Who were/are the Greatest Political Leaders

[Rob Thornton]

Some time ago we had a very popular thread entitled "Who are the Greatest Generals". It evolved to become more then just council member's lists of favorites, or even lists of favorites with historical examples of military wins. It became a discussion about what makes a great military leader.

Why not give political leaders equal play? War is a way of achieving a political end, be it a calculated action, or a reaction. There is art in everything from building allies, to securing the gains toward the long term that were achieved in the decision, to as a political leader in the defeated polity convincing the victorious parties that its is in their best interest to make a better peace for the defeated. It can also include political leaders who at the same time were the defacto military leader.

The idea is to have a discussion about where in history (recent to ancient) political leadership was best employed in war - leading into war, during war and concluding the war.

Best, Rob

[SteveMetz]

I'd give more credit to political leaders who avoided war in dangerous times with significant damage to national interests rather than the architects of war. (As I was listening to Terry Gross interview a Marine colonel who spent three years as a casualty assistance officer yesterday, it dawned on me that the concept of "victory" in war is an oxymoron. All participants are losers; there are just different gradations of losing).

[Eden]

I'll start the list off by nominating Bismarck as the most successful political leader of the last few centuries. He was a master of internal politics who bent a series of governments to his will; he was a visionary who pursued a singular goal over a period of decades; he used military force to gain his objectives in a series of wars, but he prepared the way for those wars by setting the diplomatic preconditions for success; he understood and manipulated his international opponents; he limited the objectives of war to what was desirable and achieveable and consciously abandoned force when his overall strategic goal was achieved; he used the military but allowed the professionals to get on with the conduct of the war - until they threatened to upset the proper relationship between policy and war, when he brought them up short; and finally, he created an international system that preserved the peace and Germany's place in the sun for more than a generation.

Yes, he was not a nice man. Yes, his system broke down when lesser men - including one certified congenital idiot - tried to operate it. Still, WWI was neither inevitable nor directly the fault of Bismarck. All in all, I can't think of a more successful practitioner. And, he was a cavalryman.

[SteveMetz]

What about Prime Minister Count Rupert Mountjoy of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick?

[Gian P Gentile]

Nothing fancy here; just the basics.

I will go with Abe Lincoln; all time greatest political leader in war, ever ("ever" being intentionally said with my own American exceptionalist bias admitted)

gian

[Ron Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Gian P Gentile

Nothing fancy here; just the basics.

I will go with Abe Lincoln; all time greatest political leader in war, ever ("ever" being intentionally said with my own American exceptionalist bias admitted)

gian

I could agree with this one. The man definately had to deal with quite a variety of issues and in doing so was pretty effective.

That said I think several of the Roman leaders would probably be good examples considering that they were not only politicians but warriors and quite often at the same time. And thats not even looking at the economics, social developments, etc.

Finally may be more to some leaders here than we realize. It's often difficult to truly know what someone actually dealt with and how till about 30 years later. So the jurys still out on some of them.

[Tom Odom]

Franklin Roosevelt

Winston Churchill

Joseph Stalin

All had their issues and all had their faults, individually and collectively. Bot in a strange brew way those faults played into each other and cemented what was an effective alliance

Truman: in Korea he grew into the job when it counted most

[Rank amateur]

I like Ike. (He should've stumped on Monty instead of OKing Market Garden, but he was still wearing a uniform then.)

I agree with Steve, therefore JKF deserves a mention for the Cuban missile crisis: civil rights too.

Constantine accomplished a lot and had a long lasting influence.

[Ken White]

of IRBMs around the western USSR for a few in Cuber and couched it as a 'victory.' Yeah. Same guy that escalated Viet Nam and okayed the departure of Diem and attempts on Castro...

Yeah...

[Steve Blair]

Not a fan of JFK either, honestly.

Lincoln and Bismarck are good calls, and I'm rather tempted to toss in Frederick the Great as well. Nixon had some good foreign policy calls, though his domestic paranoia brought him down. Gonna have to ponder this one some more....

[Norfolk]

The Roman farmer-turned-dictator Cincinnatus. Although this would probably be more of an example of one of history's great citizens more than one of its great political leaders.

[SteveMetz]

Interestingly, no one has proposed Reagan.

[Cavguy]

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Winston Churchill

A good choice for WWII, but just coming off of a ME history course, one can argue that his dreams of empire played a prime role in creating the nightmare that is the modern Middle East after WWI.

[Van]

The poor, challenged, son-of-a-gun got thrown into it after Gaius Caligula was shanked. Noone expected him to do anything right. He promptly proceeded to fix a bunch of the problems that had been piling up since the second half of Tiberius' reign.
And he had some experience managing Small Wars in Britain and Dalmatia (now the Balkans).

The Dukes of Venice of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth centuries (collectively) rate some consideration also. They had a good grasp of the instruments of power even if they didn't use our terminology.

Ronald Reagan is a worthy nomination, but probably needs some time to historically season.

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by Van

The poor, challenged, son-of-a-gun got thrown into it after Gaius Caligula was shanked. Noone expected him to do anything right. He promptly proceeded to fix a bunch of the problems that had been piling up since the second half of Tiberius' reign.
And he had some experience managing Small Wars in Britain and Dalmatia (now the Balkans).

The Dukes of Venice of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth centuries (collectively) rate some consideration also. They had a good grasp of the instruments of power even if they didn't use our terminology.

Ronald Reagan is a worthy nomination, but probably needs some time to historically season.

This reminds me of listening to Mike Vlahos and Ed Luttwak argue about 5th century Roman tactics (partially in Latin) a few years. As a plumber's son from Elk Hills, West Virginia, I couldn't help but be bemused.

[Tom Odom]

Originally Posted by Cavguy

A good choice for WWII, but just coming off of a ME history course, one can argue that his dreams of empire played a prime role in creating the nightmare that is the modern Middle East after WWI.

No disagreement and that would be one of his "flaws" that gave him strength in WWII. As a dyed in the wool Imperialist, he was a most useful offset for FDR's naivete in dealing with Stalin.

Glad you are doing grad work on the Mid East. Keep ears and mind open, my friend.

Tom

[John T. Fishel]

George Washington should be at, or near, the top of any list. He presided over the conflictive Constitutional Convention, established the nature of the Presidency as an institution, the supremacy of the Union (in the Whishy Rebellion) and civilian control of the military - civ president commnads troops.

Charles De Gaulle succeeded in giving France a modern and stable government such as it never had before.

Ataturk brought Turkey into the modern world.

The Meiji Restoration leadership of Japan and Douglas MacArthur as Shogun after WWII.

William of Orange led the Glorious Revolution of 1689 that made modern Britain.

Alvaro Obregon brought stability to Mexico in the 1920s.

Jose Napoleon Duarte and his successor, Alfredo Cristiani, brought the El Sal civil war to a successful close and did a better job on reconciliation than Lincoln's successors did in the US.

Anyway, those are some of my candidates with reasons for those of you who care.

Cheers

JohnT

[Vic Bout]

Teddy Roosevelt, that gunboat-totin', big-game shootin', banana republic seizin', national park endowin' cowboy, with a mustache as big as all outdoors...

(whose trophy room in the white house, BTW, was immediately upon occupation dismantled by first lady Hillary)

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by John T. Fishel

Jose Napoleon Duarte and his successor, Alfredo Cristiani, brought the El Sal civil war to a successful close and did a better job on reconciliation than Lincoln's successors did in the US.

Anyway, those are some of my candidates with reasons for those of you who care.

Cheers

JohnT

I was thinking of him but, man, thinks were screwed up at the time he left office. Maybe Magsaysay.

[SteveMetz]

Ho Chi Minh