The very first promise Obama made to we people en masse was to close Guantanamo. That was 2 weeks before his first day in office. LIKELY he saw that billion dollar a year pricetag and that played into his announcement. He certainly could have mustered token support from budget minders, Mother gave me his book, I will check if he says why he could not act on ourbehalfs. It is vomitos, I misunderstood atthetime, imagining the whole outpost being vacated. Of course he was only talking abt the prison...
That's still such a strange episode. Obama lost so much political capital by not doing that. He couldn't have at the very least moved the prisoners somewhere else?
Thinking of Ike's reluctance and silence on de-segregation, I've sometimes wondered whether the distinctly Southern cast of the professional military of his time may not have played a role in framing his ideas about the possibilities for including African-Americans in the greater American project. And, I've wondered, too (though this is a very notional and perhaps flimsy speculation), whether his love of the decorums of the Augusta National golf course, and the seductions of a certain tory Georgia, may not have contributed to his aloofness from the claims of the civil rights movement.
Greg, many thanks for the note. Yes, I think it was absolutely that. He had spent a great deal of time on military bases in the South during his Army career and I think he just took segregation for granted. He was a really great leader and president in many ways, but the failure to more aggressively desegregate will always be a terrible stain on his record.
My answer to your post is yes, I like Ike. His caution hurt civil rights, but it was the same caution at work that held the military in check. Historical figures almost never get credit for restraint., but if Ike prevented the use of atomic weapons against China, that is as heroic of a restraint as i can imagine.
Thanks David. It's very unsettling to me to realize how out of control the military brass was in this period - they really were Strangelovian. It's a reminder of how important strong civilian leadership is. Ike was unique in that he understood the military but thought first and foremost like a civilian. My sense is that nobody after him really got it or had the chops to stand up to the military - they all allowed themselves to be pushed around, with devastating consequences for the national budget.
It’s more than interesting the Ike’s warning about the Military Industrial Complex in has farewell address essentially all came true and much worse. Invasion of Iraq based on pure Security State fabrications and criminal malfeasance. Invading Afghanistan on much the same premise and failing so dismally because there was no real plan other than kickbacks and graft within both parties. Now a proxy war in Ukraine also destined to abject failure for much the same reasons as Afghanistan. Bellicose ambition based on flawed ideology and again, greed. And now sponsoring a human catastrophe in Gaza that looks exactly like a genocidal ethnic cleansing hiding behind the propaganda of “anti-semitism”. Didn’t Ike sponsor and initiate this run away undemocratic criminal enterprise called the American security state? Just a thought.
It's an interesting question how the 'security state' came into being. There's no question that the key moves occurred during WWII with a major expansion of the military. But probably the pivotal moment is 1947-48, with the Truman Doctrine, creation of the CIA, etc. Had Henry Wallace been president - which was a very real possibility - the whole post-war history of the US might have looked very different. Ike inherited an already very powerful security state, and it's very confusing to try to understand what his legacy towards it was. He did greatly expand the nuclear arsenal and green-lit CIA operations. On the other hand, he very much was trying to rein in the security state throughout his presidency - and doing so with mixed results. But Ike also was very wary of involvement in Vietnam. Had he (as a total counter-factual) been president through the '60s, I think there's no chance at all that the US would have become as involved in Vietnam.
I think Eisenhower's legacy will only increase as the country continues to decline no matter what people think of his approach toward segregation. I think his public announcement of the existence of the military-industrial complex will always go down as a noble gesture. But that's all I can say for now: perhaps I should read this bio and learn a thing or two.
As for stuffing partisanship into a bottle, that won't happen because apart from a few crucial issues (like the border) the divide is only about policy at the surface level. Eisenhower didn't have to face two different America's that can't agree on basic reality.
Yeah, as I said to Medium Bad, it's really hard to work out exactly what Ike's position was towards the "military-industrial complex" through his presidency. A lot of the history of this period is really about branches of the military competing with each other. In the '50s, the CIA and the Air Force turned into fiefdoms of their own, and Ike probably bears much of the responsibility for the CIA becoming the force that it was. The Kennedy administration was largely about the Army catching up to the other branches and trying to rein in the CIA.
The very first promise Obama made to we people en masse was to close Guantanamo. That was 2 weeks before his first day in office. LIKELY he saw that billion dollar a year pricetag and that played into his announcement. He certainly could have mustered token support from budget minders, Mother gave me his book, I will check if he says why he could not act on ourbehalfs. It is vomitos, I misunderstood atthetime, imagining the whole outpost being vacated. Of course he was only talking abt the prison...
That's still such a strange episode. Obama lost so much political capital by not doing that. He couldn't have at the very least moved the prisoners somewhere else?
Thinking of Ike's reluctance and silence on de-segregation, I've sometimes wondered whether the distinctly Southern cast of the professional military of his time may not have played a role in framing his ideas about the possibilities for including African-Americans in the greater American project. And, I've wondered, too (though this is a very notional and perhaps flimsy speculation), whether his love of the decorums of the Augusta National golf course, and the seductions of a certain tory Georgia, may not have contributed to his aloofness from the claims of the civil rights movement.
Greg, many thanks for the note. Yes, I think it was absolutely that. He had spent a great deal of time on military bases in the South during his Army career and I think he just took segregation for granted. He was a really great leader and president in many ways, but the failure to more aggressively desegregate will always be a terrible stain on his record.
My answer to your post is yes, I like Ike. His caution hurt civil rights, but it was the same caution at work that held the military in check. Historical figures almost never get credit for restraint., but if Ike prevented the use of atomic weapons against China, that is as heroic of a restraint as i can imagine.
Thanks David. It's very unsettling to me to realize how out of control the military brass was in this period - they really were Strangelovian. It's a reminder of how important strong civilian leadership is. Ike was unique in that he understood the military but thought first and foremost like a civilian. My sense is that nobody after him really got it or had the chops to stand up to the military - they all allowed themselves to be pushed around, with devastating consequences for the national budget.
It’s more than interesting the Ike’s warning about the Military Industrial Complex in has farewell address essentially all came true and much worse. Invasion of Iraq based on pure Security State fabrications and criminal malfeasance. Invading Afghanistan on much the same premise and failing so dismally because there was no real plan other than kickbacks and graft within both parties. Now a proxy war in Ukraine also destined to abject failure for much the same reasons as Afghanistan. Bellicose ambition based on flawed ideology and again, greed. And now sponsoring a human catastrophe in Gaza that looks exactly like a genocidal ethnic cleansing hiding behind the propaganda of “anti-semitism”. Didn’t Ike sponsor and initiate this run away undemocratic criminal enterprise called the American security state? Just a thought.
It's an interesting question how the 'security state' came into being. There's no question that the key moves occurred during WWII with a major expansion of the military. But probably the pivotal moment is 1947-48, with the Truman Doctrine, creation of the CIA, etc. Had Henry Wallace been president - which was a very real possibility - the whole post-war history of the US might have looked very different. Ike inherited an already very powerful security state, and it's very confusing to try to understand what his legacy towards it was. He did greatly expand the nuclear arsenal and green-lit CIA operations. On the other hand, he very much was trying to rein in the security state throughout his presidency - and doing so with mixed results. But Ike also was very wary of involvement in Vietnam. Had he (as a total counter-factual) been president through the '60s, I think there's no chance at all that the US would have become as involved in Vietnam.
I think Eisenhower's legacy will only increase as the country continues to decline no matter what people think of his approach toward segregation. I think his public announcement of the existence of the military-industrial complex will always go down as a noble gesture. But that's all I can say for now: perhaps I should read this bio and learn a thing or two.
As for stuffing partisanship into a bottle, that won't happen because apart from a few crucial issues (like the border) the divide is only about policy at the surface level. Eisenhower didn't have to face two different America's that can't agree on basic reality.
Yeah, as I said to Medium Bad, it's really hard to work out exactly what Ike's position was towards the "military-industrial complex" through his presidency. A lot of the history of this period is really about branches of the military competing with each other. In the '50s, the CIA and the Air Force turned into fiefdoms of their own, and Ike probably bears much of the responsibility for the CIA becoming the force that it was. The Kennedy administration was largely about the Army catching up to the other branches and trying to rein in the CIA.