Blogs and Stories
McCain Never Called Himself A Hero
A McCain biographer rips apart a young veteran’s attack on the senator from The Daily Beast yesterday.
On The Daily Beast yesterday, Iraq veteran Christopher Brownfield ends his “Open Letter to John McCain” by saying that, as a graduate of the Naval Academy and an Iraqi veteran, he’s “earned” the right to voice his opinions. True, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. The John McCain he describes bears no resemblance to the man I’ve covered and interviewed now for almost a decade.
For much of his political career, John McCain has been the target of attacks from fellow veterans. Most of these attacks have grown out of the work he did with Senator John Kerry on the issue of MIAs and POWs who remained unaccounted for after the Vietnam War. When a Senate committee McCain and Kerry co-chaired found there was “no credible evidence” any American MIAs or POWs remained in Vietnam, they were viciously criticized by veterans who believed there were. When McCain recommended to President Bill Clinton that the United States should normalize relations with Vietnam, the attacks from those veterans only intensified.
For much of his political career, John McCain has been the target of attacks from fellow veterans.
Now, with Brownfield, we have a new type of attack: hero-worshiper, disillusioned by McCain the politician, strikes out at McCain the hero. First of all, McCain himself has never set himself up to be a hero. In the numerous interviews I’ve done with him through the years, I have brought up the issue of heroism. “Do you consider yourself a hero?” I asked him once. “No,” he replied, “but it’s been my great privilege to serve in the company of heroes.” He was referring to his fellow prisoners of war with whom he served in the Hanoi Hilton during the Vietnam War—a hellacious experience foreign to the vast majority of American servicemen, Brownfield included.
Specifically, Brownfield complains that at the Naval Academy midshipman McCain’s legendarily aberrant behavior—his bad attitude and unwillingness to excel landed him fifth from the bottom of his graduating class, a distinction about which he often jokes himself—was overlooked by his superiors because of who he was. That may be true, but few families have given more to the American military than the McCains.
McCain’s grandfather, Admiral John Sidney McCain, helped Admiral Halsey win the war in the Pacific during World War II. McCain was so spent because of the pressure he had been under during the fighting that he dropped dead of a heart attack days after the war ended. (McCain’s standing in the military warranted a front-page obituary in The New York Times.) Then McCain’s father, John Sidney McCain Jr., rose through the ranks of the Navy, reaching the rank of admiral. When he earned his fourth star, the McCains became the only family in American history to have a father and a son achieve the status of four-star admiral. And when your entire lineage is defined by the military, as was the case when midshipman John Sidney McCain III entered the United States Naval Academy—there was a McCain on the officer staff of General George Washington during the Revolutionary War—it’s hard for your superiors to ignore who your are, or what almost unparalleled contribution your family has made to the American military.
Secondly, Brownfield wants to call into question McCain’s behavior as a Navy pilot following an explosion that resulted in a deadly catastrophe on the USS Forrestal—a now notorious episode in military history. From the accounts I’ve read, after the accidental misfire of a rocket that caused the explosion of an airplane next to McCain’s, McCain escaped his plane and then the inferno, after which he helped rescue other sailors and pilots before he assisted throwing overboard bombs that could have exploded in the fire that was raging on the ship. McCain continued such duties until the fire was under control. “But with the fire out and the crew in chaos,” Brownfield writes in his letter, “you [McCain] left the Forrestal, catching a press helicopter off and reporting for duty to a front-page celebrity interview with The New York Times.”
There’s a fundamental problem with this disingenuous sentence. As a veteran of the military, Brownfield knows no serviceman simply decides to “catch” a helicopter off a ship or “report for duty” for a newspaper interview—both of which would represent a clear violation of the chain of commend for which the serviceman could be reprimanded, perhaps severely. Brownfield knows that a serviceman can depart a ship in a helicopter or give a press interview only on the orders of his superiors, who had clearly decided that the best way to put a positive face on the horrific disaster of the burning of the Forrestal was with McCain—the son and grandson of American military royalty.
In point of fact, following the Forrestal fire, McCain had a choice to remain with the ship, which was returning to port for repairs. But he decided to ask for a transfer to the USS Oriskany, a request his superiors granted. It was while he was flying airplanes off the Oriskany that he was shot down over Hanoi. His five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton could have been avoided, had he remained on the Forrestal.
Finally, in his letter Brownfield shifts forward in time—what McCain’s service at the Naval Academy and on the Forrestal and his tenure as a senator has to do with each other is never made clear—and questions McCain’s statesmanship for an amendment he did not write. In 2005, the United States Senate passed by an overwhelming majority the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Attached to the bill was an amendment commonly known as the Detainee Treatment Act—an amendment, authored by McCain, that prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including those at Guantanamo Bay. Also attached to the appropriations bill was the Graham-Levin Amendment. Written by Senators Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, the legislation allows evidence obtained through torture to be used by the Department of Defense. Because McCain voted for the overriding bill, he has been criticized for supporting Graham-Levin, which he did not write—criticism Brownfield repeats.













McCain nonetheless supported legislation - even if he did not write it - that supported the use of torture as a legitimate interrogation technique. That he could support the same techniques being applied to prisoners held by the US that he had to endure at the hands of the North Vietnamese is abhorrent. The inextricably linked issues of Guantanamo Bay and Torture have done more than anything else to undermine the moral high ground that the US held before the disastrous Bush Administration. John McCain has sold his soul over the last eight years and he should be ashamed of himself for it.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection between Christopher Brownfield's original article and this rebuttal. Brownfield never claimed that McCain set himself up as a hero, only that he viewed him as one.
Brownfield pointed out that McCain recieved special attention not because of his own merits, but those of his forefathers. Instead of rebutting this, you're only elaborating on the merits of his father and grandfather. At no point, Mr. Alexander are you defending the behavior that Brownfield called out.
And you seem to imply that by leaving the Forrestal for the Oriskany that McCain was setting himself up for heroism. You seem to say, "If only McCain had done the cowardly thing and stayed with his ship, he would have avoided capture and torture, but he was brave and went anyway." As if McCain was clairvoyant. It is true that this choice had huge ramifications on his life, and that he must have known there were risks involved. But the choice to move to the Oriskany was not indicative of strong character.
Personally I don't know enough about McCain's past. I have not read the books Brownfield cites (I notice you have not listed any yourself) and I can't make an informed judgement on past character. But I don't see that this rebuttal acutally addresses any of the specific points that Brownfield raised.
The Forrestal could just have easily been hijacked and the Oriskany sailed free, Kaitou. McCain went where he thought he was needed. The what ifs have nothing to do with being a coward or a hero.
Alexander should know about dis-ingenuousness, since he practices it in this reply to Brownfield's perceptive letter.
To say that McCain had little or nothing to do with an amendment sponsored by his longtime closest ally, Lindsey Graham, is disingenuous in the extreme. It seems to me very likely that McCain put Graham up to his ploy in order to maintain the "cover" that he actually rejected torture as a useful tool.
Meanwhile, Brownfield and Alexander could do us all a service by providing crucial details about McCain's being shot down over Hanoi. Given his admittedly immature, reckless, and undisciplined nature, then and now, I wonder what led to McCain being shot down over Hanoi. What exactly were his orders that day, and was he following them? Did he have a legitimate reason to be where he was? Was he doing what was expected of him? Or was his flight another impetuous display of his legendary temper that went terribly wrong?
The answers are especially relevant when McCain's "heroic" service in Vietnam, and his horrendous five years as a prisoner are cited as his sole "executive experience," as it must be since he has no other, and is his main qualification to become Chief Executive.
Abby, I agree with you completely. And I hope I'm not making it sound like Senator McCain wasn't knowingly putting himself at risk, and shouldn't be commended for that. I'm just not seeing a logical link, as explained in this article, between the decision to transfer and later events. He risked his life on every mission he was on. By saying that he 'could have avoided' his capture by not transferring makes it sound as if McCain could know that by serving on the Oriskany instead of the Forrestal that it would inevitably lead to his capture and torture, and chose to do so anyway. That this decision to transfer was indicative of greater bravery than he had already shown.
As I said in my last post, I don't feel like I know enough about the situation myself, and I don't think that this article is written in a way to refute what Brownfield wrote in his own article. I certainly respect Senator McCain's service, both in Vietnam and afterwards, I am sure I could not as much myself. But I think this article defends him poorly by not addressing Brownfield's concerns directly. The only point where Mr. Alexander clearly counters a point is speaking to why McCain was called to an interview. I'd like to see a clear counter-arguement to the rest.
Amazing Mac is willing to continue absorbing the abuse. He is either a fool for punishment (doubtful) or an honourable man of great character.
Paul Alexander's comment, and the one that instigated it, raise an issue I have often wondered about, but have not seen explored. Specifically, do we know exactly what led to John McCain's incarceration in North Vietnam?
Given his intemperate, undisciplined, immature behavior prior to that fateful day when he was shot down, does the record show that he was actually following orders? Was he where he was supposed to be, and doing what he was supposed to be doing? Or was he "hot-dogging" for some impetuous reasons? Was his notoriously poor judgment putting him into harm's way? I have never seen any indication that the Navy decorated him for his presumably heroic performance. Did I just miss it?
I don't claim to have any answers to these questions, but I find it interesting that they have not, to my knowledge been asked previously. As a McCain biographer, perhaps Paul Alexander can enlighten us.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.