Let's do a quick thought experiment or two. Let's take one 18 year old going to college and a second one joining the navy. The first guy finds out that in college you actually can challenge a professor. In fact, they have classes intended to do just that. The second guy goes to boot camp where they tell you what to think. In fact, it's ok to say the President is great and you like the war, but a court martial offense to say the president is a hack and we should consider why the enemy opposes us.

Years go by.

I'm on the street. One guy says, "I think we should consider that we are making a shia state in Iraq, one we probably will have to oppose later by pumping up vicious regimes like that in Saudi Arabia. Why are we there? Is this goal a likely success? What about the war on terror? Does isolatig ourselves in world opinion for dubious goals help us fight it?"

The second guy says, "Well, I was in the army. You're full of it. I was in the army, and so I'm right."

Look, before you hit me, let me say, I was in the army at the same time John McCane was in. I have three kids who also served active duty, as officers. One went to Iraq twice. But, I'm going to say something UN PC here: Lots of folks who served don't know crap about crap. You're not a genius because you served. There is a difference between respecting someone's service and yielding them the whole debate on national foreign policy.

Clark said that. Clark was right.

Of course, this is a minefield. You can't say what Clark said because the press insists upon refocussing any comment the left makes. You have to say, nicy nice about certain things. Jesse Ventura found that out when he said that the extreme religious right was weak minded. Being insightful isn't the same thing as being politically savy.

So now it's did he retract, and should he retract more, and what should Obama do, given he knows him.

But I have a better idea: Let's take this to the bank. Let's attack McCane on his fairly consistent record of opposing veterans benefits. Let's press him on the idea of keeping US forces in Iraq until the next millinium. Let's promote the idea that when it comes to supporting the troops and understanding the real issues in the middle east, John is as two-faced as Bush.

Now, let me get back to that son who is looking at that third tour in Iraq. Does John really think that he is the best thinker when he sends him back there to play target in that civil war? Did John do anything to help my son's family better endure the loss of daddy? Might my son serve our interests better if he went after bin Laudan?

This is truly all about making John off limits for the biggest foreign policy debate in contemporary history. In the mean time, our kids are dying in the cause of creating a state that we will have to oppose ten years from now.

No, being a member of the military does not give one a pass to say he is the best thinker regarding foreign policy. Sometimes, it even is a hinderance.

Fusiongary

I agree; well said.

I have to point out, though, that almost all officers of any branch attend college before receiving their commission. Most of those do not attend service academies. I went though college at the University of California, where I learned all about arguing with professors (mostly in political science and economics classes), and a quick perusal of my posts here will reveal that I'm hardly marching lock-step with the party line. :-)

In fact, I do agree with Clark. Military service alone does not qualify one to hold any position anywhere outside of one's own specialization within the ranks, and sometimes not even there. If we're going to judge McCain on anything, it needs to be relevant to the office to which he aspires; such as his political record. Were I to run for office, I wouldn't assume that my service has given me any special knowledge about politics. By the same token, I know what a Nash equilibrium is and that it gives me some insight into certain political situations, but I know that it doesn't qualify me to employ Harpoon missiles effectively. Why would it? The prinicples of strategy might be nearly universal, but their employment in such diverse fields requires specific training.