Wartime President Wanted ... Resumes Cautiously Considered
Considering Military Service in Bush vs. Kerry
March 9, 2004
“An army of deer led by a lion is more to be feared than an army of lions led by a deer.” - —Attributed to Philip of Macedon, the fourth century BC king who conquered Greece and who was the father of Alexander the Great.
In 1861 any search for a wartime president would have ended when the resume of Jefferson Davis reached the search committee. West Point class of 1828, Davis had commanded army regulars and volunteer militia units, the latter during the Mexican War where President Polk offered him the rank of brigadier general. He held state and federal political posts and served as President Franklin Pierce’s Secretary of War before returning to the Senate where he served until Mississippi left the Union.
Abraham Lincoln’s resume, by contrast, would have ended up in the “While we were impressed with your qualifications, other candidates better fit our current needs” pile. Lincoln’s only wartime experience was as a militia captain in the historically inconspicuous Black Hawk War of 1832. Tradition has it that Lincoln’s militia company broke into a distillery, consumed much of its content and then burned it down along with part of the town.
As a wartime president, Jefferson Davis failed in two important respects. First, he did not develop a strategic vision for the Confederacy. States’ rights and the preservation of slavery had a narrow appeal even within the South. Second, Davis could not make difficult decisions quickly and correctly. Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, is generally considered the greatest wartime president in American history. Perhaps the most prominent quality of his greatness was the ability to articulate clearly the three reasons why the war was necessary: to preserve the Union, the Constitution and democracy. Lincoln, with a character rooted in confidence, had the nerve to take decisive action. The Constitution named him Commander in Chief and command Lincoln did. He ordered armies into action and fired incompetent generals until he settled on the Civil War’s two most talented commanders, U.S. Grant and William T. Sherman. Lincoln knew strategic victory meant one thing: destroying the rebellion.
By all historical measures, Franklin D. Roosevelt ranks with Lincoln at the top of the list of effective wartime presidents. Prior to becoming Commander-in-Chief, Roosevelt’s only military experience was as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the Wilson administration, a position that provided him with a grasp of the strategic importance of sea power.
Roosevelt’s leadership first manifested itself in the New Deal. Although only partially successful in reviving a stagnant economy, the New Deal provided the vast governmental structure needed to mobilize the nation for industrial age warfare. In World War II the greatest advantage enjoyed by the United States and its allies was industrial might. After 1943, the industrial output of the United States and the Soviet Union overwhelmed that of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Additionally, in the months after Germany plunged Europe into war, Roosevelt worked carefully with Churchill to lay the foundations for future wartime cooperation. When the United States joined the war in December 1941, Roosevelt’s challenge was to maintain the fragile coalition between the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union…a relationship made difficult by the long time enmity between Churchill and Josef Stalin. Roosevelt, like Lincoln, knew that wars are won by sound strategy which, at its essence, addresses “why you fight.” The only way to develop a war winning strategy is to clearly articulate war aims…why you fight. Eighty years earlier, Lincoln defined “why” as preservation of the Union, the Constitution and democracy.
Roosevelt and Churchill knew that civilization as defined by a thousand years of political liberalism enshrining the worth of the individual was at stake. Stalin, who was inimical to liberal ideals, understood that the survival of the Soviet Union was on the line; a good enough “why.”
In the end, leadership is the ability to articulate a vision acceptable to others. The United States is involved in a world-wide war against al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups. The challenge to wartime presidential leadership is to understand the war at hand and to communicate clearly to the people why we are fighting….why their resources and the lives of their sons and daughters are being expended.
The 2004 Presidential contest will come down to a few issues, one
of which will be wartime leadership. The American people will decide
if President George W. Bush has provided an appropriate strategic
vision or whether Senator John Kerry has a clearer vision of why we
are fighting. While what Bush or Kerry did or did not do during the
Vietnam War should be considered, it is important to keep in mind
that our two greatest wartime presidents possessed intangibles attendant
to greatness of character unapparent on their resumes.
