- Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Senate Dems wary of immigration politics
- Summer camp for 1 percenters: Sushi, limos and shopping at FAO Schwarz
- Colorado gun crackdown law found to be built on faulty data
- Hank Aaron steps to fundraising plate for Democrat Michelle Nunn
- ISIL terrorists blow up burial site of Jonah, vow more of same
- Impeach Obama, say 35 percent in new poll
- Taliban yank 14 Shiites off bus, bind and shoot them on Afghan road
- Obama takes aim at ‘corporate deserters’
- Dick’s Sporting Goods lays off 478 PGA golf pros
- Senators: Cease-fire must allow Israel to defend against rockets, tunnels
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: MacArthur, McChrystal firings dissimilar
Question of the Day
I’m sorry to say that initial enthusiasm turned to disappointment as I read the Thursday Commentary column by John C. Waugh, “McClellan and McChrystal.” I had been waiting for someone to use the Abraham Lincoln comparison with regard to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s firing, but I don’t agree with the one Mr. Waugh used.
As a self-proclaimed Civil War buff, I believe it is fallacious to compare the incidents involving Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur argued against President Truman’s policy, not his person. Gen. McChrystal personally and publicly insulted the president and his administration. This was, of course, foolish and a proper basis for being relieved - but it did not “undermine civilian control of the military.” At no time did Gen. McChrystal advocate disobeying the orders of the president.
Closer analogies between Lincoln and President Obama are the following two incidents (using David Donald’s “Lincoln” as a reference): On the night of Nov. 13, 1861, Lincoln waited at McClellan’s home for an hour for his return. When he did come home, McClellan ignored the president and went upstairs. After another hour, the president was told that McClellan had gone to bed. Lincoln expressed the view that “it was better at this time not to be making points of etiquette and personal dignity” and said that he was willing to hold McClellan’s horse if he would win a victory.
In appointing “Fighting Joe” Hooker to command the Army of the Potomac, Lincoln told him, “[T]here are some things in regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you,” and mentioned his “recently saying that both the Army and the Government needed a Dictator. … Of course, it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you command. Only those generals who gain success can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success and I will risk the dictatorship.”
This singleness of purpose made Lincoln a great president. He put success in battle above personal feelings.
If Gen. David H. Petraeus were to become incapacitated, would Mr. Obama reinstate Gen. McChrystal as commander in Afghanistan? I hope that he would, like Lincoln, put the interest of the war above personal feelings.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
Get Breaking Alerts
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Presidents of Honduras, Guatemala blame U.S. for border children crisis
- PRUDEN: The Democratic-wannabe mice under Hillary Clinton's feet
- Crime-ridden U.S. cities differ on ways to fight gun violence
- Let it roll: D.C. Council hits Las Vegas on taxpayer's dime, leaves $14,000 tab
- Obama takes aim at 'corporate deserters'