Can the attitudes and actions of President George W. Bush compare at all to those of legendary French leader Napoleon Bonaparte? There are many facts suggesting both men have approached their ability to lead their respective countries in a similar fashion, most notably when considering their ideology on warfare. At the same time the military experience these men possessed prior to their political careers is quite different. What are those differences? How do those differences affect each man’s legacy as a leader? The jury may still be out on President George W. Bush but Napoleon’s achievements as well as his failures are well documented. The following facts will give us a better understanding on how two men from entirely different eras can be compared both militarily and politically.
Napoleon began honing his military skills as early as age nine while attending a French military school. By the time he was 16 he graduated from the École Royale Militaire School in Paris and became a second lieutenant of artillery with the French forces. Eight years later Napoleon gained international attention when his actions forced the British navy to withdraw from the French city of Toulan. As a result he was promoted to Artillery Commander.
In stark contrast, President Bush didn’t gain any military experience until the age of 22 when he was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard. He signed a six year obligation of which it has often been disputed whether or not he fulfilled accordingly. Records have shown that he was an F-102 pilot in the Guard from 1968 to 1972 and at one point was promoted to First Lieutenant. It’s important to note this period of time was the height of the Vietnam conflict and Bush was never called to action. Much dispute has been given as to whether or not Bush fulfilled his attendance requirements in his final years of service. Regardless, he asked to be discharged in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. After serving five...