ON FEB. 28, 1969, Lt. John Kerry led three Navy patrol boats up the Dong Cung River, delivering a group of local fighters to a dangerous region at the southern end of Vietnam's Ca Mau Peninsula. After dropping off his passengers, Kerry continued upriver to protect them from ambush, but his boat soon came under fire from Viet Cong guerillas on the riverbank. Weary of taking potshots from a faceless enemy, Kerry ordered his boat beached at the at the point of attack, where the crew came face to face with a Viet Cong fighter armed with a rocket launcher. After a moment's confusion, Kerry leapt from his boat, chased the startled enemy into the jungle and killed him, sparing future boats a rocket attack and earning himself a Silver Star.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush was in the midst of a shiftless phase of life that he has since described as his "nomadic" period, a time that saw the future president play at business and politics while serving as a part-time pilot in the Air National Guard. Indeed, Bush's primary activities during this period seem to have been drinking and dating, with a likely bit of drug use on the side.
The contrast between Kerry's heroism and Bush's relative indolence has been the primary currency of political debate lately, as Americans weigh the importance of combat experience in a wartime president. But before pronouncing Kerry the winner of this battle of resumés, it's worth remembering that neither man will be called upon to shoot anyone during the war on terrorism.
Whatever the symbolic value of battlefield heroics, the presidency is a desk job, demanding no physical courage but that for shaking hands on the campaign trail. Why then has Kerry made such effective use of his status as a decorated veteran? And why are Bush's handlers so preoccupied with questions of his own service history that they released the president's military dental records in order to show that he fulfilled his duties to the Guard?
The answer lies in the unusual role that Bush has claimed in the war on terrorism. Appearing last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Bush described himself as a war president, making foreign policy decisions in the Oval Office with war on his mind. But Bush has never been content to make war from his office, in the fashion of other commanders in chief. Rather, he has presented himself time and again as a frontline soldier in the war on terrorism, America's knight in shining armor and its champion in the fight against Islamic radicalism.
From his surprise visit to Baghdad to his fighter jet landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln to his "Bring 'em on!" speech last summer, Bush has delighted in playing soldier with America's armed forces. Appearing in full military regalia and surrounding himself with the symbols of American might, Bush has sold himself to the voters as no mere political leader, but an active participant in the war on terrorism, making war and meeting threats just like a real soldier. Given Bush's penchant for acting a hero, one might expect to find some real bravery behind his martial pomp, and so his military record has become the subject of public scrutiny even though it has little bearing on his ability to lead the war on terrorism.
Come January, neither Bush nor Kerry will be asked to chase terrorists through the trackless desert or pull rogue leaders from their underground hiding places. Rather, the next president will be asked to conduct the war on terrorism as a politician, setting goals, giving orders and standing back while the military does the rest. But whatever the value of combat experience in a wartime president, the gap between Bush's image and Bush's biography is symbolic of the smoke and mirrors that have marked his entire prosecution of the war on terrorism. A president who acts like a civilian can be forgiven a lack of military service, but America has no need of an action figure president who's never seen action.
Alec Solotorovsky's column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached at asolotorovsky@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
