This started as a response to another poster, but I wanted to expand on it here, for general comment. The conventional wisdom says that we can attribute the Iraq War, in part, to the "chickenhawks" who, never having been in a war, regarded it as a frivolous thing, to be entered into casually. The conventional wisdom suggests that those who have first-hand experience with the horrors of war are more reluctant to start one except as a last resort.

There's something comforting about that conventional wisdom. It would be nice if the hard-won experience of serving in combat did make men sadder and wiser leaders, serving as a lifelong cautionary tale. The only problem with that narrative is that it doesn't seem to be true. Sure, there are some combat veterans who draw from that experience a respectable reluctance to put the next generation of young men through that hell. And there are some life-long civilians who seem so eager to order others into combat that one is tempted to assume that it's because all their ideas of combat come from romantic pulp novels and glorious old Hollywood war movies. But is there really any pronounced trend for combat veterans to be more reluctant, later in life, to start wars?

I don't think history bears that out. If anything, living through those wartime horrors seems to desensitize people to them, or even to give them a sense of having paid their dues enough to entitle them to send other men off to die in their turn. Many of the biggest warmongers in history were men whose younger years were spent fighting on the front lines -- men who should have known better, but were perfectly happy setting off bloodbaths on trivial pretexts.

Napoleon went from being a young military officer to conquering much of Europe as France's leader. Adolf Hitler was more aware of the horrors of war than most people -- he was almost gassed to death as a corporal in the First World War. Yet he is personally responsible for the biggest war in history. The three men most responsible for getting the US involved in the nightmare of Vietnam were Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, all three of whom had personal combat experience. The bloodiest war in American history, the Civil War, was between two political factions each led by a man who had combat experience in an earlier war. A combat veteran of that war went on to lead America into the colonial war against the Phillipines.

When I step back and look at history, I find it astonishing that this weird conventional wisdom can survive. From Alexander the Great in the ancient world up through the strongmen in Africa today, a huge number of those responsible for bloody wars of aggression have been people who spent their younger years on the front lines themselves. So, what leads us to believe such combat experience makes people less likely to casually invade other countries?

What we know of psychology suggests the opposite will be true. Are the children of abusive parents more or less likely to abuse their own kids? It would be nice if, having experienced the horrors of such an upbringing first hand, these people were extra careful to be patient and loving with their own kids. And some, of course, do take exactly those lessons and go on to be great parents. But, statistically, those who were the victims of those terrible behaviors are more likely to perpetrate them on their own kids. So, it wouldn't be surprising to find that, similarly, those who as young men were sent off to kill and die in unnecessary wars were actually more likely to do the same to the next generation.

During his eight years in office, the US was never engaged in active military actions.

On July 15, 1958, he sent just under 15,000 soldiers to Lebanon as part of Operation Blue Bat, a non-combat peace keeping mission to stabilize the pro-Western government. They left the following October.

Eisenhower explored the option of supporting the French colonial forces in Vietnam. However, Chief of Staff Matthew Ridgway (anther WW II Vet) dissuaded the President from intervening by presenting a comprehensive estimate of the massive military deployment that would be necessary.

In his farewell speech to the nation, Eisenhower raised the issue of the Cold War and role of the U.S. armed forces and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Ron

Short answer: NO. It's in McCain's best interest to paly the sympathy card which is why you're seeing picture after picture of the injured McCain being brought back to the US. He's trying to tie that experience to national security, strong on defense but as We Clark has pointed out, after returning to service, the unit he commanded did not participate in any battles. It's the only card he can play.

Polls have proven that Americans are more concerned with the economy and things that affect their personal lives and now, fears of a terrorist attack are at the lowest level since 9/11.

If military experience is to be considered, there are far more even tempered who might make sense. McCain is a loose cannon.

That's because McCain commanded a Squadron in 1976-77 which was not a time of War.

Ron

He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.

Ron

And how does that equate with being commander in chief? By his own admission he doesn't have a grasp on economics and a whole lot of other issues that affect our daily lives. And then, by his own admission, there's the problem of his erratic temper.

While I understand that you are a passionate supporter of
Barack Obama - quite frankly, John McCain has been serviing his country in the military and the Congress since before Barack was born.

He's a graduate of the National War College. A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Commerce Committee, McCain, more than any other Senator, has gained a strong reputation of working across party lines to develop bypartisan agreement on many of important issues facing our country.

Ron

and as a public servant.

But keep in mind,most military leaders supported Bush's invasion of Iraq,in fact I have "friends"(former) who haven't spoken to me since the 2004 election.When I stated my opinion that the last people we needed to listen to in times such as these would be military lifers.

Being in the military has nothing to do with being a good President...Clinton wasn't in the Military...neither was Bush...who was the better President ?

Throughout the war, McCain has been one of Bush's sharpest critics on the war among the Republicans. He was especially critical of Don Rumsfeld and how Rumsfeld "approached" the war.

Ron

Aren't Commander-in-Chiefs leaders??

Eisenhower does seem to be an example of someone who learned the right lessons from his combat experience, and thus developed a sensible reluctance to start wars. That said, it's inaccurate to say, as you did, that on his watch the US was never engaged in active military operations. Part of the Korean War was fought during his presidency. He also had some role in the gradual increase of US involvement in Vietnam. US military advisers got involved there in 1955.

However, I'm willing to concede that Ike is an example that people can come out of combat experience with a healthy distaste for war and a good skepticism about the military in general. I'm just saying that, in historical terms, I don't see any sign of a trend for those with combat experience to be more reluctant to start wars than those without combat experience. I haven't done a full survey of major world leaders in history, or anything, but I'd suspect that a study of that sort would suggest that those who started wars of aggression were disproportionately combat veterans themselves. I could be wrong, but I sure don't see an obvious enough trend in the opposite direction to support the conventional wisdom on this one.

The only historical era about which I'd consider myself far more educated than your average person is Ancient Rome, so I suppose that's the only one where I can speak with much confidence. But at least in Rome, most of those political leaders most responsible for wars of aggression were men with huge amounts of combat experience earlier in life. Guys with deep military history as youths, such as Julius Caesar, tended to keep Rome involved in warfare once in power, while Augustus, whose earlier years (before Caesar's death) weren't nearly that martial grew up to lead Rome through one of its less expansionistic eras (the Pax Romana).

You might recall that there were military leaders who did have reservations. Anyone who spoke out were forced to retire early.

When Bruce Lindsay gave his estimate of what the initiating a war in Iraq, he was booted. Powell's Doctrine was ignored.

McCain still thinks invading Iraq wa a good idea. It calls into effect his judgement.

Agreed.

As the son of a combat veteran and career Army officer, I'm predisposed to think highly of such people in general terms. So I'm not disparaging McCain's service. But it's only natural that time spent in a particular field skews your view of the appropriateness of that field's services for a given task.

A classic (and less controversial) example is the perspective of a surgeon. If you've spent a lifetime as a surgeon, you tend to see a lot of medical ailments as prime candidates for surgery, even if the studies would suggest less invasive medical approaches. When what you're good at is cutting, you're more likely to think that cutting is a good idea. That's natural. Go to a surgeon with a chronic sore back, and he's more likely to recommend back surgery than if you took the same symptom set to a physical therapist or a chiropractor.

It seems perfectly sensible that a similar bias would exist among those who'd spent many years in the military. Foreign policy problems that reasonably should be seen as recommending themselves to non-invasive diplomatic efforts will instead look like prime candidates for the use of military force. I don't really hold the existence of that bias against military officers (any more than I would hold that similar bias against surgeons), I just see it as a prejudice we should be aware of. It's dangerous that, instead, the conventional wisdom tries to convince us the opposite is true.

Imagine if the conventional wisdom told us that surgeons (who have witnessed the horrors of surgeries gone wrong more than anyone else) will be the most reluctant to counsel in favor of surgery. That false assumption would lead us into more inappropriate surgeries than if we instead realized that surgeons will be a bit overeager to cut. In the same way, if we wrongly think that career military officers and combat vets will be highly reluctant to start wars, we'll be led into more inappropriate wars than if we instead realize that they're going to tend to be overeager to use military force.

You said in an earlier post,

Arkady:

"men who should have known better"

and in the one above,

Arkady:

Eisenhower does seem to be an example of someone who learned the right lessons from his combat experience, and thus developed a sensible reluctance to start wars.

Let me propose a different possibility.

Perhaps your idea of the 'right' lessons is wrong? Perhaps those who have seen war and become leaders recognize that, regardless of the horrors of war, there are worse things?

Perhaps your assumption that war must be the 'last' resort, is incorrect?

Given your own propensity to side with the majority of 'experts' on other issues, I find it more than moderately amusing that you are willing to casually disregard, even demean, those with sufficient military experience to be considered such when it conflicts with your self-admittedly inexpert personal beliefs...

I posted about this earlier. McCain's take on the war is one of my biggest problems with him. He's taken all the wrong lessons from it. He's sees the main error not as a strategic political one (the error of starting the war in the first place, when other options were still reasonably available), but rather as a set of tactical errors (not having more boots on the ground, not have better armor for the vehicles, and so on). The problem with that is that such 20/20 tactical hindsight won't really protect us from blundering into future counter-productive wars. It's just that next time we'll make a different set of tactical errors. If we regard the Iraq War as something that would have gone great if we'd just done it a different way, we'll be encouraged to start other avoidable wars in the future. The first and most important lesson of the Iraq War is that war is an ugly and unpredictable thing, that can easily backfire on whoever tries to wield it. Thus, it should truly be regarded as a last result, which we didn't do when it came to Iraq. McCain's failure to recognize that simple truth puts his judgment clearly in question when it comes to one of the most important types of decisions he'll be faced with if he wins election. If he wins in November, the odds of us starting a war with Iran or Syria or some other neocon boogeyman go up sharply.