The big to do over Kerry's Vietnam record

Good comments on the McCain thread below. Are the charges against Kerry's record lies or not?

I was thinking about it last night after Macon sent me his latest post (on the Kerry camp saying the publisher should pull 'Unfit for Command'). I'll start by responding thereto:

1. Calling for a book to be pulled is probably a bad idea.
2. Tying Kerry's fitness to command to his Vietnam service is too simplistic. However, I think the Kerry campaign set the tone for this debate when that was the main illustration of what was most certainly their top talking point.
   
3. I'm sure what they meant to do is contrast it with President Bush's service record, and this is a legitimate point.
4. I have concluded that what this is really about is Kerry's antiwar protests. Many veterans don't want a commander in chief who said and did the things Kerry did re: the Vietnam War. 'He did accuse fellow servicemen of war crimes; he was a leader in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group headed by a fraudulent "veteran" who was a far-left ideologue; the North Vietnamese did use Kerry's public statements to demoralize American prisoners of war.' Another legitimate point.
5. Kerry had a lot of reasons to protest the Vietnam War. There were war crimes, undoubtedly. My major objection to the conduct of the Vietnam War is the political side (no surprise). There were a lot of lies, some for good reasons in the eyes of those who lied, but lies nonetheless. Another execrable political aspect: the lack of a determination to win that led to conflicting goals in the military execution of the way. It conflicted those putting their lives on the line, and the results were and have been terrible.
   
6. It's awfully hard to support the troops and criticize a war at the same time. But I think this is legitimate. I know soldiers take it personally, and it would be very hard not to.
7. Unfortunately, this debate has become too simplified in the media. The headline is about service records and not about the issues, including criticism of Vietnam.

So, I conclude that Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. As Macon's post says, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. In addition, I think the bulk of the evidence points that way. I think veteran objections to Kerry's antiwar record have driven the re-examination of his service record.

I don't have a problem with Kerry's criticism of Vietnam. The organization he was in might have had a sketchy guy. There may be other things that detract. But I would much rather have someone who thinks critically about war and the attendant problems than someone who does not. I'd like to hear more nuance from President Bush on these kinds of issues. The fact is, when you take on a war, you get into things like the difficutly of winning 'hearts and minds' and 'the peace' during an occupation. You get war crimes, like the Abu Ghraib prison. These potential and resultant problems, not to mention the Law of Unintended Consequences, should contribute to going to war being a last resort (though way short of unacceptable compromise).

Actually, what diminishes my estimation of Kerry most is his political posturing relative to his service record and his antiwar protestations.

So, one way of thinking about the decision that faces us (on this issue) is: do you want a president who served bravely in Vietnam, later protested it, and subsequently compromised in political posturing or a president who served during Vietnam, has had little to say about the negative realities of that war or this one, and has compromised in his political posturing?

For my part, the politics makes both choices distasteful.


Update: Jason has a very interesting post referencing this one that talks about Stanley Fish's view of minimalism.