Clark Is Correct: McCain’s Service Is Not Relevant to the Position
Posted by
Kevin
The right wng is going to go after General Clark very hard because of this:
SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn’t had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.
CLARK: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.
The reason that they wil go after Clark on this for two reasons: it is absolutely correct and it destroys the rationale for McCain’s candidacy. Military service on the front lines — while generally admirable — really says very little about whether a person would make a good commander in chief. Being President is about laying out sound policy, planning ahead, being able to decide between many options, choosing advice and advisers well, managing the various bureaucracies, and knowing how to rally the country to a position you think is correct. Some military men learn those traits, some do not. The mere fact of appearing in combat does not mean that a person has learned or been born with all of those skills.
And that simple fact is a huge problem for the McCain campaign. Because McCain has been trying to imply otherwise since the beginning of the campaign. He habitually talks about his time in the service and what he suffered for his country. When he was on the wrong side of the new GI Bill, he explicitly used his service as a means to attack Senator Webb. McCain does this in an attempt to make criticism of his military or foreign policy stances off limits and to hope that the constant drumbeat of his military resume will serve to hide his actual record on foreign policy.
See, recently McCain had a chance to prove that his life and military service had helped him grow and learn and become worthy of the Presidency. McCain failed that test. When it came time to decided whether to get caught up in the sideshow of the neo-cons’ Iraq delusions or to re-concentrate on the real threat to American security he backed the neo-cons. If there is another terrorist attack on this country, as the McCain camp seems to think is both inevitable and good for them, it will be becasue, in part, John McCain helped Bush divert the full attention of the US form Al Qaeda and then created a recruiting and training ground in the middle of the Middle East for them. McCain failed the Presidency test when it came; he doesn’t have any other option but hope his past service can be used to hide that from current voters.
You know what I’d like to see, the conservative PR-spin-machine take on some subjects in which I would at least be able to appreciate some humor.
Here’s my first challenge, craft an argument that Manny Ramirez, upon retirement, would make a great candidate for Commissioner of Baseball on the basis that he was very good at hitting.
Fighting in wars, running country - apples to kumquats.
Comment 6/30/2008
Digg,
I mostly agree, however, the prez is also the commander-in-chief. So he sits atop a long progression of military people. Does it make sense that admirals and generals have military experience, or is that irrelevant? Does the relevance abruptly end right at the top of the pyramid, or somewhere below that?
Also, to the degree that the top military men respect the COC, I imagine they will be be more or less willing to provide him with timely, accurate information, cooperate with planing, etc.
I certainly don’t think these factors are paramount, and I think McCain’s support of the Iraq war dwarfs his military experience in terms of relevancy, but I am unwilling to completely discount military service, especially at a higher (ie more strategic) level, as an asset to a president.
Comment 6/30/2008
the relevance should end somewhere close to the top of the pyramid. the notion of “civilian control of the military” looks better the more clearly that relevance ends there.
having top brass respect their commander in chief is certainly better than the opposite, but if they can’t respect a civilian c-i-c simply because he’s a civilian, then they need to not be top brass.
Comment 6/30/2008
I think the most revealing moment of the Clark-Schieffer exchange was the next line, when Schieffer responded to Clark’s statement with a dumbfounded “Really?”
Not only does Schieffer think being shot down is a qualification for the presidency (even interrupting Clark to brink it up), he is shocked by the idea that anyone would think otherwise. What a perfect illustration of the bias with which the MSM is approaching election coverage.
Comment 6/30/2008
I may be in the minority here, but given that the military is supposed to have an explicitly civilian commander-in-chief, I’d consider making long-term military service a disqualifier for the job of president. I recognize that there’s no fair way to apply this, of course, but in the ideal world…
Comment 6/30/2008
Is this the same Gen. Clark who gave a speech at the 2004 democratic convention and told us that Kerry’s brief service in Vietnam qualified him to be Commander-in-Chief?
Comment 6/30/2008
“I’d consider making long-term military service a disqualifier for the job of president”
That certainly would have disqualified George Washington, as well as several other presidents. Of course, they were all civilians when they were president.
Comment 6/30/2008
That certainly would have disqualified George Washington, as well as several other presidents.
I’m aware of that. And it wouldn’t have disqualified our current incompetent lot. So I understand that it’s far from perfect. But the conflict of interest still bothers me.
Comment 6/30/2008
“But the conflict of interest still bothers me.”
Why is it a conflict of interest? Does a non-military man have more interest in the welfare of his country than does an ex-military man? What about being an ex-military man do you think makes him less capable? Does he have less integrity? Most military men I have known, especially those who have been in combat, view war as a last option.
Comment 6/30/2008
Why is it a conflict of interest? … Does he have less integrity?
It’s not about integrity or any perceived lack thereof. It’s about being ingrained into a system. Maybe the military men you have known are different, but the ones I know will tell you that you never really leave the military, even after you leave the military. I don’t want a military man for the same reason I don’t want a Senator to be responsible for overseeing the ethics of the Senate. It’s the type of job that requires an outsider, not a chummy insider.
The military is an organization built on rigid conformity and obeying without question [with the exception of obviously illegal orders, at least in theory]. That type of rigid mindset isn’t what we need in a CinC.
Mind you, I don’t expect that opinion to be popular, but there it is.
Comment 7/1/2008
I think you make a compelling point TG. As long as the prez has experienced military men in him inner circle to provide strategic advice…
Comment 7/1/2008
“As long as the prez has experienced military men in him inner circle to provide strategic advice…”
So it’s okay for the military men to provide the strategy, but it’s not okay for them to be president. That really makes sense.
Comment 7/1/2008
He can have military men providing strategy, but they have to be gay. How’s that? I’m all about compromise.
Comment 7/1/2008
Derf:
Military advisers are providing strategy and advice, but they’re not the only ones doing so, and they’re not the ones making the final decisions. You might not think that’s an important distinction, but I do.
digg:
Heh! They have to be gay, but we can’t ask them if they’re gay, and they can’t voluntarily tell us.
Comment 7/1/2008
“Military advisers are providing strategy and advice, but they’re not the only ones doing so”
That should be the case no matter who is president, ex-military or non-military. Why do you think an ex-military man would not listen to advice from non-military advisers?
Every person makes his own decision as to what qualifies someone to be Commander-in-Chief. Automatically eliminating someone based on his military experience is foolish. We have had some good presidents who were ex-military and some good presidents who never served in the military.
Comment 7/1/2008
Automatically eliminating someone based on his military experience is foolish.
Which is why I wouldn’t go as far as codifying it into law. But all other things being equal, we should be considerably more skeptical of a military man as CinC than a civilian in that position. The military is supposed to be answerable to civilians. If you have a president that doesn’t really consider himself a civilian — i.e. he feels more like one of “them” than like one of “us” — then that short-circuits that important protection.
Now if you had a career military man with a long history of reform and/or of bucking the military establishment, that would indeed be a different matter.
Comment 7/1/2008
“If you have a president that doesn’t really consider himself a civilian”
Have we had a president who hasn’t considered himself a civilian? Has anything McCain done indicated that he has the attitude that he is not a civilian? Can only those who have never served be considered a true civilian or is it only those with liberal policies?
“Now if you had a career military man with a long history of reform and/or of bucking the military establishment, that would indeed be a different matter.”
In other words, he needs to agree with you in order to be qualified to be Commander in Chief.
Comment 7/1/2008
Have we had a president who hasn’t considered himself a civilian?
Not in recent memory. Ike, maybe. (You could argue that W is this way, considering how much he likes to play military dress-up, but I digress…)
I should clarify, however, what I mean by “considers himself a civilian.” Again, it comes down the what I said earlier about the attitude that you never really leave the military even after you leave. A lot of ex-military guys I know consider themselves “civilians” only in the most technical sense, but view themselves as being considerably different than your typical civilian by virtue of their service. And for this type, given a conflict between civilian interests and military interests, the overwhelming bias will be not with the civilians but with the military.
The bottom line is that the CinC has to be able to put that part of their life behind them, and be willing to go against what the military wants when doing so is in the best interests of the civilian population of the country. I’m cynical about the ability of a career military man to do that.
Has anything McCain done indicated that he has the attitude that he is not a civilian?
Well, as indicated here, he has previously touted his military experience as if it’s his primary qualification (or, at least a primary qualification) for the job of president. But military experience is about as relevant to the job of president as it is to the job of CEO of a major company — not very.
In other words, he needs to agree with you in order to be qualified to be Commander in Chief.
I haven’t argued any such thing, and I defy you to show me where I’ve said anything of the kind. There are doubtless lots of people who buck the military establishment with whom I would find very little to agree on.
But whatever, you’re obviously never going to see any sort of conflict of interest, so there’s not much point in continuing this any further. Then again, you probably wouldn’t see any problem with putting a career investment banker in charge of the SEC, either.
Comment 7/1/2008
Quote: Then again, you probably wouldn’t see any problem with putting a career investment banker in charge of the SEC, either.
I would certainly want someone who has investment experience at a level greater than just a stockholder.
My main problem with your statements is that you take military experience as a negative in a CinC. (Before you respond that you have said no such thing, read the first sentence in the last paragraph of your last response where you refer to military experience as a “conflict of interest.”)
Comment 7/2/2008
My main problem with your statements is that you take military experience as a negative in a CinC.
I can see that objection, and understand why you make it. And I must say, I’m actually a bit conflicted on this. I suppose it depends just how much military experience one has, and how recent it is.
I should be clear in stating that I don’t think military experience of any sort is a conflict of interest. I think having a military guy is a conflict of interest. A quick, albeit not perfect, litmus test would be this: prior to becoming a politician, what did the person do? If the only answer is “served in the military,” that would raise an eyebrow for me. Less so if the military service was a long time ago (as in McCain’s case), because at that point the politician has a record that can be examined to see whether or not they’re a homer for the military.
And even with all these “ferinstances,” it’s sloppy of me to say that having a career military guy as president is a conflict of interest. It’s more accurate to say that it represents a potential conflict of interest, and one of which we should be very highly skeptical.
Let me put it another way: Given two equally-qualified candidates, with identical policy positions, where the only difference is that one is a military person and the other isn’t, I’d strongly prefer the non-military person. This isn’t to say that I’d never vote for a military person over a non-military person. Policy is, after all, important. It’s just that all other things being equal, I’d rather have a lifelong civilian.
Comment 7/2/2008
Quote: A quick, albeit not perfect, litmus test would be this: prior to becoming a politician, what did the person do? If the only answer is “served in the military,” that would raise an eyebrow for me.
I had rather have “served in the military” as a pre-political life qualifier than “I was a community organizer.” Big Whoop!
Comment 7/2/2008
Derf, you might think your last comment clever, but I find it rather sad. Espcially in today’s America, I’ll take a start in community organization over most anything else.
Comment 7/2/2008
Happy fourth of July. Thank you military men and women for your service to our country. It is worthwhile and not to be dismissed lightly. Don’t feel like you are not qualified to do any political job you aspire to because of your service. Patriotic Americans far surpass in number those who are dismissive of you.
Comment 7/3/2008