logo
Presidents at War: how battle has shaped American leaders

Presidents at War: how battle has shaped American leaders

Yahoo18-02-2025

In his new book, Presidents at War, Steven M Gillon considers how the second world war shaped a generation of presidents, a span that takes in eight men – but not all of them served in uniform between 1941 and 1945.
Gillon likes to 'ask people, 'There are seven men who served in uniform in world war two and who went on to be president: who are they?' And most people think Jimmy Carter did, and they forget Ronald Reagan.'
Carter was born in 1924 and came of age in wartime. But the submariner turned peanut farmer turned politician, who died aged 100 in December, graduated the US Naval Academy in 1946, the year after the war. Reagan, meanwhile, joined the Army Reserve in the 1930s and spent the war years enlisted – but stayed at home in Hollywood, where he made his name as an actor, narrating films and joining fundraising drives.
Related: Did Reagan pave the way for Trump? 'You can trace the linkages,' says biographer
'Reagan was the most fascinating for me,' says Gillon, emeritus professor of history at the University of Oklahoma and scholar-in-residence at the History Channel. 'I once bought the story about: 'Oh, he wanted to go and fight but his eyes were too bad.' In fact, there's all these machinations going on behind the scenes that keep him from going overseas, to make sure he stays in California so he can make movies, while at the same time creating this public image of a guy who has been off to war, and he comes home to his wife [Jane Wyman], and there's a picture of him in his uniform, kissing his wife – who in fact he slept with every night during the war.'
Gillon focuses on how the war affected men who led their country through the cold war with Russia, into the quagmire of Vietnam, and eventually into the first Iraq war. To Gillon, 'those presidents who came closest to combat were the ones who were most restrained in their use of force afterwards,' meaning Dwight Eisenhower, who commanded Allied forces in Europe, and John F Kennedy and George HW Bush, who flirted with death in the Pacific, JFK as a torpedo boat captain, Bush as a navy flier.
'Reagan is the exception of so many of these things,' Gillon says. 'Reagan never sees war. He thinks he saw the Holocaust camps, but he didn't. He just makes stuff up, and he thinks it's true. But what I did not know was how he came out of the war with the real fear of nuclear weapons, and he belonged to an organization for international control of atomic weapons, largely a liberal organization, as he was involved in other liberal organizations like Americans for Democratic Action.
'While he shed all the other liberal ties, he never shed that fear of nuclear weapons. And despite all his bombastic language, he was very restrained in the use of force. I mean, the only thing he did was create a phony war in Grenada [in which 19 Americans died] and see 241 Americans killed in Lebanon [both in 1983], and that was a peacekeeping mission.'
In response to the Beirut embassy bombing, Reagan launched limited strikes. He also bombed Libya, in 1986, and funded and fueled conflicts elsewhere, his efforts in Nicaragua creating the Iran-Contra scandal. But on the global scene, Gillon 'was surprised at how restrained Reagan was. And then his fear of nuclear weapons made him open to [Mikhail] Gorbachev's overtures' for detente and arms control 'during his second term … this was where Reagan followed his own instincts and in this case his instincts were right, and he was the right person to do it because he had such strong anti-communist credentials. So that was a twist I had not appreciated before.'
Gillon's book contains more twists. Many involve Lyndon Baines Johnson, like Reagan no stranger to distorting facts for political gain. A congressman when the US entered the war, LBJ got himself into uniform for a Pacific fact-finding tour. Hitching a ride on a bomber, he survived an attack by Japanese fighters.
'There's controversy over whether that took place the way he described it,' Gillon says. 'There was an article written by some aviation historians who said it never could have happened. And then, years later, the Japanese pilot who had actually led the attack against the American planes said he remembered Johnson's plane. He remembered crippling it, and he said the plane was so wounded that he knew it wasn't going to do any damage, so he broke off and went back into the main attack.'
Related: Den of Spies: Craig Unger on Reagan, treason and the first October surprise
Johnson's plane made it back to base, leaving him alive to tell tales of his own bravery on the campaign trail. Gillon shows how those tales grew more shameless but thinks the basic story 'is definitely true', including how a bathroom break meant Johnson lost a spot on a plane which was shot down, killing all onboard.
'Yeah, Johnson was just cool as a cucumber. And I'm sure he was thrilled when he landed.'
Gillon was born in working class Philadelphia in 1956, in the shadow of the war. Too young for the Vietnam draft, fascinated by the presidency, he graduated from Widener and Brown and then taught at Yale and Oxford. Recent books include America's Reluctant Prince, about his late friend John F Kennedy Jr, and The Pact, about Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, a Democratic president and a Republican House speaker whose relationship resonates loudly today.
With his latest book, Gillon focuses on the major lessons of the second world war, particularly the cost of appeasement, Hitler's triumph at Munich in 1938 a constant ghost at the feast. Such lessons, he says, 'some forgot, like Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, while others, like Kennedy and Bush, those who really saw battle and the horrors of war, you see them thinking about world war two all the time when they're making big decisions, whether it's the Cuban Missile Crisis for Kennedy or it's the invasion of Iraq with George Bush'.
Looking to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, Gillon describes how both served but did not see battle. Both were in the navy. Ford's closest brush with action involved a fire aboard his ship during a Pacific typhoon. Nixon was posted to tropical islands, working logistics and supply, failing to reach the front line.
Vietnam dominates Gillon's book. US involvement began under Eisenhower, accelerated under Kennedy, swirled into nightmare under Johnson and finally ended under Nixon – though he had lengthened the horror by thwarting peace talks for his own political gain. Gillon retells the extraordinary Anna Chennault affair, in which a Washington socialite acted as a go-between with the government of South Vietnam, relaying Nixon's urge to boycott talks till the 1968 election was done. When Johnson learned of it, he told a senior Republican: 'This is treason.' The senator agreed. Johnson called Nixon, who denied it. Gillon writes: 'According to some reports, after hanging up, Nixon collapsed with laughter.'
In 1968, Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey. The war did not end until 1973. Reading Presidents at War, it is striking to realize that no future president who was of an age to serve in Vietnam did so.
Bill Clinton opposed the war, studied abroad and denied accusations of dodging the draft. Joe Biden secured student deferments then was exempted on account of teenage asthma. George W Bush, the son of a war hero, went into the Texas Air national guard, which, Gillon notes, 'is a place notoriously where rich, powerful people put their kids during war'. Al Gore, John Kerry and John McCain did go to Vietnam – but lost presidential elections.
As so often, Donald Trump is a whole other matter. He obtained student draft deferments but also found a doctor to say 'bone spurs' in his heels rendered him unfit for service. He has also said avoiding sexually transmitted diseases while dating in New York was his 'personal Vietnam', making him feel like 'a great and very brave soldier'. It's not a line to endear him to Gillon, who says he cast his first vote for a Republican president, Ford, but whose epilogue to Presidents at War makes clear his distaste for Trump, his view of military matters and his reported negative comments about those who serve.
'I have my political point of view but when I write history, I try to be really fair-minded,' Gillon says. 'And I can't be fair-minded toward Trump. I just dislike him so much that I don't think I could write a book about him. I wrote a book about Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, and what made me happy was that both Clinton and Gingrich liked it. I take great pride in being fair of mind towards someone like Newt Gingrich, who I have no political affinity for, but I just can't get to that point mentally with Trump. I can't write a book that I feel I can't be fair.'
Presidents at War is out now

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Reagan Wasn't the Conservative He's Made Out to Be
Reagan Wasn't the Conservative He's Made Out to Be

Bloomberg

time32 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Reagan Wasn't the Conservative He's Made Out to Be

For those of us of a certain age and sensibility, Ronald Reagan is the quintessential American conservative. He not only vanquished the Evil Empire and restored business's animal spirits. He rode a horse, wore a cowboy hat and, when his wife came to visit him in hospital after he survived a 1981 assassination attempt, quipped 'honey, I forgot to duck.' By comparison, Donald Trump is an interloper as well as a Yahoo. But does this view survive forensic analysis? In a recent column on Sam Tanenhaus' new biography of William Buckley, my colleague, Toby Harshaw, makes it clear that Trumpism is deeply rooted in the American conservative tradition. And, as I made my own journey through Tanenhaus' thousand pages, I was struck by a heretical thought: The real interloper in the conservative tradition was not Trump but Ronald Reagan (and, by implication, his great imitator, George W. Bush). Reagan was the ultimate double agent: Beneath his cowboy hat, he smuggled two ideas that were anathema to movement conservatives, neoliberalism and neoconservativism, into the heart of Republican policymaking.

Republican enthusiasm for Musk cools after his feud with Trump, a new poll finds

time33 minutes ago

Republican enthusiasm for Musk cools after his feud with Trump, a new poll finds

WASHINGTON -- Tech billionaire Elon Musk has lost some of his luster with Republicans since his messy public falling-out with President Donald Trump last week, a new survey finds. Fewer Republicans view Trump's onetime government efficiency bulldog 'very favorably' compared with April, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Though most Republicans continue to hold a positive view of Musk, their diminished fervor suggests his vocal opposition to Trump's signature spending and tax cut legislation — and Musk's subsequent online political and personal taunts — may have cost him some enthusiasm within the party. 'Some things have happened lately that have changed how I feel about him a little,' said Alabama Republican Katye Long, whose feelings for Musk have cooled to 'somewhat favorable.' 'I liked what he was doing when he was helping. But now I feel like he's kind of hurting,' said the 34-year-old automotive component factory employee and mother of three from Woodstock, Alabama. 'I also don't feel like he matters that much. He's not actually part of the government. He's just a rich guy who pushes his opinions.' Musk's overall popularity hasn't shifted, the poll found, and most of the shift among Democrats and Republicans was between 'very' and 'somewhat' strong opinions. Americans are less likely to view him favorably than his electric vehicle company, Tesla. That said, about half of Americans have a negative opinion of Tesla, highlighting another challenge for Musk when the company has dropped in value and been the target of protests in the U.S. and Europe. About one-third have a favorable view of Tesla, while about 2 in 10 don't know enough to say. Even a subtle shift in the intensity of Republicans' feelings about Musk could be important as the electric car and aerospace mogul weighs a second political act after spending about $200 million in service of Trump's 2024 election effort. After decrying the GOP's massive tax and budget policy bill as 'a disgusting abomination,' Musk wrote on X, his social media platform, 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.' The poll suggests the messy feud with Trump may have rubbed some Republicans the wrong way, as the share of Republicans viewing Musk as 'very favorable' has dropped from 38% in April to 26% now. At the same time, antipathy toward Musk among Democrats has waned a little. About two-thirds, 65%, of Democrats have a very negative view of Musk, down slightly from about three-quarters, 74%, in April. Musk's bitter back-and-forth with Trump has business implications, too. Tesla was already struggling with a backlash against Musk's association with Trump. Sales across Europe plunged by half in May, even as growth in the electric car market accelerated. Then the company's shares plunged in value when Musk began sparring publicly with the president. Victoria Brown, of Kansas City, Kansas, rated Tesla 'somewhat unfavorable' because she objects to how Trump is conducting his administration and links the company's owner with the president's agenda. 'I don't favor Trump. So, pretty much the fact that they have been working together means I don't care too much for Tesla,' said Brown, 63, a political independent and an insurance agent. While the intensity of people's feelings about Musk may have changed, their overall opinions have not. About one-third of U.S. adults have a favorable opinion of Musk, compared with about 6 in 10 who hold an unfavorable view, while about 1 in 10 don't know enough to say. That's unchanged from the April poll. The new poll was conducted June 5-9, after Musk left his government role and began attacking Trump's marquee legislative priority. Musk's public clash with Trump began four days after Trump honored Musk effusively during an Oval Office event discharging him from duties as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency. After first tearing down the budget bill, Musk two days later complained he had never seen the language, and he aimed his fire at Trump, suggesting the president didn't sufficiently appreciate the role Musk assumed as the chief benefactor to Trump's reelection effort. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk wrote. 'Such ingratitude.' Musk went on to claim without evidence that the federal government was concealing information about Trump's association with infamous pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Musk deleted the post, and early Wednesday he stepped back from his attacks on Trump, writing on X that he regretted some of his posts and they 'went too far.' Tesla endured a difficult first quarter in 2025, with its sales falling while the world's leading electric car manufacturer faced protests in showrooms. The new poll also shows that Tesla is viewed far more negatively than some of its peers — notably, Ford, Toyota and General Motors. Only about one-third of U.S. adults have a 'very' or 'somewhat' favorable view of Tesla. About half of U.S. adults have an unfavorable opinion of Tesla, including 30% of Republicans. Democrats, at 66%, are more than twice as likely as Republicans to have a negative view of Tesla. But even among Republicans, Tesla is viewed less favorably than the other brands. Marisa Mills is no Musk fan. The 41-year-old teacher from Oakland, California, objects to his association with Trump and what the Democrat sees as their misguided notion that government is always well served by operating like a business. And yet she was once proud to have Tesla building cars in her own county. She soured on the company in 2020, when Musk sued Alameda County over its workplace restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, before he moved the company to Texas in 2021. 'My government is supposed to serve the people, not his company. We were all glad to see him go,' Mills said. 'I do regret that we now have feelings of regret for the Tesla car product. We were once so proud.' ___ Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Iowa. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at

Tyranny is never far from America's front door
Tyranny is never far from America's front door

Washington Post

time36 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Tyranny is never far from America's front door

As America braces for Saturday's military celebration of President Donald Trump's 79th birthday — and as Los Angeles confronts violent protests against National Guard and military deployments for migrant arrests — Hannah Arendt's warnings decades ago about totalitarian threats to democratic institutions seem increasingly prophetic. Arendt, a German-born Jewish philosopher and theologian who escaped the Nazis during Hitler's rise, is probably best known for coining the term 'banality of evil,' which she used to describe how Nazi bureaucrats murdered millions of Jews (and others) without flinching. It was because they were 'recipients of orders,' in the words used by Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann during his trial to rationalize his actions.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store