Does Military Experience Prepare One For The Presidency?
July 6, 2008 · By Adam Dyck
Wesley Clark has been taking a lot of heat for his comments about Republican nominee, John McCain, regarding his past as a war hero.
CLARK: I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down
CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Both sides have been taking great pains to denounce the statement, but when you really think about it, was he wrong?
I respect McCain for what he did for his country. He truly is an American hero. And if you had spent time as a general, or Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, like Eisenhower, then of course that would be at least some qualification for the Presidency. But being an ordinairy pilot, or spending time in a POW camp? How many executive decisions will you be making in either of those situations?
Please don’t misconstrue my opinion. I’m not trying to diminish what McCain did, or even say that he would be a bad President. However, being shot at does not qualify someone for being President of the United States. If it did, the GOP should start looking around the prison system for their next candidate, no?
You know, this really is one of those look before you leap moments…
Clarke’s comments were clearly designed to diminish McCain’s service record. Everybody knows what McCain went through as a serviceman and a POW, and they respect him for that. But, Obama has nothing like that. So, in order to even out the game, Clarke is taking a pot-shot at McCain to make his service record be about how high up in the military he got.
So what?
Do you think it’s McCain’s fault he never got to the highest ranks like Eisenhower? Or perhaps he was too busy doing — or more specifically being kept from doing — other things while those in the military around him rose through the ranks. To raise the question of McCain’s top position in the military, one must be thorough and honest in examining whether McCain’s so-called lack of “executive responsibility” in the military is a result of McCain’s lack of trying, or his lack of freedom and resultant lack of physical ability to do so.
Of course, this is all nonsense as it is. If you were to take the time to look up McCain’s service record you’d see that after being a POW for 5 years and following years of rehabilitation, he went on to become the commanding officer of a training squadron and that he turned it around so as to receive its first commendation. Considering that he could have given up and gone home after being a POW, to instead go through years of rehabilitation and then go back to flying is something to be respected.
I’d suggest you take the time and go read his history to see exactly what he did and when and then you’d understand why he was not a Supreme Commander like Eisenhower. The two biggest issues surrounding the difference are unfortunate circumstances in him being a POW, the fact that his torture left him with poor physical ratings that would prevent him from ever rising through the ranks and the simple dumb fact that McCain was 30 when he went into Vietnam versus the fact that Eisenhower was 52 when he took command in WWII.
Don’t you think the comparison between the two is more than just a little bit ridiculous?
Still, military experience is not simply a question of how high you got or how many people were under your command. It is also a question of character. McCain became a politician after he was assigned as the Navy’s political liaison to the US Senate, about the best job he could hope for in his condition. To disparage him because he never got as high as somebody like Eisenhower shows a supreme lack of understanding how much McCain probably would have liked to have gotten to that level… but being tortured nonstop for five years kind of got in the way of that.
I’m not saying he’s a bad candidate because of his lack of military leadership experience, I’m saying that being a “war hero” is not qualification in and of itself.
The Clark argument only works if you accept his statement of the ‘issue’ otherwise it is simply inane. First I would argue that placing oneself in harms way on behalf of your country is proof positive of your commitment to your country. Contrast that to being a merely moderately successful if not failed community organizer for housing and a spectacular lack any demonstrable leadership experience on the part of Obama. If proving positive commitment to your country is not a qualification then is Clark saying that his man’s lack of commitment is a qualification? Or is he rather saying that it is not relevant - which of course brings to the fore the question as to why Clark would argue that. However, in true clintonian linguistic gyration Clark would no doubt say that he was merely saying that being shot down was not qualification but he respected McCain’s service blah, blah, blah but that certainly was not the thrust of his comment.
Of course it wasn’t. He’s a politician, and naturally is going to often mean soemthing beyond what he actually said.
However, were his actual words wrong? I don’t think so.
but that is only half of the story. I will concede his words are not wrong if and when he applies them to his man Obama as well. In addition, if Clark is going to say what is not a qualification then I think he has presumed to know what is and so he should now inform us all of what does constitute a qualification. Executive level decision making? Ok, so how does Obama stack up on that one? Making real world decisions? Ok, so let’s compare. Once Clark has presumed to be an expert on what does not qualify McCain he needs to show how his man does qualify otherwise it is just a driveby smear.
Clark’s comment may very likely have been intended to be a drive-by smear but I believe it is a valid one. Maybe Americans are changing their outlook on the world and want less of a military focus in their leadership.
“First I would argue that placing oneself in harms way on behalf of your country is proof positive of your commitment to your country.”
That is not the only interpretation of his actions. It could also be simply a demonstration of commitment to the military command. It could also be a demonstration of the only career he makes him feel secure.
If you look at a farm-hand dropped into the middle of a great big city, would you say that the farm-hand is devoted to the agricultural prosperity of the nation if he runs back to the farm?
“Considering that he could have given up and gone home after being a POW, to instead go through years of rehabilitation and then go back to flying is something to be respected.”
He could have chosen many different paths after being a prisoner of war. Perish the thought, some people came back from Vietnam wondering what the hell they were doing there anyway and McCain came out wanting more!
“Still, military experience is not simply a question of how high you got or how many people were under your command. It is also a question of character.”
Money, power, friends and influence are probably all secondary, right?
Military service provides an individual with an informed, insider’s perspective. At the higher levels, it provides one with the opportunity to learn and exercise management, leadership, planning and communication skills, both general and in a specific sector. That’s all useful knowledge and experience for a president.
A career in health care provides an individual with an informed, insider’s perspective on the real world impact of health care policy and programs. At the higher levels, it provides one with the opportunity to learn and exercise management, leadership, planning and communication skills, both general and in a specific sector. That’s all useful knowledge and experience for a president.
Employment in the private sector provides an individual with an informed, insider’s perspective on the reality of business, and some aspects of the economy not easily understood by others. At the higher levels, it provides one with the opportunity to learn and exercise management, leadership, planning and communication skills, both general and in a specific sector. That’s all useful knowledge and experience for a president.
A life in the priesthood provides an individual with an informed, insider’s perspective on human spirituality, morality and ethics. At the higher levels, it provides one with the opportunity to learn and exercise management, leadership, planning and communication skills, both general and in a specific sector. That’s all useful knowledge and experience for a president.
A career in politics provides an individual with an informed, insider’s perspective on the kind of consensus building, deal mking and compromise that make an effective politician. At the higher levels, it provides one with the opportunity to learn and exercise management, leadership, planning and communication skills, both general and in a specific sector. That’s all useful knowledge and experience for a president.
Shall I go on? Or is the point clear?
The thing is Andy, McCain does have military leadership experience. Being a Commander in the Navy is 3 promotions away from being an Admiral, something McCain could never have hoped to achieve.
Truth is he is not only a war hero, but he does have a significant history of leadership in the Navy. It’s not the same kind of leadership as the Admiral of the Fleet, but it is significantly more than his history as a POW. His “war hero” or POW status is one thing, you are right about that. But, this:
“I respect McCain for what he did for his country. He truly is an American hero. And if you had spent time as a general, or Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, like Eisenhower, then of course that would be at least some qualification for the Presidency. But being an ordinairy pilot, or spending time in a POW camp? How many executive decisions will you be making in either of those situations?”
That is the same as Clarke’s statement, a myopic view of McCain’s professional bio. Yep, he was in a POW camp. But, the only way one can ask “how many executive decisions will you be making in either of those situations” is by ignoring what McCain did AFTER being a POW. And his history after Vietnam is nothing short of a sign of brilliant leadership skills.
After all, do you really think that the Navy is going to make somebody with no leadership history the official representative of the Navy to the U.S. Senate? That position is hand-picked by the top Navy brass for somebody who really knows what he’s talking about and has the tenacity and resolve to direct the Senate to do what the Navy needs it to do. It’s not thrown away to some idiot yokel who has no understanding of how to direct things.
If being put in such a position of direction isn’t a sign of having the stuff for executive decision making, I don’t know what is.
And to Charles Anthony: make up your mind.
First you defend Clarke’s statements as being a valid one, and then you make a snide comment about McCain actually choosing to stay in the military after being a POW. Which is it? Should he have the executive military experience that Clarke is trying to raise (which McCain does have BTW) or should McCain have dropped out of the Navy after being a POW?
Can’t play both sides and expect to be taken seriously. So, choose one and go with it.
Mr. Secure,
Getting shot down riding in a fighter plane does not have to be a qualification to be president and McCain chose to enter the military. Can you provide one good reason why reality can not include both things?
As Dalton pointed out above, the demands place on a national leader extend beyond warfare. Maybe you have trouble accepting that the electorate is not so reflexively focused on having a military leader for president.
To add to Charles’ point, actual service in the military may or may not equip a person with the skills, knowledge and experience to effectively manage the policy and political (two different things) dimensions of defense from the Presidential perspective. A Detroit assembly line worker or the manager of Shlomo’s New And Used Automobiles are not necessarily equipped to be president of General Motors.
If actual military service were judged to be THE most important criteria for the selection of a President, of course, then we’d all be critiquing President Kerry right now.
Mr. Charles Anthony,
If you had actually read my posts instead of just “reflexively” shooting off a response, you’d see that I have addressed the issue of McCain’s qualifications being more than his POW experience several times already.
The fact that you boil his service record down to his POW experience alone is a sure sign that you don’t know a thing about McCain’s military career.
As for: “… the demands place on a national leader extend beyond warfare. Maybe you have trouble accepting that the electorate is not so reflexively focused on having a military leader for president.”
Nice strawman you got there. Do me a favour; don’t put words in my mouth. I never once talked about warfare experience being the defining point of a person’s eligibility for the POTUS (looks like if anyone is reflexively doing anything here, it’s you).
That being said, if you want to compare apples to apples, I’ll be glad to partake in any discussions comparing McCain’s 26 years in Federal politics versus Obama’s 3 years. After all, experience beyond the military matters… doesn’t it?
Mr. Security,
Other than military folk, do you really think anybody cares about McCain’s military experience?
I did read your posts. The extra military qualifications of McCain are interesting but irrelevant and you have not explained otherwise.
Stop complaining about strawmen arguments. All you ever wrote in this thread is military this and military that. Now that it is pointed out quite bluntly by more than one person that the electorate may seek more than a warrior for a president, you acknowledge that military experience is not the only thing.
“That being said, if you want to compare apples to apples, I’ll be glad to partake in any discussions comparing McCain’s 26 years in Federal politics versus Obama’s 3 years. After all, experience beyond the military matters… doesn’t it?”
It seems like you have finally figured out one of the major points of this thread.
Nevertheless, I agree. Time for fresh blood. It is getting pretty stifling seeing so many old crusty military cronies at the helm.
Anyway, every single candidate’s experience in warfare, in the civil service, in health care, in the private sector, in the priesthood, etc. etc. is combined to form a different package. I think comparing apples to apples would be fun. Regardless, I think Clark’s point still stands.
Mr Anthony,
#1: “The extra military qualifications of McCain are interesting but irrelevant and you have not explained otherwise.”
Hmm… Squadron Commander and Navy liaison to the US Senate… I have to explain to you what these signify? Sorry, I don’t have the space here to give you the organizational history of the US Navy. But your ignorance on these positions shows why you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
#2: “All you ever wrote in this thread is military this and military that.”
Did you happen to read the title of this blog entry? Might explain something… Mr. Strawman.
And exactly who are you agreeing with on the “fresh blood” issue? Nobody else said anything about “fresh blood”. Takes more than one person’s view to make an agreement (and don’t make me write out the dictionary for you as well as the history of the Navy).
Perhaps this is yet another example of your bipolar views, like your joining Clarke’s ignorance in asserting McCain lacking executive military responsibility while simultaneously complaining about McCain’s decision to stay in the Navy after getting back from Vietnam.
But, I’ll just let Barrack Obama’s own words from 2004 explain it for you:
“You know, I am a believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there are some people that might be comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people.”
The funniest thing I found out was that Clark’s comments were in regards to him pointing out which possible Presidential candidate had the most experience with military situations: Hillary Clinton. And simply because she had been around Slick Willy while he was running operations in Kosova.
Talk about his comments being total partisan BS.
What? Would that make Laura Bush even better considering that Iraq and Afghanistan were much bigger than Kosovo? Give me a break. Good ‘ol Wesley… as transparent as they come.