previous post next post  

Heh. Dems. McCain. Military Service, suitability of.

By The Armorer on May 21, 2008 | | Comments (11)

So, lessee if I understand the Dem bible on Experience, Military, Utility of. (For a completely different dissection of this topic from a different angle, see Cassandra of Villainous Company)

Scenario 1: If combat-experienced Republicans are running against a draft-avoider (who is so estranged from things military he doesn't even know how to salute properly) for the highest office in the land, then... military experience is irrelevant (admittedly, knowing how to salute is also irrelevant, just useful if you're going to be patronizing to the people who provide your side-boy details). This was the meme for President Bush the Elder and Senator Bob Dole when they were running against President Clinton.

Scenario 2: If a National Guard fighter pilot is running against a Vietnam veteran who served less than 6 months in-country as a low-ranking military journalist... then being in Vietnam as a low ranking journalist trumps flying fighters (in a unit which never deployed because it was tasked with the air defense of the continental US) because being a junior troop with no real combat experience, but time in-country, clearly trumps flying fighters as a qualification for directing the military strategy of the United States. This would be the meme for President Bush the Younger versus Senator Al Gore.

Scenario 3: When you find yourself with a genuine combat-experienced candidate with Purple Hearts and a Silver Star (even if he did heave 'em (well someone else's, actually) over the fence to return them to the war mongers in the Pentagon) who served in-country, shot and got shot at, all as a very junior officer, and then fled for an Admiral's staff when he got the chance, then flying fighters on the Gulf Coast is not only puerile, it is actually virtual cowardice and grounds for the epithet "chickenhawk" when that Republican has ordered troops into harm's way. This would be the meme for Senator Kerry running against President Bush the Younger.

Now comes Scenario #4: Combat-experienced Naval Aviator and Prisoner-of-War and retired naval officer Senator John McCain against zero-military-experience (and not much legislative experience, and zero executive experience) Senator Barack Obama (treated here as the nominee-presumptive, which may not happen, admittedly - though it's the most likely outcome at the time of this writing).

But wait! There's more! Senator McCain is the son and grandson of Admirals. And, unlike *any* candidate of recent memory, his children are not only of the right age to serve... one is actually *serving* and has served, actively, in the on-going war, and another is on the verge of entering the arena. So now what's the meme - when the war is the second-most important topic before the electorate (the economy appears as number one) - well, now, let's try a whole new tack.

Senator McCain has too *much* experience, and it is also of the wrong type - i.e., being locked up and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton saved Senator McCain from properly experiencing the trauma of fighting in jungles against enemies unseen.

And if you aren't falling asleep yet - click the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry to catch the rest of this rant.

For an example of "too much" experience, we point you to Senator Tom Harkin, of Iowa, as related by Jane Norman in the Des Moines Register:

Washington, D.C. — Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."

Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."

Heh. So, now I as the son and grandson of soldiers, must be unqualified (hey, I am, but not for that reason) as well. In fact, the entire "military aristocracy" is tainted. As is, I would assume, any career warrior, being "steeped" in it after all. Clearly, Senator Harkin believes that draftee or one-term service as junior enlisted or officer is a clear trump when it comes to directing the national strategy of the United States. And if that's true, well then, absolutely zero experience is probably astoundingly way good, no? Good thing, since that is Senator Obama's qual. Which Senator Hagel actually reflects upon:

He said that "I just want to be very clear there's nothing wrong with a career in the military" and that he has friends who are generals and admirals who have served the country well.

"But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian," Harkin said. "And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."

Full disclosure, Senator Harkin was a naval pilot in during the Vietnam era, but never saw combat. He's disqualified from Presidential aspirations by virtue of Scenarios 2&3, even though he would qualify under Scenario 4. Which Scenario takes precedent, I wonder? Oh, no I don't. Whichever is expedient.

As for the wrong kind of experience - the NYT's article on Senator McCain has this discussion of fellow Senate combat vets feelings about Senator McCain:

There is a feeling among some of McCain’s fellow veterans that his break with them on Iraq can be traced, at least partly, to his markedly different experience in Vietnam. McCain’s comrades in the Senate will not talk about this publicly. They are wary of seeming to denigrate McCain’s service, marked by his legendary endurance in a Hanoi prison camp, when in fact they remain, to this day, in awe of it. And yet in private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; he never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol. Whatever anger McCain felt remained focused on his captors, not on his own superiors back in Washington.

He's experienced, yes, but it's not the right kind of experience. Not like piloting a Swift boat up the river into the heart of darkness, or writing stories about it. No, it's just not the right kind of experience, nope. Better a complete novice.

Senator Harkin isn't wrong, really. President Franklin Roosevelt had no direct military experience, but was a wartime Undersecretary of the Navy. He did okay on the issue of directing the strategy of the United States during WWII. Now, he may not have done quite so good, given his complete suckerage by Marshal Stalin, when it came to setting up the postwar strategy - but, in the event, that got left to President Truman, anyway. The point is the choice for President is a "whole person" choice.

What's funny now is you have Dems saying that you must have the right kind of military service (defined as expedience demands) and you can't have too much experience, because clearly, that blinkers you. Gee, I wonder how Senator Harkin will spin it should the Democrats ever nominate General Clark? Clearly - the man is too qualified and too military to be Commander-in-Chief, that takes a tyro. Bummer, POD.

Before I leave this topic - let me leave you this bit of over-the-top badinage from Senator Hagel, again from the NYT's article by Matt Bai

In a new book, Hagel, who voiced deep concerns about Iraq even as he voted for the war resolution in 2002, predicts that the war will turn out to be “the most dangerous and costly foreign-policy debacle in our nation’s history.”

Huh. And here I thought that honor went to President Wilson (a Democrat), who got his panties in a twist and walked away from the WWI peace process, helping set up... World War Two, which I rather think, thus far at least, somewhat trumps our troubles in Iraq.

Heh. They should boil it down the basics, and save themselves the tortured logic. As far as a Democrat is concerned, there simply is no way a Republican could possibly be qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. Better a complete novice with no experience whatsoever than a Republican of any stripe.

Hell, at least that would be honest. And consistent.

Heh. I got bit by Gollum's "verbose" bug...

Share This Article:

Categories:

11 Comments

By fdcol63 on May 21, 2008 7:07 AM
I often lay awake at night hoping that in the morning I'll find out that this has all been a very bad dream. But when dawn comes, I learn that we're one day deeper into an Orwellian nightmare.
 
By Argent on May 21, 2008 7:34 AM
"In a new book" is the trigger. Every time i hear "book" I know the author is trying to popularise it and I instantly know from left or right up or down the vast majority of what they are saying fits into the category of advertising. In other words The Art of Mancow Excrement. especially since most of these books are rubbish. The other thing you talk about is expedience in politics. Politics involves spin which is all about expedience. Notice each candidate and their supporters try to emphasise their "credentials" while degrading the "credentials" on their opponent. Which is pretty much what you talk about and indeed what you are doing in this post. It's rather more likely IMO that the democrats would work to devalue the importance of military service altogether here even as the GOP tries to beat it's drum as much as possible. The details of such service as you present it are prolly a secondary concern in this election because Obama is a nil there. There is something to be said about too much of anything can be bad and it is true McCain is steeped head to toe in military. It may be a bad thing but there's also a lot to be said about the disaster possible from lack of experience which Obama is iconic for in the military and elsewhere. It's also more than possible Obama shares a too much problem. Dare I say too much listening to disgusting pastors. Many people have a too much problem of some sort. I know I do. The presidential role is about experienced leadership to me more than the "too much of" problem. If these were the only issues and I voted McCain would get it every time. Experience is a McCain strong point IMO and it will be one the GOP will underline and the democrats devalue.
 
By kat-missouri on May 21, 2008 7:54 AM
Echoing Argent on the Obama "too much" scale, how about Obama has apparently spent too much time imbibing propaganda from the Socialists and it has inundated his campaign with socialist phrases and near on communist/socialist artistry. Have you seen these posters? I get this really creepy feeling when I look at them like something isn't quite right.
 
By FbL on May 21, 2008 8:02 AM
Argent, in reading your comment I come away with the following. Please let me know if I have misunderstood: "Too much" listening to a racist, anti-American pastor (for 20 years, and apparently without saying a word in protest!) is just like "too much" time spent in the military serving your country. You didn't just say that. Surely! I honestly thought you'd gotten past your reflexively anti-military bias. And McCain has spent the last 26 years in the U.S. Senate. If he's steeped too much in anything, surely it's the Senate/Washington mindset. I've spent the last two days trying to figure out how in the world a career in the military makes him a suspect leader by default.
 
By Argent on May 21, 2008 8:06 AM
That is so icky. It's got the strongperson stance, the rising sun and the kind of text one would see on an old 70s record.
 
By Argent on May 21, 2008 8:57 AM
FbL: I was mainly talking about the too much of anything can be bad for you concept. From sugar to exercise to booze to cleaning the car. In the case of giving the McCain example and the Obama example I was hinting that Obama's too much was in a worse area. Like too much hmm apples compared to too much Ratsack. Both may be bad but one is worse than the other. The other hint was I think Obama has too little in the area of military involvement. Too little can be as bad as too much. After all being President includes a very major role in a very major power which is the US military. Maybe my hints don't work real well come to think of it but you know i am in an audience here where many view me with suspicion and sometimes hostility so i *try* to tread with some care. Removing the embedded teeth takes time you know. Ry's prolly got a fine collection by now. Yes I guess the political steepage could have more potential to be bad but i was going with the words of Harkin focusing on military to deactivate this speakers opinions directly. As for military leadership I think McCain has the strength. I'll admit there can be weaknesses, any military guy involved in leadership could discuss them but it's all nitpicking. Necessary nitpicking but still. But McCain has shown experience in direct and deliberate leadership as well as the opposite of following (following teaches another aspect of leading) because of the military. He has a lot via his politics and family as well and who knows what other areas. Claiming he's no good at leadership is pointless imo and is really unlikely to work in the general US population.
 
By FbL on May 21, 2008 10:00 AM
Thanks, Argent. I was hoping I'd misunderstood--which is why I asked. My apologies if I was a little prickly about it. As you can imagine, Harkin's comments (and the ideas behind them) set off a lot of people 'round here.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 21, 2008 1:23 PM
Actually, Argent, had you been a reader around here during the last election cycle, you'd know that I'm not one to make the claim that "superior" military credentials are needful in a President. Especially credentials earned as a junior member of the enterprise. Just as I don't believe you have to be fighting in or subject to fighting in, or have fought in, a war to have a valid opinion on the subject of going to war. I got really bemused by the people who said that if I personally wasn't fighting, or going to fight - even if I spent decades in uniform, then I could not legitimately have an opinion in favor of the war, because I was, by their reckoning, a chickenhawk. Of course, *anyone* can have an opinion, informed or uninformed *against* the war, and that was a principled stand. Heh. I wasn't really attacking Senator Obama's credential in this piece - I was dissecting how the Dems try to frame the issue. Me, a President needs to be a Leader (which skillset Senator Obama does seem to possess), and a firm decision-maker (vice the ditherer that President Carter was, for example), and, most importantly, a good judge of people, so that they surround themselves with good people who will offer good advice - and then they can choose which advice to take. If I fault President Bush on anything, it is that he hasn't done as a good a job of choosing people, and his subsequent unwavering loyalty to them gets in the way of good governance. From my perspective, Senator Obama is somewhat of a tabula rasa on his ability to choose good people, and the people he associates with... well, let's just say hangin' with Wright, Ayers, and Dohrn are not confidence builders for me, especially when trying to overcome a policy disagreement. Of course, Senator Obama is probably aware that pulling me into his orbit is most likely more trouble than it's worth. Given that I live in despair of a government owned by a single party, I'd be likely voting Republican for President as long as they weren't nominating felons and drooling idiots. [Don't go there, chuckleheads!]
 
By Murray on May 21, 2008 4:30 PM
Its a common leftist mental condition known as FOS. We're just getting over a bout of it here and its seen the ruling socialist drop to 20% in the polls. Election in November. Mmmmm freedom....
 
By Argent on May 22, 2008 6:39 AM
FbL : No problem and while Harkin doesn't make me prickly I found his words irritating enough to try and dismiss them. John: Yes i know and I agree too about Presidents and military credentials but I do think some military experience is rather useful given the Presidential role in the military and their use of the military on the behalf of the US. I also think business, civilian and family experience is useful. How many pollies have any clue what being a civilian Joe is like? I know you were pointing out the Democrat spin and I am agreeing and pointing out the GOP also does it. In fact every political party i have ever seen does it. Not that i approve, but they are political realities. In terms of Bush, i think it's likely he learnt very clearly the lessons of political survival and I really think the man is a political animal in that sense. I think this is why you see his issues with surrounding himself with good people. Bush is one for firm decisions, I think everyone can agree on that. The leadership of course is going to be argued about even on the GOP side. Obama has so far surrounded himself with people i wouldn't spend much time with. I don't know about McCain but at least his wife knows what she's talking about. In Australian politics two scenarios of domination seem to yield bad results. One is the numerical superiority in the houses of Parliament such that they can pass any (constitutional) bill. This was our conservative Howard's last term who was recently booted out for pushing it too far. The other is having federal and the states all the same political party. Which is what Rudd, the replacement to Howard, has right now. Hence we'll see state-federal political idiocy instead. Joy. Mind you I think many of the state guys here are on wobbly ground now.
 
By Jason on May 22, 2008 2:56 PM
Sorry to have missed the party, but I think John is reading from the wrong book if he really thinks that's what the "Dem bible" says. Scenario 1 - ha ha. He said "draft-avoider." Hmmm that would describe about 90 percent of the Bush administration senior officials. Yep, being a junior officer in World War II certainly makes you more cognizant of national security matters. [Hey, I've been saying that all the time, too - be fair!] Scenario 2 - And speaking of "draft-avoiding"... nothing like being in the National Guard during the 1970s to avoid service in a war zone, huh? at least Al Gore was in-country. [The problem with this formulation is that you paint every.soldier.and.airman in the Guard as an avoider... and if you ask any jet jock, flying jets is neither easy, nor without it's danger - and the F102 wasn't a friendly airplane, either.] Scenario 3 - Yep you summed that one up right. And you know what the ultimate virtual cowardice and chickenhawk action is? For a bunch of pasty, fat old civilians to mock a man who was in combat by wearing "purple heart" Band-Aids at a political convention. [I agree about the band-aids, btw. Even if some of the wearers may have had their own Purple Heart or two.] Scenario 4 - certainly McCain is an honorable man and has insights on tactical and operational warfare. It's a shame that he lacks any record of doing the right thing in as far as protecting the troops from strategic errors in the Middle East. Bottom line - military "experience" is always good to get an endorsement from the VFW and a few voters out there. It's no replacement for clear vision, advisors looking at the strategic issues, and certainly neither the Repubs nor Dems have a lock on "service" to the nation. [Um, isn't that what I said?]