OT: The Anti-Ikes

[Guest guest]

PEGGY NOONAN

The Anti-Ikes

 

Two ex-presidents could learn from Eisenhower and the Bay of Pigs.

 

Two of our former presidents, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, have been

talking a lot about their views and feelings on Iraq. It would be nice

if they took to speaking less and thinking more. They could start with

an event in the latter years of Dwight David Eisenhower, a former

president who knew how to do the job.

 

Forty-two years ago this spring, in April 1961, a young American

president launched an amphibious invasion on a foreign shore. It was

such a thorough failure that to this day the words " Bay of Pigs " are

shorthand for " American military fiasco. " The American-trained Cuban

exiles who stormed the beaches of Cuba in hopes of liberating their

homeland were, essentially, abandoned and left to die, denied the

support they'd been promised by the U.S. government. Fidel Castro

crushed them.

 

The Bay of Pigs invasion was badly planned, poorly executed and almost

wildly unrealistic. (Months before it began former secretary of state

Dean Acheson told JFK, in a private Rose Garden conversation, that you

didn't need Price Waterhouse to figure out 1,500 guerillas aren't going

to beat 25,000 Cuban regulars.) And yet after the invasion, when Kennedy

both acknowledged the failure and took responsibility for it, he won the

support of the American people. His approval rating jumped to 82%. He

rallied. History, and his administration, went on.

 

Do you remember or know how Kennedy's partisan and political foes

responded to the crisis?

 

The Republican who'd lost the 1960 presidential election to Kennedy six

months before and by less than a percentage point--and who had reason to

believe that it may have been stolen--was invited to the White House. He

didn't bring his resentments in his briefcase.

 

... From Richard Reeves's " President Kennedy " : " 'It was the worst

experience of my life,' Kennedy said of the Cuban fiasco . . . to, of

all people, Richard Nixon. . . . Kennedy wanted the symbolic presence

and public support of both political friends and foes to show the nation

and the world that Americans were rallying around the president, right

or wrong. "

 

Kennedy asked Nixon's advice. Nixon told him to do what he could to

remove Castro and communism from Cuba. The meeting ended with Nixon

telling JFK, " I will publicly support you to the hilt. "

 

Kennedy and Nixon that day achieved something like " the kinship of

competitors. " Mr. Reeves writes. Nixon was good as his word, supporting

the president and refusing to attack him.

 

Others did the same. New York's liberal governor Nelson Rockefeller and

Arizona's conservative senator Barry Goldwater, both of whom thought

they might run against Kennedy in the next election, met with him

individually and gave the president their public support.

 

But the most important backing Kennedy needed was that of his immediate

predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, who had led America through the previous

eight years of relative peace and prosperity. He also knew something

about amphibious invasions, as he had commanded the biggest in history,

in June 1944, on the beaches of Normandy.

 

Eisenhower was not amused by what had just happened to his country.

Called to Camp David, he dined with Kennedy, and then together they

toured the grounds. It was on this walk that Ike delivered a stinging

reprimand in which he challenged Kennedy's judgment, knowledge and

understanding of the world.

 

Richard Reeves: " That was in private. In public, the two men came back

from their walk to face the reporters and cameras. . . . Kennedy told

reporters he had asked the General to visit him so he could 'get the

benefits of his thoughts and experiences.'

 

Eisenhower told the reporters, 'I am all in favor of the United States

supporting the man who has to carry the responsibility for foreign

affairs.' "

 

Ike supported Kennedy's leadership and refrained from making public

criticisms. Later, when the smoke cleared and Eisenhower was dead,

Kennedy staffers said that of course Eisenhower had to support Kennedy;

the original idea of a Cuban exile force had been hatched while Ike was

president. This was spin, and of a particularly disingenuous sort. Under

Eisenhower--under every president--possible and contingency

foreign-affairs initiatives are put forth and game planned. That's what

governments do. It was Kennedy who, only weeks after his November

election, told CIA director Allen Dulles that he wanted the agency to

move forward on Cuban invasion plans. After he was in the White House he

consented to and encouraged the plans, and personally tinkered with

them, to their detriment.

 

Surely their conversation at Camp David strongly suggests that neither

Kennedy nor Eisenhower considered the latter compromised by events.

Quite the opposite, in fact. " Mr. President, " Ike questioned him,

" before you approved this plan did you have everybody in front of you

debating the thing so you got the pros and cons yourself and then made

the decision, or did you see these people one at a time? " Kennedy did

not directly answer, and then said he'd just approved a plan recommended

by the CIA and the Joint Chiefs.

 

Eisenhower challenged him: Had Kennedy changed any of the military

plans? Yes, Kennedy said. How could you change plans after the Cuban

exiles were already on their way to the beach? Kennedy said he was

trying to keep U.S. involvement at a minimum, and meant to conceal that

involvement in fears the Soviets would retaliate by moving on Berlin.

 

... From Eisenhower a verbal smack. " That is exactly the opposite of what

would really happen. The Soviets follow their own plans, when they see

any sign of weakness they show their strength. " JFK said he'd been

advised not to show America's hand.

 

Eisenhower hit back: American support, training, materiel and leadership

would immediately be obvious to everyone. " How could you expect the

world to believe that we had nothing to do with it? " He told Kennedy

when America resorts to arms, " it must be a success. "

 

Kennedy said that hereafter if he got into anything like this, " it is

going to be a success. "

 

" Well I am glad to hear that, " Eisenhower snapped.

 

The Bay of Pigs happened because JFK was a new president, inexperienced,

and eager to show toughness.

 

But why did Eisenhower give him such public assistance and support? And

why did the others?

 

Because it was another era. It was pre-Vietnam. To make partisan

advantage out of an American failure would be classless, vulgar and most

of all destructive. But it wasn't just the style of the times, it was

their style. Ike and the rest showed support because they were fully

mature and serious. They knew America was in trouble and they loved

their country. So they put aside their own grievances and criticisms,

put the country's needs ahead of their own, and showed the world unity.

 

They were, that is, patriots.

 

It is good to remember how badly shaken America's allies were. Historian

and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger later wrote that in the

beginning Kennedy had conveyed to Western Europe " an impression of

United States foreign policy as mature, controlled, responsible, and,

above all, intelligent. " But now the New Frontier " looked like a

collection not only of imperialists but of ineffectual imperialists--

and, what was worst of all, of stupid, ineffectual imperialists. " In " A

Thousand Days " Mr. Schlesinger quotes as representative of European

sentiment a statement in the Frankfurter Neue Presse: " Kennedy is to be

regarded as politically and morally defeated. " Italy's Corriere della

Sera said that American prestige had, in a single day, collapsed.

 

And they were our friends.

 

This was bad for America, the West, and the world. A dangerous moment.

But it was almost redeemed when America's leaders stood together,

shoulder to shoulder, and showed the world we were not vulnerable and

not weakened.

 

You see where I'm going. We are not in the midst of a failed invasion;

we are not on the ropes. But we are in a big fight, and our nation's

prestige, credibility and leadership are very much on the line. Old

friends attack us every day, new foes vow to give us a day that makes

9/11 seem like a picnic. Or so Saddam Hussein is said to have said. This

would be a good time for unity, but that is impossible. Mr. Clinton is

by nature a partisan and, deep down, an embittered one. Mr. Carter is a

very nice, confused man of considerable vanity. Both of course have full

rights of free speech and a right to their views.

 

But if they cannot offer unity, couldn't they offer discretion? Whatever

their views, they should not put them forth in ways that undercut an

administration that, right or wrong, is attempting to get a fair hearing

from the world in order to take the steps it thinks necessary to make it

safer from terror regimes.

 

Are we getting discretion from our former presidents? No. Mr. Carter is

often most critical when outside our country. A few months ago he

received the Nobel Peace Prize, and the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel

Committee, Gunnar Berge, announced that the honor " can also be

interpreted as a criticism " of the Bush administration. Mr. Carter not

only accepted the award under these circumstances; he used his speech to

subtly cast doubt on the administration's actions and intentions

regarding Iraq. Mr. Carter tours Europe giving help to those who oppose

the American government's intentions; at his home in Georgia, he tells a

British tabloid he admires its " Not in My Name " campaign to increase

world opposition to the U.S. government.

 

Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, has taken to telling the world that " we

should let Blix lead us to come together. " Mr. Clinton calls Hans Blix,

the chief U.N. weapons inspector, " a tough honest guy who is trying to

find the truth. " Does Mr. Clinton speak of the American president with

such approbation? No. He treats President Bush with equal parts derision

and faux sympathy.

 

He has taken to offering virtually minute-by-minute play-by-play on the

administration's decisions, usually on cable. He seems to enjoy putting

himself forward as the current president's obvious superior. He is more

thoughtful, more experienced. He speaks from a great height.

 

Why are Messrs. Clinton and Carter so careless? Don't they know that

their behavior gives cover to foreign leaders as trying to block

administration fortunes in the U.N. and elsewhere? Don't they know that

it shows Saddam maybe he doesn't have to change, because America is torn

and divided?

 

Why do they do this? A hunger for relevance, you say. A need for

attention. Maybe. But those are personal needs and not worthy of a

former president at a time of danger. One wonders: Does Mr. Clinton

talk about Iraq and Osama so much because he is trying to hide in plain

sight his own failures? He had eight years to get serious about them.

He punted and dodged. The louder he talks now the more activist he seems

then. But this is no time for legacy-spinning.

 

Messrs. Clinton and Carter might ponder that they themselves in their

own times of crisis benefited greatly from the discretion of the

presidents who preceded them, Mr. Carter at key moments during the Iran

hostage crisis and Mr. Clinton at many points including--well, for a

solid year during the Monica scandal, George Bush 41 was urged every day

to speak out about what Bill Clinton had done to the presidency. And Mr.

Bush wouldn't say boo. Would've been bad for the country, didn't want to

make it worse.

 

Mr. Clinton and Mr. Carter are, truly, the anti-Ikes. They want their

tongue lashings to be in public, for all the world to see. No matter the

precariousness of the moment or the satisfaction of what foes in which

caves.

 

Lucky for JFK he had Eisenhower. Lucky he didn't have them.

 

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Her most

recent book, " When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan, " is

published by Viking Penguin. You can buy it from the OpinionJournal

bookstore http://www.opinionjournalbookstore.com/Noonan.htm . Her column

appears Mondays.

 

2000 Dow Jones Company, Inc. .