Being a Veteran Is Not Enough

By Mike Nelson

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

 

“I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty.” These were the first words said by the 2004 democratic candidate for president as he stood at the podium in Boston to accept the nomination. While his speech has largely been forgotten—overshadowed by an earlier speech by a charismatic Illinois state senator running for U.S. Senate—the implication and tone of the speech were clear. The phrasing of this first sentence, and the cringe-inducing hand salute Kerry offered during it, continued an overarching message for much of Kerry’s campaign. I’m a Vietnam veteran, therefore I’m qualified to be president.

 

Kerry was making this argument in the midst of an increasingly unpopular Iraq War in an attempt to draw a distinction between himself and President George W. Bush, the incumbent who had served as a pilot in the Air National Guard but had not gone overseas to Vietnam. Because it was the central argument in Kerry’s campaign, it made him uniquely susceptible to criticism of that service by his fellow Navy Swift Boat veterans.

 

But regardless of the tactical shortsightedness, it’s absolutely ridiculous for Kerry—or any candidate—to claim or even suggest that military service alone is a qualifier for elected office.

 

Candidates for political office highlighting their military service is nothing new. Probably the only fact any American can name about the 1840 presidential election (if they can name anything at all) is that William Henry Harrison’s campaign slogan was merely a boast about his victory at the Battle of Tippecanoe almost 30 years before. Still, nowadays, it seems more and more common that a veteran’s service is taken as sufficient qualification for office by itself, or as a sufficient cover and explanation for any questions voters might have about the candidate.

 

Graham Platner, the former Maine Democratic Senate hopeful, highlighted his service in the Marine Corps and later Army National Guard as a compelling part of his story. He spoke of his wartime service—often while wearing his 158^th Cavalry sweatshirt—and highlighted it as a contrast to the Republican incumbent he was facing.

 

But not only did military experience serve as one of his primary arguments for voter support, as concerning details about Platner’s character and behavior began to emerge, it also became a defense against criticism. Platner and surrogates, including some veterans organizations, dismissed concerns about abhorrent comments, criminal behavior (admitted drug use and a DUI), and allegations of physical and emotional abuse toward former romantic partners—as though these kinds of things were understandable or even expected from a combat veteran. Only after a credible accusation of sexual assault did many of Platner’s fans drop their support.

 

But why was veteran status an excuse for any of it? Why was it seen as a compelling case for elected office when Platner made it, or when Kerry did? And why are politicians continuing to use their veteran credentials as an argument that they are superior to other candidates?

 

This phenomenon may be more common as military service becomes less so. After Harry Truman, the president during our victory in World War II, left office, seven of the eight presidents who followed him had all served in uniform during that conflict—the one outlier being Jimmy Carter who served in the Navy during the Korean War after graduating from Annapolis. Since the election of Bill Clinton, not a single combat veteran has occupied the Oval Office.

 

For the members of “the greatest generation” who entered politics, military and wartime service were not a significant argument for people’s votes primarily because such criteria were not unique. Among members of the 87^th Congress (sworn in in 1961), for example, 65 percent were military veterans. They had lived their pre-politics lives during major conflicts, which mobilized vast numbers of volunteers and conscripts. In contrast, where roughly 70 percent of American men aged 18 to 35 served in World War II, that percentage dropped to roughly a quarter of the same age range during Vietnam, and only 2 to 3 percent during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

This shift in the commonality of military service may account for much of the over-attribution of other qualities to it. Because military life is so foreign to so many, it, and the people in it, might be over-idealized versions of the actual human beings that make up the armed forces. And because so many Americans dutifully wish to show respect for veterans’ service, they may be predisposed to give blanket endorsement to anyone who chose the path they did not. Indeed, this support can become distorted—people can fail to recognize that veterans are regular humans, not two-dimensional figures without the deficits and defects inherent to all mankind.

 

Strangely enough, many veterans in politics have not been satisfied merely to highlight their service and bask in the glow of civilian praise; some have taken it a step further to fabricate wild or misleading claims about their service. Former Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and current Connecticut Sen.Richard Blumenthal both found themselves in hot water when they played rhetorical games about their service, each having suggested (or outright claimed) to have been veterans of the Vietnam War. In fact, both served in the military at the same time as the conflict but did not fight in the war itself—Vietnam “era” veterans vs. Vietnam veterans.

 

This trend of dishonest hyperbole has extended into the generation that has served during the War on Terror. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, claimed to have been awarded a Bronze Star Medal years prior to it actually having been awarded. Republican Rep. Cory Mills of Florida, among many other controversies in which he is embroiled, seems to have fabricated claims of wartime acts which he used to retroactively lobby for a Bronze Star, and has made patently false claims about having served in the 75^th Ranger Regiment and other special operations organizations. (Disclosure: I served with Mills in the same battalion task force in the 82^nd Airborne during the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom.) Republican Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas, who by all accounts served honorably in multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, nonetheless felt that service was not impressive enough by itself and chose to wear an unauthorized Combat Infantryman Badge lapel pin until the Army released a statement clarifying he was ineligible for the award.

 

The phenomenon of veteran politicians wearing excessive displays of their service is reaching epidemic levels. Wearing a single lapel pin isn’t excessive (I defer to @menswearguy for a ruling), but this has extended into wearing full-size military badges (e.g. Republican Rep. Pat Harrigan of North Carolina), filling every inch of lapel space with military pins and badges like a waiter at Chotchkie’s (e.g. former Republican Rep. Allen West of Florida), or branching out beyond to the lapel to wear badges on the suit breast pocket as if one were in uniform (e.g. Republican Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia). These ever-more ostentatious displays seem to ensure against—heaven forbid—anyone being ignorant of these politicians’ status as veterans and, more specifically, the brag-worthy distinctions that are largely lost on civilians.

 

Veterans are, like the rest of society, not monolithic. There are virtuous veterans who served out of a sense of duty and patriotism and continue that dedication to their country and communities in other ways after their military service. There are also criminal and otherwise abhorrent veterans. Much of Platner’s questionable choices and contemptible behavior has been made public, but he is by no means alone—even among veterans in or seeking public office. The previously mentioned Rep. Mills has accrued an infamous litany of allegations ranging from widespread fraud in private business dealings, tax evasion, and domestic abuse, in addition to the false claims about his service. Ohio’s Rep. Max Miller, a former Marine although not a combat veteran, is facing allegations of domestic abuse toward his ex-wife and child, in addition to the claims he physically assaulted a girlfriend during the first Trump administration.

 

Over 2 million Americans served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even if one were to try and make the case that leadership at a certain level was a specific qualification for public office, this would still take a population of hundreds of thousands into account. But not only are the majority of these 2 million veterans not prepared to act as congressmen, senators, or presidential appointees, many of those that seem like better choices may not necessarily be the most qualified or effective when we look at what it takes to make a political leader.

 

Service to our nation tends to indicate a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good and a predisposition to patriotic duty—both of which are virtues unto themselves and preferred requirements for those we send to Washington. But the examples of Mills, Platner, Miller, and others demonstrate that not all veterans have the other required character traits, nor is it true that the virtues we should desire in politicians are found only among veterans. And even amongst the most upright veterans, the skills required to lead a SEAL platoon, for example, do not directly map onto success on the Hill—understanding how amendments get out of committee, for example, would also help.

 

A veteran’s service is an inherent part of their story and their character—George H.W. Bush’s heroism in World War II was part of his 1988 campaign, but less so than his experience as vice president. Those veterans wishing to pursue higher office should make a case for what else makes them qualified, just as any politician must. Over the weekend, actress Mia Farrow was rightfully mocked for highlighting Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed’s medical and academic credentials as a case alone for why he should be elected. Accomplishment, excellence, and experience in any single field prior to entering politics can be an argument for one’s preferred candidate. But it should never be the sole argument. This is true of any field, but for some reason we tend to forget it when it comes to military and wartime experience.