John Aravosis at Americablog asks, in a headline, Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military? stating “It’s not “nice” to ask the question, but it’s actually a pretty good question.”

Ok, I will grant that being a POW does not equal direct preparation for being President of the United States, nor does it tell one anything about the person’s military record prior to capture, but I fail to see how bringing it up in this way is a) much of an argument or b) damaging to McCain.

There is little doubt that this particular portion of McCain biography is powerful and generates sympathy (reasons enough for political opponents of McCain to leave it alone). Further, because he withstood the torture that was unleashed upon him, and refused to be released early as well as refused to be used as a tool of North Vietnamese propaganda,¹ all speak to strength of character, which certainly is evidence of leadership potential, and therefore a possible reason why he should the whole affair can be seen as an argument for his readiness to be the President.

Beyond that, having been a soldier in tough times might make him more empathetic to the plight of our soldiers currently in battle, and having been tortured should make him more prone to refuse Bush administration policies in terms of prisoner treatment. As such, this slice of biography is no small line in the resume that he is proffering to the American people.

As such, I am sure that the McCain campaign is ecstatic that supporters for Obama are going around raising the question of McCain’s military service.

And the Blogosphere isn’t the only place that the issue is being raised. General Wesley Clark is also bringing it up, as he did on Face the Nation this weekend (source: the Politico):

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

To be fair, is anyone saying that being shot down is what makes McCain qualified? Not only is that a simplification, it has (like the Americablog post noted above) the potential to simultaneously make Clark look bad for seeming to be dismissive of McCain’s war record while reminding people of that record. None of this is smart politics.²

I concur with James Joyner: “it’s a dangerous game for him [Obama] to send out surrogates to minimize McCain’s service.” And while Obama may not have known that that was what Clark was going to say, the bottom line is that that Obama campaign need to try and control the message that their allies are spreading, especially in major venues like the Sunday shows.

Ben Smith at the Politico looks into some examples of this issue here: Some on left target McCain’s war record.

I can see, at this stage, nothing fruitful for the Obama camp coming from attacks on McCain’s military service. The only thing that is vaguely useful for them is that Viet Nam was a long time ago, and it may underscore McCain’s age. However, there are plenty of other ways to do that. They also have to remember that the reason that John Kerry’s military service was a viable avenue for attack is what Kerry did after he returned from Viet Nam. Kerry’s antiwar activities retroactively tainted his military service in the eyes of many. McCain’s tenure as a tortured POW practically sanctifies his military service. As such, Obama and his allies would be wise to forget using it as a fruitful route for critique.

1. Yes, there was at least one anti-American statement that McCain made after being tortured, but he also took beatings when he refused to do other such statements. Further, the fact that he refused early release if his fellow captives where not also released demonstrated a great deal of character. He refused special treatment that he could have received because his father was an admiral. [↩]
2. As a side note, bringing up McCain’s lack of executive experience (“he hasn’t held executive responsibility”) doesn’t exactly help Clark’s preferred candidate, either. As such, more “unsmartness.” [↩]