Reader's
Response

  Home Page

Reproduced in its entirety from eMail received...

Comments on Opinion Article on Signal Corps Website

 “ Is this the best we’ve got?” about the leadership in the current US election race.

Response by David R. Gust, Class 25-67

A thought provoking article on the Signal OCS Website caught my attention, and now elicits this response.  Don’t think of it as a rebuttal, but more of an alternative view. Let me quantify my background as being drafted in 1966 and having served in the Army for 34 years…and five days.

I am just a simple soldier born in Missouri who still believes in that state’s motto “show me…” and I am afflicted with both pessimism and optimism. Part of the pessimism comes from living outside the nation’s capital for the last 11 years since retirement. Part of the optimism comes from those Missouri farm roots where seeds were planted in the ground each spring and hopefully a crop grew from them by the fall harvest.

The author of the article considers today’s crop of presidential candidates to be fair-to-middling, a grade of cotton, so I naturally referred to my agricultural roots at first glance. His premise is we need 50-100 candidates, and better choices, and more diversity, etc, etc. Seems to me for the last Presidential election, which had no incumbent Vice-President candidate, we had minimal candidate slates for both parties. The Democrats had Clinton, Edwards and Obama, in alphabetical order.  The Republicans had more candidates initially, but it became a race of single digit numbers, until McCain was nominated.

The premise of the author is also tied not to the leadership in the Presidency, but to the Congressional leadership which must pass, or feels obligated to pass 300 new laws annually with the new implementing regulations to follow. It would seem to me that the article is correct in that we need fewer laws, and less restrictive regulations. If only a President would catch that vision…

Then the author quotes Field Marshall Montgomery that military and politicians do not mix well when substituting their roles.  This was an interesting opinion from a “political flag officer” whose reputation during WWII was always questioned as politically motivated. I did watch that TV show interview with Montgomery and Eisenhower sitting side-by-side in their retirement years discussing the war. They seem cordial enough, but from what I read about the war years, there was tension between the two on the European front.  They shook hands at the end of the show.

The author then lists several flag rank leaders of our military, none of who were ever presidential candidates. But the attributes he listed make a good list for military leadership—seek challenge and added responsibility, pass academics, work hard, lead to objectives, plan ahead, be a visionary, communicate, and have a touch of genius...

What the author failed to include in his opinion piece was a list of former Presidents who had been leaders in the military before their election. He could have written about Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower, but did not include them on his list. Why?  I wonder if it was because the opinions of their presidencies varied.

From my perspective here outside the DC beltway, I would really like to see a presidential candidate who did serve a tour of duty in a uniformed service. The same is true of my view of members of Congress and state leaders. I think the future leaders of our country need that “universal service” perspective to help guide them in their vision and plans for the country during their administration. 

Recently, during my lifetime experience, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I, and Bush II all had prior military service, but not as senior flag officers. Some were successful, some were not as successful as Presidents.

I have met about two dozen retired four-star flag officers, (mostly Army generals) from all the Services in the last twenty years. One trait that all seem to have is a deep respect for the military services and the men and women who serve. That is a “must have” attribute I want in a President. But most have no desire to run for the presidency, only Wesley Clark is an exception that comes to mind.

Where do we find the candidates for these elections today? It seems they all have an individual drive for the job, called “fire in the belly” or passion to hold the job. The campaign is a grinding pace of several years. I think our country is lucky that a handful of applicants step forward to undertake that pace.  Do the best credentials include being a Governor? How about being a Senator or a Representative? Can a business person, like Ross Perot, be a successful President?

I would conclude with a thought. If you don’t like the one in office, the President runs for re-election every four years. Vote for a replacement.  But, do vote!

   Comments by
   David R. Gust
   Major General, US Army (RET)
   Signal OCS Class 25-67