i ntroduction 23most favorable international circumstances, and generate public support
for military action. Persuading the public that war is necessary can
present a major political test for a president. Franklin Roosevelt
struggled to overcome strong isolationist sentiment up to the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor; George W. Bush found it necessary to exag-
gerate connections between the 9/11 terrorists and Saddam Hussein to
pump up public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Once a president chooses war, he faces the third challenge of a
wartime political leader: to identify clearly the nation’s political objec-
tives. To recall von Clausewitz, leaders must always bear in mind that
wars serve political ends. American presidents have waged war to
achieve a variety of purposes, including preserving the nation,
expanding its territory, and resisting aggression that posed a direct or
indirect threat to American security or interests. Victory must be under-
stood to mean the accomplishment of the identifi ed goals. In addition
to the immediate aims the nation pursues in a confl ict, a leader may
also see it as a vehicle for achieving other long-term political goals, in
particular to eliminate the circumstances that led to the war. Wilson
and Roosevelt alike looked to establish a new postwar order that would
rely on collective security to deter would-be aggressors. I will refer to
the achievement of these broader aims as “peace-building,” without
which military victory may be barren. Over the course of a confl ict, as
circumstances change, a president reassesses whether the objectives he
set initially are still attainable. It may be necessary to develop military
and diplomatic strategies for less than optimal outcomes to avoid stale-
mate or defeat.
From the responsibility that a president faces to defi ne war aims
follows a fourth task: to assure that the military pursues a strategy
appropriate to the nation’s political objectives. As Civil War historian
James McPherson puts it, wartime leadership requires reconciling the
nation’s military strategy with its political goals. Th e president must
fi nd the military means to realize larger political ends. Indeed, this is his
central task as commander in chief of the armed forces. If the nature of
the war changes, McPherson adds, a president may need to adjust the
military strategy accordingly. To put a strategy into eff ect, a president
must choose the military commanders who will conduct operations,
ensure that their approach on the battlefi eld is consistent with the larger