Abraham Lincoln got into a legally questionable war.
Part of the reason for that war was to topple a government unfriendly to US interests.
Everybody thought it would be a short, quick war but it stretched on for years.
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, and did other highly unconstitutional acts.
The courts ultimately decided that he had incorrectly used military courts where civilian courts should have had jurisdiction.
The war became highly unpopular as it wore on.
There were far more casualties than anyone had suspected.
There were atrocities committed by troops. The prisoner of war camps were considered especially heinous.
Many people predicted that Lincoln would not be re-elected due to the unpopularity of the war. But he won anyway.
Many people ridiculed his speaking style. (In fact, on one historic occasion he was roundly denounced as a buffoon for giving a short, inept speech. But everyone knows that one.)
Many people claimed that Lincoln's rational for the war was suspect, and that he had changed the reasoning as the war dragged on.
Lincoln was ultimately denounced by a trusted former employee named McClellan.
Gets a but spooky, don't it?
This could also apply to LBJ as well (with the exception of the McClellan factor), actually with an additional parallel: While Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, LBJ nursed civil rights legislation through the Congress that ultimately did away with Jim Crow, the outgrowth of slavery in the South (no, I'm not saying that all Southerners are racists, but some were and institutionalized that racism). Some of the allegations against Lincoln (and LBJ) were not without truth. I don't think history has a glowing endorsement of LBJ as far as war policy, in this he is much like Lincoln where he is respected for his domestic policy but condemned (at least by some) for his war policies.
As to the suspension of Habeus Corpus that you alluded to here and in another post, just because it happens doesn't necessarily make it right. I realize that at least a handful of Presidents have done it in some form (FDR's Japanese internment camps, Wilson's alien and sedition laws) but that also doesn't make it right. Precedence doesn't determine if a policy is acceptable, what was acceptable once isn't necessarily acceptable again, which seems to be your argument here (correct me if I'm wrong, that's just how I'm reading it). This is my first chance to use Plane's proverb that I liked so well in yet another post: They both make a poor soup.
One final thing: the American Civil War is a much different thing than the Iraqi civil war, which was caused by incompetent planning on the part of the Pentagon and ultimately the President. I have been critical not so much of the war itself but with the way that it has been managed, especially in the past. I
do see progress however, I think that the Petraeus - Gates combination is much better than some we have had in the past, especially Rumsfeld, who in IMHO was just the wrong man for the wrong job. And before I start hearing about how "no war is ever perfect" and all associated arguments that run along that line, allow me to state that yes, I agree with that,
but if everyone sat around and used that as a justification for incompetence then there would be little progress and accountability in the world, for if we could write it off to the "it could be worse" or "nothing is perfect" factors, what would be the point in change?
Now I'm off to work in a rare day of sunshine here in WA, you guys have a good day.
