Military Politicians

This article in Haaretz is disturbing on several levels.

First off, it is an Israeli publication. I admit, I don't know the politics of this particular media outlet, but this piece seems to favor liberals while still having questions about their effectiveness...at least in America. Here is a taste to show you what I mean:

In Ohio, in North Carolina, in Pennsylvania. It will be hard for the Republicans to snipe at them, in particular when they criticize the handling of the war in Iraq, from which they have only recently returned.

"What's needed in Congress today is a dose of honor, courage and commitment," one of them said in a recent interview. Are these the values that a military man brings with him? Not according to post-Vietnam America, and certainly not the Democratic Party, which at the time was hostile not only to war but also to the military.

It might be difficult, but as we saw in the special election here not that long ago, Republicans can maintain the national security edge over a Democrat who fought in Iraq. The card that has to be played is the potential shift to the national Democrats in Congress. Democrats are not serious about national security and until they are, they can't be trusted with power.

That second paragraph is just bewildering. Clearly, this is opinion commentary, so what are we to take from this? What I read in to it is that the Democrats aren't serious about bringing honor, courage or commitment to Congress. What the author means, isn't exactly clear...

The final three paragraphs are worth reading as the author compares American and Israeli military men who went on to succeed in the arena of politics. There is a fascinating insight in to the American military men who transition to politics...

The relationship between the army and politics in America is complicated, charged, filled with suspicion. Twelve generals have been elected president, from Washington to Eisenhower, and in more than a few cases people voted for them because they wanted to end war. This was the case with Dwight Eisenhower, the last general to be president, who promised a solution to the Korean War. So, too, with Ulysses S. Grant, whose letter to the (Republican) Party accepting the nomination ended with the words, "Let us have peace." They are an interesting parallel to Israeli prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon, as well.

The American president-generals should not be treated as a single bloc: Most were elected during the first century of the empire. In the 20th century, Americans elected lawyers, actors, academics - and mainly politicians - to be their leaders. General Alexander Haig, who perhaps dreamed of the presidency, was booted out of the Reagan Administration and more or less ordered not to return. Colin Powell reached a high position, but never contested even a single election. That is another feature that is characteristic of generals who aspire to be president: They want it to be handed to them on a silver platter, without having to sweat for it. William Henry Harrison, a hero of the wars against the Indians, was supposedly dragged into the presidency against his will. To a certain extent, this was also true for George Washington, whose personality was distant and antagonistic. The young Eisenhower was courted by both parties; all he had to do was choose.

But the new generation of warriors seeks to conquer through effort, by force, and is being welcomed by the left side of the political map, ironically. And why not? Its goals serve these soldiers well - and may also help it to change its image (and its content). As the saying goes, if you want a recession, elect a Republican; if you want a war, elect a Democrat. The party that led America into the first and second world wars and into Korea and Vietnam is reconnecting to the military establishment that it once expelled in disgust. A positive effect of the Iraq war.

Do you agree?