Before we leave the subject of Bush2005/Churchill 1942, let’s look at one more part of Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons during the January 1942 debate.
In Gary Hart’s article over the weekend (“Strong Leader Would Be Accountable For Dire Errors and Miscalculations”), Hart argued that Bush should have had “wholesale firings” of “those responsible” -- in the name of “strong [presidential] leadership:”
Democracy does not work without accountability. . . . Yet, once again, no one has been held accountable for inaccurate intelligence, misleading readings of that intelligence, or selective interpretation ("cherry picking") of that intelligence. Can you imagine Harry Truman's reaction to this situation? There would have been wholesale firings of, not medal ceremonies for, those responsible. That is strong leadership.
Firing others as “strong leadership?” In January 1942, the press was making similar suggestions to Winston Churchill. Here is how Churchill addressed it:
. . . Why then should I be called upon to pick out scapegoats, to throw the blame on generals or airmen or sailors? Why then should I be called upon to drive away loyal and trusted colleagues and friends to appease the clamor of certain sections of the British or Australian Press, to take the edge off our reverses in Malaya and the Far East, and the punishment we have yet to take there? . . .
I ask [the House] not to press me to take action against my conscience and better judgment to make scapegoats in order to improve my own position, not to press me to do the things which may be clamored for at the moment but which will not help in our war effort, but, on the contrary, to give me their encouragement and to give me their aid.
Harry Truman fired a general for insubordination. He did not consider wholesale firings as the Korean War dragged on, nor did he select scapegoats to appease political opposition. He would likely have disdained an opposition party that suggested it, in the same way Churchill (and Bush) did.
You forgot to mention why MacArthur was fired.
Truman insisted on viewing the Chinese incursion into the Korean peninsula as other than the full involvement of the Chinese Army.
MacArthur, who knew that the Chinese Army had committed just about all of their seriously equipped units, understood that this was NOT a minor Chinese involvement.
So MacArthur called for the use, or the threat of using our nuclear arsenal.
Truman refused, saw that as heightening the significane of the conflict, and fired MacArthur.
Flash forward. Eisenhower wins the Presidency, and making good on his promise to the people to "go to Korea," visits the troops and reviews the situation.
What did he do, and how did he procure a cease fire?
HE DID EXACTLY WHAT MACARTHUR SUGGESTED, he THREATENED to nuke the Chinese unless they agreed to the cease fire.
He refused to allow the blood letting to continue ad infinitum, as the Soviets and the Chinese were quite content to see happen.
Everybody talks about how Truman was right to fire MacArthur, but nobody seems to see that Truman could easily have drawn the conflict to a more speedy end, {with the resulting diminishment of casualties} if he had threatened the Chinese with nukes, unless they stayed across the Yalu, and allowed the Koreans to decide their future, on their own.
Such a threat from Truman, WHO HAD ALREADY nuked the Japanese, would HAVE to be considered serious.....
Ultimately MacArthur's advice was taken, and the cease fire agreed to.
An irony of history....
Posted by: Dan | December 10, 2005 at 01:21 AM