The United States has often turned to war heroes for executive leadership, but usually in peacetime.

Presidents without combat or command experience have led the United States during some of the most famous wars in American history: the Civil War (Lincoln); both world wars (Wilson and Roosevelt); the Vietnam War (Johnson); and the war on terrorism (Bush and Obama). Significant criticism has been leveled at every one of those presidents for his performance, even if the war in question was eventually won.

Although the United States has not fought an “existential” war with a war hero in the Oval Office, the results of wars fought without such leadership suggest that while military experience is not a necessity for a great wartime presidency, it certainly could help.

Unlike most branches of government, the military places a huge emphasis on attracting and cultivating people with the ability to deliver tangible results under pressure, and presidents with this background often have excellent leadership qualities. In particular, military experience helps a president interact with his generals more productively.

One of Abraham Lincoln’s major mistakes as president was deferring to the overcautious Gen. McClellan on strategy for too long. By the time Lincoln grew annoyed enough with McClellan to dismiss him, the Union had already missed opportunities to deal serious damage to the Confederate rebels. Lincoln steered the United States to victory but at a greater cost than necessary in hindsight.

Fast forwarding to the war on terrorism, we see a similar problem with strategy. George W. Bush accepted the “light footprint” doctrine of his military and civilian advisors all the way up to 2007 when he belatedly, but successfully, stabilized Iraq by sending reinforcements. Barack Obama, his successor, has in turn failed to give the Afghan front the resources and attention it needs. Obama’s record on the war at this point is far from encouraging, and he can’t sensibly blame Bush for his present dithering.

In contrast, when a strategy dispute between President Harry Truman and Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War was made public by the latter, the president acted swiftly. Truman, who honed his leadership skills and personal courage in combat as an artillery captain in World War I, was not cowed even by the legendary MacArthur; when the general became a hindrance to the war effort, he was replaced.

Earlier, Truman also made the difficult decision to use the atomic bomb upon becoming president in 1945. Although the act killed thousands of civilians, it avoided an invasion of Japan, thus saving an incalculable number of American and Japanese lives through what may be called an early form of “shock and awe.” A man over-influenced by absolutist pacifism may well have failed to make a proper reckoning of his options in such a circumstance.

The United States electorate seems to have turned away from soldiers-turned-politicians in recent years. Bob Dole, John Kerry, Wesley Clark and John McCain all led unsuccessful presidential bids, although none of these men, in their varying degrees of merit, can be considered a potential George Washington or Harry Truman.

However, many veterans of the war on terrorism have won elected offices, and we may see successful presidential contenders arise from these men and women in the future.

Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@dailyuw.com.