Generals As Presidents... A History Lesson:

[chiburb]

Snip:

There have been three presidents who went from a military career into the White House without having held any other elected office. They were Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower -- a mixed bag. But each man had some good qualities that we could use now.

Snip:

Grant was unusual for a white man of his day in that news of atrocities commited against former slaves actually bothered him. And, he thought he ought to do something to protect citizens from terrorists. He came down especially hard on the Ku Klux Klan, and whites north and south thought that Grant was going way too far to prevent those poor, oppressed, sheet-wearing white boys from exercising their traditional right to slaughter black people for fun.

Snip:

Eisenhower appears to have been less concerned than his predecessor Grant with civil rights for African Americans. But when it was necessary to act, Eisenhower, like Grant, sent troops to the South to protect African Americans from white mobs at Little Rock High School.

Also like Grant, Eisenhower was determined to maintain peace. In those days the right wing of the Republican Party was itching to start World War III; Ike kept them contained.

I realize some people on "the left" are wary of having a "military man" as President, but, believe me, we've done worse. Better a man who's seen broken bodies on the battlefield than a "chickenhawk."

More here: http://www.mahablog.com/

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. What about George Washington?

:)

[chiburb]

4. Who?

:-)

[Seneca]

6. Washington was elected a few times before the presidency

He was elected to both the First and Second Continental Congresses, starting in 1775.

[damnraddem]

11. But not after being general.

That was the criterion that was proposed -- elected after being general.

[Freddie Stubbs]

Washing had experience in elective office

He was a member of the 1st and 2nd Continential Congresses. He was also elected as a Delegate to the Consititutional Conventional.

[Seneca]

2. for more insights

Look here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=346069

[uptohere]

3. I think Washington probably qualifies also

and is easily the best of the lot.

[roguevalley]

5. Ike was the first president that I can remember. He was the one

who coined the phrase military-industrial complex and warned that every bomb made was an opportunity lost to clothe, feed and educate a child.

They were a mixed bag. That Wesley Clark has a brain and degrees in
economics and a reverence for the institutions of this country and how they check and balance each other, as well as military experience unlike presnit jr. is all I need to know. I couldn't have constructed a better candidate out of spare parts. This is the closest I have felt to the hopefulness of the Kennedy-MLK years I can remember.

[chiburb]

7. A Little More Snip On Grant:

Because Maha won't mind...

Snip:

Grant also shocked decent white society by appointing a Seneca chief (and personal friend) named Hasanowanda ("Ely Parker" to white folks) to be head of the Indian Bureau. An Indian in the Indian Bureau! Oh, my dear, that was just too radical. Tongues wagged about what an ignorant fool Grant was.

More here: http://www.mahablog.com/

[Seneca]

8. a Seneca chief?

No relation, I swear!

[chiburb]

9. Aw c'mon Parker, fess up! n/t

.

[damnraddem]

10. What about George Washington? What elected office did he hold between?

U.S. Grant was good on civil rights until he let Sherman talk him out of more-serious prosecution of Reconstruction. But on other fronts, Grant was a disaster -- he was no match for the businessmen who were remaking America in their monied image after the Civil War. Though reelected to a second term, his administration is generally regarded as a wash -- but not a washing ton.

[Generic Other]

12. I am surprised to find that I like Clark

Normally, I would dismiss the idea of a military man out of hand; however, in this case Clark has some strong qualifications that give him the potential to blow Bush and Co. back to Crawford faster than an outhouse in a hurricane gale.

As the election draws near, more and more Americans will admit that we are stuck in an ill-conceived, dangerous situation in the Middle East that Bush is incapable of controlling. The GOP will be trying to convince Americans to stay the course. Expect more Bush photo ops in place of substance.

In comparison, Clark, former head of Nato, first in his West Point class, Rhodes scholar, commanding and capable of articulating his views to the American public, will run circles around Bush.

Imagine the presidential debate where they start talking about the mission of the military, its strategic plans, and ultimate objectives. I have heard Clark on CNN. I'm remembering him standing in front of the network map of the Middle East singlehandedly explaining the situation as he "guessed" it during Afghanistan and Iraq. He knew where everything was, right? And Bush? We never saw him, or when we did, suspected a staffer fed him his lines, read his cue cards for him, sobered him up, etc...

If I were betting, I'd bet Clark was the candidate with the best odds of defusing the Bush war machine.

And I am as surprised as Michael Moore that I would think a general was the best choice.

What impressed me most about him is the fact that he was the only CNN general who openly questioned whether we had explored every avenue for peace. Compared to the hysterical Powell who was making Yellowcake at the UN, Clark was calm, honest, and seemed as if he understood the gravity of the situation. What a vivid contrast!

And that a general stood up for the troops, actually questioned risking their lives in this ill-conceived venture, even while he defended the left for opposing the war was pretty remarkable.

I think it points out something interesting about how war impacts soldiers. The ones who see combat often come home as warriors for peace. The ones who get shot at have usually had enough blood and death to spend the rest of their lives working for peace and a better world after they come home.

That's what happened to a lot of vets I know, on DU and elsewhere. Many seem to have been profoundly affected by their combat experiences. Lots of vets are liberals today because they know why it's worth fighting for a better world.

In Bush's world, the military is nothing but cannon fodder or mercenaries to be hired out to the highest bidder. We on the left have tended not to trust the military, perhaps have been guilty of overgeneralization of all soldiers as bloodthirsty. Having witnessed true bloodlust glint in the eyes of men like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, I now wonder if it will be the military men of peace who will save us from the civilian hawks.