In today’s letters
column longtime reader A.C. Santore suggests I ignored the
facts on General MacArthur. Specifically, Mr. Santore says:
MacArthur was sacked because, first, he publicly denigrated the
decision of his Commander in Chief and the government of the
United States of America, and, second, publicly insisted on his
plan to invade Communist China and to use nuclear weapons in
the process.
Mr. Lord does not mention either of these facts, which should
put MacArthur into proper perspective, and clearly would
delineate the difference between his “sin” and McChrystal’s.
In fact, while trying to summarize a lengthy history in
brief, I did indeed point out that MacArthur had little respect
for Truman, that Truman was “fed up over the increasingly public
nature of MacArthur’s comments,” and the General’s habit of
condescending to the man who held the presidency — what Santore
refers to as MacArthur’s having “publicly denigrated” Truman. I
also say that Truman was fed up as well with “the general’s
tendency to freelance diplomacy that went against White House
policy.” This includes the obvious — what Santore specifically
cites as MacArthur’s disagreements on invading China and using
nuclear weapons. Mr. Santore likes the detail. Under the
circumstances I simply used a broader brush to cover what is in
fact a highly detailed and quite famous episode of
history.
The point here is not that MacArthur and McChrystal
committed the same “sin,” much less that one equals the other.
The point is that their respective sins against their respective
presidents cost them their job — which in turn brightly
illustrated the much larger macro-political arguments of the day:
the respective positions of the Left and Right in defeating
Communism (the Truman-MacArthur spat) and Islamic fascism (the
Obama-McChrystal dust-up).
Truman was no dove, as stated. But next to MacArthur he
wound up appearing that way. In fact, there was a growing chasm
within the Democratic Party of the day on this, with the “hawks”
(Truman, JFK, LBJ) at first seeming to win the day over the
“doves.” (Henry Wallace, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern etc.)
In time, Vietnam — but one long battle in the Cold War — handed
the Democratic Party to the doves.”
The issue so vividly publicized by the MacArthur-Truman
spat lives today. Otherwise there would be no July, 2011
Obama-Biden deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan. There would
be instead some version of FDR’s vow on December 8, 1941 when he
closed his famous “Day of Infamy” speech this way:
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our
people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding
determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable
triumph. So help us God.
The American Left is long since hell and gone from any
position in this war against Islamic fascism that even comes
close to resembling that sentiment of FDR’s. A startling
recognition of the Left’s approach to national security that was
already beginning to come clear in the new Cold War by the day
Truman fired MacArthur.
And yes…Ridgeway first, then Clark. A pair of Petraeus’s,
as it were. Good men and good generals. But neither of them
having the profile or stature in the American mind of the day as
MacArthur.
onion| 6.25.10 @ 1:04PM
It definitely did strike me that as Mac brought great attention to Truman's war policies, so has Mc exposed Obama's . I know I've learned a lot about what is going on that I didn't know last week. I even went back and learned a little about the Truman/Mac dust up that I didn't know before.
I don't know if today's generals have had the opportunities Mac did to create such a large presence.
Richard Baker| 6.26.10 @ 7:30AM
If McChrystal thought that the policies were so bad, then he should have spoken his piece, resigned his commission or retired, and followed the example of Jack Singlaub. Regardless, speaking this way, or in this case allowing your subordinates to do so, and expecting no consequence speaks poorly about McChrystal and his thinking.
john boseker| 6.26.10 @ 12:53PM
I have been astounded by the use of MacArthur in the McCrytal incident, not least because I find that the primary view of MacArthur has been that of Wm. Manchester, whose book is not accurate on a number of critical points. Let me suggest that the described MacArthur is refuted by the works of Whitney, Hunt, Willoughby, Keeney, and others not of the left nor friends of Drew Pearson. Difficult as it may be to do at this distance, all would be benefited from rediscovering this giant of our country's history.
It takes an effort and more than a Wiki-look.