Comments on: Eisenhower’s Lesson: Working Well With Others

By: frankchadwick

frankchadwick — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:38:16 +0000

Not meaning to monopolize the discussion here, but I think Frank Wilson raises a serious question and one which deserves a straight answer. Did any country make a greater contribution to the fighting in Gulf War I than Britain and Australia did in Gulf War II? In a word — absolutely. Britain committed one combat division (1st Armoured) to Desert Storm, and it did a magnificent job as part of US VII Corps. But the French also committed an armored division, the Syrians committed an armored division and a commando brigade, the Egyptians committed an entire corps of two armored divisions and a ranger regiment, and the Saudis and Kuwaitis each committed five or six brigades, all of which equalled or exceeded the ground forces committed by the UK in either war, and greatly exceeded the Australian committment — valuable and welcome as that commitment was. Desert Storm/Gulf War I was a genuine multi-national coalition, historically without precedent, including the ground combat forces of seven Arab and/or North African Moslem states: Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar.

By: frankchadwick

frankchadwick — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:08:26 +0000

Good article, Jon, and it’s provoked some interesting commens, hasn’t it? While it’s true (as Paul points out) that Eisenhower’s amity did not extend to any sworn enemy of the United States, I think it’s equally obvious that President Obama’s amity does not either, and to imply otherwise is, in my opinion, a gross diservice to both our President and to the truth. By the same token, Obama’s appology for the sometimes arrogant way we have dealt with our friends in Europe not withstanding, he would clearly agree with — and has affirmed on numerous occasions — the proposition that America has been a force for enormous good throughout history, up to and including our own time. I do not understand the need to interpret every suggestion that something we have done in the past is less than perfect as meaning that nothing we have ever done is any good at all. I also do not understand how folks can roundly denounce the policies of the current president (which is entirely within their right) but in the next breath suggest that anyone who disagrees with the policies of the last president somehow must hate America. Everyone gets to disagree with the president — every president. Right?

By: Frank Wilson

Frank Wilson — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:15:14 +0000

Before dismissing Bush the Younger for not building a coalition it would be helpful to explain the difference between the coalition the father built and the one the son built. Britain and Australia were actively involved in the second invasion of Iraq and I don’t recall that, during the first Iraq war, there was any greater contribution to the fighting on any other country’s part. Both invasions were sanctioned by UN Security Council mandates. The presumption that Bush the Younger did not consult with his father is just that – a presumption. As for the business of learning from Eisenhower, we are talking about different personalities and different circumstances – in short, one more facile historical analogy.

By: Paul Davis

Paul Davis — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:00:16 +0000

I agree that President Bush (The Elder) did everything write in 1991 – except he didn’t finish the job.

It took his son, President Bush (The Younger), to finish Saddam off.

Although there were critial errors made in the aftermath of the Iraq War, we are on track now. I believe history will be kind to Bush The Younger.

Obama and his supporters truly believe that his wonderfully read speech off a TelePrompter will win over Islamic fanatics and make them love us. That is true arrogance, it seems to me.

As for friends lost by Bush The Younger, have you seen the results of the European elections? It appears that the European leadership is closer to Bush than Obama…

By: jong

jong — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:47:05 +0000

Thus far, I think Mike Halvorsen has interpreted my intent very well. Having been in service at the time of Desert Shield/Desert Storm and did a peacekeeping stint in Bosnia alongside troops from 33 different countries, I couldn’t agree more that George H.W. Bush got it commendably right in 1991. Even if he forgot about Eisenhower, Dubya might have profited from consulting with Dad before losing us so many of our friends. It wouldn’t hurt Barack to get a few pointers from him, either.

By: pauldavisoncrime

pauldavisoncrime — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:21:31 +0000

I would submit that Eisenhower’s amity did not extend to Hitler or our other sworn enemies at the time.

In my view, Obama is speaking for himself and his followers when he speaks of American “arrogance.”

I and many other Americans reject this view. It was American “arrogance” that enabled us to free more than half of the world from tyranny – including many Muslim nations.

We have nothing to be sorry for. The world is a much better, safer and freer place due to the United States of America.

Paul Davis
Philadelphia, PA

By: Mike Halvorsen

Mike Halvorsen — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:58:03 +0000

No, I’m no “apologist” for President Obama or anyone else, but I’m in 100% agrement with the author of this piece. In fact, I would suggest that POTUS also consult with another builder of of alliances: George Herbert Walker Bush (AKA “Bush the Elder”). As a history buff and a former Army “Grunt”, I can safely claim to another name: Pacifist. ANY war, no matter how justifiable, is going to be a bad war…especially for those young men and women who have to do the fighting. It always disgusts me when when some Chickenhawk in the higher reaches of our political system screams for “WAR!”, having never personally had the experience of seeing or hearing a shot fired in anger.
JFK said, in his inauguration speech, that we should “never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate”. That having been said, when words fail, then Force, sadly, must prevail. The trick in this is getting others to see things from our point of view, without enraging 3,000,000,000 people as our former “leadership” (I use that term loosely) succeeded in doing. Perhaps giving the President a fair shot at succeeding might be the right thing to do…regardless of what that fat, bald, pillhead with a boil on his butt (his draft deferrment!), would have us do.

By: Bobby Abernethy

Bobby Abernethy — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:46:22 +0000

You are a sad puppy, this is pure bullshit from a Obama justifyer.

By: brianking

brianking — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:39:54 +0000

I’m not sure the current POTUS has read anything on famous generals in history, but Ike’s greatest contribution and challenges during World War II seemed to come from his coalition partners. I’m reading Mark Perry’s Partners in Command (about Ike and his commander George Marshall). It came as quite a surprise how much time and effort they spent debating with the British. The lesson is that if there were such disputes in the middle of a World War, it will be nearly impossible for any president of the United States to build and maintain a successful coalition in less stressful times… Still, Ike is as good a role model as they come if anyone cares to learn more about him.