Do you care about our military and national security?

[Dill]

(06-14-2020, 10:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well... I don't know if this guy missed a star or two, but I find it odd not to mention Old Hickory in that list. He was a general alright. There'd also be Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Hayes and Taft. Not to mention Brigadier generals, of which I find four, namely Pierce, Arthur, Johnson and Harrison. This is a proud list of generals turned presidents. I have a hard time finding generals turned politicians, especially for more recent times (the historical context might not matter too much), but I remember some, like Wesley Clark or the three you mentioned. I guess without proof there are others.

Some quick historical notes: there is considerable contrast between generals like Pierce and Arthur and Garfield, who had full civilian lives first and then were tapped for service under emergency conditions. And really didn't run on their military experience. (Taft was a general??)  Today's general/admiral has usually spent over 20 years in the military, his every action tracked and evaluated and filed. He has learned much about logistics, management and obedience, and when in command, he has spent years worrying about that one mistep that kills a career, including PR missteps. The majority are VERY GOOD at offering calibrated military options and explaining what can go wrong.

Since Eisenhower, a few generals and admirals have thrown their hat into the national ring, but proved unfit under public scrutiny. Alexander Haig comes to mind first,  but also Perot's running mate, the disastrous Adm. Stockdale. Clark and Powell might have made decent presidents.

(06-14-2020, 10:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, as indicated I find it boring to always just be anti-Trump; though of course I am always just that. At times I feel some sight is lost on the fact that other people can be awful at times as well. Eg. Kelly, in my view, does not get his reputation back just because he says something negative about Trump now that he got fired. I also can hardly give him credit for sticking around to reign Trump in. Not only did that not work out so splendidly, but he also was responsible for the hard line immigration policy, where he separated families and whatnot, for which he was rewarded with a promotion. If all he did was hindering Trump, should we see the separated families as some kind of acceptable collateral damage for this greater purpose? As chief of staff, he found it necessary to smear a congresswoman in defense of Trump, he called Robert Lee a noble man, I mean he said a lot of nasty stuff. Hard to just explain it with "duty" and "service" for me really.

But . . . um . . . well,. . . ok. Guess I pretty much have to agree with everything here.   I think Kelly did slow Trump down at points on Syria and Korea. But so much bad along with that.