McCain's Service

Rating: No Rating

Posted by Dave Justus on July 2, 2008 at 11:13am

Originally posted here.

New York Post

Barack Obama "had nothing to do" with Gen. Wesley Clarks curt dismissal of John McCains military record, the retired Army officer wants everyone to know. "I dont think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said of McCain on "Face the Nation" - and then repeated it on several nationally broadcast venues.

But Obamas not about to stop using Clark as a campaign surrogate. Nor is the onetime NATO commander about to retract his remarks about the man who spent five years as a prisoner of war.

What a far cry from four years ago - when Wesley Clark was denouncing criticism of John Kerry by groups supporting President Bush.

"In the heat of a political campaign," wrote Clark in a New York Times op-ed, "attacks come from all directions.

"Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them. I believe those who didnt serve . . . should have the decency to respect those who did serve."

Now, it might be easy to dismiss Clarks comments as a pathetic attempt to stay politically revelant.

But Clark is the eighth prominent Democrat and Obama supporter to throw darts at McCains military service.

It is patently obvious that the Obama campaign has chosen this particular line of attack. That choice can, and should, reflect upon him as a candidate and a potential president. I also think his disavowal of this obviously coordinated line of attack speaks to his character, and is a further display of reluctance to ever except any blame or responsibility.
That being said, I do want to talk about McCain’s military record and other connections to the military, and what it says about him as a person and a candidate.

First off, the obvious thing is that McCain served his country, and sacrificed far more for it them even most military people are called to do. Anyone can say they love their country, but demonstrating it as McCain has done is a rare thing. I don’t like a lot of things about John McCain’s politics, but I honor him as a man and a hero, and I can’t help thinking less of anyone who doesn’t.

McCain faced imprisonment and torture, and he has used that experience to directly inform his opinions on important issues of our time, most particularly how we treat captured illegal combatants. McCain has been a powerful voice against the Bush ‘harsh interrogation techniques’ and that power has been due to his direct experience and hence passionate feelings about torture. I personally am not 100% convinced that McCain’s position is correct, but I certainly have paid attention to what he has said because of the unique value his experience has.

I believe that along with the specific focus on treatment of captives, McCain’s experience as a POW also gave him an important perspective that most of us don’t have on how bad a thuggish regime can be. At the expense of perhaps sounding trite, McCain has directly faced evil. It appears to me that part of the lesson he learned from that experience is that such men must be confronted, not appeased or disregarded.

Certainly it is true that McCain doesn’t have a lot of executive experience. He did serve as the commanding officer of a training squadron after his rehabilitation, and by all accounts did a good job, leading it to a Meritorious Unit Commendation. Beyond that, the general training in leadership that any officer in the military receives has some bearing on the question of experience and leadership ability. That isn’t a whole lot though. He hasn’t lead armies, companies or held an executive position in government (although admittedly, other candidates have even less.) He hasn’t even really worked at all in the private sector, which is a reason for concern on economic issues.

McCain has though as a long time legislator been closely connected with all the issues facing our nation. If he hasn’t made the executive decisions directly, he has been able to closely observe others doing so, and has also certainly played a significant part as a legislator in formulating policy. In particular, he has used his military knowledge and experience on the Senate Armed Services committee.

Another connection to McCain and the military that isn’t talked about a lot is that of other members of his family. Most people know that his father and grandfather were both Admirals, but fewer know about his children. His son Doug was a naval aviator and Jack is at the U.S. Naval Academy working to become a naval aviator as well. Most interesting, his son Jim is a Marine who is currently deployed to Iraq. Obviously John McCain knows the possible cost the policies he endorses can have on soldiers in the battlefield, and it is equally obvious that these effects might land directly on his own family members, as they once landed on him.

I think though that the most significant aspect of McCain’s military service as it relates to his qualifications for the Presidency is how those experiences have helped to form his character. John McCain was tested as a POW. At times, he was tested beyond what he could bear, leading him to participate in making a propaganda confession. Even after that though, he was able to must the will to continue to defy his captors. His story is deeply inspiring. It seems to me that there are two character traits in particular that his POW experience heightened. First, is a terribly strong will. I don’t think that McCain will blink in the face of adversity or let something as insignificant as public polling turn him away from doing what he believes is right. Second, and perhaps even more comforting, is a deep humility. McCain, having been pushed beyond his limits, seems to have really learned about human limitations and frailty. He isn’t perfect, and he knows he isn’t perfect.

In the end, everything a person has been in their life makes them what they are. John McCain has been a lot of things, and these things will affect the kind of President he would be. What McCain has been and how it has made him what he is are some things I respect a whole lot. He is a genuine hero. That doesn’t automatically make him worthy of being President of course, even a hero can be wrong about policy. Even a hero may not have the particular skills needed at this particular time. There are plenty of ways of to legitimately argue that John McCain is not the man for the job.

What I don’t appreciate though is attacking that heroism itself. It displays to me a fundamental lack of respect for heroism itself and the character traits that make this sort of heroism possible. I can’t help but believe that anyone who has so little respect for the sacrifice, courage and commitment that John McCain has displayed must be pretty lacking in these qualities themselves.

Tags: election, mccain, presidential, obama

4 Comments

Comment by CPD on July 2, 2008 at 2:02pm: I completely respect your opinion concerning McCain, as it goes without saying that he displayed heroism and loyalty to country and his fellow soldiers above and beyond the call of duty. Though this has informed his opinion regarding torture in years past, as you say, this year, McCain was a vocal opponent of a bill that would hold CIA interrogators to the same standards that McCain once voted for, in regards to military interrogators. How do you reconcile his reversed decision with he previously had "been a powerful voice against the Bush ‘harsh interrogation techniques’"?

Also, if you disagree with statements made by General Clark, as you believe them to demean McCain sacrifice and service, then how can you also call into question General Clark's qualities of character? He is one of the most highly decorated men to have served in uniform; he was also badly injured during his tour in Vietnam; and while serving as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, in 1994, here's just an example of his sense of duty:

"Clark was sent to Bosnia by Secretary of Defense William Perry to serve as the military advisor to a diplomatic negotiating team headed by assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke. While the team was driving along a mountain road during the first week, the road gave way, and one of the vehicles fell over a cliff carrying passengers including Holbrooke's deputy, Robert Frasure, a deputy assistant Secretary of Defense, Joseph Kruzel, and Air Force Colonel Nelson Drew. Clark and Holbrooke attempted to crawl down the mountain, but were driven back by sniper fire. Once the fire ceased, Clark rappelled down the mountain to collect the bodies of two dead Americans left by Bosnian forces that had taken the wounded to a nearby hospital."

Can't we just say that both these men have displayed impressive resolve, heroism, and sacrifice during their military careers, and that these statements are about politics, which is a realm where heroism and sacrifice rarely exist?

Comment by Paul Davison on July 2, 2008 at 5:48pm: CPD raises great points and that is in part what my postwas getting at. Clark was making a comment that in any other context is rather matter of fact: getting shot down doesn't necessarily qualify one to be President. Doesn't that go without saying?
But Clark's problem was either not thinking or thinking that the nuance of his point would see the light of day.

You mention in your post that Clark "attacks" McCain's heroism. In actuality he vociferously attests to McCain's heroism, not just in that interview with Schieffer but in at least two other interviews that I myself heard (one on John Abrahm's show on MSNBC and another on NPR) did Clark re-emphasize the point that he considers McCain to be a hero.

But getting shot down isn't necessarily heroism. What you do after you get shot down, how you live your life in captivity, is a measure of heroism and McCain certainly has proven his mettle in that department.

Clark's miscalculation was (and was back in '04 during his failed Presidential bid) to step into the political fray. He's a soldier, not a politician. Even a Rhodes scholar can make a boneheaded statement. And I would argue it's not what he said, but it's that he thought he could say something like that and not get personally villified and damage his preferred candidate all at the same time.

By the way, McCain, along with President Bush, was an opponent of the landmark GI Bill that just passed the Senate, sponsored by Jim Webb of Virginia. He skipped the vote, so as to not be on record for voting against the bipartisan measure (which won 75-22). So much for supporting the troops. Unfortunately the McCain of 2008 is a far cry from his younger, heroic self and pays nothing but lip service to the idea of taking care of our veterans.

Comment by Dave Justus on July 3, 2008 at 7:42am: CPD,

I think it is patently obvious that McCain has been a very strong voice against many of the measures that the Bush administration would like to authorize, in particular in relation to captured combatants and the techniques employed by our military. You are correct that his stance is softer when it comes to what the CIA can and cannot do, but I don't see that that needs to be 'reconciled' with what I said. I personally am less convinced then McCain about the morality of torture, tending to be more utilitarian then he is.

I don't believe I ever said or implied that no military person couldn't be criticized for anything. It is plainly obvious that their are qualities that of judgement and character that are not tested by military service, and a person can be an explempary soldier and a hero and still lack these qualities. Indeed, I specifically said that their is plenty of ways in which one could criticize McCain. Beyond that, it is perfectly legitimate to look at other aspects of a person's life, even if they are a military hero. How McCain treats his collegues, his subordinates is somethat that can be legitimately looked at. How he chooses to display his principles. McCains judgement leading up to the Iraq war is a legitimate issue. Being a hero doesn't make one immune to criticism. Wes Clark in this case can be criticized for how he is acting as an ex-general and surrogate for the Obama campaign. That doesn't take away from what he did in uniform, but what he did in uniform doesn't erase what he is doing now either.

Paul,

Clarks comment was specifically designed to minimize the commitment, sacrifice and heroism that McCain made. Further, and more significant, It didn't take place in a vacuum, rather it is part of what seems to be a coordinated attempt by several Obama campaign surrogates to minimize McCain's military server, not by saying it isn't relevant, but by saying it isn't significant. The person I feel is most responsible for this is Obama himself, and I think it is his character more then any other that this episode calls into question.

As for the GI Bill, my understanding is the reason that McCain and Bush oppossed it was that it didn't provide for increased benefits for longer service. In the modern American military well trained and expirience personel are absolutely essential to maintaining the quality that is required. We should pay attention to that and make every effort to encourage and reward re-enlistment. In my analysis, the Democrats designed this bill to be a poison pill, knowing that it wasn't necessarily the best thing for the military but also knowing that the soundbite version would put Republicans who oppossed it into a very difficult position. Frankly I'm pretty disappointed that their wasn't better leadership (and McCain would have been a natural for this) on the Republican side to fight for a better solution.

Comment by Paul Davison on July 3, 2008 at 9:53am: Regarding your first point - if Obama's campaign is attempting to minimize McCain's military career by railing against it and/or criticizing it, they are in for a losing battle. The idea that they would purposely attempt to challenge the importance of McCain's military experience is preposterous in the sense that it would be a huge strategic mistake committed by a campaign that has shown incredible acumen and skill throughout the entire campaign. Why would they purposely do something that reflects so negatively upon their campaign? I believe Clark was a "lone wolf" saying what is on his mind, not under the direction of the Obama campaign - remember he highly values his own strategic military experience, and in a way, this is as much about him as it is about McCain. He is distinguishing McCain's tactical combat experience with his own strategic combat experience, which in his mind is a better indicator of one's future performance as commander-in-chief, which is very much a strategic role as opposed to a tactical role.

Of course McCain's people love this debate because it puts his service front and center and he wins this comparison to Obama every day of the week. Although I have not met Wesley Clark personally, my father served with him and I've known about him ever since I was a little kid. What I know about Wesley is that he has a very high opinion of himself and says what he wants to say. What I'm getting at here is that I believe he simply said what he thought without thinking about how his comments would be perceived and how they would damage Obama.

On your second point - Bush and McCain and a small minority of Republicans opposed the bill because it was too generous to soldiers and may discourage re-enlistment. In these times of sparse manpower, Bush's war depends upon soldiers staying in as long as possible, hence his support for a "carrot and stick" arrangement in terms of supporting their health and well being, as opposed to actually providing care and benefits for soldiiers regardless of their time in service. As a vet I can say that one year in Iraq is enough service to earn benefits from this GI Bill.

In my analysis, the Democrats and Republicans (like Chuck Hegel) designed this bill to be one of the most important and positive pieces of legislation to come out of this otherwise inept and incompetent Congress. The Republicans who opposed it would love to spin it that this bill was merely political theatre, but actually most of them are keeping quiet about their opposition to it, and holding their collective breath come election day in case any of them are in danger of losing their seats.

Anyway - this is a good debate and I appreciate the opportunity to hash this out with you, Dave. Happy Fourth.