Just about every report on the recent revelations regarding Mark Kirk's military service begin with the writer falling over backward to honor his service. Is it necessary or even appropriate?
Sam Stein just
reported on Huffington Post that Kirk differs from Blumenthal because "Kirk actually served in combat."
Carol Marin described Kirk's misrepresentations are merely an "Alexander Haig moment" as if almost a decade of repeated lying is a momentary lapse. Progress Illinois
remarked that Kirk's "embellishments" were "needless". Do they stand on their own merits? We're not sure, are we? The "Washington Monthly" in
reporting on Kirk's third documented lie and tardy correction, emphasized that Kirk really does have an impressive service record, which he has every reason to be proud of. While
calling Kirk a "pants on fire" liar, the Tribune talks about his "exceptional achievements" that he can proudly list on his resume. I'd like to know what those exceptional achievements are because everything I've heard and seen myself indicate that few of those ever listed are true.
Even Alexi Giannoulias stated that Kirk "served honorably" in several interviews with local media.
I'm just asking, how can one honor something so undefined and riddled with misrepresentations, fake imagery and outright lies?
Kosovo
Recent revelations call much of Kirk's service in question. He's claimed that he served in combat, and even took fire, in Kosovo, but that's unlikely true from what we know. Kirk changed his website to delete the reference to combat in Kosovo. Kirk's service award clearly shows that he served in Italy. He was in a EA-6B squadron (Prowlers), but he apparently never flew in one. Kirk's only current claim is that he did "fly as an intelligence observer aboard an EC-130 special mission aircraft in support of air strikes over Belgrade and spent some time in Kosovo." First, he's not a pilot, so he did not "fly" anything. At most, he was an "observer" and as one commenter on this blog put it, the EC-130 can take on a passenger so long as he or she "stays out of the way". Is that service or is the Navy doing him a PR favor?
Second, the EC-130 is not the plane in his campaign ads. Third, the EC-130 is not a combat plane, but an interceptor that supports ground forces by collecting enemy signal intelligence and translating it. While the regular crews and regularly serving reservists in the EC-130 so an important job, we don't really know that Kirk did that job.
Fourth, the only description of his ground-based Kosovo service in Aviano, Italy we know about is his comm award and the statement of Fmr. Cmdr. Fearnow. There are two problems with Fearnow's comment. It's vague. I'd like to know what Kirk himself did to create the "intelligence shop" of which Fearnow speaks and why if his service was so exemplary did Fearnow not recommend Kirk for an individual award rather than recommending the unit. Also, Fearnow now works for Lockheed Martin and making a U.S Congressman serving on the Appropriations Committee may be in his best interest. I'm not saying I know Kirk didn't do some important job regarding Kosovo while in Italy, and do it well. I'm just saying we have no idea what he did. He owes us the explanation about now.
Iraq
Kirk just admitted that he was not in Iraq, but served in the U.S. during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I'm sure there were important things for Navy reservists to do stateside during Operation Iraqi Freedom and I'm sure many Navy reservists served diligently and honorably. I'd like to know what Kirk did and it's a fair question given his history of misrepresentation.
Afghanistan
According to a report by Lynn Sweet which she identifies as from his campaign, "Kirk served reserve duty in Kandahar from Dec. 15, 2008, through Jan. 2, 2009. He returned a second time between Dec. 19, 2009, and Jan. 4, 2010." Kirk took two training duties in Afghanistan amounting to 34 days during the Christmas and New Year holidays. He called it a "deployment" although he served 56 days less than official "deployment". Many in or retired from the military are calling Kirk's "service" in Afghanistan "combat tourism". I want to know what Kirk did in Afghanistan that forwarded the mission in Afghanistan and not just his career.
I'd like to be able to honor the service of anyone in the military. However, Mark Kirk seems to use the Navy reserves as his personal PR machine and is short and vague on descriptions of what he actually did. Once Kirk comes clean, I may honor his service, but until then, I'll just be unsure of what it was and why it has taken him so far politically.
UPDATE: Thinking about this post after I had shut down my computer last night, I came up with some additional thoughts and questions:
1. How do military and former military people feel about "combat tourism"? Is there a point when it becomes dangerous to the mission or the regular duty officers and enlisted people who have to do the job? Should the U.S. Navy or any other branch of the military be any politicians PR department? Do the regular duty officers and enlisted persons resent politicians taking up their time and/or putting them in additional danger? Does that resentment if it exists put extra pressure on a mission?
2. Can having a U. S. Congressman in harms way, able to be captured perhaps, become an extra danger to a mission. What if a U.S. Congressman would be captured and interrogated? Would that be a special danger because of his special knowledge or position? Would it put the U.S. in a position of having to negotiate with terrorists? Could that be a reason why a U.S. Congressman would not be put in such a position to begin with?
3. Why should a U.S. Congressman be allowed to also be a military reservist when he cannot take other positions within the government.Arent' there Hatch Act and double dipping issues here?
4. Our national need to honor all military service comes from the bad treatment of Vietnam soldiers and vets. I agree that we should never treat our soldiers and vets like the Vietnam era military people were treated. However, does that notion expand to a politician using his service for PR reasons?
5. And what about Kirk's treatment of veterans? He ran away from an Iraq War veteran just asking him to take a stand on the Iraq war. What would have been the problem with stopping to talk to Landsdale. Kirk could have shaken his hand, even asked him to turn off the camera and thanked him for his service and simply said that he disagreed with Landsdale on the war. That should not have been so hard for a self-proclaimed "Navy-guy" to do. Also, Kirk's voted against veteran's health care benefits several times as documented in the archives in this blog. He's refused to meet with Gold Star Families against the Iraq War.