By JEFF EMANUEL
May 29, 2008

In an election season taking place at a time when America is currently engaged in a multi-front war against terrorist networks and a select number of their state sponsors, a question has been asked that may cause some eyebrows to be raised by astute observers around the country.

That question is: Is there such a thing as too much military experience to be President?

Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin raised this issue in a Friday conference call with reporters from the Hawkeye state.

"John McCain...is running for commander in chief," said Harkin, "and our Constitution says that should be a civilian. And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."

When it comes to being President, is there an acceptable amount of military service that a candidate can have in his or her background? If John McCain's thirty-three years in the Navy are too many, are John F. Kennedy's just over four years the right amount? Or is the acceptable total military service for a candidate flexible, and entirely dependent on the situation at the time?

Mr. Harkin, whose personal claims about his military record and the work he did while in the Navy haven't always matched up with the military's own records of those events, certainly fits the description of having "some military background" but not "a whole lot."

Less is More

When it comes to Harkin's recent endorsements, it appears that less service is better. In 2004, Harkin eschewed self-proclaimed "reporting for duty" war hero-turned-protester John Kerry in the Democratic primary, opting instead to endorse the rabidly anti-military-force, military-service-free Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean.

This year, with Barack Obama (no service) and Hillary Clinton (no service) vying for the opportunity to take on John McCain (a Vietnam veteran, former POW, and squadron commander who retired from the Navy with the rank of Captain -- the equivalent of a Colonel in other branches of service), Harkin and his fellow Democrats are again opting for the side of the competition with no military service whatsoever.

Of course, Harkin wants to make sure that people know he doesn't dislike or distrust the military; so, like the progressive white suburban male who fends off the appearance of bigotry by making sure everybody knows that he has African-American or homosexual "friends," Harkin made sure to follow up his broadside on McCain's military background by assuring reporters on the call that he "has friends who are generals and admirals who have served the country well."

The only problem in Mr. McCain's case, said Harkin, is that "different people draw different conclusions from their service" -- and clearly, at least in Harkin's mind, McCain, a staunch supporter of the War on Terror and an opponent of Democratic attempts to hamstring efforts abroad and to incite precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, has drawn the wrong ones from his.

Mr. Harkin is attempting to justify his consistent backing of the serviceless candidate by maintaining that according to the Constitution, the Commander in Chief of the military "should be a civilian." However, if military service -- even "too much" of it -- were actually intended to be a limiting factor in the a person's eligibility to be president, history would likely have looked far different with regard to the inhabitants of the country's highest office.

An Inconsistent Line of Attack

Of the forty-three presidents America has had to date, fully thirty-two of them served in the military in some capacity before reaching office. (A thirty-third, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was Secretary of the Navy before becoming President.)

Thirty of the thirty-two fought in wars, from the Revolution, to the Civil War, to the Black Hawk War, to World Wars I and II. Eleven attained Flag rank (general officer level in the USMC, USAF, and Army; Admiral in the Navy) before being elected President.

Further, George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower were all Generals of the Army at their highest points. Should they -- including Washington himself -- have been prevented from leading the country due to their lengthy time spent defending its principles and its people?

Of course, neither Harkin nor his fellow Democrats want to rewrite American history to erase the public service of those who also served in the armed forces. As demonstrated by the choreographed spectacle of John Kerry's "Reporting for Duty!" at the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston, military service is something that is valued by those currently opposing it when it appears to be advantage, as many on the Left saw John Kerry's four years in the Navy when running against Air National Guard veteran George W. Bush.

When it all comes down to it, this is about the Democrats testing the waters on this particular line of attack against a man with over thirty years of service in the Navy who is running to be a wartime President. As with the reverse attempt four years ago, when prior wartime service was portrayed as one of the most valuable attributes a potential president could possess, this line will most likely be a loser as well.

Jeff Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a columnist, a Pulitzer Prize-nominated combat journalist, and a Director Emeritus of conservative weblog RedState.com.