we are out of Iraq I think the long term effect on the political process will probably drop off quicker than Vietnam, but in the foreseeable future I suspect Iraq is going to effect our politics/elections.

Also, even w/o the draft there's still the issue/perception of the poor dying while the rich reap the benefits.

[kvrdave]

I gotta' believe Bush I should be on that list.

But otherwise, I don't think so. With the amount of media we put into our wars now, nothing is what it seems, and I don't think it is possible to have a war in which most people will support it longer than 6 months (nor is it possible to have a successful war that doesn't last longer), nor will you get a hero. Any hero today will be made by a media outlet, and after a few weeks, another outlet will destroy them.

At least, that is my guess.

[Red Dog]

I don't think it is possible to have a war in which most people will support it longer than 6 months


Sure it's possible. We have an example today - the War in Afghanistan. That war has continually enjoyed popular support.

If you have a war where there is significant opposition from the start - like the 1/3 against Iraq, then yeah, there will be an inevitable expiration date for popular support. I said 2 years for Iraq and I pretty much nailed it.

[kvrdave]

Also, even w/o the draft there's still the issue/perception of the poor dying while the rich reap the benefits.

There is that perception, even though it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. But then we also tend to believe that Democrats spend more than Republicans, are soft on crime, can't stand the heat of a war, etc. Republicans are old rich men who get larger donations than Democrats, etc.

These things are good for one party to perpetuate, so they do. Just like the idea that only poor people with no options are on the front lines.

[kvrdave]

Sure it's possible. We have an example today - the War in Afghanistan. That war has continually enjoyed popular support.

If you have a war where there is significant opposition from the start - like the 1/3 against Iraq, then yeah, there will be an inevitable expiration date for popular support. I said 2 years for Iraq and I pretty much nailed it.

Good point. I don't think it would if it were the only war going on, though. So maybe the trick is to always have two wars being fought so we can feel better about one of them. :lol:

[OldDude]

Will there ever be another Military Hero in the Oval Office?


That would seem to require two things:
*Some heroic action (this probably happens but the press would cover it up)
*A popular war that we win (the reason the press would cover it up)

So, my answer is no, not unless the Russians or Chinese attack us and we win (heroically).

[Thor Simpson]

Ever? :lol:

Of course! In fact, jihadists have claimed they would have a military hero in the white house within just a few years, following our defeat.

[Thor Simpson]

Also, as far as Iraq, there are heroes being made every day no matter what your view of the war. I could certainly see one of them rising to the top some day, though we would likely not even hear of them and their actions until that time. People forget how genuinely noble the cause is on the ground over there and the sacrifices being made for peace. People forget that we are there to stabilize the country, not just to fight.

[dick_grayson]

Also, as far as Iraq, there are heroes being made every day no matter what your view of the war. I could certainly see one of them rising to the top some day, though we would likely not even hear of them and their actions until that time. People forget how genuinely noble the cause is on the ground over there and the sacrifices being made for peace. People forget that we are there to stabilize the country, not just to fight.


Unfortunately, though, that was not the original intent. We didn't send our troops over to keep the peace. That's what it has turned into but, not the original case. We were never there to stabilize the country. We were there because some dude has WMD and was a threat. We should be keeping the peace and stabilizing the country in Sudan.

[Red Dog]

An additional issue with the hero question is that I wonder what your typical carbon blob's impression of a war hero is. Is it a movie-based Rambo or something more realistic.

[JasonF]

Of course it's only going to be replaced w/ "how did you feel about/what did you do doing the two Gulf Wars"...

"What were you doing during the Great Robot Uprising of 2027, Senator Jay-Z?"

[kvrdave]

Unfortunately, though, that was not the original intent. We didn't send our troops over to keep the peace. That's what it has turned into but, not the original case. We were never there to stabilize the country. We were there because some dude has WMD and was a threat. We should be keeping the peace and stabilizing the country in Sudan.

That is the one thing that gets me. When Clinton was sending the military around, Republicans (and me) were saying, "What is the goal? What is the mission? We shouldn't just be in an open ended thing where we are peace keepers and the world's police."

I still feel that way today, but Republicans on the hill are quick to forget it. Obviously both parties do this when it suits their needs, but for those of us that actually liked one of their positions, it is irritating. :)

And with that, I wonder what I would do with Sudan.

[classicman2]

I'm reading "D-day" right now, by Stephen Ambrose, and he mentioned that during WWI Eisenhower was in the US in charge of a training school. In WWII, he was a commander in Italy/North Africa before he became the commander of the AEF. So I'm not sure if he was ever actually a company commander or in the thick of the battle...hell of a tactician, though.

Yeah, The North African Campaign was a smashing success.

Hell of a tactician - he couldn't read a map. :lol:

Eisenhower's talent - he was a good manager. He knew how to assemble people and keep egos in line enough to accomplish the job.

Gen. MacArthur once said of Eishenhower: 'He was the best clerk I ever had.'

[OldDude]

We should be keeping the peace and stabilizing the country in Sudan.

Yeah, definitely. Because we've proven in Iraq that we are the world's experts at peace keeping and country stabilization.

[This has been a test of your sarcasm detector. It should be pegged now.]

[AGuyNamedMike]

An additional issue with the hero question is that I wonder what your typical carbon blob's impression of a war hero is. Is it a movie-based Rambo or something more realistic.

Agreed. I'd also like to know what our forum members' idea of a war hero is. For me, it starts with Alvin C. York.

[dick_grayson]

Yeah, definitely. Because we've proven in Iraq that we are the world's experts at peace keeping and country stabilization.

[This has been a test of your sarcasm detector. It should be pegged now.]


just because we've fucked that place up beyond repair doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help in Sudan. doing anything in Sudan is better than nothing (which is basically what we're doing)

[IMRICKJAMES]

Will there ever be another military hero in the White House? Of course. Valorous military service is almost always a golden ticket to political office. I think Jim Webb may stand an excellent chance at becoming President some day, along with John McCain and some of the new "Fighting Dems" elected in 2006.

But will there ever be another military leader in the White House -- a general like Washington, Grant, or Eisenhower? No. I don't think so. And considering their track record as President, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. While there have been some military leaders who have become strong Presidents (Washington, Jackson, Roosevelt), there even more who have had only middling success (Taylor, Eisenhower) or were outright failures (Grant, Harrison).

After Jim Webb or John McCain it looks pretty doubtful. some of the 'Fighting Dems' may become long term congress members, and maybe even end up in the white house, but do any of them really qualify as a military hero? none of them really live up to the original posters ideas of a military hero. none of them really have much of a story other than being a vet. Sure, everyone that is a vet is a hero, but the 'military hero' persona thats being discussed...the romanticized, famous, grand figure on the white horse leading the calvary...none of the Fighting Dems fall into that category.

Like I was saying in my other post in this thread. Its just the way war is fought now, and will be fought forever going forward. It just doesnt create the hero type of the past. Also, on the homefront in our mindset the people that end up being thought of as a hero are thought of that way because they made the ultimate sacrifice. Its pretty hard to run for president when you are dead. A perfect example of this would be Pat Tillman. You don't think when he was older he couldnt have had a political career served up to him on a silver platter if he chose that route. He was the closest thing to the traditional sense of a hero before he died and that was only heightened after he died. Sadly, the only other soldiers people remember...and even more sadly the short time they do remember...are all remembered because they paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Are there any soldiers know on a national level other than that Jessica Lynch? I don't have a crystal ball but I dont see a political career in her future.

Another thought, I also would add that there probably wont ever be a military hero in the white house again because if you think about the past and look at the military now there really arent many of the elite, powerful families, or the sons of the elite etc spending time in the military. That was much more prevelant in the past and generally it would be a whole lot easier to run for congress, run for governor and ultimately run for president if your family was already rich, or famous, or if your dad was already in the senate.

[classicman2]

Why wasn't George W. Bush in the list? He's a war hero, isn't he?

[Mammal]

Gen. MacArthur once said of Eishenhower: 'He was the best clerk I ever had.'

Didn't Eisenhower respond that he studied dramatics under McArthur?"

Don't forget Truman - he may not have been a hero, but he lied about his nearsightedness so he could go off to war. He was a hero just for showing up.

[Xytraguptorh]

What candidates are veterans? McCain and Duncan Hunter both are, and Hunter's son, also named Duncan, has done a couple tours in Iraq.
Ron Paul was an Air Force flight surgeon or something. Did some of the Democrats serve too? Dodd?
While military service is something to be proud of, it doesn't seem like people focus on it at all anymore. Maybe in twenty years we'll have Iraq war veterans running on veteran credentials. For the near future, I believe both parties will eventually promote nonintervention policies (after the GOP loses big again in the next election).

[BKenn01]

I think Jim Webb may stand an excellent chance at becoming President some day

Isnt he just like Bloomberg, jumps on whatever bandwagon will get him elected?

[Thor Simpson]

Unfortunately, though, that was not the original intent. We didn't send our troops over to keep the peace. That's what it has turned into but, not the original case.
Irrelevant, in my opinion, when we are talking about war heroes.

And I don't think there are many people that would disagree with your statement. I think the only disagreement is about whether or not there is justification in staying beyond our original intent when the enemy has changed.

I don't personally think that disagreement over the Iraq war would hamper someone's ability to achieve the Presidency if their actions during the war were recounted. In fact, even if it did matter, none of us can say what the situation will be like there in 15 years or how it will be viewed. About the only thing we can be certain of is that we will have had a conflict with another nation over there within that period.

[brizz]

I believe George H. W. Bush was more of a military hero than was LBJ, Ford, or Carter.

Why isn't he on the list?

Does the mere fact of being a POW make you a military hero?

McCain is because he delcined a chance to be released if he would just 'cooperate.'

I think Truman should be on the list also. He was an infantry captain in WWI. Was Eisenhower ever in combat?
I didn't know H.W. served....

[Jason]

Nixon was in the navy during WWII.

Carter was a subbie, but I don't think he was in any war zones.

[JasonF]

I didn't know H.W. served....

He was a naval pilot in World War II. He flew 58 combat missions and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation.

[al_bundy]

I didn't know H.W. served....

in the 1988 campaign he made a big deal how his friend was decapitated by a Japaneese attack right next to him. something about a kamikaze, flying glass and him being a few feet away which saved his life.

[brizz]

in the 1988 campaign he made a big deal how his friend was decapitated by a Japaneese attack right next to him. something about a kamikaze, flying glass and him being a few feet away which saved his life.
okay...i remember that now. I new Carter was in the Navy...but after WWII.

[movielib]

What's all the fuss? I have no reason to believe military heroes would never be invited to visit the oval office.

[JasonF]

okay...i remember that now. I new Carter was in the Navy...but after WWII.

Carter was a submarine officer during the Korean War, but did not see combat (was there even any submarine combat during the Korean War?)

[Red Dog]

Isnt he just like Bloomberg, jumps on whatever bandwagon will get him elected?


I couldn't care less what letter came after his name or whether it changes from year to year. The guy actual has some sanity when it comes to US foreign policy. That was good enough for me. Best I've ever felt about a vote in a long time. And frankly, most anyone looks like a Democrat when standing next to ex-Senator Macaca.

That being said, Jim Webb stands no shot of ever being President. I like his personality, but he doesn't kiss ass enough to be President.

[mikehunt]

if this guy runs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Chontosh