Retired four star General Wesley Clark, an advisor to Senator Obama, is reported as having contended that
military service does not automatically qualify [Senator McCain] . . . to be commander in chief. . . . Clark said [that] performing heroic military service is not a substitute for gaining command experience.This statement, as far as it goes, is unobjectionable, except that Senator McCain did, indeed, have command experience, and it speaks well of his leadership abilities. After release from captivity and torture at the Hanoi Hilton and eventual restoration to flight status in 1976,
he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida. He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Citation.Turning an "undistinguished" training squadron into an excellent one is not easy; it requires substantial command ability and provides substantial command experience; it is surprising that General Clark seems to have been oblivious to this.
However, General Clark was otherwise quite correct in saying what he did. I can think of nothing which, considered alone, automatically qualifies anyone to become Commander in Chief. Neither substantial military experience nor a total lack of military experience, command or otherwise (as in the case of Senator Obama), automatically confers qualification. In fact, I think this is so obvious that few will disagree with it. I would go even further and submit that the race and/or sex of a candidate has nothing at all to do with whether he or she would make a good president.
I personally think that — even leaving aside Senator McCain's heroism as a naval aviator, his response to horrific torture for five years, and his honorable refusal to accept repatriation until his fellow POWs who had been confined and tortured even longer had been were repatriated — Senator McCain's military career is one of the more important factors enhancing his qualifications. I do so because of an aspect of his military service which has been addressed only infrequently.
Even during his days at the Naval Academy, McCain was a maverick.
McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) that he did not aim to improve. McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math. McCain graduated in 1958.As a serving officer, McCain remained a maverick. For example,
McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by micromanagement from Washington, and he would later write that "In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn’t have the least notion of what it took to win the war."He was right on point, and I submit that the basis for this "maverick" opinion would be very helpful to him as Commander in Chief. Micromanagement by "chairborne" officers (not too kindly referred to as REMFs or "rear echelon mother fuckers) far removed from the battlefield, and their even more remote civilian counterparts, has been a major factor in the Iraq conflict and in others before it; it is a good thing that Senator McCain knows this, first hand.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
Dan, are you sure you're an American? This rigorously impartial analysis wouldn't look out of place coming from one of the BBC's Washington correspondents*.
Perhaps, for the health of the political process, only expats living at least as far away as Central America should be allowed to comment on it...!
* That's a good thing.
2 - Dan Miller
Doc,
Yup, sure am, native born and bred as well. Not only that, but I got me a real purty birth certificate authenticated by a raised seal (not one of them their trained ones) and stamped by them smart folks in Washington, D.C. to prove it.
BBC? That's another question.
Thanks, Doc.
Dan
3 - Condor
Thanks Dan, I'm really pleased that my viewpoints were rather static before all the PC hit the streets. And I point this out with the added caveat that my viewpoints, opinions etc... were static and not in a bad way.
At least I have the comforting thought of being taught how to think and not what to think. For that I am thankful towards my father who was career military and had the family out and about on both seaboards and in various countries overseas. It helped round out my temperance and perspective on who I am and where I came from. Momma used to quote the scriptures when she said... "look to the rock from which you were cleft (child) and to quarry from which you were dug." My heritage deemed that I should. My upbringing insisted that I dig deeper than that.
4 - Dan Miller
This just in:
I wonder for whom they will vote.
Dan
5 - Clavos
"I wonder for whom they will vote."
In my book, they just did.
On the Iraq issue, who has a more cogent voice than the troops?
6 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, the Iraq issue is a political one, so the voices of the troops are not massively relevant... That's why they are soldiers, not politicians.
7 - Dan Miller
Christopher is, of course, absolutely correct.
I mean, you know, just being there and all and well, you know, maybe being in harm's way sometimes, they probably know a lot less about what's actually working than the politicians. The surge (or is it "serge?" I had a really cool suit made of that once) probably isn't effective anyway, and they know that in Washington. I mean, you know, they all get briefed once in a while and are sort of in harm's way too when they travel back and forth to attend those dull and pesky briefings and have to make speeches so the folks back home will know where they stand (or sit).
The grunts should just do whatever they are paid to do, quit the dumb symbolism, and stay off the grass while they do it.
Dan
8 - Clavos
First and foremost, they are citizens, thus their voices are as relevant as anyone else's, especially those of politicians, who are the least relevant (or cogent) voices in the land.
Secondly, the troops know and understand the essence and state of the conflict far better and more intimately than any other citizen, including the politicians.
Had we listened to our troops in Vietnam, the results would have been much more favorable to the US than they were.
9 - Clavos
@#7:
Bravo!
10 - Robert Maxwell
Just because the United States soldier is in the streets of Baghdad does not make him an authority on the essence or state of the conflict, no more than living in Washington D.C. necessarily makes you an authority on U.S. Policy, or being on the streets as a police officer necessarily makes you knowledgeable on the nature and causes of gang violence.
It is nothing short of a fallacy to think so, and I fail to see where we can make the connection of, "He's in street in the middle of a foreign city potentially getting shot at," to "he must intimately understand and grasp the nature and essence of the conflict at hand, [far better than those who have continuous global information feeds, the information resources of the most advanced agencies on the globe, etc..]
Granted, you didn't say what was in brackets. But I filled in the necessary implication.
I know we're all going to pounce here and go for the good ol' appeal to patriotism, but heed this: Getting shot at does not make you an expert in the war. Getting shot at does not let you know what's happening other than there's someone out there that presumably wants you dead, which is likely why you were sent there in the first place. And finally, getting shot at likely arises nothing more in your cerebrum than "how the hell do I get away from these bullets or make the guy shooting them stop?"
I know we're apt to equate, "getting shot at," and "in harm's way," to "understanding the situation on the ground," but look at it through their eyes: What would your thoughts be if you were getting shot at? Would they be attempts to understand the machinations of command and bureaucracy around you in the context of this multinational, multiethnic, and multireligious-sectarian clash in this strange land, as well as trying to unravel the decidedly un-publicized grand strategy of your superiors (assuming there is any)?
Or would it be to follow your orders, put in a day's work, not get shot at again (presumably by shooting the other guy), then go to bed and repeat until you and Uncle Sam agree that you're going home?
Maybe I'm strange, but for me, it'd be the latter.
I can't honestly understand where people come up with the idea that, since the soldier is on the ground, he must be an expert in what's going on all around him.
11 - Dave Nalle
Robert. Getting shot at for months when you go into a neighborhood and then going to that same neighborhood and finding the formerly terrified civilians walking the streets, hanging out in cafes and not being shot at - and you're being clapped on the back and offered coffee instead of being shot at yourself. Well, that might give you a hint that things are changing.
That kind of story has been coming out of Iraq for months from soldiers and Iraqis and other people on the ground, and getting virtually no coverage in the US media.
Dave
12 - Robert Maxwell
Yes.
It would tell that soldier, "things are changing."
I'm not debating that. I'm not debating that a soldier CAN see, or at least estimate, a general trend like that, nor can any intelligent individual.
But it's HARDLY being an expert on the nature and essence of the conflict, and certainly says nothing about the war itself other than that the neighborhood which that soldier patrolled is now somewhat more friendly to him.
That single neighborhood. Of many in that city, of many cities in that region, of many cities and settlements in that country. Rather superficial for him to be intimate with the "nature and essence" of the conflict, perhaps?
13 - Dave Nalle
We have all these sources. Soldiers on the ground, military commanders, reporters in the field, Iraqi bloggers, experts on the region and we can draw on them all to form our conclusions on how things stand there. That's the wonder of the information age.
I also think you're underestimating how in touch our soldiers are. They have internet and satellite TV access and they can put their experiences together with what they hear through the grapevine, on the net and in the media and put their personal observations in context as well as anyone can.
Dave
14 - bliffle
Dan,
This is really weak: "...he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida."
NOT a combat position. Hell, I could do that. So could you or anyone else. That doesn't make us heroes, worthy of elevation to the Whitehouse.
15 - Robert Maxwell
...?
I'm not sure we're on the same page here. I'm not arguing..
a) That we don't have these sources open to the decision makers of the U.S. Government and Military.
b) That we can't use these sources.
c) That the troops are not "in touch," and are in communications blackout.
Nor have I ever contended any of this. I merely said that the ability to notice a difference in the atmosphere of a small section of the country (a neighborhood, specifically) does not mean the person who noticed it is automatically in touch with the "essence and state" of the conflict as a whole, or even really in his sector.
It only means, by this example, that he can notice that people are being nice to him, and that the situation there, by that experience (which really is just anecdotal and doesn't mean anything conclusively) is improving. It doesn't mean he can actually tell you what precisely is going on in the conflict, that he can tell you the essence, purpose or state of the conflict, it just means that, in his experience of that small neighborhood, a cafe owner offered him a coffee.
Following this line of reasoning, I could describe myself as being in touch with Franco-American relations because I went into a bookstore and the cute French girl winked at me instead of cursing my country's Imperialist policies to my face.
Yes, the American soldier is hooked up to the web and to a vast communications network, where he can lovingly write back to his family about the cafe experience (and, depending on your individual conspiracy theory, may or may not unintentionally notify the NSA of the same.)
But it's a microscopic, incredibly subjective piece of information based on a single soldier's chance anecdote.
I'm not arguing that the soldier's word is worthless. But we need to recognize that it's not the all-valuable barometer of the situation and the golden word that we all make it out to be.
16 - Dan Miller
Biffle,
I didn't say that command of a stateside training squadron was a combat position. Senator McCain's valor in combat and honor as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton for five years are well documented, so I touched on them only briefly. My minor point about the training squadron was that General Clark was wrong in claiming that Senator McCain had had no command experience.
As to whether you or I could transform an undistinguished air squadron into a meritorious one, I'm pretty sure I couldn't. All I had was four years in the Army as a JAG Corps captain, most of it in Korea in the early 1970s. I wouldn't know where to begin. Hell, I probably couldn't even march a dozen hungry boy scouts to the mess hall without half of them getting lost or wandering off somewhere in pursuit of unlawful carnal knowledge. As to whether you could, that's your call.
Oh, and Dave: on another thread, as I recall, you indicated that Senator McCain served some fifteen years post captivity in the Airforce. Actually, he was a Naval aviator. Air Force officers wear blue Class A uniforms; Navy officers wear white Class A uniforms. Army officers wear green. It's easy to tell them apart.(:>)
As to whether soldiers on the ground can "put their personal observations in context as well as anyone can," the chances are they can do a tad better than members of the chairborne brigade in Washington, who generally have no recent personal observations in Iraq to put into context and who would prefer to make speeches than to listen to those who do.
Dan
17 - bliffle
Dan,
Yeah, and the Marines just had their Afghanistan time involuntarily increased.
"More than 1,200 US troops serving in Iraq signed up for extended service in the military to mark America's national day on Friday."
18 - Dan Miller
Biffle,
Never having been, or even having aspired to be, a Marine, I probably am not qualified to say it, but what the Hell:
Semper Fi!
They go where they are sent, and do the best they can with what little the Navy lets them have when they get there. See the war in the Pacific back during WWII.
I'll bet they don't write home complaining to their mommies or even Cindy what's her name.
Dan
PS I thought Afghanistan was supposed to be a righteous war, what with the attack on the Twin Towers and all, the one the U.S. should have pursued with greater diligence.
19 - Christopher Rose
I'm a fan of Robert Maxwell. It's nice to have some common sense and thoughtfulness in the politics section.
Any chance you want to sign up and write some articles for the site, Robert? We sure could use some thoughtful writers round here to balance out all the dogmatists.
20 - Clavos
"But it's a microscopic, incredibly subjective piece of information based on a single soldier's chance anecdote."
Subjective, yes, but as both Dave and Dan pointed out, it's far from being "based on a single soldier's chance anecdote." We have had hundreds, if not thousands, of reports from soldiers of all ranks, right up to and including field and flag grade officers reporting similar observations, and, of course the in-theater re-enlistment of more than twelve hundred troops is quite indicative of at least those twelve hundred's confidence in the conduct of the conflict; they are, after all, voting with their lives.
21 - Robert Maxwell
Clavos, let's break down your statement.
"We have had hundreds, if not thousands, of reports from soldiers of all ranks, right up to and including field and flag grade officers reporting similar observations"....
Your point being? My point was not that the soldier was necessarily wrong, nor was he absent-minded, unobservant, naive or any other adjective - either positive or negative! - in experiencing this. Nor was it my point that, "This is only one soldier experiencing this, and thus it should be discounted."
Rather, my contention was that the soldier experiencing this does not, by this experience, become privy to the nature, essence and state of the conflict.
"...the in-theater re-enlistment of more than twelve hundred troops is quite indicative of at least those twelve hundred's confidence in the conduct of the conflict; they are, after all, voting with their lives."
I fail to see your point in this. The soldiers have confidence in the conflict.. and? Confidence does not equal a knowledge of the conflict at hand, nor does it equal (or even imply, necessarily!) a grasp of the essence and state of the conflict proper.
All it means is that, to these twelve-hundred soldiers, things seem to be going well. Which is a valid observation on the part of the soldier, and not necessarily wrong. But remember that this conception on part of the soldiers is based on their individual experience, which is by the fact itself biased towards the individuals themselves.
Questions:
What parts of the service were these soldiers from?
Where were they stationed?
How heavy was the fighting in those regions?
Were the reenlistments in groups, or were they individuals from units here and there?
We need to remember something here: being able to say, "I think things are going ok," does not, by any stretch of the imagination, by necessity imply that this individual has the requisite understanding of the complete scope, essence and state of the conflict to make a decision equal to those who do, namely those in the Pentagon and Foggybottom, who ultimately make their reports to the politicians whom (apologies to non-Americans, just making a quick broad statement) you have both elected and say are deficient in their understanding and grasp of the conflict viz-a-viz the soldiers who see a very minor piece of the picture from street-level.
Does this make any sense to you?
And no, having access to the internet does not give you the same information Foggybottom and the Pentagon has.
22 - Robert Maxwell
I would like to note that by "a single soldier's chance anecdote," I was not suggesting that this was a single, non-repeating incident, but merely referring only to this individual soldier made separate from the others for the purpose of writing.
23 - Dan Miller
Robert,
Foggybottom
Sorry, the Devil made me emphasize the word. She makes me do that sort of thing every now and then.
Dan
24 - Robert Maxwell
Should be a space between the two, my mistake. :P
Laugh all you want, leave it to the good 'ol USA to place it's State Department in a place named Foggy Bottom..
25 - Robert Maxwell
Christopher Rose,
Sorry, I just saw your post. I've thought about it, and when I have some piece I like, I'll probably submit it somewhere, if I figure out how. :P