ask gleaves
DESCRIPTION
Ask Gleaves book!TRANSCRIPT
2
3
Ask GleavesAsk GleavesAsk GleavesAsk Gleaves The Presidency and War
Copyright © 2009
“Know your past. Build our future.”
Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies Grand Valley State University
401 Fulton Street West
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
(616) 331-2770
www.allpresidents.org
4
5
Contents
Presidents and War 7
Longest Serving Wartime President 12
Eisenhower and D-Day 18
9/11 and the Presidency 21
The Bush Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary 24
The Theme is Freedom 28
6
7
Presidents and War
S ometimes the simplest objects of our civilization can be telling. As a history
teacher, I am always looking for interesting ways to make a point. Imagine if thou-
sands of years in the future, a pile of pennies were to be found. What would our de-
scendents surmise about America? Studying the lowly penny, they would see:
• It is made of an alloy, a mixture of metals, so they’d surmise the people knew ad-
vanced metallurgy.
• It is perfectly round, reflecting knowledge of advanced mathematics.
• All the pennies are perfectly alike, showing that the people who made them were
capable of manufacturing to exacting specifications.
• On one side, there is an exquisitely rendered profile of a man, showing admirable
anatomical knowledge and artistic skill.
• The date on the penny shows that the people had a sophisticated calendar that reck-
oned not just in decades or centuries, but in millennia. (The date on this penny I am
holding is 1976—a great year since native son Gerald Ford was president and that was
America’s bicentennial celebration.)
• The word “LIBERTY” shows the people’s commitment to an idea, to an epochal
struggle for human freedom, rights, and dignity.
• The motto “IN GOD WE TRUST” reveals that these people submitted themselves
to a transcendent moral order that made their liberty possible.
• Turning the penny over, on the obverse side is a picture of a building that looks like
an ancient Greek or Roman temple, showing a conscious debt to a distant civilization
(especially its republican virtue).
• The term “ONE CENT” is derivative of an ancient language. Centum is Latin for
“one hundred.”
• The Latin motto “E PLURIBUS UNUM” — “out of many, one” — is a social as
well as a linguistic statement, revealing that many diverse peoples built up a relatively
unified society.
• And the official name of the country, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,” not
only affirms a debt to the Italian Renaissance explorer and cartographer (Amerigo
Vespucci), but also suggests that the nation is a federated polity.
The overall impression the penny would convey is of a nation built of free republics that
is jealous of its liberties. This impression is reinforced if you look again at the man on
the penny. If our descendents thousands of years from now learned anything about
Abraham Lincoln, it would be that he was the wartime president who led our nation
through our defining crisis—our Iliad—the Civil War.
You know what? It’s not unusual in American history to have a wartime president, or a
president shaped by war. The history textbooks don’t do a good enough job teaching
our children this, but most of America’s commanders in chief have been profoundly
shaped by war. Taking a survey of the presidents whose lives and careers were greatly
8
impacted by war, I’d like to lead us through a half dozen points.
First point: Of the 43 men who have served as president, 28 served in at least one war
prior to becoming commander in chief; 4 served in at least two wars (Jackson, Taylor,
Grant, and Eisenhower); and 1 served in three wars before making it to the White House
(Zachary Taylor). War made a profound impact on their lives. For George Washing-
ton, to take one example, the French and Indian War was a distilling fire that shaped his
character so that he could mature and be a better leader in the Revolutionary War. The
Washington who resigned his commission in Annapolis in 1783 was not the Washing-
ton in Jumonville Glen three decades earlier and 300 miles away.
The second point can be posed as a question: “Can you name the last general to serve
in the White House?” It was Eisenhower, and his administration seems very distant
from us today because he was president a half-century ago. Once upon a time in Amer-
ica, it was not unusual to have a general in the White House. This may surprise you, but
more than one quarter of our presidents had attained the rank of general before serving
in the White House: 11 in all.
For the third point, another question: Do you know which
three wars account for the experience of almost half our
presidents? Five of the first seven commanders in chief
served in some capacity in the Revolutionary War
(Washington, Jefferson who was technically in the military
but saw no action, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson). Eight
presidents in the second half of the 19th-century were sol-
diers in the Civil War (Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield,
Arthur, Harrison, McKinley, and even Fillmore who had
been president ten years before the outbreak of the Civil
War. And seven Cold War presidents served in World War
II (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan,
and Bush 41).
You can see from what I just said that the Civil War and World War II— just those two
wars—account for more than one third of our presidents. Those conflicts were veritable
incubators of 20 of our future leaders.
Speaking of incubators of experience, do you know which future president was a
POW? It was Andrew Jackson, who was a 13-year-old messenger when captured by the
British during the American Revolution. The scar on his cheek was the result of refus-
ing to polish a British officer's boots, for which defiance he was viciously beaten.
Fourth point—also in the form of a question: “Just considering the years they spend in
the White House, how many presidents have been at war longer than George W.
Bush?” It turns out that no president has spent more time at war than our 43rd com-
mander in chief. If the Sept. 11 attacks by al Qaeda are regarded as the start of the War
on Terror, then George W. Bush spent eight years (almost two full terms) as a wartime
president. That’s 50 percent longer than Lincoln fought the Civil War, almost twice as
long as Franklin Roosevelt waged World War II, and four times longer than Woodrow
9
Wilson prosecuted World War I. It’s even longer than two more recent presidents who
were totally consumed by war—Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, each of whom got
entangled in Vietnam for more than four years and faced fierce domestic opposition as
the war dragged on.
The fact is: most U.S. presidents have led the nation in major conflicts. Only five of
those wars have been declared. Presidents have justified taking the nation into hundreds
of additional conflicts based on Article 2 of the Constitution. Invariably our presidents
believed the conflict they entered would be a relatively short affair and some were, like
the Spanish-American War. But most conflicts lasted longer than anticipated.
Not surprisingly, the chaos and unintended consequences of war are reflected in the
word’s etymology. “War” is derived from the Indo-European root wers, “to confuse,
mix up.” In a number of Germanic languages, this root gave rise to words relating to
confusion or the act of mixing things up. Wars definitely can turn the world upside
down in unexpected ways.
This is where historical experience can teach us a lesson or two. Americans want a
peaceable order. They tend not to be forgiving of presidents who wage unfinishable
wars. Harry Truman presided over the “police action” in Korea only two-and-a-half
years, which seems short compared to Iraq or Vietnam, yet he was dogged with among
the lowest approval ratings in presidential polling history because of the perception that
the war was a stalemate.
In a republic or democracy, it is difficult to sustain a people’s will to fight over a long
period, and the unintended consequences can be dramatic. The 30-year-long Pelopon-
nesian War unraveled democratic Athens, drawing its so-called Golden Age to a
close. A century of civil war severely weakened the Roman Republic, leading to its
displacement by an autocratic empire. The two most extensive wars in U.S. history—
the century-long Indian Wars and Vietnam—left ugly scar tissue on the nation’s body
politic.
George W. Bush told the American people that he was unable to conclude the War on
Terror, and that the task will fall upon President Barack Obama to bring about its
end. In the midst of the conflict, we cannot fathom all the consequences, good and
ill. No president goes into war thinking, “I want to fail, I want to be brought down, I
want my party to take a beating, and I want my country to be humiliated in the proc-
ess.” Yet it can and does happen. As Shakespeare famously put it in Julius Caesar,
“Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.”
A fifth and related point. Our Hauenstein Center scholar in residence, Richard Norton
Smith, made this point: few presidents fight the wars they intend to. Until September
1862, Lincoln thought he was fighting the South to preserve the Union, but he ended up
fighting for much more—freeing the slaves. At the outbreak of the Spanish-American
War, McKinley thought he was fighting for American honor against a decadent Spanish
empire, but he ended up establishing an American empire and getting the U.S. bogged
down in a guerilla war in the Philippines. Wilson thought he’d be fighting the Germans
to preserve the freedom of the seas and to restore the balance of power in Europe, but
10
he ended up fighting for universal democracy and championing an ill-fated League of
Nations. Lyndon Johnson committed the U.S. to fighting in Southeast Asia in part to
stop communist expansion, and in part to take the New Deal to the Third World. He
wanted the Mekong River to be the new TVA. But he ended up in a domestic war that
ended his career in politics.
Final point. Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution designates the president as the com-
mander in chief of the Army, Navy, and state militia (National Guard) under specific
circumstances, but does not make prior military experience a prerequisite for of-
fice. Does it make any difference? Dwight Eisenhower thought so. He certainly knew
the horrors of war. Following the invasion of Normandy, he wrote about walking
through fields of corpses so thick his boots couldn’t avoid stepping on their spilled
blood. Ike said, “God help the nation when it has a president who doesn't know as
much about the military as I do.”
Presidents Who Served in Uniform Americans like their presidents to bring military experience to the office, the more war-
time experience the better. As President George W. Bush observed before the Iraq War,
“Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make.”
The list of U.S. presidents with wartime experience is extensive:
Revolutionary War War of 1812 Black Hawk War
George Washington Andrew Jackson Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson William Henry Harrison Zachary Taylor
James Madison John Tyler
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
Mexican War Civil War Spanish-American War
Zachary Taylor Andrew Johnson Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Pierce Ulysses S. Grant
Ulysses S. Grant Rutherford B. Hayes
James Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley
World War I World War II Korean War
Harry S. Truman Dwight D. Eisenhower Jimmy Carter
Dwight D. Eisenhower John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard M. Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Ronald Reagan Vietnam
George H.W. Bush George W. Bush
11
What does that mean for the Obama administration? With the war in Iraq slowly draw-
ing to a close, and a new counterinsurgency strategy taking off in Afghanistan, only
time will tell.
Originally published on www.allpresidents.org on November 12, 2007.
——————————————
12
Longest-Serving Wartime President
T he United States has spent most of its history fighting. Over the past 220 years,
presidents have been backed by congressional declarations of war 11 times in 5
major conflicts; they have received congressional authorization to use armed force in
more than a dozen additional conflicts; and, exercising their Article II prerogative as
commander in chief, they have sent U.S. servicemen and women into action on hun-
dreds of deployments.¹ Not surprisingly, quite a few of the 42 men who have served as
president have clocked considerable time in armed conflict.
How did George W. Bush compare with his 41
predecessors? Our former president spent more
time at war than any other president in U.S. his-
tory. He served as a wartime commander in chief
for 7 years, 4 months, dating back to the attacks by
Islamo-fascists on September 11, 2001. That’s
longer as Lyndon Johnson’s wartime leadership.
LBJ served as a wartime commander in chief for 5
years, 2 months during the Vietnam War, which
he inherited from the assassinated John F. Kennedy.
George W. Bush passed LBJ at the end of his second term, thereby holding the record
for spending the most time at war. Interesting to note is that neither of these longest-
serving wartime presidents served as commander in chief in a congressionally declared
war.
G. W. Bush Compared to Presidents Who Fought Declared Wars
Our 43rd president spent significantly more time as a wartime commander in chief than
the 5 presidents who asked Congress for, and received, an official declaration of war:
• Franklin Roosevelt spent 3 years, 4 months battling European and Japanese
fascists during World War II, from December 7, 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked,
till April 12, 1945, when he died.
• James Madison oversaw 3 different wars compressed into 36 months be-
tween 1812 and 1815. The War of 1812 went from June 18, 1812, when the U.S. de-
clared war on the U.K., till January 8, 1815, when the Battle of New Orleans was
fought; the Creek War in the Deep South spanned 1812 to 1814; and the last of the Bar-
bary Wars, a.k.a. the Algerine War, was fought in the Mediterranean Sea between
March and late June of 1815.
• 3 years of William McKinley's presidency were embattled. He reluctantly
entered the Spanish-American War, which lasted just six months between February and
August 1898. But the war's fallout included the Philippine Insurrection, which broke out
in February 1899 and continued through McKinley's assassination in September 1901.
(That conflict would formally end eight months later.)
• Woodrow Wilson's wartime tenure, though difficult to calculate, mostly took
place over 2 and ½ years of his presidency. He ordered the Punitive Expedition against
13
Pancho Villa in Mexico (from March 1916 till January 1917) and soon afterward sent
Doughboys into World War I (from April 1917 till Armistice Day, November 11,
1918). He authorized military force on numerous other occasions between 1914 and
1918 -- for example, when the U.S. intervened in Haiti, Cuba, Panama, and Nicaragua;
and in Russia, to thwart Russian revolutionaries (from August 1918 till April 1, 1920).
• James K. Polk was a wartime commander in chief for less than 2 years
(dating from April 24, 1846, the outbreak of the Mexican-American War, till February
2, 1848, when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, ending hostilities).
Bush Compared to Presidents Who Fought Undeclared Wars
At a little over 7 years, George W. Bush's wartime tenure was significantly longer than:
• Thomas Jefferson's 4 years of fighting the Tripolitan War against the Barbary
states in North Africa (from the spring of 1801, when Tripoli's ruler unofficially de-
clared war against the fledgling U.S., till a peace treaty was signed on June 4, 1805);
• Abraham Lincoln's 4 years of struggle during the Civil War (from April 12,
1861, when Fort Sumter was fired on, till April 9, 1865, when Lee surrendered to Grant
at Appomattox Court House); usually overlooked is that Lincoln also had to deal with
armed conflict against Apache and other Western Indians his entire time in office; and
• Richard Nixon's 4 years of effort to end American involvement in Vietnam
(from his first day in office, January 20, 1969, till January 27, 1973, when the Paris
Peace Accords were signed, formally ending direct U.S. involvement in offensive ac-
tions in Vietnam). Another interesting comparison is that George W. Bush has spent
more than twice the time at war as such illustrious commanders in chief as:
• John Adams, who on May 3, 1798 created the U.S. Navy in response to
French attacks on American ships. There were about a dozen naval engagements,
mostly in the Caribbean, through most of the year 1800.
• Harry Truman, whose two stints as a wartime commander in chief amounted
to about two years of fighting during his presidency. This included the last 4 months of
World War II (from April 12, 1945, when he took over after FDR died, till August 15,
1945, when Japan surrendered); also the first 1 and ½ years of the Korean War, from
June 27, 1951, when Truman authorized U.S. military action on the Korean peninsula,
till January 20, 1953, when he retired from office). Truman was the first president of the
four-decades long Cold War.
• John F. Kennedy, who escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam over a two-
year period, beginning in 1961, when he ordered the first combat squadron² to Southeast
Asia, up to his assassination on November 22, 1963. JFK was under pressure to push
back against the Soviet Union because of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion (April
1961), erection of the Berlin Wall (August 1961), and communist threat to the neutrality
of Laos. Vietnam appears to be where he drew the line.
A number of presidents have presided over military conflicts lasting just hours, days,
weeks, or months. A few examples (proceeding backward in time):
• Bill Clinton's time as a wartime president is difficult to nail with precision
but amounted to less than one year. American troops on a humanitarian mission had to
deal with intermittent violence in Somalia in 1993-94 (an operation begun by President
14
George H. W. Bush). More significantly, Clinton authorized U.S. air strikes against
Serbian forces over a 10-week period in the spring of 1998. Finally, Clinton ordered
four days of concentrated air attacks against military installations in Iraq in Operation
Desert Fox. Intermittently over the next several months, U.S. missiles struck military
targets in Iraq, in response to antiaircraft fire and radar locks on American aircraft.
• George H. W. Bush, was at war for less than 8 weeks. He authorized U.S
forces in Panama to wage a week-long battle in December 1989 to depose Manuel
Noriega -- the only war in U.S. history directed against one person.³ Beginning on Au-
gust 7, 1990, Bush oversaw Operation Desert Shield in response to Saddam Hussein's
invasion of Kuwait; it became Operation Desert Storm with air strikes on the morning
of January 16, 1991; U.S. ground troops began their offensive on February 24; and by
February 28 a cease-fire was declared.
• Ronald Reagan ordered U.S. armed forces into combat during the last week
of October 1983, in the 3-day invasion of Grenada, to protect Americans on the Carib-
bean island from a Marxist dictator; and he launched an air attack against Libya on
April 15, 1986, in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque that killed two
U.S. servicemen.
• In 1980 Jimmy Carter ordered the rescue of Americans held hostage in Iran;
the mission was aborted.
• Gerald R. Ford had to supervise the tense end of the Vietnam War, when U.S. forces
evacuated Saigon in April 1975. Less than two weeks later he had to confront Khmer
Rouge forces in the Mayaguez Incident, in which 41 U.S. servicemen died. Their names
were the last to be engraved on the Wall (formally known as the Vietnam Veterans Me-
morial) in Washington, DC.4 This confrontation with Cambodia marks the end of U.S.
battle deaths in Indochina in the twentieth century.
• At the beginning of his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower had to manage
the truce in Korea, signed July 27, 1953. (Officially the war has never ended.) At the
end of his presidency, he stationed U.S. warships and Marines off the coast of Guate-
mala. Sidebar: although Eisenhower did not send troops to Indochina to fight, but to
advise, the first two American deaths occurred under his watch in 1959.
• In 1859, under authorization of Congress, James Buchanan flexed America's
military muscle by deployed 20 warships and 2,500 men toward landlocked Paraguay to
redress a minor commercial crisis. Buchanan biographer Jean Baker calls this expedi-
tion "perhaps the most ludicrous exertion of American power during his administra-
tion....5
• In 1820, under authorization of Congress, James Monroe dispatched the U.S.
Navy into the Atlantic Ocean to disrupt and destroy as much of the slave trade as possi-
ble.
The Hundred Years War against the Indians
During its first century of existence, the U.S. fought an intermittent Hundred Years' War
against numerous Indian nations. Between 1790 and 1890, most of our presidents au-
thorized military force against Indians at some point. The longest-running conflicts --
spanning decades -- were against the Seminoles east of the Mississippi, and against the
Apaches west of the river.
15
• George Washington spent
nearly 5 years in intermittent battle
against Little Turtle, Blue Jacket, Te-
cumseh, and Indians in the Ohio Valley
(from the autumn of 1790 till the signing
of the Treaty of Greenville on August 3,
1795). The Indians were loosely allied to
remnant British troops in the Old North-
west. The first two generals Washington
sent into the region were routed. Only
General Anthony Wayne was able to
subdue the Indians northwest of the Ohio
River.
• At the same time James
Madison was fighting the British in the
War of 1812, he was waging war on a
second front in the Deep South, namely
against the Red Stick Creeks (backed by
the British and supplied by the Spanish
in Pensacola). The Creek War lasted
from 1813 till the signing of the Treaty
of Fort Jackson, on August 9, 1814.
• James Monroe also fought an
Indian war on the Southern frontier, this
time against the allies of the Red Sticks,
the Seminoles (from November 1817 till
May 1818); as noted above, two years
later he deployed the U.S. Navy to sup-
press the African slave trade.
• Andrew Jackson, of Indian Removal fame and hero of the Creek War, was
later commander in chief when two Indian wars broke out. First was the Black Hawk
War in 1832. Next was the Second Seminole War, the fiercest fighting in which took
place during the last two weeks of December 1835. For almost a quarter century there-
after, until May 8, 1858, five additional presidents (Martin Van Buren, William Henry
Harrison, John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan) would have to deal with
the Seminoles.
• In the aftermath of the California Gold Rush of 1849, several presidents had
to deal with Indian uprisings in the Far West -- Millard Fillmore, the Mariposa War
(1850-51) as well as the Yuma and Mojave Uprising (1852-52); Franklin Pierce, the
Rogue River War (1855-56) and Yakima War (1855); and James Buchanan, the Coeur
d'Alene War (1858), Paiute War (1860), and beginning of the Apache and Navajo War
(1860-68).
• Abraham Lincoln's battles against Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho Indians
have already been noted. U.S. troops also had to go up against the Santee Sioux and
Navajo during his four years in office. The Indians, not surprisingly, were taking advan-
tage of the diminished presence of the U.S. Army in the West during the Civil War.
Ranked below are the top ten American
presidents who spent the most time at war:
1. George W. Bush -- 7 years, 1 month
constantly (War on Terror: Afghanistan,
Iraq)
2. Lyndon Johnson -- 5 years, 2 months
constantly (Vietnam War)
3. George Washington -- almost 5 years
intermittently (Indians in the Ohio Val-
ley)
4. Abraham Lincoln -- 4 years constantly
(Civil War, Indians in the West)
5. Richard Nixon -- 4 years constantly
(Vietnam War)
6. Thomas Jefferson -- 4 years intermit-
tently (Tripolitan War)
7. Franklin D. Roosevelt -- 3 years, 4
months constantly (World War II)
8. James Madison -- 3 years constantly
(War of 1812, Creek War, Algerine
War)
9. William McKinley -- 3 years (Spanish-
American War, Philippine Insurrection)
10. Andrew Johnson -- about 3 years inter-
mittently (various Indian wars in the
West)
16
• Andrew Johnson's unhappy time in office was consumed by years of fighting
Indians in the West, most notably in the Cheyenne and Arapaho War (1864-65), War
for the Bozeman Trail (1866-68), Hancock's War (1867), Snake War (1866-68), and
Sheridan's Campaign (1868-69).
• Ulysses Grant's years of fighting Indians in the
West involved the last 4 months of Sheridan's Campaign (in
1869), 8-month long Modoc War (1872-73), 6 month-long
Kiowa or Red River War (1874), Sioux War for the Black
Hills (1876-77), and the Apache War (from 1876 to the end
of his second term, March 3, 1877).
• Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, and Chester
Arthur spent their time in office intermittently battling Indi-
ans in the Apache War.
• During his first administration, Grover Cleveland
oversaw the final act of the Apache War, whose denouement
was a 2,000 mile chase through the Southwest U.S. and
northern Mexico. During the spring and summer of 1886, U.S. cavalry went deep into
Mexico, traveling 200 miles south of the border in pursuit of Geronimo's warriors.6
• In 1890 the U.S. Census determined that there was no longer an American
frontier. In December of that same year, Benjamin Harrison was president when the
Seventh Cavalry killed between 200 and 300 men, women, and children at Wounded
Knee Creek. This was the final episode in the Hundred Years War between the U.S.
government and Indians.
In all, more than 1,000 servicemen (and more civilians) died in the Hundred Years War
against the Indians.7
Letting Slip the Dogs of War
History is always ironic. In the foregoing discussion, did you notice the absence of the
one president who most glorified war, who thought that armed conflict was good for a
nation because struggle kept a people fit and strong? How odd that Theodore Roosevelt
spent hardly any time as a wartime president. Yes, he cleaned up the guerilla war in the
Philippines; he relished a muscular gunboat diplomacy; and he encouraged the Panama-
nians to revolt against Colombia for the sake of building the Panama Canal; but TR also
won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War.
U.S. armed forces have frequently engaged in armed conflict, yet our presidents have
been chary of fighting the long war -- with good reason: war strains not just a nation's
military, but its economy, politics, constitution, society, and culture. There are always
unintended consequences that attend a war. Especially in a republic or democracy, it is
difficult to sustain a people's will to fight the long war. The thirty-year-long Peloponne-
sian War unraveled democratic Athens, drawing its so-called Golden Age to a close. A
century of civil war severely weakened the Roman Republic, leading to its displacement
by an autocratic empire. The two most extensive wars in U.S. history -- the century-long
Indian Wars from George Washington's administration to Benjamin Harrison's, in
which about 1,000 men died in battle; and Vietnam, which left more than 58,000
17
American dead -- left a terribly mixed legacy.
Even as George W. Bush was closing in on the record for having spent the most years at
war, he has told the American people that he will be unable to conclude the War on Ter-
ror, that it will be a long struggle, and that the task would fall upon his predecessor,
Barack Obama, to bring about its end. In the midst of the conflict, we cannot begin to
fathom all the consequences, good and ill. As Shakespeare famously put it in Julius
Caesar, “Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.”
Originally published on www,allpresidents.org on October 23, 2006.
_________________________________
¹ For an overview of the many hundreds of times presidents have deployed the U.S.
military, see Richard F. Grimmett, "Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad,
1798-2004" (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service report
RL30172, October 5, 2004), available online at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/
rl30172.htm, accessed September 28, 2006. For other lists see Barry Goldwater, "War Without
Declaration: A Chronological List of 199 U.S. Military Hostilities Abroad Without a Declaration
of War, 1798-1972," Congressional Record, V. 119, July 20, 1973, pp. S14174-14183; US De-
partment of State, "Armed Actions Taken by the United States Without a Declaration of War,
1789-1967," Research Project 806A, Historical Studies Division, Bureau of Public Affairs; John
M. Collins, America's Small Wars (New York: Brassey's, 1990). For useful context of such lists
of military deployments, plus the legal authorization for various actions, see Francis D. Wormuth
and Edwin B. Firmage, To Chain the Dog of War: The War Power of Congress in History and
Law (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1986), pp. 133-49.
² There is controversy over dating U.S. battlefield involvement in the Vietnam War. The
convention is to date the origins of the U.S. at war in Vietnam in 1964 (after passage of the
Tonkin Gulf Resolution) or 1965 (after Lyndon Johnson's large troop deployments were in coun-
try). A number of historians and journalists adhere to this convention because they are admirers of
John F. Kennedy and try to spare JFK blame for the Vietnam War; they assign the beginning of
true U.S. military action in Vietnam to Kennedy's successor, LBJ. This is to ignore important
evidence. The escalation of U.S. involvement under JFK is striking. When JFK took over from
Dwight D. Eisenhower, on January 20, 1961, there were 800 U.S. "advisers" in South Vietnam.
At the time of his assassination in November 1963, there were 16,700 military personnel there,
and our nation was fighting an undeclared war in Indochina. U.S. servicemen were assisting the
South Vietnamese army (ARVN) in offensive operations, and providing air cover for ARVN
troops. As David Anderson writes in the Oxford Companion to American Military History, "The
Vietnam War was the longest deployment of U.S. forces in hostile action in the history of the
American republic. Although there is no formal declaration of war from which to date U.S. entry,
President John F. Kennedy's decision to send over 2,000 military advisers to South Vietnam in
1961 marked the beginning of twelve years of American military combat.... [Starting] In May
1961, Kennedy sent 400 U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) troops into South Vietnam's
Central Highlands to train Montagnard tribesmen in counterinsurgency tactics."
³ Alan Axelrod, America's Wars (New York: John Wiley, 2002), pp. 501, 503.
4 The number of casualties has been disputed. See Christopher Hitchens, "The Kiss of
Henry," The Nation, April 30, 2001.
5 Jean H. Baker, James Buchanan (New York: Times Books, 2004), p. 111.
6 Axelrod, America's Wars, p. 319.
7 Estimate from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, online at http://www.va.gov/
pressrel/amwars01.htm, accessed September 28, 2006.
18
Eisenhower and D-Day
O n June 6, 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was arguably the most powerful
man in the world. He was the supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary
Force, the hand-picked leader of Operation Overlord, the largest amphibious assault in
human history. The Allies' mission to retake western Europe from Hitler's Third Reich
depended on the success of Operation Overlord.
In addition to being the largest amphibious assault in human history, Operation Over-
lord was the defining experience in the lives of millions of men and women. Eisen-
hower never forgot the human impact of D-day and the days that followed. In his war-
time memoir, Crusade in Europe, Ike wrote of the hellish encounter with death: "I was
conducted through [the battlefield] on foot, to encounter scenes that could be described
only by Dante. It was literally possible to walk for hundreds of yards at a time, stepping
on nothing but dead and decaying flesh."
To Eisenhower soldiers were no pawns. On the eve of the June 6 invasion, he left head-
quarters to inspect the 101st Airborne Division. Military planners were anticipating that
the 101st would suffer 80 percent casualties. It says much about Ike's character that he
wanted to go out to these men, say a few words, and look them in the eye before send-
ing them into combat. When Americans elected Ike president in 1952, and reelected
him in 1956, they knew they were choosing a man who was fully alive to the horrors of
war.
Americans also knew that they were choosing a man with the skills to manage virtually
any difficulty he would encounter. Ike, after all, was the man most responsible for
launching the greatest amphibious invasion -- against the fiercest enemy -- in human
history. Not an exercise for wimpy CEO's, this.
As Carl Shilleto and Mike Tolhurst write in D-Day and the Battle for Normandy,
"During the first few months of 1944 the south of England was transformed
into a giant military base. Over three million soldiers, sailors, and airmen were
training to play their part in the invasion of Europe.... Headquarters staff offi
cers carefully coordinated and recorded the movement of every unit to ensure
that the planned movement and embarkation of the fighting troops and the
transfer of their vital supplies would run with clockwork precision. With an
initial assault force of over 170,000 men and 20,000 vehicles it was a logistic
cal nightmare for the planners involved.... Over 1,000 supply vessels and
4,124 landing ships and craft would be used to transport the combat troops and
their equipment across the English Channel. For the protection of the naval
convoys, and to help soften up the German coastal defenses by naval bombard
ment, an additional 1,213 warships would sail with the armada."
D-Day required Eisenhower to develop another important skill in a commander in chief
-- diplomacy. The Allies' coalition was the most complex alliance of nations ever at-
tempted. It was often under stress of fracturing, and Ike had to marry up huge egos:
Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle, Montgomery, and Patton, to name a few of the more
colorful. Less than a week before the invasion, Ike met with Churchill and De Gaulle in
19
the Operation Overlord War Room. De Gaulle was so furious with the PR he was re-
ceiving that Ike led him out of the War Room and into the rain to give him "the elbow
room ... to wave his arms." Ike did some arm waving, too. Nevertheless, the storm
passed, and the coalition held. (Read an account of this scene in David Eisenhower's
engaging biography of his grandfather, Eisenhower: At War, 1943-1945, pp. 246-47).
Eisenhower also had to learn to deal with the press before, during, and after D-Day, and
he handled them truthfully but shrewdly. Not a bad skill for a future president of the
U.S. to cultivate.
Ike possessed another essential element of good leadership -- the willingness to accept
full responsibility for his decisions and actions. On the eve of major battles, he would
write out a note explaining that he bore full responsibility for anything under his com-
mand that had gone wrong. On June 5, 1944, he wrote:
Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold
and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was
based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that
bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is
mine alone.¹
Another leadership quality Eisenhower possessed was
his common touch, his ability to make ordinary Ameri-
cans feel at ease with him. Part of his easy charm was
displayed in the famous "Ike grin," but his affinity for
others went much deeper. As he said to those under his
command, "I cannot let this day pass without telling the
fighting men that my proudest boast shall always be: I
was their fellow soldier."
Finally, Eisenhower exuded confidence. He never
shrank from his duty or a tough challenge. The people
around Ike found his can-do spirit contagious. They
needed a leader who possessed the inner resources to get
through ordeals that would make other men go wobbly
in the knees. Ike's confidence expressed itself in the
challenges he was willing to take on. Just as Ike sought
to be the supreme commander of the Allied Expedition-
ary Force, so he wanted to be president of the United States. In both arenas, he believed
he could do the job.
On June 6, 1944, Eisenhower was arguably the most powerful man in the world -- on
his shoulders lay the burden of the greatest amphibious invasion ever. The war was a
pressure cooker that required Ike to develop his leadership. He knew the gravity of
combat; the importance of vision; the necessity of conceiving and executing a good
plan. He understood the requirements of diplomacy; the importance of communicating
with the press; and the need to inspire ordinary men and women to extraordinary
feats. All these qualities served Eisenhower well during World War II, when he was
20
supreme allied commander. They prepared him eight years later to be the commander
in chief of the United States and the leader of the free world. Originally published on allpresidents.org on May 28, 2004.
________________________________
¹ The original of Ike's handwritten note is in the Eisenhower Museum, Abilene,
Kansas.
21
9/11 and the Presidency
I n short and above all: we want a commander in chief more than an economic man-
ager.
That was hardly the case a few short years ago. We Americans live in interesting times.
Our nation has experienced three distinctly different eras during the last five presiden-
tial election cycles. We have gone from the Cold War to peacetime to the war on terror.
You'd be hard pressed to find a comparable period in our history when the challenges
have been so differently defined. Election cycles reflect those changing challenges.
Wanted in 1988: A Retiring Commander in Chief
In 1988, when Vice President George H. W. Bush ran against Massachusetts Governor
Michael Dukakis, we were dialing down our nation's epochal struggle against the Soviet
Union. Yet there were lingering dangers with all those missiles pointed at us, so foreign
policy was still high on our list of political priorities. Bush struck most people as the
better man for the job.
Dukakis, in retrospect, hardly stood a chance. No image better encapsulates his failed
bid for the White House than the one of him riding around in a tank in Warren, Michi-
gan, an oversized helmet on his head. The diminutive governor hardly looked like the
stuff of which commanders in chief are made, and he was practically laughed out of his
campaign.
In the public imagination, the phony photo-op of Dukakis
riding around in a tank was juxtaposed to something authen-
tic: the grainy film clip of fighter pilot George H. W. Bush
being rescued by a submarine after a dangerous mission in
the Pacific during World War II. Americans wanted the Real
Thing. Is there any question who looked more suited to fin-
ish the Cold War?
Now, it didn't hurt that Bush proposed steering the ship of
state out of choppy seas and back to calmer waters where the
nation could be its "kinder, gentler" self. Bush did have a
domestic dimension to him; he had majored in economics at Yale University. But the
habits of the Cold War were still very much with us in 1988, and that is why Bush won.
Wanted in 1992, 1996, 2000: Economic Manager
Yet the times they were a changin'. Once the Berlin Wall fell in 1989; once the Soviet
empire collapsed in 1991; once the exuberance of those heady days faded; Americans
lost interest in a man who represented an older generation and its heroic role in the last
"good war." Although Bush was known for his exploits during World War II, for his
outstanding foreign policy experience, and for his stunning victory in the Persian Gulf
War, during which he forged an alliance of more than 50 nations, the voters were pre-
22
disposed for a change. Bill Clinton was the change.
By 1992 the U.S. was basking in the post-Cold War peace dividend. Intellectuals were
bloviating about "the end of history." America was the undisputed king of the jungle.
The nation's economy was emerging from a recession. Peace and prosperity stretched to
the horizon. Americans basically wanted their president to be a competent economic
manager. Little attention was paid to foreign policy -- or to Bill Clinton's crafty avoid-
ance of serving in the armed forces during the Vietnam War. That's why the Democrats'
slogan in '92 -- "It's the economy, stupid!" -- captured the zeitgeist, and with it Clinton
captured the White House.
In retrospect, the emphasis on the economy also helps explain why Clinton so easily
turned back challenger Bob Dole -- another World War II veteran -- in 1996. The ma-
jority of Americans may have disapproved of Clinton's personal behavior, but they
clearly were all right with his presidential performance, especially when it came to eco-
nomic management.
This emphasis on things economic also helps us understand why, in 2000, both major
candidates ran on their domestic vision. It is interesting to speculate whether Senator
John McCain would have beaten out George W. Bush in the Republican primaries had
9/11 occurred before the 2000 contest.
Of course, 9/11 had not occurred, and when voters had a choice between two younger
men who had Ivy League credentials but little foreign policy experience, the election
was a toss-up. Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the vote that
counts -- in the Electoral College.
Wanted in 2004: Commander in Chief
9/11 totally redefined the challenges of our day and the Bush presidency along with it.
In 2004 our national challenges were somewhat different from either the four decades of
Cold War or the one decade of hot stocks. The greatest effect of 9/11 on our national
politics by 2004 was that we didn't just want an economic manager in the White House;
we wanted a commander in chief. Our highest priority
was preventing another terrorist attack by jihadists on
our soil. So we wanted in our president a leader who
would increase security at home, forge anti-jihadist
alliances abroad, and take the battle to the terrorists
who would destroy us.
Both John Kerry and George W. Bush understood the
requirements of the new zeitgeist: commander in chief
became the most important role in a president's job
description. That was why, during the 2004 campaign,
Senator Kerry stood by his vote backing President Bush to go to war against Iraq. And
it was why, at the Democratic National Convention in July, Kerry emphasized his ser-
vice in Vietnam; his argument was that his tour of duty on a Swift boat in Southeast
Asia qualified him to be a strong commander in chief in the war on terror. And it was
23
why, at the Republican National Convention before Labor Day, Bush emphasized his
leadership after the 9/11 attacks; his argument was that his actions had resulted in the
terrorists having fewer bases, less money, and diminished opportunities to strike on U.S.
soil.
The need for a thoughtful, decisive commander in chief -- that was the key difference
after 9/11.
Wanted in 2008: A Multi-Tasker
President Bush's decision to order a troop surge in Iraq was effective, but lingering
problems remained in that troubled region, and Afghanistan saw a resurgence of Taliban
resistance. In 2008, the economy and energy problems have eclipsed national security
in the minds of most Americans. Nevertheless, Osama bin Laden has not been captured,
Putin is still powerful, Chavez is more than an annoyance, and Iran's leaders defy world
opinion. So, the race in 2008 certainly continued the concerns of 2004.
With the election of Barack Obama on November 4, 2008, our new commander-in-chief
will have to keep trying to persuade the American people that he is a competent eco-
nomic manager and prudent, courageous, wartime president.
Originally published on allpresidents.org on September 11, 2004.
——————————————————
24
The Bush Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary
T he war on terrorism is being fought on the basis of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush
Doctrine, like the Roosevelt Corollary that preceded it, seeks to justify a president's
unilateral decision to use military force when U.S. citizens and interests are threat-
ened. The unilateral decision to use force can go hand-in-hand with pre-emptive action
if the president believes that enemy regimes have the will and the means to strike at the
U.S., and are not likely to be stopped. Despite what you may have heard in the media,
President George W. Bush is hardly the first commander in chief to justify intervention
in foreign countries or pre-emptive military strikes against enemies. Historically, nu-
merous U.S. presidents -- Democratic and Republican -- have sought a rationale for
using military force preemptively and unilaterally.
An American Tradition
The Bush Doctrine, like the Roosevelt Corollary, continues policies that evolved during
the early years of the republic. To dominate the continent, our early presidents used
military force unilaterally and sometimes pre-emptively against so-called Indian na-
tions. (George Washington's campaigns in the Ohio River Valley illlustrate.) To domi-
nate the hemisphere, presidents used force against Latin American nations on the basis
of the Monroe Doctrine. (Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick policy was its strongest ex-
pression.) To dominate the globe, presidents have projected force on the basis of the
Truman Doctrine, Bush Doctrine, and numerous doctrines in between. These twentieth-
century doctrines relied on the historic building blocks of the Monroe Doctrine and
Roosevelt Corollary to do it.
The roots of unilateralism, of going it alone, reach back to the origins of our na-
tion. They can already be seen in President George Washington's appeal to the Ameri-
can people in his Farewell Address (1796) to remain aloof from the concerns of the
world when our vital interests are not at stake, and especially to avoid entangling alli-
ances with European nations. Washington had backed his words with deeds: the 1793
Proclamation of Neutrality had angered France's allies in the U.S., since we were in
effect reneging on our commitment to our nation's first ally.
Likewise, the roots of pre-emption can be seen in Jefferson's about-face regarding a
navy. He was not initially for a navy and marine corps, but the arrogance and depreda-
tions of the Barbary pirates made him strike the Muslims decisively so that they could
never menace our commerce again. Christopher Hitchens writes of
Jefferson's determined use of naval and military force to reduce the Barbary
States of the Ottoman Empire, which had set up a slave-taking system of piracy
and blackmail along the western coast of North Africa. Our third president
was not in a position to enforce regime change in Algiers or Tripoli, but he
was able to insist on regime behavior-modification (and thus to put an end to
at least one slave system). Ever since then, every major system of tyranny in
the world has had to run at least the risk of a confrontation with the United
States, and one hopes that the Jeffersonians among us will continue to ensure
that this remains true.¹
25
The Monroe Doctrine is the classic American expression of unilateralism; it implied pre
-emption. The doctrine was developed in the wake of the War of 1812, when the Brit-
ish sacked Washington, D.C. Partly in response to this humiliation, President James
Monroe's secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, developed a foreign policy that sought
to discourage European involvement in the Western hemisphere. He left open the pos-
sibility of unilateral action and pre-emptive military strikes in a well-defined sphere of
influence. Thus Monroe's 1823 annual message to Congress asserted: "The American
continents ... are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonizations by
any European powers."
The Monroe Doctrine was debated by presidents at critical points in U.S. his-
tory. Following Abraham Lincoln's Inauguration, Secretary of State William Seward
wrote a letter to the commander in chief headed, “Some Thoughts for the President's
Consideration." Geoffrey Perret records that Seward "wanted Lincoln to unite the coun-
try by waging war -- or at least threatening war -- against France and Spain. The Span-
ish had recently seized Santo Domingo and, with French connivance, were poised to
grab Haiti. This violation of the Monroe Doctrine could not be allowed to stand. Tell
them to get out of our hemisphere, or else, he urged.”²
Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
The United States took the Monroe Doctrine to the next level in 1898 and the half-
dozen years that followed. First, the U.S. was quick to pick a fight with Spain in 1898,
winning the war handily and evicting the Spanish from Cuba and other posses-
sions. Then in 1901, Congress passed the Platt Amendment, which required the Cubans
to write a Constitution to our liking and authorized the U.S. commander in chief to in-
tervene in Cuban affairs if he thought it necessary to protect American lives and inter-
ests.
Then in 1904, Theodore Roosevelt stretched the Mon-
roe Doctrine even further. The U.S. declared its right
to be the policeman of the Western hemisphere. Here
was one justification. The government of the Domini-
can Republic was bankrupt, and the president was con-
cerned that European powers might intervene to collect
the payments owed them. To keep European forces out
of the Western hemisphere, TR formulated the corol-
lary in his 1904 annual message to Congress: "Chronic
wrongdoing ... may ... ultimately require intervention
by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemi-
sphere the adherence of the United States to the Mon-
roe Doctrine may force the United States, however
reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an
international police power."
The term "international police power" has a decidedly modern ring. The Monroe Doc-
trine and Roosevelt Corollary to it created the framework for U.S. foreign policy in the
Western hemisphere for decades. They provided the rationale for the U.S. military to
26
intervene in Latin America when a president thought it in the national interest to do so.
For almost three decades, presidents used the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doc-
trine to justify intervention in the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, and
Haiti. Historian Samuel Eliot Morrison observed: "So burdensome did this responsibil-
ity become, so offensive to Latin America, and so utterly futile (since the evacuation by
American armed forces was inevitably followed by a dictatorship or a revolution) that in
1930 the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was officially repudiated by the
department of state."
It was TR's distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who scotched the idea of intervention
and pre-emptive military strikes in Latin America, pursuing instead a Good Neighbor
Policy. As one commentator quipped, "A Roosevelt gave and a Roosevelt hath taken
away."
THE DOCTRINE OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
Yet in truth, intervention and pre-emption have remained options for every modern U.S.
president, and not restricted to the Western Hemisphere. Democratic presidents have
asserted these options in several notable instances. In the months leading up to Pearl
Harbor, FDR publicly warned Nazi Germany that the U.S. might strike at U-boats. ("If
the rattlesnake is coiled to strike, you don't
wait for it to strike but crush it under-
foot.") Two decades later, during the Cuban
Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy
seriously considered a preemptive strike
against nuclear missile bases in Cuba. In De-
cember 1998, President Bill Clinton launched
Operation Desert Fox against Saddam Hus-
sein's Iraq, on the grounds that the Iraqi re-
gime was violating U.N. resolutions, develop-
ing weapons of mass destruction, and harbor-
ing terrorists. Further, the 2004 Democratic platform makes room for pre-emptive mili-
tary action, and in a debate with President Bush in October of 2004, Senator John Kerry
defended the U.S.'s right to pre-emptive military action if the nation's vital interests
were at stake.³ Since World War II, Republican presidents have also asserted the options of unilateral
intervention and preemption -- Eisenhower in Guatemala, Reagan in Grenada, and Bush
in Panama.
Anybody who doubts that successive Republican and Democratic administrations have
been willing to project force -- sometimes unilaterally, sometimes preemptively --
should consider this fact: since 1990, the U.S. has engaged in almost 150 military mis-
sions.4
GEORGE W. BUSH
In keeping with the long-standing policy of unilateralism and pre-emption, President
27
George W. Bush formulated his famous doctrine on September 11, 2001 -- the day of
the worst terrorist attacks ever on U.S. soil. Bush declared that the U.S. would "make
no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor
them." Nine days later, in a landmark speech before a joint session of Congress, Bush
reiterated: "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven for terrorism. Every
nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are
with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or sup-
port terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Bush developed the doctrine in a White House paper, "National Security Strategy of the
United States." The doctrine provided the rationale for launching the war against Af-
ghanistan in October of 2001, and against Iraq in March of 2003.
Although the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine has long since been repudi-
ated, the Bush Doctrine borrows elements from it, especially the premise that the United
States has the unilateral right to use military force when our nation's interests are threat-
ened. The Bush Doctrine makes pre-emption a policy of last resort -- which is seen as
vital when considering just war theory -- but it boldly asserts the right to hunt down
terrorists in foreign lands and to launch pre-emptive military strikes against the govern-
ments of nations that harbor terrorists.
There is currently much debate about the Bush Doctrine. Many believe that the doctrine
of pre-emption is imprudent because it provides a rationale for the target of pre-emption
to strike first -- ironically -- in its own self-defense. Regarding the morality of pre-
emption, I will just say this, because there has been much misguided rhetoric on the
subject the past three years. If the American intelligence community had discovered
beforehand that al Qaeda planned to attack on 9/11 -- if there had been "actionable intel-
ligence" -- is there any question that the U.S. would have had the right to strike pre-
emptively, and to wage war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that supported
it? Is there any doubt that our nation would have had the right to make the strikes uni-
laterally if time and/or diplomatic gamesmanship kept the U.S. from securing interna-
tional approval?
Originally published on allpresidents.org on May 25, 2004.
—————————— ¹ Christopher Hitchens, “The Export of Democracy, Jefferson’s Ideas Presaged
the Bush Doctrine,” Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2005: p. A 16.
² Geoffrey Perret, Lincoln's War: The Untold Story of America's Greatest
President and Commander in Chief (New York: Random House, 2004), p. 23.
³ Ibid.
4 Thomas P. M. Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the
Twenty-first Century (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 2004).
28
The Theme Is Freedom
T he stagecraft was masterful. As the president spoke, the world’s attention was as
much on the ship as on the speech. Our plain-speaking commander in chief com-
mended America’s men and women in uniform. He did not hesitate to call our struggle
a triumph over “the forces of evil.” He asserted that “This is a victory of more than arms
alone. This is a victory of liberty over tyranny.” The president then reminded listeners
that America is “the strongest nation on earth,” and with this status comes “burdens and
responsibilities” “It is not yet the day for the formal proclamation of the end of the war,
nor of the cessation of hostilities.” Indeed, the president warned, “God grant that in our
pride of the hour, we may not forget the hard tasks that are still before us.”
So declaimed President Harry S. Truman on September 1, 1945. He spoke by radio
from the White House, and his words were timed for broadcast during the surrender
ceremony of the Japanese on the battleship Missouri, anchored in Tokyo Bay. It was
one of those great moments in
American history, captured by
black-and-white photographs that
have insinuated themselves into
the nation’s visual memory. (The
first thing that strikes people is
the nattily dressed Japanese for-
eign minister who had donned a
tall hat for the occasion.)
As in all momentous events, more
was going on than met the eye.
Addressing fellow Americans and
General MacArthur, the president
conveyed satisfaction that retribu-
tion had been paid to Japanese
warlords:
Four years ago, the thoughts and fears of the whole civilized world were centered on …
Pearl Harbor. The mighty threat to civilization which began there is now laid at rest. It
was a long road to Tokyo — and a bloody one. We shall not forget Pearl Harbor. The
Japanese militarists will not forget the U.S.S. Missouri.
It gave Truman particular satisfaction to utter those last words, and not just because he
hailed from the Show-Me State. Some 19 months earlier, his daughter Margaret had
christened the Missouri in San Francisco Bay. At the ceremony, then-Senator Truman
prophesied that the battleship, guns blazing, would soon steam into Tokyo Bay and see
the finale to the Second World War.
On that Thursday in 2003, when President George W. Bush addressed the nation from
the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, he struck similar chords. He took listeners
back 19 months, when the thoughts and fears of the whole civilized world were centered
29
on September 11. And he prophesied. “The war on terror is not over; yet it is not end-
less. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.
No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their
fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.”
It doesn’t require much imagination to see parallels between Truman and Bush, the
commanders in chief who led America to victory in World War II and Gulf War II re-
spectively. Both our 33rd and 43rd presidents were derided as foreign-policy light-
weights before they became leaders of the free world. Both were consistently underesti-
mated by opponents at home and enemies abroad. Both prosecuted wars against totali-
tarian regimes in Asia. Both spent a presidency defined by perpetual conflict — Truman
by the Second World War, Cold War, and Korean War; Bush by September 11, Af-
ghanistan, Iraq, and the next phase of the war against terrorism (North Korea again?).
Both developed historically significant doctrines.
As if on cue, the events of May 2003 suggest other parallels. Both presidents, remarka-
bly, used a ship in the Pacific to amplify the message that a major conflict had ended.
And not just any ship. Truman felt an affinity for the battleship Missouri since its name-
sake was his family home, just as Bush feels an affinity for the carrier Abraham Lincoln
since its namesake hearkens to his political home. To top it off, Bush explicitly refer-
enced Truman in his speech.
Some interesting parallels notwithstanding, Bush’s performance was sui generis, a re-
markable milestone in the rhetorical presidency. Not only did he choose the high seas as
his forum; he landed in Navy 1 on the deck of a moving carrier — a first for a sitting
U.S. president. In military parlance, Bravo Zulu! Well done, Mr. President!
Bush chose to give his address on May Day. In the ancient world, May Day symbolized
spring over winter, life over death, good over evil. Yet who can forget the May Days of
more recent vintage, when strutting Stalinists would parade their military wares before
an anxious world? What a contrast with the simple event that took place yesterday on
the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. No parades through a giant square. No show of bris-
tling armaments. No bombast about burying the rest of the world. The setting for yester-
day's message was quite the opposite. A very finite-looking carrier deck dwarfed by the
immensity of the ocean. A modest band playing in the background. The president wear-
ing a coat and tie. It was as though Bush were saying, It’s a new May Day, symbolic of
our resolve on behalf of freedom. The human hunger for freedom will not go unre-
quited.
Bush’s 23-minute speech was enthusiastically received by officers and sailors on the
Abraham Lincoln. It was interrupted 24 times by cheering and applause, and at least a
half-dozen times these were augmented by standing ovation. The theme, from start to
finish, was freedom. The former president said the word “free” or “freedom” 19 times,
“liberty” 5 times.
To reinforce the point, Bush used historical allusions to former presidents who’d fought
for freedom — Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald
Reagan. He also cited an Old Testament passage about man's quest for liberty. In addi-
30
tion, the speech relied on rhetorical techniques such as juxtaposition to suggest higher
forms of freedom (before God):
“You are homeward bound. Some of you will see new family members for the
first time — 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln.
Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you. “
Some good men and women are not making the journey home…. Every name, every
life is a loss to our military, to our nation, and to the loved ones who grieve. There’s no
homecoming for these families. Yet we pray, in God’s time, their reunion will come.
Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great
evil and bring liberty to others. All of you — all in this generation of our military —
have taken up the highest calling of history. You're defending your country, and protect-
ing the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope — a
message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, “To the cap-
tives, ‘come out,’ — and to those in darkness, ‘be free.’”
The battle over Iraq may be over, but the war on terror is not. Our nation continues to
face a ruthless enemy — and thus a test of our national character. Do Americans have it
in them to run not just a sprint, but a marathon? Do we have what it takes to prosecute
the war on terror over the long haul?
In George W. Bush Americans had a leader who was confident that we could prevail.
Perhaps he has been inspired by his straight-talking predecessor. Reflecting on why
Americans won wars, Truman credited, more than anything, “the will and spirit and
determination of a free people — who know what freedom is, and who know that it is
worth whatever price they had to pay to preserve it. It was the spirit of liberty which
gave us our armed strength and which made our men invincible in battle. We now know
that spirit of liberty, the freedom of the individual, and the personal dignity of man, are
the strongest and toughest and most enduring forces in all the world.”
Originally published in the National Review on May 2, 2003.
————————————————
31
32
33
About the Author
Gleaves Whitney became director of Grand Valley State Uni-
versity’s Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies in
2003. During his tenure he has been the architect of more
than one-hundred public programs, including two national con-
ferences covered by C-SPAN. He has overseen tremendous
growth of the Hauenstein Center's website, premiered a popu-
lar web column called Ask Gleaves—the first presidential Q &
A column in the nation—and created a leadership academy for
students and young professionals committed to public service.
Prior to his arrival at Grand Valley, Gleaves worked 11 years
in Michigan Governor John Engler’s administration, serving as
senior writer, chief speechwriter, and historian. In 1993, the
governor assigned him to a task force that helped bring sweep-
ing education and school finance reforms to Michigan that the New York Times called
“the most dramatic in the nation.”
In addition to his public work, Gleaves is a scholar who writes and lectures nationally
on a variety of historical topics. He is also the author or editor of 13 books. In his cur-
rent position as director of the Hauenstein Center, he has cultivated many institutional
partnerships—e.g., the National Park Service, Houston Museum of Natural Science, and
the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum—and numerous ongo-
ing professional partnerships—e.g., H. W. Brands, Richard Norton Smith, William
Barker, and George Nash.
Gleaves graduated with honors from Colorado State University (1980), was elected into
the Phi Beta Kappa honor society (1980), and was a Fulbright scholar in Germany
(1984-85). He did his graduate work at the University of Michigan, where he was a
Richard M. Weaver fellow (1987-88) and an H. B. Earhart Fellow (1988-91). He has
taught at the University of Michigan, Droste-Hulshof Gymnasium, Colorado State Uni-
versity, and Grand Valley State University. In 2006, he received the honorary Doctor of
Humane Letters from the Graduate Theological Union (Dominican School of Philoso-
phy and Theology), Berkeley, California.
Gleaves was born and raised in Houston, Texas, and now makes his home in Grand
Rapids, Michigan.
34
35
About the Hauenstein Center
The Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies is inspired by Ralph Hauenstein's life of
leadership and service. In six short years, the Hauenstein Center has become one of the
leading presidential studies centers in the nation. Award-winning historian Richard
Norton Smith called the Center "a jewel in the crown of Michigan." Award-winning
biographer H. W. Brands called Hauenstein Center Director Gleaves Whitney "a real
treasure for those of us who do presidential studies and that work in the field of presi-
dential history," and observed that Gleaves is "one of the most effective entrepreneurs in
the business of higher education." The Center accomplishes its mission through a num-
ber of exciting partnerships and initiatives.
Prestigious Leadership Academy
Hauenstein Center leadership fellows have been face-to-face with four U.S. presidents,
several presidential candidates, one vice president, three secretaries of state, numerous
senators and members of Congress, four state governors, and multiple Pulitzer Prize
winners and finalists.
World-Class Events
Hauenstein Center debates and conferences are among West Michigan's most antici-
pated events. Since 2003, the Center has hosted more than 200 programs, many in part-
nership with the Gerald R. Ford Foundation and Museum. Four programs have been
broadcast by C-SPAN to a national audience, three have been web cast internationally,
and one has been watched on YouTube by more than 65,000 people in some 30 nations
on all six inhabited continents.
Cutting-Edge Website
The Hauenstein Center’s dynamic website, www.allpresidents.org, is among the highest
-rated presidential studies sites in the world, according to Google. It has attracted more
than 16 million hits, and has earned recognition in the New York Times, U.S. News &
World Report, Newsweek, Sunday Globe & Mail, Chronicle of Higher Education, and
National Review, as well as on PBS and C-SPAN. The website's design and content are
fast becoming an online model for academic centers of excellence. Look for us in the
blogosphere and on iTunes, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia.
Cutting-Edge Website
The Hauenstein Center’s dynamic website, www.allpresidents.org, is among the highest
-rated presidential studies sites in the world, according to Google. It has attracted more
than 16 million hits, and has earned recognition in the New York Times, U.S. News &
World Report, Newsweek, Sunday Globe & Mail, Chronicle of Higher Education, and
National Review, as well as on PBS and C-SPAN. The website's design and content are
fast becoming an online model for academic centers of excellence. Look for us in the
blogosphere and on iTunes, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia.
36