>>>As an european, we often are wondering what military has to do with politics?
>It seems that if you have a history in the military, you are a better politician than the other. Why ?
>
>Being military is a kudos thing in the US. It's just a cultural thing. I quite like it: a culture that still respects institutions, has class. Other cultures may believe that respecting nobody in particular is egalitarian and modern, but it's also part of that "Atlas Shrugged" tendency that drives away the capable and puts the mean-spirited greys in charge.


>>Being military is a kudos thing in the US. It's just a cultural thing.
With all the wars we've fought (some necessary, some unnecessary) that's small wonder.
Actually we've had some pretty good people in the military who deserve the kudos.
When thinking of WWII, names like McArthur and Patton often come to mind, but to me Eisenhower ranks with Washington as one of the best military leaders we have produced.

As a card-carrying Democrat it pains me to say that Ike was probably our best postwar president.
He ended the combat in Korea, built the interstate highway system and started the integration of schools.
OK.. so he was a Republican and he picked Tricky Dick Nixon as his VP.. no one is perfect.
Reading his excellent military journal of WWII - Crusade in Europe - gives a glimpse of his leadership style and his distaste for war.
My favorite quote from that book:
"There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs."