SILVERMAN: Military experience not only factor for commander in chief
By Craig Silverman, Special to the Rocky
Published August 26, 2008 at 7:12 p.m.
Would Barack Obama or John McCain be a better commander in chief? Only one has military experience. However, the analysis cannot end there.
A president should be supersmart, do his homework and listen to divergent views. Obama was a top student at Harvard Law School. McCain graduated fifth from the bottom in his Annapolis class. Obama is renowned for being a good listener. McCain has been described as temperamental.
Famous military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “Never forget that no military leader has ever become great without audacity. If the leader is filled with high ambition and if he pursues his aims with audacity and strength of will, he will reach them in spite of all obstacles.” Obama is known for his audacity.
Some sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome point to a speech in which Obama asked rhetorically about contradictions between the Sermon on the Mount and the Defense Department. Is Obama anti-Christian or anti-military? I don’t think so. Just read Obama’s entire June 28, 2006, Call to Renewal speech to understand the context and good questions he was raising.
Please also read John McCain’s autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, where he writes, “I resolved to follow the conventional course to command. With a country at war, that course led to Vietnam. The best way to raise my profile as an aviator, perhaps the only way, was to achieve a creditable combat record. I was eager to begin. ...
“More than professional considerations lay beneath my desire to go to war. Nearly all the men in my family had made their reputations at war. It was my family’s pride. And the Naval Academy, with its celebration of martial valor, had penetrated enough of my defenses to recall me to that honor. I wanted to go [sic] Vietnam and to keep faith with the family tree.”
There was scant discussion of the correctness of the Vietnam War in McCain’s book, but for an acknowledgment toward the end that “It was a shameful waste to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through awful afflictions and heartache, for a cause that half the country didn’t believe in and our leaders weren’t committed to winning.”
Two good men are running for president. Each has support from former military leaders. As for active-duty troops overseas, they have given money 6 to 1 in favor of Obama. It will be interesting to see who gets the endorsement of America’s most famous former general, Colin Powell. Stay tuned.
Craig Silverman is a lawyer and co-host of KHOW radio’s Caplis & Silverman Show.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 27, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
By what evidence do you claim that Obama is out collecting campaign donations amongst US Military? The only source you could use is FEC reports, but there is a dollar amount below which the occupation of the donors doesn't need to be reported.
Given that individual Democrat donations tend to be much larger than individual Republican donations, you can't get an accurate count of which candidate actually gets the most dollars.
Furthermore, given that openly supporting political candidates and causes is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we can see why military donors tend to not to disclose their occupation when they have a choice. That and the low pay our troops get shows why most don't give to any candidate but most will still vote.
In fact, history shows us that anywhere from 75% to 90% of the military will vote for the Republican candidate - regardless of who is that Republican.
Campaign donations from the military is an extremely poor measuring stick to determine military support for any candidate.