Does Military Service Really Matter?

It seems that the topic of the week in the US Presidential election race is military service. For whatever reason, there seems to be a belief that someone's service in the military 30+ years ago has a bearing on their ability to serve as President of the United States today.

This week, the Democrats have been sliming Bush's brief tenure in the National Guard. Last week, it's been the Republicans trying to marginalize Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam.

The question in my mind - does it really matter? I find it's a bit of a 'yes-and-no' thing. Yes it matters, but not because it demonstrates that one or the other is fit to take on an executive command role. At most, I think it may speak somewhat to the character of the candidates. Kerry went into a dangerous situation, and apparently performed well - or at least so the written record shows. Bush spent a short tour in the National Guard, but the records are perhaps less than complete, and the reports are somewhat less than glowing in their praise of his commitment to the endeavor.

The mud-slinging over military service thirty odd years ago seems petty and foolish. Would such a big issue of military service be made if the candidates were women? I doubt it. If the discussion has any relevance at all, it is purely in the realm of their character 30 years ago. In as much as leopards seldom change their spots, past behaviour is perhaps the best indicator of future habits.

Both men have significant track records in public life - Bush as Governor of Texas; Kerry as a Senator.

Where Kerry can be accused of 'flip-flopping' on issues; Bush can be equally accused of being rigid and inflexible.

If Kerry bends with the winds as he sees them, Bush seems unwilling and unable to compromise - it's his way or no way.

I don't know enough about Kerry's alleged 'flip-flops' to really know if they are truly significant or not. I'll assume that they are not (were there riders on those bills that he wanted to pass?), just as I assume that Bush's service in the National Guard is fundamentally irrelevant to today.

Ideally, I like to feel that the politicians leading a country are basically honest. So far, anything that Kerry has been openly challenged on has left me with the impression that he fulfils that criteria - at least as far as I can tell.

Bush on the other hand, I have a much harder time accepting as "honest". I will point to his track record as President:

1. Where was the honesty in the run up to invading Iraq? The story changed more often than the dunes of the desert.
2. When challenged today on that subject, we get a 'well we still did the right thing, Saddam's out of power now' answer. (Ah - so the ends justify the means do they?)
3. On the handling of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay and other locales, we are told that they are 'outside' of the rule of law. Even as the US court system asserts that those prisoners are in fact subject to the rule of law, Bush continues to insist that 'executive privilege' trumps all.
4. Take a long look at the Patriot Act, and what was proposed as Patriot II. Do these pieces of legislation have anything to do with security, or is it just a way to roll back civil and individual rights?
5. Look at Bush on so-called "moral" issues. His stance is obstructive at best. On stem cell research, he has effectively stale-mated any real progress; on gay marriage, he advocates admending the constitution to ban it; on the Death Penalty, he granted clemency a total of once during his time as Governor - even when it was recommended; on abortion, he would cheerfully ban it if he thought he would get away with it.

Bush's own record speaks for itself. He appears to be rigid and inflexible. Either unable or unwilling to see that other perspectives have a validity. Worse, since 9/11, he has cloaked himself in the mantle of 'War President'. I'll give him some credit - after the crisis of 9/11/01, he took some clear, and decisive action. What's unfortunate is that he has used the war in Iraq as a distraction - signing into law bits of legislation that enact parts of the Patriot II proposals while the public has been looking towards Iraq. Is that honest?

Does his legislative agenda show us a man willing to compromise? Not really. It shows us a man whose ideology and concepts of the world are so strongly entrenched that he will not bend. Even the mightiest oak must bend somewhat to the wind, or the wind will break it. I would argue that the winds are blowing rather hard right now.