It was recently reported in the Washington Post that Gen. Tommy Franks, best known for his command in Iraq, is being actively considered as a potential running mate by three Republican candidates. Of course the article doesn’t tell us which three and this early in the election game names are often tossed about and quickly forgotten so skepticism should be applied.

With that in mind there are some interesting politics here as Franks, head of U.S. Central Command and the orchestrator of the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein, would bring some interesting credentials and character to a ticket. It could obviously be taken, as the Post article points out, as a “direct affront to antiwar Democrats, who plan to make opposition to the Bush administration’s handling of the war the main plank of their campaign platforms.”

Franks, who left his position in 2003 to work in the corporate world, could add credibility to any Republican candidate who is serious about pursuing hawkish positions but doesn’t have the experience of command in the military themselves to sell their competence. He might serve to ease the minds of Republican voters who fear that we will enter into another war unprepared.

This is a double edge sword of course as Franks is now almost wholly associated with Iraq in Americans minds. Though the takedown of Saddam’s regime was an early highlight of this War and his command should be applauded, he will easily be linked to the post-Saddam operations. Though the president as command-in-chief takes ultimate responsibility for decisions made, Franks would undoubtedly be hit hard by any opposition over Franks vocal support of the War and his continued assertions that things were going well there.

Military command has often played well for presidential and Vice presidential candidates. Of our presidents some notable are Washington, the first and one of our greatest, who was colonel of the Virginia forces during the French and Indian War and commander-in-chief of the colonial army during the Revolutionary War. Andrew Jackson was a major general of American forces who gained much fame and notiriety for his accomplishments. Dwight David Eisenhower was supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe and the U.S. Army chief of staff. Ulysses S. Grant served the country in the Mexican-American War and the Civil War.

Many others achieved military success such as Zachary Taylor who was a successful colonel becoming a national hero for his service as well as others like Benjamin Harrison and Franklin Pierce. Many other presidents served honorably and fought in wars, though not as many took command.

In our recent history since Dwight D. Eisenhower military command hasn’t seemed as important to voters. Specifically in 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton defeated Bush Sr. & Bob Dole, both veterans and in 2004 George W. Bush defeated John Kerry a veteran of Vietnam and both did so with Vice Presidents who themselves did not serve.

Of our last three Vice presidents Dan Quayle served in the national guard but none of them served the federal military. Bush Sr., Nixon & Gerald Ford (all three would later become Presidents) served but did not command in WW2, Walter Mondale served in the Korean War.

Agnew, Johnson (later a president), Humphrey, Rockefeller and Barkley did not serve. Before them Vice Presidents were a mix giving us little definitive proof that military command or service in general makes for a better ticket.

In 2004 Republicans themselves set the stage for an interesting new phase in military/civilian politics. A theme of discrediting Senator John Kerry, specifically his military experience in Vietnam, was central to the campaign with many even questioning the validity of his receiving purple hearts.

It was an interesting political move for a President and Vice President with no military experience to push forward the idea that they were better to lead American forces then a man who served. It ultimately worked not just with Kerry but with other candidates running against Veterans office. It now sits as a campaigning template that could be used this cycle by Democrats against Franks, if he were to run.

I personally think the stories of Franks consideration may be exaggerated but we shall see. Republicans face an election year where, for the first time in a very long time, their status as the better-at-military party is being questioned. Franks may only serve to hurt that legacy and prove voters are ready to move on. With that said he may be one of their only hopes of regaining their status.