OPEN SEASON ON JOHN McCAIN'S

MILITARY SERVICE

July 7, 2008 

Has attacking a nominee’s military service become a standard tactic in American presidential election campaigns? In the 2004 election, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked John Kerry’s military service. Their attacks played a major role in his defeat. Now, in 2008, John McCain's political opponents are attacking his military service. Will they be as successful? And if it’s going to be open season on McCain’s service, what about it is important?

In post-World War II America, prior to the 2004 election, service in the US Armed Forces was always a plus for the nominee. Presidential candidates had been criticized for their lack of military service, as Bill Clinton was in 1992, or for avoiding Vietnam service, as George W. Bush was in 2000. Those with wartime military service, however, proudly highlighted it during their campaigns.

Dwight Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II. His success in leading allied forces to victory demonstrated his leadership abilities and his temperament. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, spent his World War II service making training films in Hollywood. It didn’t tell Americans anything about him they didn’t already know, but Reagan was proud of his service and the role he played. His opponents could have made much more of the fact that he didn’t serve overseas than they did. But service in World War II was above reproach, regardless of how you served.

In 2004, John Kerry attempted to make his Vietnam combat service the centerpiece of his campaign. A holder of the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, he wanted voters to see him as a heroic military leader. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, however, men who had served with Kerry on river patrol boats in Vietnam, claimed he was “unfit to serve” as President. They said he had intentionally misrepresented the conduct of American servicemen during the war and withheld and distorted material facts about his own war record.

They made the term “swiftboating” a part of the American political lexicon. It’s now used to refer to any concerted attack on a nominee’s character. Early on in Obama’s campaign for the presidency, although he had never served in the military, Democrats declared that they would not allow Republicans to "swiftboat" him.

Anyone who thought that John McCain’s 5 years as a prisoner of war in the “Hanoi Hilton” during the Vietnam War would place him above such criticism, was mistaken. To date, no less than eight prominent Democrats, both official and unofficial surrogates for Barack Obama, have made critical comments about McCain’s Vietnam service. The blogosphere is full of false charges and claims about McCain’s time in the military. Recently, retired General Wesley Clark, a potential Obama vice presidential running mate, appearing on the June 29 airing of CBS’s Face the Nation, asserted that, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Serving in the military has never been an absolute requirement for winning the presidential election. Thirteen presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton, had no military service. But if those who have served are going to be subjected to the scrutiny that Kerry and McCain have been subjected to, what are the standards by which we should judge them? And, is there any difference between what happened to Kerry and what’s happening to McCain?

Kerry’s crime, in the eyes of the Swift Boat and many other Vietnam veterans, was his hypocrisy and disloyalty to his fellow warriors, exemplified by his actions when he returned from Vietnam. I doubt he would have been criticized for the circumstances under which he obtained his purple hearts had he not thrown his medals over a fence at the Capitol and accused fellow American soldiers of war crimes when he testified before the Senate. How could he run for the presidency and ask voters to respect his military service, people asked, after what he had done?

Attacks on Kerry went to the heart of his character. Was he honest? Did he deliberately distort his military service for political purposes? What were his true attitudes toward the military he would command should he become president? All were legitimate questions once Kerry placed his war record on the table. Many believed the Swift Boat vets went too far in their attacks. Nevertheless, they called attention to Kerry’s own behavior and raised serious doubts in voters' minds.

Attacks on McCain are different. Democrats and other responsible people who criticize McCain’s military service aren’t questioning his behavior. They don’t question McCain’s heroism as a POW in refusing early release because he was the son of the serving Commander-in-Chief Pacific Command. They don’t question his bravery during the USS Forrestal fire or during his five-year ordeal of torture and cruelty at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors. They aren’t accusing him of hypocrisy.

What McCain’s opponents are attempting to do is diminish the value of his experiences in the eyes of the voters. They’re telling them, yes he was a hero, but don’t give that much weight when considering what kind of President McCain would make and whether or not to vote for him. By doing so, they are attempting to place him on a more level playing field with Obama, who has nothing comparable in his background that demonstrates his strength of character. As a tactic, it’s as deliberate as those used by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But will it work?

General Clark was right, but he missed the point! Getting shot down in a fighter plane no more qualifies someone to be president than being in a car accident qualifies someone to be the chief of police.

McCain’s getting shot down isn’t what earned him the respect of the American people. What they admire in him is what he did afterward. When faced with a choice to save himself or stay with his fellow prisoners, he stayed. He endured five years of torture and hardship. He kept faith with his fellow prisoners and never lost faith in his country. That says a great deal about his character and about what kind of president he'd make.

The time has passed when a presidential nominee’s military service was off limits to political attacks. This year, whether Democrats just want to get even and negate any political advantage they perceive McCain’s war record gives him, or it’s the lingering divisiveness of the Vietnam War itself, it’s now open season on McCain’s military service. We’ll find out if McCain’s opponents will be as successful as Kerry’s on Election Day, and if voters can tell the difference between the two.