Barack Eisenhower Vs. John McNixon

The Nation: One Proposes To Be A Leader, The Other Proposes To Be A Manager Of Misery

(The Nation)  This column was written by John Nichols.

---

Barack Obama has begun, finally and reasonably firmly, to clarify his stance regarding the scope and character of the ongoing U.S. role in Iraq. In so doing, the senator from Illinois has imposed clarity on a race for the presidency that, while it certainly is not a single-issue contest, will always at its most fundamental level be about the question of whether America is going to elect a president who plans to end the war or who intends to manage it.

The presumptive Democratic nominee for president says that on his first day in office he will begin the process of extracting U.S. troops from Iraq so that they -- and the United States -- can get serious about combating terrorism.

Noting Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's request for a withdrawal timetable, Obama explained in a much-anticipated speech Tuesday that "now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests."

Of course, the presumptive Republican nominee for president cut Obama no slack. Unlike his rival, John McCain says -- with an odd combination of bluster and vagueness -- that he's against an exit strategy because, "I know how to win wars."

The difference between Obama and McCain, we are told, comes down to this:

The Democrat who would be president has set a serious strategy for bringing the war (or "police action" or "occupation" or "major presence" or whatever you want to call it) in Iraq to a relatively rapid conclusion, even if that conclusion is imperfect and open to criticism. That strategy is flexible -- perhaps more flexible than some of the candidate's more ardent supporters would like -- but it is real and it is likely to be implemented along a schedule that would begin with his inauguration on January 20, 2009.

The Republican who would be president absolutely rejects any strategy that is defined by the American people or their representatives in Washington for bringing the war (or "police action" or "occupation" or "major presence" or whatever you want to call it) to the conclusion that Obama proposes. Only "events on the ground" in a country that - despite McCain's hysterically-inflated fantasies about the "success" of his beloved "surge" -- has seen little progress toward the sort of long-term political, ethnic and social stability that might make for an easy exit will determine McCain's schedule.

This distinction is best understood as a clash between the approaches of two presidents who inherited unpopular wars.

Obama is an Eisenhower man. Dwight Eisenhower, who had served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, campaigned for president in 1952, when the United States was mired in the quagmire that was the Korean War. Ike's promise during that campaign was to "go to Korea" and end the war. Upon his election, that is what he did.

McCain is a Nixon man. Richard Nixon, who had served as a supply clerk and enjoyed some success as a poker player during World War II, campaigned for president in 1968, when the United States was mired in the quagmire that was the Vietnam War. Tricky Dick refused to be pinned down regarding timelines or strategies for addressing the mess in Vietnam, suggesting simply that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific." So vague was Nixon that his Democratic opponent in the race, Hubert Humphrey, suggested that the Republican must have a "secret plan" regarding the war. As it turned out, Nixon's plan was to keep the war going. Unlike Eisenhower, who stopped the killing, Nixon, guided by "events on the ground," illegally expanded the undeclared war from Vietnam into Cambodia and Laos. Tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of southeast Asians died before the fighting finally wound down a half decade after the Republican's election.

Non-defensive wars end not when circumstances "on the ground" in distant lands dictate but when presidents who choose to be leaders rather than managers of misery decide to end them.

Barack Obama, like Dwight Eisenhower, proposes to be a leader.

John McCain, like Richard Nixon, proposes to be a manager of misery -- and the American decline that will hasten with each passing year of the quagmire in Iraq.

[joyous88]

we have lost this war,

we have lost the war in afganistan,

and we will eventually become aware that we have lost the war on terror,

because we have had no responsible, honest leadership in the military for the last eight years,

the civilians running our military were all draft dodgers during the last REAL war,

the one in vietnam, which ,by the way, they helped create

[cfin5]

What a joke this is. It''s gonna take plenty more words of sleuth to get us Americans to even compare Barak Obama with Dwight Eisenhower. Not even a nice try.

[aldon61]

This was good commentary and a very apt comparison; we need more presidents like "Ike". I still have my campaign pins from 1952; "I Like Ike" was spoken by virtually everyone. I never understood why he picked Tricky Dicky for his running mate; too bad some of Ike didn''t rub off on Nixon.

[wisepeace]

They are both very, very presumptive when they propose continued war anywhere in the world when we want our people home and we want the basics straightened out here. There is very little doubt that people around the world would be better to handle their own problems and we should be handling ours. Stop the wars and divisions in the name of human sanity and on the behalf of our young men and women.

[rktsci3127]

EEees, you compare a do nothing, done nothing lawyer to Eisenhower? I think Ike would roll over laughing! You want to compare Obama to someone, introduce his previous twin...Jimmy Carter.

[pdchapin]

According to the left, we were losing to this rag tag group of warriors.

Posted by Gunfighter51 at 05:35 AM : Jul 17, 2008

No, the left is saying we can''t win, which is different than losing. The claim, which can be debated, is that the rag-tag warrior can keep us from ever having a clean win. When things are going well for us, they simply fade into the background. When we pull back they come out again.

The problem is the administration defined military success in terms that the military can''t deliver, namely the political success of the new Iraq government. The military can kill people and blow up things, they can''t change people''s political orientation. Unless, of course, you want to go to the culture destroying level of WWII.

If we leave Iraq one of two things will happen. The current government will hold in which case we''ve won. Or it collapses and is replace by a government we don''t like. If it is, we remove it and do the cycle over again. We''re really good at removing governments; it''s insurgents that are the problem. If the casualties involved in removing Saddam are any indication, we could have removed something like 15 Iraq governments for what we''ve spent trying to fight insurgents. I suspect that after a couple of cycles, the Iraqis would decide that a government than didn''t annoy the US would be a good idea.

[jackp32]

Unfortunately, McCain is the Bob Dole of our time.

[jsl45]

Just what we need McBush, more of the same bullsh*t

[gunfighter51]

How stupid can you be!

According to the left, we were losing to this rag tag group of warriors.

The limp lefties, could''nt even win a war against the climate.

[blitzder]

"The fact is we''''re fighting vicious, savage enemies. They are not the kind to throw down their guns and run away. They will shoot back. They will try to inflict as much hurt as they can, by any means possible." Posted by zoopster1 at 06:32 PM : Jul 16, 2008

Yeah right!. The US military with its cold war build up of massive Aircraft Carriers/Battleships/B2-bombers/High tech satellite driven Weaponry etc..attacks a country with no Air-force, no Navy, a rag tag military with IED''s mounted on mules. A country crippled with 10 years of UN sanctions, with food thru the UN oil for food program. On top of that The UK and the US were enforcing no fly zones for 10 years.

How low can the US stoop to ...????? Its small wonder America is the most despised nation on earth.