The McCain Charade

Almost without fail, whenever the subject of John McCain comes up in discussion, someone is bound to mention "war hero" in conjunction with the presumptive Republican nominee for President. His military record--especially time spent as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam--are above reproach. That he is a bona fide hero is taken for granted, and to criticize his military record is viewed as borderline treasonous.

But what makes a hero a hero? It's a simple question, really. I've heard the term "hero" used more often, and in so many different cases, that the term has become saturated and devoid of meaning. Rather than re-state the bulk of Steve's argument about the misuse of the term "honor," I'm going to instead concentrate McCain's military service...the details of which have earned him a spot in the pantheon of great American warriors.

At the heart of my argument against McCain's alleged heroism are his actions during the Vietnam War. McCain flew upwards of 23 bombing missions over Vietnam prior to his capture, undoubtedly killing hundreds (if not thousands) of Vietnamese civilians. By any other measure, McCain's actions would be classified as murder. Under the "fog of war," however, McCain is branded a hero. I remain unconvinced of McCain's heroism, for reasons brilliantly stated by Scott L. Field:

"There is in fact no "moral equivalence" created by examining coterminous violent and repulsive acts. The notion of moral equivalence is a mistake, because it undermines our notions of personal responsibility and law. Each act of killing is its own act, not something to be heaped like produce on a balancing scale."

As an individualist and a libertarian, personal responsibility and law comprise the core of my beliefs. Under libertarian ideology, acts of aggression--especially unprovoked killing--are anathema to a free and peaceful society. Generalities such as the "fog of war" and "greater good" are counterintuitive, especially considering McCain had ample opportunity to see his vicious acts for what they were: indiscriminate killing for killing's sake.

The case of "McCain as murderer" is not an easy one to make. The majority of my adult life has been spent in the military, and the majority of my friends have military experience as well. For a long time I never questioned McCain's actions in Vietnam, probably due to a conflict of interest.

Nearly every one of my friends with whom I've discussed this has said that McCain is not at fault for murdering civilians. The argument goes something like this: McCain was ordered to fly those missions, and America was at war. We can't possibly have soldiers disobeying orders during wartime, can we? The more simplistic arguments use a combination of "war just sucks" and "if McCain refused to go on those missions, someone else would have bombed them instead."

My answer to the above questions--especially the one about disobeying orders during wartime--is yes. Although unpopular, refusing to kill civilians is not only the right thing to do, it's the legal thing to do. As a former military officer, I was constantly bombarded with Orwellian phrases challenging me to think for myself, while in reality the only thing demanded of me--and any military officer--was strict compliance with military procedure. That McCain's heroism would be easier for me to accept had he refused to murder Vietnamese civilians goes without saying...but somehow I doubt his life story would be as attractive to voters had he refused to kill instead of embracing the opportunity.

Another situation my friends like to use when discussing McCain's actions in Vietnam is to compare the actions of a Strike Officer (officer in charge of launching Tomahawk missiles) with that of a bomber pilot in Vietnam. Surely the Strike Officer cannot be held accountable for killing civilians simply for pushing a button, they say. The Strike Officer, like the bomber pilot, is under strict orders from his or her Commanding Officer to carry out the mission, and sometimes that mission includes killing civilians (otherwise known as "collateral damage") My argument remains the same, in spite of today's de-personalization of combat. There's no difference between pushing a button on a console, dropping napalm, or putting a gun in someone's mouth: each act of killing is it's own act, and no amount of de-personalization can correct the fact that you are willingly taking another human being's life.

Further compounding our ability to diagnose McCain's actions as murder is the absurd notion that America must now engage in preemptive warfare. This concept, often packaged as "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" or "if we don't kill them first, they'll kill us" is laughable on its face. This logical sleight-of-hand, while it has fooled many, is nothing more than a morally bankrupt excuse to wage continuous war. Under that ideology, the killing has no expiration date, and battlefields expand without limit. Where boogeymen cannot be proven, they are created.

America's warm embrace of McCain's status as a "war hero" is troubling, to say the least. While I do not dismiss McCain's tenure in a POW camp, I do not think it entitles him to "hero" status. Rather, an argument can be made that he got off easier, comparatively speaking, than those he murdered.

Ideally, I'd like to see McCain learn from his crimes and never again endorse aggressive military action in another sovereign country. Sadly, his actions speak otherwise as McCain has never met a foreign occupation/war that he didn't like...so his apology rings hollow at best. Given McCain's despicable murderous past, and utter failure to learn from it, I will forever bristle whenever I hear someone using "John McCain" and "war hero" in the same sentence.