An old, old debate

We're hearing, at least from the political right, that the military doesn't care much for Barack Obama.
This has been going on for, oh, only 210 years or so.
There has long been chafing on the part of the military of civilian leadership. At the same time, there has long been a civilian distrust in putting too much power in the military's hands.
It was decided at the time the United States was founded that the military would be under civilian control. The President, a civilian, would be commander-in-chief of the armed services.
At the time, it was something of a progressive idea. After all, the European nations were ruled by kings, to whom the military answered personally.
For centuries, it was the king who led the military into battle or at least gave the orders.
That pretty much went out after Napoleon Bonaparte, the last major European leader to lead his armies into battle. By that time, most of his rivals were already employing professional military officers while the rulers kept a safe distance from the bloodshed.
Anyway, civilian control of the armed services was written into the Constitution when the United States was formed.
The first President, of course, left little room for carping from the military. George Washington's credibility with the army was beyond dispute.
The complaining on the part of the military probably began about the time the second President, John Adams, took office. He was, after all, not a military veteran.
Same with Thomas Jefferson and those who followed, up until Andrew Jackson.
Since Jackson, a few other military leaders have made it into the White House. Most were far less effective as President as they had been in uniform.
Although his Presidency is not held up as a shining example, credit has to be given to one ex-general who had a huge effect on the United States we know today.
Dwight Eisenhower saw the autobahns of Germany and brought them to the U.S. as the Interstate system.
His interest was as much military as anything else -- the Interstates are also known as National Defense Highways. Better highways mean moving troops around more rapidly.
Those around during the first Gulf War saw that idea in action as convoys of troops used freeways to get to airports and seaports for deployment.
Is there any significance to the fact that Eisenhower was an administrator and politician as a general, not a fighter? His service in World War II was far from the front lines, but his ability to get disparate leaders and nations to work together was invaluable.
And those who claim that Ronald Reagan "won" the Cold War do a great disservice to Eisenhower and his predecessor, Harry Truman. Those two had to deal with a far more dangerous leader in Moscow, Joseph Stalin, than did those who followed.
Of actual fighting generals, only Jackson was outstanding -- but his total disregard for the Supreme Court's ruling on the rights of the Cherokees would have been a major Constitutional crisis if most white Americans of the time weren't just as racist as Jackson toward Native Americans. Prejudice swept that one under the rug of history.
Only Abraham Lincoln, who threw the Bill of Rights out the White House window in his battle to save the Union, showed less respect to the Constitution.
But that's a rant for another day.