Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Forum Presidential Ranking: Use of Military


vcczar
 Share

Recommended Posts

The 4th category is "Use of Military." It's up to you to determine what the name of this category means. However, I should note that I mean for this category to encompass military success/failure, non-invasion defense-related things, and also peace, restraint, non-intervention, etc. That is, misuse of the military should also be considered. 

Your votes will only count if you do all 12 of the rankings that I post. 

Copy+Paste the names of the president's below. If the president was better than average for "Military Use," then put an "*" by their name. If they were below average in this category, then put a # by their name. If they were approximately average, then don't mark them. 

Washington

J Adams

Jefferson

Madison

Monroe

JQ Adams

Jackson

Van Buren

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce

Buchanan

Lincoln

A Johnson

Grant

Hayes

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland

B Harrison

McKinley

T Roosevelt

Taft

Wilson

Harding

Coolidge

Hoover

FDR

Truman

Eisenhower

JFK

LBJ

Nixon

Ford

Carter

Reagan

Bush I

Clinton

Bush II

Obama

Trump

Biden

@Beetlejuice @Cal @Cenzonico @ConservativeElector2 @DakotaHale @Dobs @Edouard @Fbarbarossa @Hestia @jnewt @JohnGRobertsJr @Kitten @Magnus Rex @Mishfox @MrPotatoTed @Patine @pilight @Pringles @Rezi @Rodja @Sean F Kennedy @The Blood @Timur @vcczar @WVProgressive @Zenobiyl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington *

J Adams *

Jefferson #

Madison #

Monroe *

JQ Adams *

Jackson 

Van Buren 

WH Harrison

Tyler *

Polk #

Taylor *

Fillmore 

Pierce #

Buchanan #

Lincoln *

A Johnson

Grant 

Hayes #

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland

B Harrison

McKinley #

T Roosevelt *

Taft 

Wilson

Harding

Coolidge *

Hoover #

FDR *

Truman #

Eisenhower #

JFK #

LBJ #

Nixon #

Ford *

Carter *

Reagan #

Bush I

Clinton 

Bush II #

Obama #

Trump *

Biden 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington +++

J Adams

Jefferson

Madison +

Monroe +

JQ Adams

Jackson -

Van Buren

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk +++

Taylor -

Fillmore

Pierce -

Buchanan ——

Lincoln +++

A Johnson -

Grant +

Hayes -

Garfield 

Arthur

Cleveland

B Harrison

McKinley +

T Roosevelt +++

Taft

Wilson 

Harding

Coolidge

Hoover

FDR +++

Truman +

Eisenhower +

JFK +

LBJ ——

Nixon -

Ford

Carter -

Reagan +

Bush I +++

Clinton +

Bush II ——

Obama 

Trump

Biden

 

I didnt put too much thought into this, so take it with a grain of salt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington*

J Adams

Jefferson*

Madison*

Monroe

JQ Adams

Jackson#

Van Buren

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk*

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce

Buchanan#

Lincoln*

A Johnson#

Grant*

Hayes#

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland*

B Harrison

McKinley#

T Roosevelt#

Taft*

Wilson#

Harding

Coolidge

Hoover

FDR*

Truman

Eisenhower#

JFK#

LBJ#

Nixon#

Ford

Carter

Reagan#

Bush I*

Clinton*

Bush II#

Obama#

Trump

Biden*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, vcczar said:

Washington *

J Adams *

Jefferson *

Madison *

Monroe *

JQ Adams

Jackson 

Van Buren

WH Harrison

Tyler 

Polk *

Taylor 

Fillmore

Pierce

Buchanan #

Lincoln *

A Johnson #

Grant *

Hayes

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland *

B Harrison

McKinley *

T Roosevelt *

Taft *

Wilson *

Harding

Coolidge

Hoover

FDR *

Truman *

Eisenhower *

JFK *

LBJ *

Nixon

Ford

Carter #

Reagan *

Bush I *

Clinton *

Bush II *

Obama

Trump #

Biden

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, vcczar said:

Washington*

J Adams#

Jefferson*

Madison

Monroe

JQ Adams

Jackson

Van Buren#

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk#

Taylor

Fillmore*

Pierce#

Buchanan

Lincoln*

A Johnson

Grant

Hayes#

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland

B Harrison#

McKinley#

T Roosevelt

Taft

Wilson

Harding*

Coolidge

Hoover

FDR*

Truman*

Eisenhower#

JFK

LBJ#

Nixon

Ford

Carter#

Reagan*

Bush I

Clinton

Bush II*

Obama#

Trump

Biden

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

@Dobs @TimurI must ask (especially in light of the point I had made in my post directly before both of yours), why did George W. Bush (and Lyndon B. Johnson, as well, for @Dobs) get positive grades for successful use of military when they both began wars on outmoded and failed military doctrine that had not adapted to the changing circumstances of warfare and did not learn many key lessons of past military failures and blunders - by Americans and others - and those wars ended up being disastrous and embarrassing losses and blunders, even if they didn't conclude in either of the two Presidents' tenures (the dragged out agony of them being another strike against them in this area)?

Sure thing.

So Bush and Johnson are relatively similar in their reasoning for above average, makes sense that you'd ask of them together. Let's start with Bush. He was President during one of the greatest national and international crises in American history. And while I'm no fan of how he responded domestically, I think he hit the mark internationally. We went into Afghanistan to neutralize terror threats and indeed, our presence there would facilitate the elimination of Osama Bin Laden. Furthermore, we went into Iraq to find and neutralize the WMD program of brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, we succeeded. 

Similarly, President Johnson became President during a time of heightened international tension. And while I am not at all a fan of his domestic or economic programmes (similar to Bush somewhat in that regard though much worse for LBJ), he hit the mark internationally. Knowing full well it was the American duty to prevent the Communist takeover of Vietnam, he put America in a fight worth winning; the fight for Freedom in South Vietnam. This is a fight we were winning when he left office. Despite domestic pressure, he never backed down to those who would bend to Communism. I have mentioned doing what is right vs. doing what is popular. He decidedly did the former.

So then, what went wrong for both these men? War became a political issue. Unfortunately, when politicians get their hands on wars, we tend to lose them. In Vietnam, far removed from LBJ's exit from office, the 94th Congress, elected in the wake of the disastrous 1974 watergate midterms, featured many a political dove intent on ending the war because they promised to do so. The 94th Congress took advantage of a popular wave and did what was popular. They ignored President Ford's plea to continue supporting the South Vietnamese on their way to victory via their bullet-for-bullet, weapon-for-weapon agreement with the United States. We made a promise to South Vietnam and then promptly broke it; allowing North Vietnam and Communism to swoop in.

Similarly, by the time Bush had left office, General Petraeus' 11th hour surge had effectively secured Iraq. Hussein had been deposed and his chemical weapons program neutralized. But President Obama, elected on a platform of purely political peace, had different plans. The President withdrew us from Iraq without an exit strategy because he had made that political promise, despite what was right and in front of his eyes as President. Naturally, when we left, the power vacuum which created ISIS formed. And so while President Obama scores some points for damaging ISIS and nearly destroying it, his botching of the win that Bush left behind seriously harms him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

There were no WMD's found anywhere in the country, and many other brutal dictators who were left completely untouched, with no plans to topple them, and some of which were even considered U.S. allies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program

"A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people." - DHS

There just factually were.

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

South Vietnam was a corrupt, despotic, nepotistic, oppressive, and abusive nation with no freedom or appetite for it by their government, or any promotion of such by U.S. (one American statesman even later said it was preferable, as a South Vietnamese government with any form of democracy or respect for human rights would be, "utterly unmanageable") and it was no better in any meaningful way from North Vietnam.

 

So was South Korea. I'll leave it there.

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

No such mandate exists by any rational moral or legal reckoning, and the vast majority of endeavours to exercise this presumed "duty," are various levels of disaster and botch. Also, the immense amount of, "cherry-picking," on this matter shows even more the disingenuous view of it by the United States Government and Military.

 

I disagree, I think the Free World does have the affirmative duty to defend democracy and human rights abroad as well as defend against authoritarianism, communism, and the like.

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

The fatal errors and the inevitable defeats were already made at the start.

I provided a line of reasoning to establish they weren't, I continue to believe those lines of reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington *

J Adams *

Jefferson *

Madison *

Monroe *

JQ Adams

Jackson

Van Buren

WH Harrison

Tyler

Polk *

Taylor

Fillmore

Pierce

Buchanan

Lincoln *

A Johnson

Grant

Hayes

Garfield

Arthur

Cleveland

B Harrison

McKinley *

T Roosevelt

Taft

Wilson *

Harding

Coolidge

Hoover

FDR *

Truman 

Eisenhower *

JFK 

LBJ *

Nixon

Ford

Carter #

Reagan *

Bush I *

Clinton *

Bush II *

Obama 

Trump #

Biden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

The two countries were not even remotely that similar. Plus, Communism was VERY popular, genuinely, among many rural South Vietnamese peasants, who also had a very negative view of Americans - the U.S. only had popular support in Saigon and other big coastal port cities. North Vietnam would have still have won when the first free-and-fair election rolled around.

Perhaps, but then that's how they should have won. But I disagree with your total separation of South Korea and South Vietnam. Again, we probably have some very different thoughts on anti-communism. 

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

This still sounds like the same tenor (if not exact content) as Medieval Crusader and Colonial/Imperial Era "White Man's Burden," thinking - and just as dangerous...

While I sympathize with this concern, it has nothing to do with race. Japan is just as much a part of the Free World as Europe, for instance. We're not crusading to take back the Holy Land, we're just preventing criminal treatment of people by dictators. Though perhaps our difference here really stems from our level of influence of Enlightenment ideals, which I hold in high esteem and deem an important part of respecting human rights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...