The Limits of Comparison
Weekly Standard Editor FRED BARNES: "Well, in truth, as Senator [Harry] Reid said, the President is not doing what his commanders on the ground have urged, mainly because their policy has failed. Baghdad is not secure. It's the center of great chaos and turmoil and violence in Iraq, so he's done what Abraham Lincoln did. When your commanders are not winning, you bring in new commanders. And, after all, he is the Commander-in-Chief. ..." – Roundtable on Fox News Sunday, January 7, 2007.
New York Daily News Columnist Michael GOODWIN: I think the reality about Iraq, Lou, the president as well as a lot of members of Congress are hiding behind the generals, whatever the generals want, the generals, the generals, the generals.
CNN Anchor Lou DOBBS: You're right about this, I am so sick about hearing this president and the previous defense secretary, say whatever the commanders say is what we'll do. There was a chain of command.
GOODWIN: It wasn't true in many cases. But ultimately the commander in chief is supposed to decide. I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War. He was firing people left and right until he got the people he wanted to do what he wanted.
– Lou Dobbs Tonight, January 5, 2007
President Bush is being compared to Lincoln. In an apparent turnaround (crueler observers would deem it a “flip-flop”), the Commander-In-Chief is asserting his constitutional role and has essentially fired Generals John Abizaid (retirement) and George Casey (kicked upstairs) because they did not believe in the wisdom of his new Iraq strategy (although there have been reports that Abizaid eventually came around). The turnaround is that, previously, the President portrayed the selection of commanding generals as something akin to the Immaculate Conception, without any input from the executive branch, and that he was merely following their requests and recommendations, whereas now he has actually selected generals who will follow and believe in his new plan.
The comparison to Lincoln is this: During the course of the Civil War, Lincoln relieved many generals of their commands (many entries at Lincoln Timeline), especially after losing battles, and even after winning battles if the general’s actions were insufficient. The most famous example of the latter is Lincoln’s firing of General George B. McClellan, commander of the Union armies, after the general’s defeat of Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s forces at Antietam, because McClellan did not pursue Lee’s retreating Army of Northern Virginia.
The comparison fails on other levels. At the onset of the Civil War, Lincoln submerged himself in the study of military strategy and tactics. He felt free to discuss very particular aspects of military plans with his generals – see examples at Lincoln Letter 1 and Lincoln Letter 2. It is difficult to imagine our current President taking such detailed interest in military planning.
And Lincoln wrote his own speeches, some of the most remarkable documents ever produced by an American leader. They reveal a combination of passion and logic, a concision that emanated from an individual who had great knowledge. President Bush’s flat and diffident delivery of his speech on Iraq policy and strategy – he seemed to be reading something that was written for him, a figurehead reading a list prepared by bureaucrats. We have no recordings of Lincoln’s speeches, but surely Lincoln showed more passion and knowledge when he spoke than the current President.
New York Daily News Columnist Michael GOODWIN: I think the reality about Iraq, Lou, the president as well as a lot of members of Congress are hiding behind the generals, whatever the generals want, the generals, the generals, the generals.
CNN Anchor Lou DOBBS: You're right about this, I am so sick about hearing this president and the previous defense secretary, say whatever the commanders say is what we'll do. There was a chain of command.
GOODWIN: It wasn't true in many cases. But ultimately the commander in chief is supposed to decide. I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War. He was firing people left and right until he got the people he wanted to do what he wanted.
– Lou Dobbs Tonight, January 5, 2007
President Bush is being compared to Lincoln. In an apparent turnaround (crueler observers would deem it a “flip-flop”), the Commander-In-Chief is asserting his constitutional role and has essentially fired Generals John Abizaid (retirement) and George Casey (kicked upstairs) because they did not believe in the wisdom of his new Iraq strategy (although there have been reports that Abizaid eventually came around). The turnaround is that, previously, the President portrayed the selection of commanding generals as something akin to the Immaculate Conception, without any input from the executive branch, and that he was merely following their requests and recommendations, whereas now he has actually selected generals who will follow and believe in his new plan.
The comparison to Lincoln is this: During the course of the Civil War, Lincoln relieved many generals of their commands (many entries at Lincoln Timeline), especially after losing battles, and even after winning battles if the general’s actions were insufficient. The most famous example of the latter is Lincoln’s firing of General George B. McClellan, commander of the Union armies, after the general’s defeat of Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s forces at Antietam, because McClellan did not pursue Lee’s retreating Army of Northern Virginia.
The comparison fails on other levels. At the onset of the Civil War, Lincoln submerged himself in the study of military strategy and tactics. He felt free to discuss very particular aspects of military plans with his generals – see examples at Lincoln Letter 1 and Lincoln Letter 2. It is difficult to imagine our current President taking such detailed interest in military planning.
And Lincoln wrote his own speeches, some of the most remarkable documents ever produced by an American leader. They reveal a combination of passion and logic, a concision that emanated from an individual who had great knowledge. President Bush’s flat and diffident delivery of his speech on Iraq policy and strategy – he seemed to be reading something that was written for him, a figurehead reading a list prepared by bureaucrats. We have no recordings of Lincoln’s speeches, but surely Lincoln showed more passion and knowledge when he spoke than the current President.
posted by balto at 1:55 PM
2 Comments:
Balto: We have no recordings of Lincoln’s speeches, but surely Lincoln showed more passion and knowledge when he spoke than the current President.
SG: The tele-prompters were better back then ...
Snerd
Ball-Toes: And Lincoln wrote his own speeches, some of the most remarkable documents ever produced by an American leader.
SG: So does Jr ...
However, he is only allowed to show them to Dick or Condi, and they always tell Jr how good they are, and that they need to take them away ... for consideration ...
Snerd
Post a Comment
<< Home