Presidents at War: A Retrospective
I've mentioned before that, on my first visit to Washington DC, the first thing that struck me was how many monuments to past wars and to past war heroes there were in the city, which in turn made me realize how many wars formed part of the fabric of the nation's history. For example, one source lists over 100 wars in which the United States has been a combatant in its history. The nation's status as a major military power throughout much of its history has resulted in the US being viewed as the "world's policeman", and in fact President Barack Obama has acknowledged it to be such in a speech given in September of last year.
I've often wondered if personal experience in observing the carnage of war tended to make a president more or less reluctant to embrace that role and if it affected a president's willingness to send American soldiers in the line of fire. The answer is complicated, dependent in part on the times that one lived in. For example, at the beginning of the nation's history, perhaps up until at least the first world war, service in war was viewed as "manly" and honorable. Over time, the wisdom of this viewpoint has been called into question, particularly as the weapons of war became more potent.
James Madison did not see military action during the Revolutionary War, and therefore one can speculate whether, if he had, he would have been reluctant to take his nation to war in 1812. Battle veterans James Monroe, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce all avoided major military conflict on their watches, perhaps because they had a greater appreciation of precisely what war meant to the young men who would be on the front lines of the conflict. Andrew Jackson may be seen as an exception to this philosophy, and yet even he did not engage the nation in major military conflict.
Conversely, Madison, James K. Polk and Abraham Lincoln sent their nations to war, though none of them had much in the way of first hand experience with armed combat. "Colonel Polk", as he like to be addressed, had served in the Tennessee militia at a time of peace. Many believed that he provoked war with Mexico by sending troops into disputed territory which he claimed to be US soil. The Mexican War became an unpopular one due to atrocities committed by undisciplined militia and the ravages of disease on the troops. Abraham Lincoln had served in the Black Hawk War. He did not fight in combat, but he had seen the aftermath of a battle and its casualties first hand. This experience did not seem to deter him from his support of General Ulysses Grant's campaign of attrition at the end of the war.
The Civil War produced a set of Presidents who saw first hand the carnage and tragedy of war. The most famous of these was Ulysses Grant, who was pejoratively called "Grant the Butcher" by his critics because of the large number of casualties amassed in the battles that he commanded in. Yet as President, Grant preached the mantra "let us have peace", which is now etched in stone above the entrance to Grant's Tomb. Other presidents such as Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield and Benjamin Harrison, were battle tested as soldiers, and steered a peaceful course in the oval office. William McKinley, who served at the bloody Battle of Antietam, does not precisely follow this formula. He took the nation into war with Spain, but did so with the greatest of reluctance, and under great pressure.
Theodore Roosevelt is another complicated study. He did not shy away from soldiering when the war with Spain arose, running directly into enemy fire at Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill in Cuba and urging those with him to do likewise. Although as president he carried "a big stick" and did not shy away from aggressive rhetoric, he also kept the nation out of war, and even won a Nobel Peace prize. However when the first world war broke out, citizen TR was a fierce advocate for US entry into war. Woodrow Wilson, who had no military service, campaigned for re-election on the slogan "he kept us out of war", but shortly after his re-election, he took the nation into the war that he had boasted about keeping the country out of.
Twentieth century presidents seemed to be the most affected by what they had or hadn't experienced on the battlefield, perhaps because they knew the intense misery that modern warfare could bring. Dwight Eisenhower began his presidency by seeking to end the Korean conflict and maintaining the peace through two terms, amid a "Cold War". John F. Kennedy planned to draw down the number of American "advisers" in Vietnam, and regretted being drawn into the Bay of Pigs. That experience taught him to be very cautious when the Cuban missile crisis presented itself.
Harry Truman is an interesting study. He was anxious to end the one he had inherited, even if it meant using a terrible weapon such as the world had never seen. Perhaps it was with the confidence of having this weapon that he then involved the nation in the Korean War. That decision didn't go as planned. His predecessor, the non-veteran Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had entered the war after years of quasi-neutrality, doing so only after his nation had been attacked.
Lyndon Johnson had a disputed war record while in the navy. Reports vary on what happened to a B-26 Marauder carrying Johnson that LBJ claimed came under Japanese fire. (Others, including other members of the flight crew, claim it turned back because of generator trouble.) Johnson was anxious to pursue victory in Vietnam, even at a cost of presenting misleading facts concerning the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Would Vietnam have been as important to Johnson if he had seen more of combat first hand?
In the modern era, no clear pattern emerges from the examples of recent presidencies. The first George Bush risked his life in combat and was rescued after his plane was shot down. He rallied the world for the first Gulf War, but decided against the invasion of Iraq. His son avoided the Vietnam War with a stint in the national guard. When the nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, there was near universal support for his attack on those who enabled Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but fewer understood the need for a second war in Iraq. Unlike his father, he pressed onward to Baghdad, ignoring his Secretary of State's "Pottery Barn rule" (if you break it, you buy it.) Ronald Reagan's war experience was of the non-combat kind, promoting the sale of war bonds. But as president he pursued a policy of "peace through strength" while being quick to send troops to places like Libya and Grenada. Bill Clinton also had no military experience. As president he tended to avoid sending troops, withdrawing them when threatened in Somalia, and doing less than what many would have hoped for in cases of international genocide.
Thus far, President Barack Obama has shied away from the use of military force, following a course of military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and avoiding the use of force in places like Syria. He was willing to approve the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, though likely so would every president under the same circumstances. Perhaps the current crisis in the Ukraine may turn out to be his biggest test of his resolve in determining to what extent he is willing to challenge a strong aggressive nation, and how far he will go to match his statement that America is "the world's policeman". The future will tell us whether economic sanctions will be the extent of US action under the current president, or whether an escalation of Russian aggression will be met with stronger measures. Stay tuned.
In conclusion, it is too simplistic to say that presidents who have seen war first hard are reluctant to take the nation into war, while those who have been spared the experience of war are more willing to send US troops into harm's way. This pattern has often been the case, though often circumstances have demanded a military response in spite of presidential reluctance. For example, it is difficult to imagine any president responding with diplomacy alone in response to a Pearl Harbor or a 911. The current state of modern warfare and its consequences would suggest that other factors have overtaken a president's own wartime experience in any consideration of whether or not a military response is called for a given situation. In the short term, I predict that first-hand military experience will be less of an asset for presidential candidates, while a knowledge of foreign affairs and diplomacy will be more valuable. In today's modern climate of political spin, PACs and billion dollar campaign spending, it has become more difficult to assess the character, resolve and sincerity of presidential candidates. However some comfort can be gained from the fact that, no matter what a candidate's ideology may be, modern day warfare has become too frightening a prospect for any candidate to use hawkish tendencies as a springboard to the White House.
I've often wondered if personal experience in observing the carnage of war tended to make a president more or less reluctant to embrace that role and if it affected a president's willingness to send American soldiers in the line of fire. The answer is complicated, dependent in part on the times that one lived in. For example, at the beginning of the nation's history, perhaps up until at least the first world war, service in war was viewed as "manly" and honorable. Over time, the wisdom of this viewpoint has been called into question, particularly as the weapons of war became more potent.
James Madison did not see military action during the Revolutionary War, and therefore one can speculate whether, if he had, he would have been reluctant to take his nation to war in 1812. Battle veterans James Monroe, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce all avoided major military conflict on their watches, perhaps because they had a greater appreciation of precisely what war meant to the young men who would be on the front lines of the conflict. Andrew Jackson may be seen as an exception to this philosophy, and yet even he did not engage the nation in major military conflict.
Conversely, Madison, James K. Polk and Abraham Lincoln sent their nations to war, though none of them had much in the way of first hand experience with armed combat. "Colonel Polk", as he like to be addressed, had served in the Tennessee militia at a time of peace. Many believed that he provoked war with Mexico by sending troops into disputed territory which he claimed to be US soil. The Mexican War became an unpopular one due to atrocities committed by undisciplined militia and the ravages of disease on the troops. Abraham Lincoln had served in the Black Hawk War. He did not fight in combat, but he had seen the aftermath of a battle and its casualties first hand. This experience did not seem to deter him from his support of General Ulysses Grant's campaign of attrition at the end of the war.
The Civil War produced a set of Presidents who saw first hand the carnage and tragedy of war. The most famous of these was Ulysses Grant, who was pejoratively called "Grant the Butcher" by his critics because of the large number of casualties amassed in the battles that he commanded in. Yet as President, Grant preached the mantra "let us have peace", which is now etched in stone above the entrance to Grant's Tomb. Other presidents such as Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield and Benjamin Harrison, were battle tested as soldiers, and steered a peaceful course in the oval office. William McKinley, who served at the bloody Battle of Antietam, does not precisely follow this formula. He took the nation into war with Spain, but did so with the greatest of reluctance, and under great pressure.
Theodore Roosevelt is another complicated study. He did not shy away from soldiering when the war with Spain arose, running directly into enemy fire at Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill in Cuba and urging those with him to do likewise. Although as president he carried "a big stick" and did not shy away from aggressive rhetoric, he also kept the nation out of war, and even won a Nobel Peace prize. However when the first world war broke out, citizen TR was a fierce advocate for US entry into war. Woodrow Wilson, who had no military service, campaigned for re-election on the slogan "he kept us out of war", but shortly after his re-election, he took the nation into the war that he had boasted about keeping the country out of.
Twentieth century presidents seemed to be the most affected by what they had or hadn't experienced on the battlefield, perhaps because they knew the intense misery that modern warfare could bring. Dwight Eisenhower began his presidency by seeking to end the Korean conflict and maintaining the peace through two terms, amid a "Cold War". John F. Kennedy planned to draw down the number of American "advisers" in Vietnam, and regretted being drawn into the Bay of Pigs. That experience taught him to be very cautious when the Cuban missile crisis presented itself.
Harry Truman is an interesting study. He was anxious to end the one he had inherited, even if it meant using a terrible weapon such as the world had never seen. Perhaps it was with the confidence of having this weapon that he then involved the nation in the Korean War. That decision didn't go as planned. His predecessor, the non-veteran Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had entered the war after years of quasi-neutrality, doing so only after his nation had been attacked.
Lyndon Johnson had a disputed war record while in the navy. Reports vary on what happened to a B-26 Marauder carrying Johnson that LBJ claimed came under Japanese fire. (Others, including other members of the flight crew, claim it turned back because of generator trouble.) Johnson was anxious to pursue victory in Vietnam, even at a cost of presenting misleading facts concerning the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Would Vietnam have been as important to Johnson if he had seen more of combat first hand?
In the modern era, no clear pattern emerges from the examples of recent presidencies. The first George Bush risked his life in combat and was rescued after his plane was shot down. He rallied the world for the first Gulf War, but decided against the invasion of Iraq. His son avoided the Vietnam War with a stint in the national guard. When the nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, there was near universal support for his attack on those who enabled Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but fewer understood the need for a second war in Iraq. Unlike his father, he pressed onward to Baghdad, ignoring his Secretary of State's "Pottery Barn rule" (if you break it, you buy it.) Ronald Reagan's war experience was of the non-combat kind, promoting the sale of war bonds. But as president he pursued a policy of "peace through strength" while being quick to send troops to places like Libya and Grenada. Bill Clinton also had no military experience. As president he tended to avoid sending troops, withdrawing them when threatened in Somalia, and doing less than what many would have hoped for in cases of international genocide.
Thus far, President Barack Obama has shied away from the use of military force, following a course of military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and avoiding the use of force in places like Syria. He was willing to approve the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, though likely so would every president under the same circumstances. Perhaps the current crisis in the Ukraine may turn out to be his biggest test of his resolve in determining to what extent he is willing to challenge a strong aggressive nation, and how far he will go to match his statement that America is "the world's policeman". The future will tell us whether economic sanctions will be the extent of US action under the current president, or whether an escalation of Russian aggression will be met with stronger measures. Stay tuned.
In conclusion, it is too simplistic to say that presidents who have seen war first hard are reluctant to take the nation into war, while those who have been spared the experience of war are more willing to send US troops into harm's way. This pattern has often been the case, though often circumstances have demanded a military response in spite of presidential reluctance. For example, it is difficult to imagine any president responding with diplomacy alone in response to a Pearl Harbor or a 911. The current state of modern warfare and its consequences would suggest that other factors have overtaken a president's own wartime experience in any consideration of whether or not a military response is called for a given situation. In the short term, I predict that first-hand military experience will be less of an asset for presidential candidates, while a knowledge of foreign affairs and diplomacy will be more valuable. In today's modern climate of political spin, PACs and billion dollar campaign spending, it has become more difficult to assess the character, resolve and sincerity of presidential candidates. However some comfort can be gained from the fact that, no matter what a candidate's ideology may be, modern day warfare has become too frightening a prospect for any candidate to use hawkish tendencies as a springboard to the White House.