As the time for my deployment approached, I discussed my intentions with my father. We met at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, just after the Republican convention, and I explained my position. My father, as a professional officer himself, understood and accepted it. However, he had a firm condition: under no circumstances must I ever be captured. He would accept the risk of my being killed or wounded, but if the Chinese Communists or North Koreans ever took me prisoner, and threatened blackmail, he could be forced to resign the presidency. I agreed to that condition wholeheartedly. I would take my life before being captured.Conciliatory in giving me such permission. There's a phrase. Did Eisenhower advise his son to commit suicide? I'm trying to flesh out that conversation. Ike said he'd have to resign the presidency if his son John were captured and the Chinese Communists or North Koreans threatened blackmail, and John said that since he'd never advance in the military if he turned down a combat assignment, he would promise that if he were ever about to taken prisoner, he would kill himself first. And Ike's response was not, no, you would become a prisoner, with a life no more valuable that that of any other prisoners, but, because the American people will not know whether my love for you is affecting my judgment, I will need to resign the presidency. No, Ike said something like: Okay, then, suit yourself, go to combat, advance your career, but I have the ultimate career advancement here, son, the presidency, and I'm not letting you screw that up for me. You are on the hook, you little bastard. You promised to commit suicide. Don't forget!
On looking back through the years, however, I now feel that I was being unfair and selfish and that my father was being far too conciliatory in giving me such permission. On the other hand, I don’t think that the Army should ever have given me an option in the matter.
Perhaps you would flesh out the Blackstone Hotel scenario differently. Meanwhile, John Eisenhower, who actually knows what was said, pads out his op-ed with material about how the President's son might increase the danger to those who serve alongside him, but this is a matter for military authorities to weigh (as was done in the case of Prince Harry, who mentioned in the article). Eisenhower has no expertise about about these risks and how the military authorities handle them today in Iraq and Afghanistan. His expertise is only about the mind of a one President, over half a century ago, whose relationship to his son is left opaque.
Eisenhower concludes:
No matter what the young person’s desires or career needs are, they are of little importance compared with ensuring that our leaders are able to stay focused on the important business of the nation — and not worrying about the fate of a child a world away.The fate of a child? We don't send children to war. They are men and women, and all of them -- almost all of them -- have people who love them.
I want the President to have the strength of mind to think of all of them as valuable in the same way their own offspring are valuable. Let the President worry about their fate. If having his actual son fighting makes him reweigh the cost of war, perhaps he lacks the competence to govern. And this is certainly not to say that Dwight Eisenhower lacked the competence to govern. Look closely at that Blackstone Hotel story. It doesn't say that Ike thought his judgment would be skewed. The implication is that Ike worried that his credibility would be questioned, and only in the blackmail situation.
And what, if anything, do John Eisenhower -- and the NYT -- mean to imply about John McCain, who was taken prisoner when his father was a military commander and who considered but rejected suicide?
Posts
60 comments:
Guys can deal with it without the psychodrama.
I am not disputing John Eisenhower's story. Only he knows what was said. I guess it's such a unique case, I dont think it is worth parsing to death. I will say that it doesnt sound like the Ike I have admired and studied, who ordered the DDay invasion where men died by the thousands. And there was a presidential son in that invasion: Teddy Roosevelt Jr. It should remain a family matter and I am not sure why John Eisenhower would even want to bring it up.
yes, wtf, althouse? unusually worthless post. maybe this is an arg why you shouldn't be potus. what did you think you were trying to say?
Such a different time! Can anybody imagine nowadays a 30 year old major in the Army asking his dad for permission for anything? From the tone of the op-ed, it seems that John found the one condition to be not just reasonable but generous.
I think Ike would have found the concept of the Presidency as part of a career to be quite alien. For him it was more like duty: He could have retired to a life of ease and everlasting fame for his WWII deeds. Politics could only detract from his fame and prevent him from entering the business world, where he could have made a heap--had he been interested.
It seems equally plausible that Eisenhower's position wasn't that his career would be threatened but that the leadership of the country would be threatened. And that is something he couldn't allow his son to do for the sake of his son's career.
IIRC there three of the four primary candidates for this election have sons serving on active duty. Should that disqualify them or put preconditions on their children's service? Again, I dont know what either you or Eisenhower are trying to say.
Eisenhower's son would have been more valuable alive than dead just as McCain was.
The cost to the enemy would have been greater had Eisenhower's son become a personal rallying point for military personnel.
It would have taken care of itself one way or another. The assumption that Ike would have been unable to handle the situation is not credible. What would have been incredible is handing the war over to Montgomery.
This is an article written by people unfamiliar with the prosecution and kinetic energy of war on a personal level. Most of us talked about saving one bullet in the clip to avoid facing capture. Most of it was talk, but you never knew and hoped you never would.
(1) Based on my personal experience with my own overbearing, self-absorbed father, I’m pretty sure I understand that father/son dynamic perfectly.
Please allow me to translate: “Don’t you dare ever make me choose between what’s best for me and what’s best for you!”
In various formulations I heard that all the time.
It’s much easier for the uninitiated to identify it when it’s said in anger.
(2) But we should stay focused on what’s best for the country.
It’s a well-known fact that a President’s children are more important than ordinary people’s children.
But still, it would be much worse for the United States if the enemy took a soldier hostage who looks like Natalee Holloway.
Eisenhower rightly feared that his conduct of the war would be questioned should his son be captured. Two lessons are clear: McCain's dad should have been replaced in Vietnam after McSurge was captured -- obviously we lost the war -- and McCain's son should be removed from harm's way should McCain become President.
There are three factors at play here.
1. The reality of 1952 in Korea was such that Majors, even of infantry, even in line battalions have a relatively small chance of being killed or captured. I'll defer to Roger, who has more front line time than I, but I'd say you can use an infantry LT as the basis. Infantry Platoon Leader, the primary Lieutenant position is the most dangerous one on the battlefield. It is the entry level officer position and suffers higher casualties and captures than any other. An infantry captain, on the other hand, in the same battalion (because there are more captains in battalion rear jobs) likely has 1 to 10% of the same risk of capture that an LT has. (LT's go out on patrols, Captains, send them :)
As for a Major, they suffer death rates a bit less than captains, but their likelihood of capture has got to be much less. There are only 2 majors in that unit and both are not on the front lines (or at least only one is in a position to see the enemy often and there are 500 people in front of him when he does.
2. Capture for ransom/blackmail is not an issue in Iraq. AQI doesn't ransom our folks, they hack heads off at best. The situation is similiar in some respects to fighting Apaches or in Kiping's war:
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
3. There is an argument that a president's son or a royal prince does increase the chance of injury to the rest of his unit, however, my read of the situation is that the soldiers of the unit certainly didn't begrudge Harry for that. And overall, I think that the troops would think that the price was small, considering the morale boost it gives the troops knowing that the Boss thinks that the mission is more important than his son's safety.
Mission First, then Men!
that is the creed. Civilians don't understand that well.
And there was a presidential son in that invasion: Teddy Roosevelt Jr
and he had to fight like hell to keep his job, which was to go in on the second wave.
He argued that the men expected him to be where his role required him to be.
Morale
Didn't the Brits recently pull one of the princes in line for the throne out of the front lines in Iraq rather than risk blackmail if he were to be captured?
Some lives are more equal than others.
"And what, if anything, do John Eisenhower -- and the NYT -- mean to imply"
It's just more anti-McCian, anti-Palin stuff. it means 'Vote for Obama and Democratic party principles'.
What else do they ever mean?
The NYTimes, a wholly owned subsidiary of the US Democratic Party.
Okay, rather than risk beheading.
Prince Harry was furious about being recalled to Britain and has been obbying to go back ever since.
"Such a different time! Can anybody imagine nowadays a 30 year old major in the Army asking his dad for permission for anything?"
This was 1952, before the Baby Boomers discovered that old people knew nothing, the military was evil, and authority was only there to be questioned by the kids, (who could teach the world if only it would listen, maaannnnn!)
lobbying
Two lessons are clear: McCain's dad should have been replaced in Vietnam after McSurge was captured -- obviously we lost the war -- and McCain's son should be removed from harm's way should McCain become President.
I think that is an unfair attack on the Senior McCain
One could argue, we lost the war because not enough to the Elite's son's fought, not because one Sailor's son was captured.
FLS, so you are arguing that McCain should put himself into that favorite Leftie "Chickhawk" position? And that to do less compromises his ability to make sound decisions? My judgement on the topic, which I hold out as more sound than yours is that if anything, the outcome of a President's son being captured by the enemy would likely create more risk for the son not favoritism.
Suppose that AQI captured Jack or Jim McCain (he has 2, not 1 soon in harms way, I don't think Doug still flies reserve jets, but it might be 3 sons). The use him as a human shield? I think that McCain would have no choice but to order bombing the targets.
I remember McCain talking about when Nixon (don't know if his father was still in command) ordered B-52 strikes into Hanoi. The POW's were cheering as the BUFFs rained bombs down on Hanoi.
I've been within a few miles MILES of a BUFF strike, and its like nothing else. the ground shakes, the sky rumbles. It's like an act of nature.
I can't imagine being the Target or near target like John was, but I also don't see his father having second thoughts about John versus the same analysis about risks to the other POWs. Stuff happens in war. you pays your money and you takes your chances
"Okay, then, suit yourself, go to combat, advance your career, but I have the ultimate career advancement here, son, the presidency, and I'm not letting you screw that up for me. You are on the hook, you little bastard. You promised to commit suicide. Don't forget!"
Wow! Was that projection going on? So many things gotten wrong.
I'm pretty sure that one of FDR's sons was a fighter pilot (Thunderbolts come to mind) and another was as Marine Raider - those are both very high risk officers' jobs.
NYTimes tries to play Catch 22 with the issue:
1. Elected officials cannot send their own sons and daughters into combat because it might compromise security.
2. Senator, why aren't you sending your own children into battle? ...Hypocrite!!
FDR had all 4 sons in the service overseas.
- a Navy line officer
- a Navy Log officer
- Marine Raider
- USAAF P38 pilot then bombardier in Europe
Captain Jimmy went ashore in rubber boats from a Sub on the Raider Makin Island raid early 42 as I recall. Doesn't get much more high risk in the capture department. Course there wasn't any big issue either of capture.
9 Marines were captured, all were beheaded. Our enemies seem to like that sort of thing.
Capture for ransom? not a problem.
Drill Sgt does not have to defer to me--He knows as much about the army as I do; but since he is not cavalry...:) In WWII Battalion commanders and down were much closer to the fighting and much more likely to be casualties; Less so in Korea, and less even less so in Viet Nam. Since Viet Nam, only the company grade officers (CPTs, first and second LTs are at elevated personal risk). That said, any serving officer who is worth his or her salt, always rides to the sound of the guns.
FLS: Stick with the law because you don't know shit about duty or military service. Neither McCain who was CINCPAC nor the current McCains would accept your stupid suggestion. You have no concept of duty or honor. Your comments insult those that serve, including Beau Biden.
Former Law Student,
Two lessons are clear: McCain's dad should have been replaced in Vietnam after McSurge was captured -- obviously we lost the war
Admiral McCain did not take the job as commander in chief, Pacific fleet, until well AFTER John Sydney McCain was captured.
Of course, your ignorance doesn't prevent you from sliming the reputation of one of the finest fighters the Navy ever had.
Here's another lesson for you: Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on things you don't know crap about.
As a guy, a Naval Academy grad, former Marine, and war vet, I just cannot manage to figure out what I'm supposed to think about the post or the article it references. I think the thought processes involved are so alien me (for good or for bad), that I can't get worked up one way or the other.
Anybody else, or am I just an obtuse old fart?
I do have a personal anecdote to tell about President Eisenhower. Ike was a graduate of USMA class of 1915--the class that stars fell on. General Omar Bradley, the soldier's general was in that class.
1965 was that classes 50th reunion. I was one of the cadet flunkies to support their reunion. It was after ceremonies and parades, and Ike and Gen Bradley had returned to Grant Hall and were relaxing before the next round of ceremonies. Ike turned to General Bradley and said, "you know, Brad, this f**king place hasnt changed at all in 50 years."
It was all we could do to keep from wetting our pants.
t: damn--who let squids on this blog :)
Stalin had a son that was captured by the Germans during WW II. According to the biography I read, Stalin refused to trade his son for a captured German general and his son ended up committing suicide in in a POW camp.
Well I guess based on this, no one could be elected President in 2008, since all the tickets have 'children' in harms way?
I guess no President or VP should have children period, since it only would take an instant for something to happen to them and that could affect the President's judgment for his/her remaining term in office.
Roger, I'm worse than a mere squid, man, I'm a squid jarhead. There is obviously no gatekeeper on this blog.
Anyway, I've thought about it a bit more, and I disagree with John Eisenhower. Presidents are not royalty. And I think it's good to have politicians who have children who serve their country.
When you serve your country in the military, there's a pretty good chance that other people will try to kill or capture you. That's just part of the deal.
Now, my dad's a pharmacist, so I admit that I wouldn't have been a very effective propaganda tool. But he's a damn good pharmacist.
Roger, I love that story.
the drill sgt said: "Mission First, then Men! that is the creed. Civilians don't understand that well."
I was in the military once, for six years, from age 17 to 23, so I remember that creed and remember believing it. But I was 17, an age more susceptible to brainwashing.
But then, if not having experienced combat somehow diminishes one's credibility in matters like these, I have to admit I didn't. So I defer to Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, who was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor for bravery in combat. His opinion, after a lifetime of "service"? "War is a Racket," the title of his most famous essay.
Perhaps wars should ONLY be fought by Presidents' and Congresscritters' and Generals' sons, in a downsized Achilles v. Hector-style field of combat. Then the costs of war would really be borne by those who stand to benefit.
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eisenhower had 35 years or so in the military. I'm sure under his command orders were issued for operations in which the calculated death rate was high. He knew the agony of issuing such orders.
Eisenhower may have made the suggestion of suicide or merely acquiesced when his son raised the possibility. Whatever the discussion it was to let his son know that he as president would do nothing to compromise the presidency or his government policies.
McCain's son just returned from Anabar but will he redeploy? Both Palin and Biden have sons being deployed.
A president could be threatened with blackmail under a number of- circumstances. What if a presidents family member is kidnapped or what if someone holds tapes of a particular act or conversation?
There should be no influence on policy and I think most presidents and their families would accept that as reality.
No, Ike said something like: Okay, then, suit yourself, go to combat, advance your career, but I have the ultimate career advancement here, son, the presidency, and I'm not letting you screw that up for me.
Ann, that is pretty insulting to Ike. Given your background, I expect you don't know the history of D-Day. Weather was bad, the mission had been postponed, troops were in the ships seasick, and time was running out. With only a 48 hour window of fair weather, not good weather, he ordered the invasion and the sat down and wrote the press release for a failure:
Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troop, the air [force] and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.
a Gutsy call and an honorable guy
Had the landing on D Day not been successful, we would have lost all of our Airborne forces.
This was another attempted hit on Palin, not McCain.
T: semper fi, sir, and welcome aboard.
Thoughtful fathers don't call their sons "little bastards."
They call them "little sons of bitches."
Interestingly enough, John's son, Dwight David Eisenhower II, was accused of receiving preferential treatment because although he served during Vietnam, he didn't experience direct combat, and some people thought this was because he was an Eisenhower and because he was married to Julie Nixon.
Someone wrote a song about that (supposedly, David's situation was part of the inspiration) and still performs it live in concert.
Eh, I was relying on memory earlier so I hedged. According to Snopes, which quotes the sources, David was identified by Fogerty as the person he had in mind when he wrote the song.
Ann wrote:
Did Eisenhower advise his son to commit suicide?
Do people not realise that until very recently, it was an unspoken code of military honour that an officer should commit suicide, rather than to subject his country and family by inflicting blackmail on them if captured?
This is why the various Geneva Conventions of the treatment of prisoners came about.
During various times in history, most famously in the Middle Ages, knights, nobles, even Kings (like Richard the Lion-Heart) who were captured in battle were treated from decently to very well indeed, because they were expected to be ransomed.
It might take a few years to raise the capital, but few were forgotten and allowed to languish imprisoned until their deaths. Noble families often sold their very land and castle, in essense forfeiting the very reason they were noble, to rescue their sons.
That changed with the advent of nationalism.
Human beings were no longer just fiefs or scions of good families, but represented their nation's flag -- in essence, they stood for their whole people in the body of one person.
Capture transformed itself from a misfortune rectified by negotiations, to a deep insult done to honour of a nation.
There is a telling anecdote about this.
The future Duke of Windsor, then a cherubic Prince of Wales, fought desperately, WILDLY even to be given leave to serve with the troops in WWI. He wanted to shoulder the same burdens they were, else how would he be able to stare these men in the face when he became King?
His father, King George V, adamantly refused. His mother was aghast at the suggestion. The Prime Minister, immovable.
Finally, he went to our Generalissimo at the time, Lord Kitchener and pleaded an audience with him to state his case.
Picture the scene:
The future King...
On bended knee...
To the general...
Begging to be allowed to fight...
(Imagine Henry Paulson on bended knee in front of Nancy Pelosi)
The Prince stated his case. "I have four brothers living. What does it matter if I am captured?".
Lord Kitchener, whose very face inspired men to sign up in the millions:
Your Country Needs You!
He replied:
"Sir, if we could be assured that you would die in battle, I would authorise your deployment immediately. But should you, the future King be captured in battle, and be held as a prisoner of war, it would cause this country immeasurable damage."
The Prince left. He didn't serve in battle in WWI.
But 3 of those 4 brothers did.
King George gave his son, ironically the future King George VI, his own handgun.
It is not known what words he used when he did so, but I would be very surprised if he didn't suggest something similar to what Ike told John Eisenhower.
Thank God these attitudes were already considered barbaric when John McCain was captured and tortured. Which of course is another irony.
Cheers,
Victoria
Don't read this as insulting Ike. What I mean to do here is interpret the words written by his son, and I have the purpose of showing how cloaked and obtuse these words are.
I'm asking: What does that story, as told, mean?
I end with "Perhaps you would flesh out the Blackstone Hotel scenario differently" after taking what I think is an inadequately told story and fleshing it out.
I'm not purporting to say anything about the actual Dwight Eisenhower, please understand.
And what, if anything, do John Eisenhower -- and the NYT -- mean to imply about John McCain, who was taken prisoner when his father was a military commander and who considered but rejected suicide?
But that's because you think it throws Ike Eisenhower into a kind of Machiavellian light if the story IS true as told.
He would accept the risk of my being killed or wounded, but if the Chinese Communists or North Koreans ever took me prisoner, and threatened blackmail, he could be forced to resign the presidency. I agreed to that condition wholeheartedly. I would take my life before being captured.
People reading this in the post-modern era find this incalculably barbaric on the part of a father speaking to his military son. Again if this is the way it happened, he is tacitly accepting that his son may commit suicide rather than to disgrace his country by a propaganda-boon capture.
The stakes today are even worse than John Eisenhower and John McCain faced.
Today, with instant images and their dessimination available, the capture would be milked for all its worth.
This is why Prince Harry wasn't allowed to serve in Iraq. Can you just imagine that red-hair swinging side-to-side in a bloody mess, after decapitation?
Because, you see, for some people, the capture is not enough. First you torture them. Then they confess to being spies, and/or traitors to their country. Then they denounce their leaders, and accept a new religion/political philosophy.
And then you kill them.
Ranson is not the motive with such a prominent person in your grasp.
/ransom...
Did FLS just blame McCain of losing the Vietnam war?
There's a reason that Drill Sgt said "at best" beheading, btw. And I would expect that most of our men and women in Iraq, as horrifying as it is to actually *say* so, which is why people *don't* say so... expect to kill themselves and shoot their friends before allowing them to be taken.
I can certainly see Eisenhower's problem. True or false, his son would be seen as a weapon to use against his father. A bit like capturing ordnance or planes or tanks. Not being in a military position that involved guns, my "war game" training involved the sledge hammer I'd need to destroy computer boards and encrypting equipment... those things that simply could not be allowed to be captured. Putting a person in this category is cold, but a weapon is a weapon and it can get your friends very dead.
As for taking Prince Harry out of harms way when he got outed by the press... it's a sad thing and shouldn't have happened. When his location and assignment were identified he *did* become a significant danger to his fellows. Before that outing, he was certainly a morale booster in that he was serving and had the same risk as anyone. And if he'd died doing that duty, or been wounded, or if he was fortunate and took no physical injury... he'd have been with his men as a symbol of the importance of service, if nothing else. A very traditional role for nobility, actually. But thanks again to the press, something good for "our side" got turned into something good for the enemy. Thanks press!
Palin's son's assignment got changed. There is no "out of harms way" in Iraq but I wish that it had not.
Victoria said...King George gave his son, ironically the future King George VI, his own handgun.
It is not known what words he used...
I recall reading a piece of military history or fiction about the British Army between WWI and WWII. I suspect that it will resonate with Victoria Brit/American that she is. It went something like. American observer visits a peacetime British base and sees the Brit NCO's out drilling the men while the officers rise late, do sports in the morning, hunt in the afternoon and adjourn to the club early. All the while, the batman is caring for the gentleman's kit.
The American asks the Brit NCO what function the officers have in the British system. The NCO says: "They shows us how to die".
With those words, I know Victoria and I have a vision of a British second LT with pistol upraised and a whistle in hand, rising up out of a trench, yelling to his men as he charges off into no-man's land, his men following behind.
The traditional Brit system featured long service NCO's, with amateur upper class officers who led by example, rather than providing battle management.
I respect that 3 of 4 candidates kids will be serving in a warzone. But someone might want to point out their service will be profoundly different. CPT Biden is a JAG (lawyer) with 261st Signal Bde. He's gonna be in Kuwait working on contracts, sex harassments, and investigations. The threat for him is a plane crash or someone getting in with a suicide vest. McCain and Palin's kids are enlisted grunts. In Iraq. IEDS, VBIEDS, gunshots, and rockets are their lot. Biden's kid is a REMF. I salute his service but CPT Biden's riskiness moments are during the flight in and out.
As for what happens in Iraq now, we all know the deal. The last rounds are to prevent you or your buddy's family from watching the agony on the news.
All right, Prof. Althouse (your intimes say you don't like "Ann," right? But brevity is the soul of wit), this is just what you read between the lines.
As such, it reflects the gloss you place on things, and at least one function of the black box that is your mind.
I have to be careful making assumptions, because I have not read the piece in question. But ISTM that you are so very way off base.
Ultimately, what I hear him saying, through your words and his quotes, is that he regrets what he did (pushing for front-line combat), and wishes somebody was there to stop him, whether Daddy or a face-saving impersonal regulation that would no doubt be expanded to include all government officials, which would really tear it. Or the individual discretion of members of the general staff. Or of a quick-thinking personnel clerk. Which would no doubt be unthinkable.
I'd be more concerned in the case of a rabble than a proper chain of command a la the Red Army.
Too bad he didn't have a friend or mentor who could have taken him aside and told him Yo Chico, man, shut the fuck up. But indeed it was inevitable at the time, and as it worked out, I doubt Dwight Eisenhower was the only purveyor of such advice.
I suppose a woman cannot be expected to understand these things? ;>
Ann,
Your liberal (or at least elite metro faux conservative) stripes are showing. The conversation between the Eisenhowers had *nothing* to do with junior's career. Careerism is an insult in the Army even today, and was much more so in the 50s.
It was about honor. Junior did not want the dishonor of refusing combat. Senior pointed out that "OK, if you're up to the responsibility then do it, but realize that the bar is higher for you than for others." Whereas we serve for the benefit of others rather than ourselves, junior had an extra burden of the consequence to the nation of his capture.
Did Senior advise his son to commit suicide? No. He pointed out to his son the magnitude of his being captured. His son responded by resolving to go down fighting.
This is why senior was being generous, too generous. He probably should have (in junior's considered view) advised his son that swallowing the indignity of refusing combat was the nobler course. Not all noble sacrifices are respected; some are sacrifices precisely because they aren't respected.
We all acknowledge the sacrifice of the man who lost his legs for his country. Who recognizes the sacrifice of the man who lost his honor for his country? It is this greater sacrifice that senior couldn't popint out to his son.
BTW, reader_iam, "Fortunate Son" is not about Eisenhower, it's about Gore. You know the lyrics, right?
"I ain't no senator's son"
Sure, Fogerty now claims that the tune was about Eisenhower, not Gore, but this wasn't expressed by him until 1998 - by which time Gore was VP and heir apparent. For over a quarter of a century everyone "knew" that the song was about Gore and Fogerty hadn't seen any reason through all those years to correct the record.
Both Ike and his son were professional soldiers. Ike Ok'd combat duty on the condition that his son not be taken alive.
So what's the problem? Any number of men in WW II died rather than surrender. Why do you think they gave spies cyanide capsules? Several US Navy officers road the ship down rather than revel military secrets as POW's .
I have no doubt Ike would have committed suicide rather risk reveling Enigma under torture.
Maybe Althouse was stirred by the legal issue. Would that be a legal order? Can you order someone not to be captured? I think they used to call for volunteers. (In this scenario only can I see the appeal of a bomb vest. You'd certainly want to take some of 'em with you.)
I would also like to note the generosity of Ike's response: He trusted that his son would do this.
I wonder how the son felt about that responsibility, too.
Careerism? People DIE, beeyotch!
Yeah, who finally mentioned duty, honor, country? Thanks, I had meant to. Young Eisenhower was on his honor to do his duty for his country so Ike could do his. This is what weaves the "narrative" together, not the Peter Principle.
I mean, OK, Ann, show your knowledge for all of us non-profs. Who would you have nominated to replace Gen. Eisenhower to run D-Day? Extra credit, who replaces that gifted, talented and no doubt busy individual?
Don't know? Good answer! Better-informed minds than yours would offer it.
But in fact, there is no replacing such a man. I'm sure you recall, both parties, D & R alike, offered Ike the nomination. He wasn't exactly crawling around for it.
And it wasn't like Ike had never received and given orders he did not like. Eisenhower was present at the routing of Coxey's Army, driving the bonus marchers away from the Capitol at, yes, swordpoint. Whoever mentioned Gen. Butler, d'ye think he knew anything Ike didn't know?
There was no question that the younger Eisenhower MUST seek the combat billet, as a basic point of honor.
Ike knew this, and so did his son. As an Army officer myself, this is immediately obvious to me and is so basic to a military officer's code of honor that I cannot imagine even having to state it aloud to another military person.
Further, there was no question that the younger man MUST end his life rather than be taken by the communists alive. By this stage of the war, we knew how the communists treated prisoners anyway...and it was more akin to the way the Japanese treated prisoners in WWII than the Germans. In warning his son that he must under no circumstances be taken alive, Ike was simply stating the obvious.
Similarly for us in Iraq, there was no question of surrender. I never even heard the idea mentioned, even in theoretical terms. You died fighting, and you saved a round in your pocket for yourself, if all else failed.
Ann, your projection is just 180 degrees off target. John Eisenhower and Ike were just two professional soldiers talking. Each of them lived and died by the code that unites American fighting men of all generations.
It's a Hoo-ah thing. You wouldn't understand.
Kristo:
It's obvious, of course: I have no familiarity with the lyrics, and I have never heard of CCR before today, much less the various theories, which means of course I could never have contemplated as to whom (or what collection of whom's) it might apply, either now or some decades ago, nor therefore could I ever have questioned them, which means, of course, that none of the above could have any bearing on how I wrote either of my previous comments (eh ...).
By the way, I've never had any connection with David Eisenhower, either.
As to your other comment, the first in the two adjacent, I agree with its take.
Stalin had a son that was captured by the Germans during WW II. According to the biography I read, Stalin refused to trade his son for a captured German general and his son ended up committing suicide in in a POW camp.
Yakov Iosifovich Dzhugashvili. He was captured in 1941. When the Germans offered to trade him Stalin is reputed to have said "I have no son". The official Soviet policy on prisoners was that anyone who surrendered or ran from battle was a traitor.
Incidentally, his death is one of those great mysteries. The Germans claim he was electrocuted on the camp fence while trying to escape. Apparently American intelligence came into possession of a document which said he was shot trying to escape. Some of the other prisoners claimed he committed suicide, others that he was murdered by Soviet officers.
Post a Comment