Why I support Al Haig for President
(What's in your wallet?)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It is so early that the sleep is not yet out of some people's eyes. The skirmishes thus far are minor, unseemly little affairs as folks start to jockey to figure out who will be the alternative to McCain or Giuliani. We have a dual salient being attacked from all sides.
A case can be made for Sam Brownback. A noisy case is being made for Mitt Romney. There is also a case to be made for Chuck Hagel, and for any one of a number of folks: Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and whomever I'm forgetting. If I missed listing your darling, I can defend myself only by saying that I do not support them. I do not support any of these people, at the present time given the current environment. The country needs a candidate with President Reagan's conservative convictions, President Eisenhower's credibility as a Commander in Chief, and President Nixon's ability to command policy detail. Ergo, we need Al Haig.
Now, I can imagine that many of you are scoffing, "Kilmer can't be serious." The more discerning among you are confidently saying: "Kilmer is not serious." I am stating: "Of course not. The man will be 84 before his first inauguration!" We missed that chance in 1988, when I was a temporary Bushie of the first sort.
But let's take a look at General Haig:
Read On.
Alexander Meigs Haig, Jr. is a graduate of West Point with a Masters in International Relations from Georgetown. He also studied business administration at Columbia. Alexander Haig retired from the U.S. Army as a four-star general, serving in Japan, Korea, Europe, and Vietnam, where he was a battalion commander. He served as the senior military advisor to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Vice Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army, White House Chief of Staff, Commander in Chief of the U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, President and chief operating officer of United Technologies (UTC), and the Secretary of State. The year here matters to some of us, as he served in this capacity at the beginning of the Reagan Administration, where he was charged in part, according to this old TIME magazine article, with "repairing Carter-era damage in relations with Western Europe." (Oh, Jimmy Carter was an imperialist, go-it-alone peanut farmer, Yankee go home, etc.)
Quite a resume. I don't know how that one rates against rescuing a city from a disaster in a few months or saving an Olympiad from scandal, but it's a good list of accomplishments nonetheless.
Haig on the issues (schmissues)?
When he last ran for President in 1988, a campaign brochure promised that General Haig would work to resolve the problem of "international terrorism," then sponsored by the Soviet Union. He promised a "commitment to family values and moral principles in addressing social issues." He assured voters "the problems of urban and rural America including housing, health care, drug abuse, and the elderly" through the private sector (called a "partnership").
Okay, so now he is the elderly. What of it? Of more concern, as averred in 2005 by Catholic World News: "Haig would later present himself as both Catholic and in favor of legalized abortion." (If this were meant to be a serious case for a candidacy, I'm sure T Crown would have something to interject here and now.) Of course, General Haig's position, if that quip accurately reflected it, might have changed since the statement was made. Positions on fundamental issues do evolve, as we know happens especially as one considers seeking the Republican nomination to the Presidency.
Of course, General Haig has some thoughts on the Iraq war. This Haig quote from March of 2006, made at a Vietnam conference at the JFK Library, was beloved of some lefty sites at the time
“Every asset of the nation must be applied to the conflict to bring about a quick and successful outcome, or don’t do it,” Haig said. “We’re in the midst of another struggle where it appears to me we haven’t learned very much.”
I agreed with his sentiment but chuckled at his "lessons of Vietnam" bit; it fit the conference's theme. Either way, the war in Iraq turned out to be different than what had been expected by our leaders, and Al Haig is right. We have to do whatever is needed to win this war. President Bush is stepping in this direction by changing the rules of engagement in Iraq.
General Haig added, not mentioned by the lefties:
Now, having said that, we didn't lose Vietnam. We quit Vietnam. We strangled our effort.
In a November, 2003 speech to the International Symposium on Sino- U.S.-European Relations in the New Century, Beijing, General Haig declared:
It would be disastrous if "globalization" once again became a substitute for a robust American war on terrorism. This war cannot be won through defensive mechanisms alone. It cannot be entrusted to the international economy with its inevitable ups and downs. The terrorists must be fought on their own ground, the war taken to them. Otherwise, we grant them what they had before 9/11, freedom to choose the time and place of attack without much fear that we would try to prevent it. Military action, to be sure, is not the entire answer to terrorism but it is an essential part of it. The globalists still seem unready to face this fact.
To be sure, the speech holds criticisms for the neoconservatives and the European "passives," but it shows and understanding of the dangerous problems we and the civilized world face.
I'll back off a bit for some Al Haig trivia, which fits in nicely now as we seek the genesis of the initial problem in Iraq and reflect on repairing relations with Western Europe damaged first, it seems, by Jimmy Carter. From a declassified memo sent by Haig to President Reagan on his trip to the Middle East in 1981:
“It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through [Saudi Prince] Fahd.”
So the Saudis told Haig that Carter told them to tell Saddam to invade Iran. Carter as he sometimes does, denied it.
More Haig trivia: Al Haig coordinated Nixon's first trip to the PRC and he could well have been a part of the composite called Deepthroat, if such a composite was not the product of Bob Woodward's overly fertile imagination.
I hope I've started to build a case for the nomination of this Octogenarian to be the President of the United States. No, it's not realistic and thus not serious, so to back Al Haig is actually to support None of the Above.
In this context, by making the case for Al Haig, I have pitched None of the Above. Is there a way to wipe the slate away and start all over again?
What's in your wallet?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Romney Responds: Opposed to Taxpayer Funded Abortions — Comments (29) »
Why I support Al Haig for President 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I am to grow up, be responsible, and jus' pick a candidate. "These types of pieces help nothing."
You are, of course, wrong on all counts. I had expressed no opinion as yet on any of the current field before this post. I looked at this, and I found that I was irresponsible.
Look at who you are backing: "What's in your wallet?" Is this candidate who we need? No, of course not, and I fear that at least some of my fellow Republicans are fooling themselves.
Times are perilous. Our nation is under constant attack, and the time to act is now. Our nation's values are under constant attack, and the time to act is now.
How do we act? "Pick a candidate, don't matter"?
I don't buy it. Maybe someone will emerge, perhaps from the current pack. It's far too early to commit, as there is no clear gem in this rough.
Go find someone and convince him to run. Because as I said, Hillary is running.
You might not think there are any gems in the current pack, but it's the pack we got... All of them are better than Hillary.
The 11th Commandment prohibition on speaking ill of a fellow republican should apply.
Look, I am not suggesting that you have to currently pick one of the current pack. But to go with "none of the above" before any of them has made his case is premature and plays into dem hands.
Someone will emerge. Someone will rise to the occassion and make us proud. We just have to give them a chance instead of aborting the entire lot of them.
The country needs a candidate with President Reagan's conservative convictions, President Eisenhower's credibility as a Commander in Chief, and President Nixon's ability to command policy detail.
Unless Schwarzkopf is running I don't think there is anyone in the country who matches your requirements. And I don't know exactly what his conservative convictions are. I think we'll have to compromise on one or more of the things which you list.
Credibility as a Commander in Chief is something that most presidents have to earn on the job. Eisenhower was an exception in that respect. So I'm willing to cut people a bit of slack on this one.
Sure, the "conservative convictions of President Reagan" could be a problem, but no more so than for anyone else running. (An plausible argument could be made for Gingrich if he opts to run.)
It's a problem, and I think it puts this current crop in perspective.
Then if Newt is the closest, support him. Either that or keep writing junk about how much everyone sucks. I'm sure Hillary's pals enjoy all of these articles...
meet the conservative convictions test. Besides Gingrich, there's Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, and Gilmore. For whatever reason conservative convictions are not being given much weight in the process so far. But there are people out there who score highly in this respect.
My first choice (Rudy) announced he is pretty much in the game today, so I'm happy about that. However, if he were to drop out, I'm not sure who my support would go towards.
However, I like Tommy Franks. I know he has said countless times that politics isn't for him, and I know he would never run, but I think he'd make a great candidate.
Other than that, I guess I'd have to vote for Pedro.
Rudy polls better at this point than most of the other alternatives. Additionally, the electoral map could be quite favorable to a Rudy romp (picking up states like PA and NJ could do wonders for our EV total).
The publics image of Rudy is still frozen in time at September 2001. The MSM have proven their ability to convince the public of things which are untrue with respect to Bush. Imagine what they will be able to do with Giuliani, who has copious amounts of damaging material in his history. Think Foley to the n'th power.
I think Al Haig would make a great President except for the fact that everyone everywhere in the News Media will absolutely destroy him. I would much rather have him run for Senate first.
But just on the merits, Haig would make a much better President than any of the candidates the Donks are fielding. But I don't know whether Haig could survive in the New Media, with its promise of continuous open access. The first thing they'd say about him is that he's "secretive" and I think that would doom his campaign.
One of the things that I'm trying to preach to the Romney campaign, and to anyone else who comes along for Republicans, is that "openness" is the sine qua non of political respectability these days. It's not just the Zeitgeist among the yoof, it was deliberately created to be, which is why they believe it. Al Haig would have to go a long, long way to meet the "openness" criteria necessary to please the media.
One thing that Conservatives need to learn is the BIG LESSON: "You can't fight the culture." In fact, you cannot even shape the culture. That's the Donk's job.
Let's go somewhere with this talk about, "None of the Above", how about a no kidding war hero with a record of accomplishment.
The guy I'd love to see have a hat in the ring, former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.
Google him, or go over to Wikipedia and read his bio, this is one effective and talented guy.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
he was snatched away, and I thought him a good one. (What we have now is off-the-map awful.)
His problem is his stand on social issues. He's always been pro-abort, and he doesn't mind appointing such judges.
Mark,
I don't have the background on Ridge, so where did your comment on being pro-abortion come from. As he was your governor at one point, I'm sure you have a better on the ground view, but would like to read more about Ridge.
I still think a real war hero, well besides McCain, would be a great contrast to Hillary. McCain and the SC wing of the party don't see eye to eye anyway, so how bad is Ridge on the issues that drive social conservatives?
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I chose it because it describes an event that I actually attended, either in spite or because of the noise being made. To me, it had the feel of a showdown, but it wasn't at all. There was plenty of insulation.
He's a Roman Catholic who supports "abortion rights," and though I am not a Roman Catholic, I cannot trust anyone who would be a traitor to their professed faith.
I do not have a source handy, but I remember Governor Ridge opposing gay marriage, on the other hand.
Tom Ridge is a social liberal, and just his pro-choice position on abortion alone takes away his chances of ever becoming President.
as my Secretary of State on my dream ticket last week.
I wish there was a Ronald Reagan, a Jeb Bush or some such giant, transformational conservative choice in 2008. There is not. But there is a Clinton, an Obama, an Edwards, perhaps a Gore and there WILL be an election in November 2008.
We need to grow up and act like adults instead of children.
If there is someone better on the GOP side who should run - go find him/her, convince him/her to run and participate.
In the meantime, this bellyaching is counterproductive. Grow up, pick a candidate, hope he wins the nomination and at the end of the day pray to God that he beats Hillary. The times are perilous, the SCOTUS is teetering and the time to act is now...
These types of pieces help nothing.