I'm curious about what everyone else thinks, so don't hesitate to comment whether you agree with me or not. The recent Kerry debacle and his defense thereof has really crystalized my opinion that a history of military service should give a politician or pundit absolutely zero additional authority when opining on any matter, even national security. I pity John Kerry for how he wasted his potential over the course of his life, and his recent comments defending his "botched joke" illustrate why admiration for military service, though well-deserved, should not translate into the political realm.
The Massachusetts Democrat called the White House attack "a classic GOP textbook Republican campaign tactic" that reveals Republicans'"willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics.""I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes," he said. "It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who've never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did."
Kerry is of course free to be disgusted at whatever he pleases, and lies are generally to be condemned, but America is not Starship Troopers in which suffrage is reserved for soldiers. In fact, our Constitution expressly and purposefully puts the military under civilian control. Furthermore, why aren't any Democrats condemning the inherent sexism behind Kerry's comments? If none but soldiers are qualified to opine on military matters, where does that leave presidential-hopeful Hillary Clinton and other women who are biologically incapable of military service?
And so, while I have great admiration for our soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, and all the rest who defend our country, and I am immensely thankful for the security they provide at great cost, I do not think their present service should later give their opinions any weight beyond the bare merits of their arguments.
Update:
Currently-serving troops apparently have some worthwhile contributions to the debate, however.
(HT: The Daily Spork.)
I agree with you, Michael. Kerry's use of his military service relies on public ignorance about military service. There are many different jobs in the military, and many different kinds of people. It isn't hard to skate by.
The harder question is whether military service plus some special military distinction should be relevant to politics. It was once considered normal for a general or miliary hero to go into politics, like Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt. But the recent list of generals and war heroes in politics points the other way: John McCain (as POW), Colin Powell, and Wesley Clark come to mind, and none of them seem to have learned much of anything from their service, except how to maneuver politically.
Maybe the reason for this is in the changing nature of warfare. Historically warfare involved lots of personal initiative and opportunities for heroism. Now I think it's much better organized and more tightly controlled, and therefore depends less on the personal virtue of each individual. I think of a modern general as the equivalent of a modern corporate CEO: He's good at managing, delegating, and keeping himself safe politically, but that tells us nothing about his morals or common sense.
MW said: "I do not think their present service should later give their opinions any weight beyond the bare merits of their arguments."
.. which makes your update to this story weightless as well.
I suspect your comment about women being "biologically incapable of military service" was purely flame-bait.
I believe that someone who serves in the Armed Forces exhibits more valor and courage than the average citizen, especially since our military is completely fed by volunteers. I tend to side with military candidates, with the case of Kerry as an exception because he's simply a wretched individual. He's also an exception to my rule because he didn't want his medals and his soldier status, apparently.
I would prefer military-turned-politician over a career politician anyday. Again, there are some exceptions to this.
Women ARE biologically capable of serving in the military. I tend to disagree with female foot soldiers who are on the front lines as men are usually stronger than women in a hand-to-hand combat situation. But that doesn't mean that women can't fly planes and serve in other areas of the military. Women can be just as brave as men.
All that said, I think the soldiers in the pic are brilliant with a great sense of humor.
I see where MW is coming from, though...people shouldn't ride their resumes...they should ride their moral convictions.
The banner made by the soldiers in that picture is pithy.. not "brilliant".
MW wrote: "If none but soldiers are qualified to opine on military matters, where does that leave presidential-hopeful Hillary Clinton and other women who are biologically incapable of military service?"
Mark read something into that that I didn't see. It is impossible for Hillary Clinton to have served in the US military, at least in any combat role. That's a historical fact. Lots of other people could not have served in the military. For example, many men have been refused for various medical conditions. For example, Rush Limbaugh was given a draft deferrment because he had a pylenoidal cyst. So Michael's point makes perfect sense: Many people, Hillary included, could not have served in the military through no fault of their own, so it's unfair to make military service a prerequisite to having an opinion about military matters.
Mark: Pithy in your opinion, brilliant in mine.
BB: Military service doesn't have to be a prerequisite to anything. I think it just helps in some instances. Like I said in my previous comment, there are some exceptions. But I still prefer military men commenting on military matters. It doesn't mean other people can't make just as wise or insightful comments. I guess it's my personal preference I am arguing here. That and I try to disagree with my husband once in awhile to keep our debate skills honed...and irritate Mark at the same time.
DD: Oh, you give yourself far too much credit if you think anything you say comes close to "irritating" me.
Apparently your bar for "brilliance" is set lower than mine.
Mark: Judging by your past freak-outs, I am not giving myself enough credit for irritating you.
Perhaps my bar for brilliance it set lower than yours. To each his own.
Hmm.. skewed judgement about what constitutes "brilliance".. and skewed judgement about what constitutes a "freak-out" on my part. I suppose the two go hand in hand.
Sorry to go off-topic and bring everyone down, but I must say.....SHIT!!