Once again, I was reading through my World Almanac. (There is not much better to read in the bathroom). They had a list of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (US) since the end of WWII. Outside of Bradley (the first), the only one I recognized from anything outside of the actual office was Colin Powell.
Here in Israel, the parallel role (Chief of General Staff) is often used as a springboard to political office. Rabin, Barak, and others (you probably don’t know them, but locally they’re big names, like Raful and Lipkin-Shahak) all held that position.
While I’m sure the fact that Israel has been at war since its founding has made military leaders more prominent, it still surprises me that no top military leader in the States besides Powell has tried to jump into politics.
First, remember that the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the dudes in charge of the military who report to the Sec. Defense and the President) are different from the Whitehouse Chief of Staff, who is the boss of all Whitehouse offices. The former are always promoted from within the military and my guess would be they are more interested in military stuff than politics (except for Powell, obviously.) The latter is really an administrative-type position; and administrators rarely make good politicians.
If it makes you feel any better, though, this Dumb American has heard of Barak and Rabin.
It’s not just being in the wars that matters – it helps if you win too. See Eisenhower (WWII), Grant (Civil War), Powell (Gulf War). Since WWII and the advent of the JCS, there hasn’t been much winning. Do you really think anyone would vote for the guy who was in charge during Korea or Vietman?
It is my thought that a good deal of politics is “who you know”. A person in the political world (especially now during the All Volunteer Army) tends to have established his contacts there rather than in a military framework and when someone is tapped for political patronage he or she will usually be from the world the tapper is more familiar with.
In addition I feel the military man has not established a power base to draw from like the politician who has come up through the political ranks and has garnered favors along the way.
I believe there is also still some holdover fear of the “military industrial complex” that grew out of Viet Nam. In the U.S. “saber rattling” can be a help politically but it can also backfire and hurt the candidate when the next Pentagon $800 hammer scandal hits the paper.
I meant that the average American would have heard of people like Barak and Rabin, but wouldn’t have heard of people like Raful (Rafael Eitan), Amnon Lipkin Shahak, and others.
The two names that spring to mind are MacArthur and Westmoreland, respectively.
Actually people probably would have voted for MacArthur in the 50’s had Ike been less popular. Granted, he got himself removed from command before the war was over and so the blame couldn’t be completely rested on him.
But Westmoreland (and eventually Abrams and Weyand)… different time, different situation… Even if they were the greatest military minds in history, they probably couldn’t have won because of the political restrictions placed upon them. Yet another chink in the armor of the “great man” theory AFAIC.
