thoughts from a brokenSoldier

For McCain A Candidate’s Military Pedigree Hasn’t Always Mattered

This is more completely unnerving inconsistency from McCain.  In recent news there has been much made over General Wesley Clark’s very prescient remarks that being shot down in a fighter plane does not in any way prepare one for the chief executive position in our government.  On cue, the McCain campaign came roaring back with offense and indignance (with a straight face, no less) over General Clark’s comment, demanding that those around him denounce his remarks.

This points to a ridiculous recent trend of our political discourse in this nation.  Rather than addressing the substance of someone’s comments, it seems that the expedient way to deal with embarrassing news now is to instead sieze upon the vague, and sometimes non-existent, perceived insult in the comment and then immediately demand that others "denounce" the remarks.  (This is exactly the sort of political bullshit that overshadowed the testimony of General Petraeus on Iraq due to an advertisement in a newspaper, ensuring that half of the elected officials in the room ignored the task at hand and chose instead to play a childish game of ’scorn by association’ with MoveOn’s pun.)

Anyway, I digress.  As for the above article, it is definitely worth reading, but I’ll risk an excerpt, if only because I believe this specific part of it sums up our little septuagenarian candidate quite nicely:

     More pointedly, McCain himself has downplayed the role that military backgrounds play in election seasons. In February 2003, the Arizona Republican said "Absolutely not," when asked whether "military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief."

"Harry Truman was in the artillery in World War I, which was magnificent," he continued. "Ronald Reagan did most of his active duty in the studio lots in California. It might be a nice thing, but I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary."

A year later, McCain cast his ballot for George W. Bush, a national guard member, over fellow Vietnam veteran John Kerry.

 

How is it that McCain makes this oh-so-predictable swing back towards the base of his party in an obvious attempt to show he’s a "true conservative," along the way contradicting one after another of his previous stances that made him a so-called "maverick" in his party, and doesn’t get called to the carpet as a panderer?  It’s because in his party, all you have to do to make something true is to simply say it.

Case in point, Senator Linsey Graham:

On Tuesday, the campaign hosted a conference call with reporters during which chief surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham said that McCain was "the best-qualified person to be commander-in-chief" since a previous military-political figure: Dwight Eisenhower.

"He has walked in the shoes of those in uniform. He understands their language. He has grown up in a military family," said the South Carolina Republican, "and quite frankly his military service is extraordinary."

Let’s handle this bullet-point style, shall we?

- "Best qualified person to be Commander-in-Chief" since Dwight Eisenhower

     First of all, this one is ridiculous, and shows either an astronomical level of arrogance and dishonesty, or an equally shameful ignorance of our nation’s military history.  Eisenhower and McCain were both in the military, and they were both officers.  The relevant similarities end there.  Eisenhower held the rank of General of the Army, or as it is more commonly known, a five-star general.  This is a position charged with coordinating the operations of a multinational, joint-service military force in a time of war ONLY.  (Y’know, the whole Supreme Allied Commander thing.)  The original position was created in the late 1800’s with General Sheridan, but ceased to exist upon his death.  Our current incarnation of the five-star rank was created in 1944 for the express purpose of giving our American army a leader with rank equivalent to that of the British Field Marshal (and it also provides for equal positions within the Navy and Air Force) and other equivalent foreign military ranks. 

     We have only had five of these particular individuals since, and Eisenhower was one of them.  But hey, maybe McCain’s experience as a fighter pilot on the ground actually does equate to Eisenhower’s own experiences of directing a World War.  And maybe his peacetime command of a fighter squadron helps that margin a little, too.  But the thing is, it just doesn’t.

- "He walked in the shoes of those in uniform."

     Actually, no he didn’t.  He walked in the shoes of a privileged officer candidate while at the Naval Academy, and despite finishing very close to rock-bottom in his class (894 out of 899), still got a prestigious assignment to the VA-65 Fighting Tigers squadron.  Either this was due to some innate leadership quality they saw in a below average midshipman, or it was simply because his father and grandfather were both well-known and well-respected admirals.  I’m going with the latter.

     He went from one extreme, the life of a privileged officer, to the other - a prisoner of war.  While he endured a whole hell of a lot in captivity, he hardly knows what it is like to be a boots-on-the-ground soldier, and his recent vote against HR 2082 - which had a provision that would have banned the CIA from waterboarding detainees - simply shows that to be painfully true.

- "He understand their language."

     He may understand it, but just like the ideologues at the helm of his party, he only listens when it benefits him.  When he’s trying to look soldierly and like a "Commander-in-Chief", he acts as though he’s a forlorn brethren to all those in uniform.  When he’s playing politics, he opposes the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act.  I would say he voted against it, but he dodged that bullet by not showing up for either of the votes on the bill.  (Just for a point of reference, the only other senator to fail to show up for the second vote was Ted Kennedy, and he was recovering from brain surgery.)  So I’ll concede that he might understand the language of service members - but his actions say he just doesn’t care what they’re saying.

- "He’s grown up in a military family, and quite frankly his military service is extraordinary."

     Again, the first part may be right, but the second half of this comment is comical.  While he did grow up in a military family, it was most certainly not your average military upbringing that most military families can relate to.  He had a silver spoon in his mouth from the day he joined, and he used it to overcome sub-par achievement repeatedly.  From his near-bottom finish at Annapolis, to his multiple losses of Navy aircraft (the exact number is four, excluding the combat loss - each one is explained in detail here), he consistently displayed a skill set that was below the average.  Yet his sycophants claim that the fact that he was a POW somehow elevates his competency to a level commensurate with one of the greatest wartime generals this country ever produced. 

 

In all this, you’ve seen the tired tactic of "if you say it enough, people will believe it."  You guys can keep saying that his experience in the military qualifies him for the office of President.  You can say it all you want, and some people may believe it.  For those of us who prefer a little hard data with our assumptions, though, you might not want to hold your breath.