A COLLAGE OF WAR, Part 3: The Ethical Test of Command
- Colleen Akiko
- Jul 30
- 8 min read
Updated: Aug 4
Is Our Current President Qualified to Meet the Moral Demands Placed on the Commander in Chief of Our Armed Forces?
INTRODUCTION
Dan Strawn’s Collage of War might increasingly be understood as a collage of lessons: fragments of history, memory, language, and lived conviction placed beside the present so that we can see both more clearly.
In this third installment (the second one was released as a WeBeTheChange podcast episode), Dan returns to Dwight D. Eisenhower—not simply as a celebrated general or a two-term president, but as a leader who understood that military power carries a moral responsibility.
Dan’s conclusions are his own, and readers may agree, disagree, or find themselves somewhere in between. But the questions deserve more than a passing glance: What restraint should we expect from a commander in chief? What place should humility hold in decisions that cost human lives? And what happens when opinion outruns evidence? I invite you to stop, read thoughtfully, and consider the standard Eisenhower’s words ask us to apply to every leader.
–Colleen Akiko
“What happens when opinion outruns evidence?”
Writer’s Preface
Welcome to Part 3 of my Collage of War series.
In 1952, I was a sophomore in high school, caught up in the pending elections for president. Eisenhower was my choice. The Republican campaign was a tight race between him and Robert A. Taft. Every day after school I jogged the half mile home and glued myself to the radio in order to catch up on the nomination process. I was delighted when Eisenhower won the nomination and went on to become president.
In Part 1 of my Collage of War series, I reflected on the purpose of war by borrowing powerful words from President Dwight David Eisenhower, who was elected as president in November of 1952, and reelected in November of 1956.
No wonder, in the mismanaged debacle we're fighting now, that I looked for historical guidance from Dwight David Eisenhower –- a two-term Republican president whose brilliant military career and his promise to end the fighting in Korea if elected president won him the election not once, but twice. He was the first president to have his term of office limited to two terms by the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Otherwise, historians say, he most likely would have been elected for a third term.
Not only was he qualified to conduct successful military campaigns, but he had the diplomatic pizzazz to bring the fighting in Korea to an end. Furthermore, unlike our current president, Eisenhower kept his campaign promise. When he became president, he went to Korea, met with the military and political forces, and ultimately became the prime mover to end the fighting.
Consequently, I've changed the title, emphasis and promise of Part 3 of my Collage of War series, as follows:
Is Our Current President Qualified to Meet the Moral Demands Placed on the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces?
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S STATEMENTS ABOUT WAR
Graduation Exercises at the United States Military Academy, 1947.
"War is mankind's most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men. Though you follow the trade of the warrior, you do so in the spirit of Washington -- not of Genghis Khan. For Americans, only threat to our way of life justifies resort to conflict."
Comment: Given this advice to tomorrow's officers in 1947, do you think President Eisenhower would have launched a surprise attack in 2026 while in the midst of peaceful negotiations with Iran? I believe Eisenhower would have condemned the idea, and for good cause.
What, you might ask, would have been the good cause?
For starters, consider those helpless Iranian girls and teachers who were bombed by mistake. It doesn't matter who sent the missile on top of their school. These innocent schoolgirls would still be here if our president hadn't struck in the dark of night because in his opinion, the Iranians were going to attack us first. Opinions, folks, are nothing more than spoken private attitudes unless they are backed up with facts. That was the way it worked in my forty years of strategizing in the business world, and my extensive reading of history tells me it's the way it works in waging war.
“Opinions are nothing more than spoken private attitudes unless they are backed up with facts.”
Our President had plenty of facts from all kinds of expert intelligence saying we were not under any immediate threat of attack. But he thought his opinion was more valid based on virtually nothing compared to the military experience and strategic backgrounds of those who provided him the intelligence he should have listened to.
"In my opinion…" Bah! Tell "in my opinion" to the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandmothers, and grandfathers of those dead little girls, the wounded and killed soldiers on both sides, and the untold numbers of civilians who became “collateral damage” due to our government’s surprise attack — unleashed on the strength of the current president's opinion.
“The loss of life and the cost to the world's hard working citizens for oil products is enough to answer the question of our president's moral certainty.”
We were not in a state of war when we attacked Iran. We were in negotiations to prevent war. We attacked while a diplomatic process was still active! Doing so in and of itself was immoral. Although the circumstances and motivations were not identical, it was no different than what Japan did to us in 1941—attack us with no notice while we were in the process of negotiating our differences with them.
The loss of life and the cost to the world's hard working citizens for oil products is enough to answer the question of our president's moral certainty.
“A preventive war… is an impossibility today.”
Read on:
The President's News Conference of 8/11/54.
"A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war."
Comment: Sadly, our president's surprise attack is current proof that President Eisenhower's news conference statement on August 11, 1954, was spot on.
Read on:
Guildhall Address, London, 6/12/45.
"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in blood of his followers and sacrifices of his friends."
Comment: To my knowledge, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Obama, and all our other presidents had sufficient humility to meet Eisenhower's stated standard -- except, of course, for our current president.
Read on:
"An open letter to America's Students," Essay (1948-10),
Source, Readers Digest, The quote can be found (without citation) in different locations with various numbers for the U.S. population
This quotation is not strictly about war, but is particularly relevant to the ambitions I see in our current president.
I am not alone in my conviction that our current president has the precise intentions to become the "one Great Man" that President Eisenhower referred to. That is all too apparent in the way he has ignored the will of the people who elected him.
From day one of his first attempt to become president, I saw the fallacies in his character that spelled trouble if he were elected president. I learned about them all when I read what happened in Germany, Italy, Russia, and Spain in the 1920's and 1930's. For the everyday people in those countries, it was too late by the time they understood they had been duped. The cost to the world at large was deplorable.
“Elections are not about right or left, they are about electing character and the will to uphold the American Constitution.”
We in America can't let that happen again. We voters can determine the world's destiny in the Novembers of 2026 and 2027. All we have to do is show up and vote intelligently to derail what's obvious. We voters can help shape the country’s direction in the Novembers of 2026 and 2028. These elections are not about right or left, they are about electing character and the will to uphold the American Constitution.
I'll be back with Part 4 of the Collage of War. Until then, keep your spirits up. If we come together and vote what we know is, not what we think is, we're going to land with both feet on the ground!
–Dan Strawn, an old age patriot who loves his country and all the different people in it.
POSTLUDE:
There will be more from Dan soon -- both on the WeBeTheChange podcast and here on the blog. Part 4 of Collage of War will continue weaving history, poetry, and personal conscience in conversation with the choices we face now.
Dan is also an active member of the Bowl of Light Café community, where difficult questions can be held with curiosity, care, depth, and respect. You are warmly invited to join us there—not with expectations of total agreement, but to practice the deeper work of listening, reflecting, and staying human with one another.
–Colleen Akiko
Sources and Editorial Notes
1. Minab school strike. The Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school in Minab, Hormozgan Province, Iran, was struck on February 28, 2026, during the first day of U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iran. Reported casualty totals have varied. Iranian officials later said that more than 175 children and teachers were killed. Reuters reported that preliminary findings from a U.S. military investigation indicated that American forces were likely responsible and that outdated targeting information may have contributed to the strike. The investigation remained unresolved, and the United States had not formally accepted responsibility at the time this article was prepared. Sources: Reuters, March 6, March 11, May 19, and June 24, 2026; Associated Press, March 11, 2026.
2. Pre-attack intelligence. Reuters and ABC News reported that administration officials told congressional staff that Iran’s missiles and proxy forces presented a general or broader threat, but that U.S. intelligence did not indicate that Iran was preparing to launch a specific preemptive attack against U.S. forces or interests. Administration officials subsequently argued that Iran nevertheless posed an immediate threat. Sources: Reuters, March 2, 2026; ABC News, March 2 and March 18, 2026.
3. Diplomatic negotiations. The United States and Iran were engaged in indirect nuclear negotiations mediated by Oman before the initial strikes. A third round of talks took place in Geneva on February 26, 2026. U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran began on February 28, 2026. Sources: Associated Press, February 26 and March 30, 2026; PBS NewsHour, February 28, 2026.
4. President Trump’s “in my opinion” statement and his stated rationale for military action. When President Donald Trump was asked whether the United States was responsible for the February 28, 2026, strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school in Minab, he replied, “No, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.” At the time, he did not publicly provide evidence for that conclusion, and the Pentagon said the incident remained under investigation. In later remarks explaining the broader military operation, Trump described Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, and regional activities as threats to the safety of the United States and the wider world. Those statements expressed the administration’s rationale for military action, but they should not be presented as proof that U.S. intelligence had identified a specific, imminent Iranian attack before the initial strikes. Sources: Associated Press, March 9, 2026; President Donald Trump’s address to the nation, April 1, 2026, transcript published by the Associated Press.
5. Oil and fuel prices. The conflict disrupted energy production, refining, shipping, and transit through the Strait of Hormuz and other regional waterways. Oil prices rose sharply during periods of intensified fighting and declined when U.S. strikes paused, although prices and fuel-refining margins remained volatile and elevated. Sources: Reuters, July 20–30, 2026.
Comments