|
[Previous entry: "Privatisation"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "A quick review of the British national press"] 02 February 2004: "Candidates"
The upcoming presidential election is rather academic to me in one way, since I'm not an American citizen. On the other hand, I do live here, so who wins in November is going to affect my life. Via Plastic Gangster, I came upon the AOL Presidential Match Guide, which compares your answers to a series of questions about various issues with the candidates' stated platforms and ranks them accordingly.
That same flaw is reflected to some extent in the question how important you consider it that a candidate has served in the military. I'll admit to having a soft spot for American servicemen. I've had occasion to work with them during my national service, and found it an enjoyable experience. On my jacket I wear a 101st Aviation Battalion pin, given to me by an American helicopter crew chief in 1993. But as a civilian, living in the United States, I've discovered another reason why I get along with American (ex-)servicemen; in a country where reportedly only 3% of the population holds a passport, they are a subset of the population each one of whom is almost guaranteed to have been overseas at some point. My neighbour across the street is a retired Air Force man, who was stationed in Germany several times; the first time was in 1945, when it was still the US Army Air force, and he still has a pair of binoculars he "souvenired" off a German officer. When I was taking driving lessons last October, I was pleased to find my instructor was a retired US Army major who had been all over Europe. We had a lot to chat about, which relaxed me no end during lessons. A good online friend of mine is a USMC reservist (currently on active duty, and looking at a deployment to Iraq later this year) who is well familiar with the United Arab Emirates, which I've visited a couple of times while my parents were posted there. So I have a preference for candidates with some military background, if only because they're highly likely to have seen some of the world outside North America. But if there is one group of servicemen for whom this does not hold true, it's Vietnam-era members of the National Guard and Air National Guard. The entire point of joining those branches in that period was to avoid going overseas. Accordingly, my reaction to the line contained in the description of George Bush which read "Served in the Military - Yes" was one of scorn. I mean, I don't hold with Michael Moore's "deserter" assertion bollocks (and I'll admit to being disappointed in Wes Clark for not nipping that one in the bud), but signing on with the (Air) National Guard at that time was the easy out; it was a way of avoiding the stigma of dodging the draft or declaring oneself a conscientious objector, while also avoiding the risk of being sent anywhere where you might conceivably be shot at (be it by Vietnamese, North Koreans or members of the Warsaw Pact). And there's no question in my mind that Bush—like Dan Quayle and many professional athletes at the time—pulled some strings to get that placement in time of war. But more importantly to my mind, it means he doesn't have the quality I treasure in the American serviceman of having been overseas for a year or more. Look, I'll admit I'm not exactly one to talk about refusing hazardous deployments; when I was called up for national service in 1993, I received (to paraphrase Spike Milligan) a cunningly worded invitation to partake in the Bosnian war as a member of the Dutch contingent of UNPROFOR. Dutch law does not allow the assignment of conscripts outside the NATO area without their express consent, and at the time the Dutch contribution consisted of signallers and truck drivers, who were scattered all over Bosnia in small groups attached to other outfits, and I didn't much fancy the prospect of being mortared on a regular basis, so I refused. Nevertheless, I had already stated that I did not object to being sent to Germany, and I did actually try to get assigned to the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai (I'd heard R&R in Tel Aviv rocked, and it would have been an opportunity to visit Cairo, but as it was I was turned down). I was assigned to the headquarters of the new ostensibly all-volunteer 11th Airmobile Brigade, shortly before it was ordered to provide the first three rotations of the ill-fated Dutchbat, which was to garrison the Srebrenica "Safe Area." The strange thing is that if anyone had asked me by early 1994, after I'd spent some time with the brigade, if I would have been willing to go along with the second rotation to Srebrenica, I would probably have said yes, because by then I would have been going with people I knew, not just been dropped in as an individual replacement as would have happened had I agreed the year before. Be that as it may, I never went anywhere dangerous, but then again, I don't put myself on a par with the guys who stuck their necks out; I was a REMF, in the rear with the gear, the sergeant-major and the beer. It's not something I'm ashamed of—I did the job I was assigned to do—but nor do I put myself on a par with John Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam. And who, by the way, was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts in the space of a few months. If there's one thing that annoys me, it's Republican commentators trying to trivialise Kerry's service record by breezily emphasising that Kerry served in Vietnam like it's no big thing. I'm vaguely inclined to think some enterprising chap should shoot such people in both arms and the left thigh (the places where Kerry was wounded) and subsequently tell them, while they're writhing on the ground, that "it's no big thing," just to give them some perspective. And while I'm on the topic, what is the deal with these comparisons between Clark and McClellan I've been noticing lately? Here's a typical example from the Washington Times: [...] Mr. Clark can look like a reincarnation of George B. McClellan in his dress uniform, but only a general imagines that brass on a collar lends a man popularity with the masses.Unadulterated shite. If you want to make comparisons between Clark and other American generals, there are far more obvious ones than McClellan. If you're looking for four-star generals who voiced their opinions that they had a significantly better idea of how to run a war than the president, the prime candidate is Douglas "Dugout Doug" MacArthur. MacArthur was also Supreme Allied Commander, albeit in Japan rather than in Europe (as Clark was), and he was born in Little Rock, Arkansas, where Clark grew up. Or if you want a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Forces Europe (SACEUR) with presidential aspirations, there's always Eisenhower, of course. But I think the most apt comparison to be found is with Alexander Haig. Like Clark, he is an infantryman, served in Vietnam, went on to become SACEUR, and ran for president during a time of national crisis (in 1980, while the Iranian hostage crisis was going on, and the Sovs had just rolled into Afghanistan). Where I particularly foresee history repeating itself is that Haig failed to win his party's nomination, and then accepted the position of Secretary of State in the administration of the man to whom he lost. (In Haig's case, Ronald Reagan; in Clark's case, John Kerry?) And there's certainly more of a physical resemblance between Clark and Haig than between Clark and McClellan. So why drag up McClellan? Because he's just about the only general the US Army has ever had regarding whom there is a consensus that he wasn't very good at his job. You can point out that MacArthur screwed the pooch in the Philippines and Korea, or that Patton's higher degree of aggressiveness than Montgomery's may have been helped by the fact that Patton could count on his casualties to be replaced, whereas Montgomery knew that the British manpower reserves were as good as drained, and Westmoreland, yeah well, and you can be certain somebody will disagree. But McClellan, well, there's not much good to say about McClellan as a general (though I understand he was quite a good railway engineer), and he happened to run as a Democrat (never mind the fact that the parties' identities were bit different 140 years ago). So if you're a Republican looking to smear someone like Clark, there's only one general to choose. It's rather vile. Anyway, the quiz hasn't changed my stance on candidates; I'd like to see a Democrat—any Democrat—win the election, and I'd prefer that Democrat to be Kerry or Clark, or maybe even Edwards. I would certainly prefer it not to be Dean. Kucinich, Sharpton and Lieberman don't stand a chance, in my opinion. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
