War Hero?

The Christian Science Monitor offers a fascinating commentary by two professors who argue that we're too quick to pronounce men such as McCain as "war heroes." The authors contend:

The public has treated McCain's record in Vietnam and his status as a war hero as something unchangeable. But placing his sacrifice beyond the pale of criticism also implicitly places the cause he served beyond the pale, and that hushes important dialogue.

McCain's heroism stems entirely from Vietnam. McCain was brave in captivity, but he and his fellow pilots dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all those dropped in World War II, leading to the conclusion that "we had to destroy Vietnam in order to save it." But he did not acknowledge the war itself as immoral. Had he engaged in such "straight talk" about the war itself, or if we had a more enlightened concept of heroism, he might not be getting so close to becoming the next president.

It's a compelling read. I'll have to disagree with their view that Democrats can stop getting labeled as softies if they can just illustrate more effectively how some wars would be wrong to enter into. The fact is that human beings like going to war, they like worrying about the threats posed by outsiders, and the only time they ever believe a war is bad is in hindsight. I say that as a former pacifist who is no longer a pacifist because I'm tired of arguing with simple human nature. If we didn't fight wars, we'd find some other way to annoy each other to death. Maybe that explains reality TV.