And now there's 'Ten Little Indians'

by David Grand
September 25, 2003

Well, look who popped up like jack in the box, and throwing his epaulets into the Democratic presidential race, no less a military celebrity than that brainy, handsome, charismatic, former four-star general Wesley Clark. And needless to say, his debut into the world of politics was about as welcomed by the established candidates as Isabel was to the East coast, who arrived the same week. But by no means is he the blowhard she was. On the contrary, he's as soft spoken and careful with his words as a priest delivering Mass.

Plus, he certainly has impressive credentials to offer for the job of leader of the free world: a Rhodes scholar, first in his class at West Point, highly decorated in Vietnam, commanded U.S. forces in Latin America, and was director of strategic plans for the Joint Chiefs of Staff before being named Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, a lofty title shared only with former supreme commanders MacArthur, Eisenhower and Alexander "I'm in control" Haig. (They couldn't be called the Almighty commanders, for that handle had been given to another long ago.)

And even though he's a neophyte when it comes to domestic policy, if he displays the same "sponge-like mind," media savvy and get-up-and-go he has throughout his 34-year army career, he'll fill that void lickety-split. And as far as him being a "late bloomer" is concerned, Clinton- his strongest backer- didn't enter the race until the leaves had changed colors in October.

But perhaps most importantly, his candidacy gives added weight to the Democrat's criticisms of Bush's foreign policy, as well as pulling the stilts out from under Howard Dean, the leading, anti-war crusader, not to mention his candidacy negating the Republican's claim that they are more supportive of the military. And the fact that he's achieved front-runner status in a number of polls, right on the heels of his announcement, shows the weakness of the field and how desperate many Democrats are to find someone to beat "Lefty" Dean.

Also, his entering the race should help energize the Democratic base, much as Eisenhower did the Republican rank and file when he ran for president in 1952 (an office Republicans hadn't held for 20 years), and despite him previously saying "no military man should be president." But he proved to be an exception to the rule, by his able leadership during his two terms in office.

Like many Americans, however, I'm leary about a military leader being able to successfully make the transition from the battlefields of war to fighting the political battles in Washington and around the world, which cannot be delegated to subordinates to carry out, as generals are used to doing through the military chain of command. And a president barking out orders to Congress is as futile as a producer trying to direct a Broadway show to deaf-mutes.

In addition to our first president and former general George Washington, I would say Andrew Jackson (D) also belongs in that select group, who distinguished himself in office as well as he did as a general in winning the Battle of New Orleans in 1812. Others who had served in that dual-capacity were: William Henry Harrison (Whig), who was a popular hero for defeating Tecumseh at the Battle of Tiippecanoe in 1811; Zachary Taylor (Whig), who was known as "Old Rough and Ready" for whipping Santa Anna in the Mexican War; Franklin Pierce (D) who enlisted as a private in the Mexican War, was appointed colonel and then brigadier general, and who later defeated his former commander General Winfield Scott for the presidency; Ulysses S. Grant (R), who despite his stalwart leadership in bringing an end to the Civil War, was defamed while in office because of the corrupt deeds of certain unscrupulous members of his cabinet; and James Garfield (R), the youngest brigadier general in the Civil War.

So, by my count, there were two Democratic generals/ presidents; three Republicans (including Ike), and two Whig presidents. (I didn't include Washington for he was a Federalist.) But since the Whig Party was the forerunner of the Republican Party, they should rightfully be added to that party's column, giving them a 5 to 2 edge over the Democrats. And that's why I'd like to see Clark become president, if for no other reason than to close the gap a little. It's only fair.