Crossing the line from Soldiering to campaigning

Back in my home state, there is a guy running for elected office who is a member of the Reserves, who recently deployed to Iraq, and, in my opinion, is milking that deployment for every political point that he can score with it. (I am omitting his name, party affiliation, and office sought so that this won’t look like a politically motivated thread.)

I heard one of his commercials which said (paraphrasing) that as an Iraq war vet, he thinks that we need to drill for oil off our shores in order to protect our national security interests. As an Iraq war vet? What does that have to do with it?

This guy’s wife was campaigning for him in his stead while he was deployed recently and made sure to make it clear at every event and on every commercial that she was speaking for him because he was in Iraq. One could make a good case that his deployment was basically a taxpayer-funded campaign stunt. That seems to be 80% of this guy’s campaign: vote for me because I served in Iraq.

This really rubs me the wrong way because it seems, in my view, to be very bad for civil-military relations, bad for the state of the military profession in general, and encouraging political opportunists to use their political connections to score low-risk deployments just to pad their resumes (which this guy may have done).

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Schmedlap:

Quote:

---

One could make a good case that his deployment was basically a taxpayer-funded campaign stunt.

---

Been a whole lot of that going on, by both parties. It's nothing new - go back to right after WWII, and you will see that almost every new candidate being slated back then had to have some type of military service.

The difference is these days, the parties are pretty shameless about it - and honestly, if you talk to the candidates afterwards (privately), many of them feel they got used, and used badly.

Personally, I think both parties are doing a terrible disservice by slating many of these candidates, not because they aren't capable of doing the job if elected, but most of the time these men and women are being slated (used) as nothing more than election "cannon fodder"/"stalking horses" in races that would be extremely difficult for them to win in almost any circumstances. Basically, most of the time, the parties are trying to use these returning veterans to 'steal' a seat.

Funny thing is that in a party's 'safe' districts, both parties are slating the "old reliables" instead of these returning vets, because the returning vets aren't 'owned' by the different special interest groups.

If you've been deployed, one tends to end up placing a higher value on practicality than on ideology, and that's not something our current political environment seems to value.:(

Not a good thing.

How about we turn it on its head, and force each and every political candidate to deploy for a year prior to running for office, during time of war.

Can't say I wouldn't enjoy seeing some of those guys humping a ruck while in full battle-rattle at 140 degree F.

You'd just end up with a ton of well-connected staff officers who did little more than send blazing releases to the press (look at the Civil War if you doubt that....).:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

This really rubs me the wrong way because it seems, in my view, to be very bad for civil-military relations, bad for the state of the military profession in general, and encouraging political opportunists to use their political connections to score low-risk deployments just to pad their resumes (which this guy may have done).

Any thoughts?

---

My guess, Mess Kit Repair Company, Spoon Platoon, Polishing Squad. Buffer "Fire" team leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony Hoh

My guess, Mess Kit Repair Company, Spoon Platoon, Polishing Squad. Buffer "Fire" team leader.

---

Your hunch is about right, though I think you underestimate the cushiness of the job. I purposely omitted his duty position because I do not want to denigrate anyone's contribution. I think it is important that the military continue to reinforce the reverence in which we hold the warfighters who are nearest to the tip of the spear because it fosters a climate in which the people in the most danger are guaranteed the most support and attention. But, like most things, there needs to be some balance so that we do not denigrate the contributions of those farther from the tip, because they are human beings, they are doing their jobs, and usually the job serves an important function, even if it is not all that dangerous.

That said, the cushiness of the assignment, coupled with the immaculate timing, is what gives me the impression that this call to active duty was due more to the needs of the party than the needs of the military. I hope that I am wrong.

For better or worse, I doubt that this guy will get elected. My quandary is whether to vote for him - whom I regard as a political opportunist (but I cannot be 100% sure) - or for his opponent, who is a virulent anti-war nutbar (in my opinion) who opposes all of our military actions simply out of disdain for the President. Maybe I will just cast yet another vote for Mickey Mouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Back in my home state, there is a guy running for elected office who is a member of the Reserves, who recently deployed to Iraq, and, in my opinion, is milking that deployment for every political point that he can score with it. (I am omitting his name, party affiliation, and office sought so that this won’t look like a politically motivated thread.)

I heard one of his commercials which said (paraphrasing) that as an Iraq war vet, he thinks that we need to drill for oil off our shores in order to protect our national security interests. As an Iraq war vet? What does that have to do with it?

This guy’s wife was campaigning for him in his stead while he was deployed recently and made sure to make it clear at every event and on every commercial that she was speaking for him because he was in Iraq. One could make a good case that his deployment was basically a taxpayer-funded campaign stunt. That seems to be 80% of this guy’s campaign: vote for me because I served in Iraq.

This really rubs me the wrong way because it seems, in my view, to be very bad for civil-military relations, bad for the state of the military profession in general, and encouraging political opportunists to use their political connections to score low-risk deployments just to pad their resumes (which this guy may have done).

Any thoughts?

---

Are you talking about Duncan Hunter of San Diego, CA?

but as I recall, Lyndon Johnson went to the Pacific for a short visit during WWII. MacArthur sent him on a single bombing mission and awarded him the Silver Star for his bravery (There was apparently no contact, and no one else on the crew rec'd squat).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Eagle

but as I recall, Lyndon Johnson went to the Pacific for a short visit during WWII. MacArthur sent him on a single bombing mission and awarded him the Silver Star for his bravery (There was apparently no contact, and no one else on the crew rec'd squat).

---

Quote:

---

After America entered the war in December 1941, Johnson, still in Congress, became a commissioned officer in the Navy Reserves, then asked Undersecretary of the Navy James Forrestal for a combat assignment.[13] Instead he was sent to inspect the shipyard facilities in Texas and on the West Coast. In the spring of 1942, President Roosevelt needed his own reports on what conditions were like in the Southwest Pacific. Roosevelt felt information that flowed up the military chain of command needed to be supplemented by a highly trusted political aide. From a suggestion by Forrestal, President Roosevelt assigned Johnson to a three-man survey team of the Southwest Pacific.

Johnson reported to General Douglas MacArthur in Australia. Johnson and two Army officers went to the 22nd Bomb Group base, which was assigned the high risk mission of bombing the Japanese airbase at Lae in New Guinea. A colonel took Johnson's original seat on one bomber, and it was shot down with no survivors. Reports vary on what happened to the B-26 Marauder carrying Johnson. Some accounts say it was also attacked by Japanese fighters but survived, while others, including other members of the flight crew, claim it turned back due to generator trouble before reaching the objective and before encountering enemy aircraft and never came under fire, which is supported by official flight records.[14] Other airplanes that continued to the target did come under fire near the target at about the same time that Johnson's plane was recorded as having landed back at the original airbase.[14] MacArthur awarded LBJ the Silver Star, the military's third-highest medal, although it is notable that no other members of the flight crew were awarded medals, and it is unclear what Johnson could have done in his role purely as an "observer" to deserve the medal, even if his aircraft had seen combat.

Johnson's biographer, Robert Caro, stated, "The most you can say about Lyndon Johnson and his Silver Star is that it is surely one of the most undeserved Silver Stars in history. Because if you accept everything that he said, he was still in action for no more than 13 minutes and only as an observer. Men who flew many missions, brave men, never got a Silver Star."

---

from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_...son#War_record

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso

Are you talking about Duncan Hunter of San Diego, CA?

---

No. This is not an incumbent. (Hunter, as I recall, served in Vietnam; and I think he may be a bit too old and/or no longer in the military - not even the reserves).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

No. This is not an incumbent. (Hunter, as I recall, served in Vietnam; and I think he may be a bit too old and/or no longer in the military - not even the reserves).

---

I'm talking about Duncan, Jr. He is a captain in the USMC-R. He is running for his dad's seat. He was in Afghanistan, last I knew. His wife was carrying on the campaign while he was deployed. I served with him in '02-'03.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso

I'm talking about Duncan, Jr. He is a captain in the USMC-R. He is running for his dad's seat. He was in Afghanistan, last I knew. His wife was carrying on the campaign while he was deployed. I served with him in '02-'03.

---

That sounds similar, but it's not the individual whom I am referring to. I recently learned that this guy managed to get out about 8 to 10 press releases about his return on mid-tour leave. I still wonder - when is the line crossed from Soldiering to campaigning. It seems like nothing more than a campaign stunt when a deployment suddenly arises at a time that is suspiciously convenient, involves little to no danger, mid-tour leave becomes a well-choreographed event, the wife actively campaigns in his absense and uses the deployment as a centerpiece of the campaign, and then upon his return, all of his ads are about "as an Iraq war veteran, I believe..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

That sounds similar, but it's not the individual whom I am referring to. I recently learned that this guy managed to get out about 8 to 10 press releases about his return on mid-tour leave. I still wonder - when is the line crossed from Soldiering to campaigning. It seems like nothing more than a campaign stunt when a deployment suddenly arises at a time that is suspiciously convenient, involves little to no danger, mid-tour leave becomes a well-choreographed event, the wife actively campaigns in his absense and uses the deployment as a centerpiece of the campaign, and then upon his return, all of his ads are about "as an Iraq war veteran, I believe..."

---

Unfortunately for said politician, few folks care about Iraq anymore...democrat or republican. Now if he said "former wall st. banker"...

I agree entirely that this is bad for civil-military relations and the military profession. While I think it’s commendable that veterans run for and fill elective office there is a point where one can use that veteran status to cross a very tenuous line. At a time when the military needs the full trust and support of the American public, I can only guess that such trust is somehow diminished in cases like the one you describe.

I am sure many of the people who watched his commercials were thinking how impressive and noble it is of him to serve in Iraq and strive for public office at the same time. There were many others, though, who likely wondered, “why is he running a campaign and serving in Iraq at the same time—don’t his fellow soldiers and the American people deserve his undivided attention to the war?”

Whether they support the war or not, I think every single American deserves to know that service men and women are not only focused on their wartime duties, but that some individuals are not capitalizing on the extraordinary sacrifice of their comrades-in-arms for personal gain.

There may be another issue here—should any War on Terror veterans run for office while the war is still going on? (Not just those still on the reserve or guard roles but resigned/ retired active duty members as well) Is there a similar risk of damaging civil-military relations or the profession?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

I regard as a political opportunist (but I cannot be 100% sure)

---

My dad was a pol in the Northeast and trust me he never missed an opportunity to tout both his brief Army service during Korea (although he only spent time at Dix, Benning, and USMA) and my Marine Corps service in his campaigns.

It is the very rare politician, at the state level and above, who is not a political opportunist in every sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TMG

There may be another issue here—should any War on Terror veterans run for office while the war is still going on? (Not just those still on the reserve or guard roles but resigned/ retired active duty members as well) Is there a similar risk of damaging civil-military relations or the profession?

---

Good question. I would say yes, so long as they do it without politicizing the war and so long as their service was not a premeditated act to bolster their campaigns. The latter determination can only be judged with certainty by the candidates themselves. It underscores the need for the military to sustain and improve rigorous coaching of its leaders regarding how to make ethical decisions and to screen and weed out those unable or unwilling to do so.

The following gives us some perspective on numbers and the "pol-vet" process. Seems a balanced article.

Quote:

---

Government Executive
Both parties court military veteran candidates as wars continue
By Otto Kreisher
CongressDaily
October 3, 2008

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan hot issues in the national elections, both parties have tried to recruit military veterans to run in congressional races.
.....
At least 52 veterans -- about half of whom have served in the current conflicts and some who still are active in the National Guard or reserves -- ran as non-incumbents in House and Senate primaries across the nation. At least 33 of those veterans have survived into the general elections, where they will join about 100 incumbents with military service who are seeking re-election.
....
At the beginning of this session, 30 senators and 100 House members claimed military service, including time in the reserves or Guard. One of those died and 17 are retiring, are seeking other offices or were defeated in primaries. ...

---

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cf...d=41126&sid=60

Here is how one "pol-vet" candidate approaches the political process - his webpage is here.

http://www.summersforcongress.org/

Here are comments by three major newspapers, when he entered the race in 2007.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mai...eyes_congress/

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/07/06/cq_3024.html

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.co...s/4163525.html

Up to you guys to judge whether he flunks or passes the military officer ethics test - it's not my department.

From the NY Times article

Quote:

---

The purpose of the general ban, according to Major Mike Backus, a spokesman of the Maine Army National Guard, is that candidates are “not supposed to use their uniform for gain in a political venue.”

---

I think that he flunks that test.

From the Kennebec Journal article...

Quote:

---

To be sure, the military assignment put a big crimp in his political ambitions. On the other hand, who among his political rivals, present or potential, is going to attack him for failing to show up to debate the issues in person? Anyone who even edges close to such criticism will only remind voters about what he's doing instead... But it makes no sense to count him out of the 2008 Republican primary just because he's not around to actively campaign. Perhaps especially so. (emphasis mine)

---

This is why I noted earlier that it can only be judged with certainty by the candidates themselves whether the "service was not a premeditated act to bolster their campaigns." You cannot "prove" it, but it sure looks fishy. I guess that is why I was taught, from my first year of ROTC until my last year in the Army, that we must not commit unethical acts and avoid the appearance of unethical acts. I used to think the second half of that was a bit unreasonable, but now I see why it made sense.