Changing Times, Changing Targets

In the past, it was consdiered a plus for a candidate to have military service, with notable examples of this being "Ike' and "JFK", and also Sen. Mcgovern who was a decorated B-24 pilot in WWII, though not elected, and more recenlty Sen Mccain.
Ike, of course demostrated leadership and governing capiblity just under the highest levels, ie FDR, Sir Winston Churchill and Stalin. Those who had doubts about the war, ie Lindberg were considered not just mistaken but lacking character.Lindberg thought Stalin was a bigger threat than even Hitler, and that maybe Britain would not prevail. Good thing Stalin and Hitler did not ally for the war. Churchill, when critisized about Stalin, said that he'd speak well of the devil if Lucifer was fighting Hitler, and of Stalin, " in his heart, such as he has one, he knows we (Allies) are right".

If not a man in service, people were still expecedt to support a war, most any war, until at least Vietnam when some changes began even if slowly.

But it is not so absolute nowadays. One surprising point in the debate last night was when Both candidates were trying to diavow any support for the Iraq War, with one claiming to be against it from the start. Each in hindsight was trying to portay how wise they were in foresight at the start, not just be patriotic to blindly follow a lead to any war. It is notable that all those years ago the resolution that started the Vietnam war, passed the Senate 89 to 1, with lone opponent Wayne Morse of Oregon. Think how lonely that position was then and how right he was in retrospect.And nowadays it is hard to deal with our enemies and conflict goes on and on in some form. Could even Ike or JFK "win" this? Candiates now are hesitant to put their name behind an rash action. Are they using better judgement and wisdom,not to rush in or just dont see a clear path?
I know I havent written this as well as Id like, but if you saw that segment last night it was a notable change from past.

Being a combat veteran is more of a liability nowadays. If you've actually *done* something, there's someone who will dig up some way to use it against you. McCain and Kerry are examples. Bush I was the last combat veteran elected; before that there weren't any since JFK. Most were veterans, true, but few others actually spent any time at the sharp end. Nowadays, damn few even have had kids in the military.

Ron Wanttaja

Hillary voted for the Iraq War. She acknowledged that during the debate, but said she didn't like the way it was handled (only because of who was President at the time, I assume). Trump was against the Iraq War. I remember him arguing with Sean Hannity about it.

Nixon, Johnson, and Ford all served in combat in the Navy in WW2. Carter was in Annapolis during WW2 but was deployed to sea during Korea. Reagan was a cavalry captain in the Army Reserve, but was non-deployable for poor eyesight, so he was assigned stateside duty with the signal corps.

I don't think service is a liability. Rather, the percentage of the political class with any military experience is dwindling as the size of the military as a percentage of the population has declined. The reality is that although we have had some excellent commanders in chief with military experience,nwe have also had former senior officers who did quite poorly as president and we have had some notable presidents with no military experience at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc

Nixon, Johnson, and Ford all served in combat in the Navy in WW2. Carter was in Annapolis during WW2 but was deployed to sea during Korea. Reagan was a cavalry captain in the Army Reserve, but was non-deployable for poor eyesight, so he was assigned stateside duty with the signal corps.

---

Looking at Ford, you're right. Officer on a carrier, in several actions, and involved in the great typhoon of December 1944.

Johnson was a Congressman who joined up after Pearl Harbor and was eventually sent by Roosevelt to the South Pacific as part of a survey team. He did make one flight into combat as an observer. This was a common activity in WWII, sending high-ranking or politically-powerful men on a milk run so they could be given a medal. In Johnson's case, it turned out NOT to be a milk run...but there's controversy as to whether his plane had turned back early with engine trouble. MacArthur gave the observer a Silver Star, and Johnson returned home.

Nixon commanded a unit that handled the paperwork and loading for transport aircraft.

Reagan, as you say, was stateside, in the Signal Corps' movie unit.

Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan must be honored for their willingness to serve, but none had to make life-or-death decisions like Kennedy, Kerry, and McCain. The latter three thus had to contend with those who faulted their decisions under fire...Kennedy lost his PT boat to collision, Kerry was "Swift-boated," and McCain has been criticized for actions as a prisoner (and, in fact, for becoming a prisoner at all).

So in two out of these three cases, their combat experience contributed to their political defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc

I don't think service is a liability. Rather, the percentage of the political class with any military experience is dwindling as the size of the military as a percentage of the population has declined. The reality is that although we have had some excellent commanders in chief with military experience,nwe have also had former senior officers who did quite poorly as president and we have had some notable presidents with no military experience at all.

---

I don't think the issue is that of ability...it's just that having done ANYTHING sets a politician up for criticism, so it's to their political advantage never to have been in a situation where they have to make life-or-death decisions.

Ron Wanttaja

I dont mean that service is a liabiity, What I meant was that we have had an extrodinary change so that now both candidates disavow the war, it is no longer a plus for a candidate to rattle the sabres while waving the flag. Bombing Isis maybe, but not going to a full war. And even more so it is now true of all the candidates as for as I know. I dont recall any of the 17 Republicans, much less 3 Democrats or 2 Independents advocating sending ground troops to anywhere. I may have missed someone on the fringe liike Perry or Cruz , but not for the most part.
And Doug if you really want to know what he said back then ,try Fact check. He said " Yes,I guess so" to Howard Stern, which was lukewarm support not strong opposition. She has said her vote was in the context of WMD which was promoted by that Pres then, and also she was urged to vote for the resolution by her husband.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

Good thing Stalin and Hitler did not ally.

---

Not correct, they did ally. In August, 1939, just 8 days before the Nazis invaded Poland to start WW2, Stalin and Hitler became allies upon the signing of an alliance known as the Devils Alliance, more formally known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact. It was a non-aggression treaty between Germany and Russia that was in force until Hitler reneged in June, 1941.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

She has said her vote was in the context of WMD which was promoted by that Pres then, and also she was urged to vote for the resolution by her husband.

---

Wow, you are very generous not to hold a senator responsible for her vote to authorize a war!

Iraq used chemical weapons, but since no nukes were found, there "were no WMD" in Iraq.

Today, in the USA, a pressure cooker is considered a WMD.

Professional politicians and their toadies (mass media and lobbiest) are destroying this nation.


BJC

This thread is closed. Strayed too far off the topic of warbirds.