Does Military Service Matter in Presidents?

The news seems to have parallel universes though the blogosphere got the jump on the "mainstream" media on the inconsistencies in Kerry's recollections of his military service. Now, the mainstream media is starting to look more closely. Here is an item in of all places, Business Week Online, that takes one of the more balanced looks at Kerry's war time record. The article also discusses the President who led the USA during the Vietnam War, LBJ, and brings some historical perspective I haven't heard before.

Hat tip to Professor Bainbridge.

My take:
(1) Combat military service by itself doesn't tell us much. I'm told FDR didn't see combat yet he is regarded as one of the major presidents of the 20th Century. Democrats love Bill Clinton and he didn't serve at all. People who don't like Clinton may cite his avoidance of military service but usually the complaints are on political matters.
(2) Certainly, Eisenhower benefitted from his military hero status and his WWII role as the leader of the military coalition in D-day and afterward. These roles provided him with valuable political experience to prepare him for the Presidency.
(3) In most cases though, military service if any, is part of a candidate's life that affects them to various degrees; thus, one needs more data to make an assessment of the aspirant of the White House.

Bush 41 was a WWII pilot and is regarded to have served honorably. He had many other items on his resume that probably inspired voters to give him their votes. Bush 43 served in the Air National Guard and in some circles that is viewed as a dodge. Quayle's service in the National Guard was also viewed as a dodge. In both case, there was quite a bit of buzz about that service. The mainstream media investigated it and eventually the issue faded away. In the end, it was other factors that led voters to support Bush 43 and in the end, people rarely vote for the vice-presidential nominee.

Now, the media is beginning to look into Kerry's record and it should. Kerry has cited his military service as formative to his views on foreign affairs. Thus, if questions are raised about his military service, it should be checked out.

I don't doubt that memory of events can get fuzzy in 30 years. Details and dates can get mixed up. The media should report what it finds and let the voting public look at the results. The people are wise enough to determine whether any variation in details and dates is the result of faded memories versus fabrication.

At this moment, from what I hear, criticism about his getting medals seem unfounded. Admittedly, his injuries were fairly modest compared to others, he seemed within the rules regarding them.

Regarding being in Cambodia, this could be a more substantive problem. Kerry has cited this as formative in his views on the relationship between political civilian and military leadership. So far, these recollections appear to be faulty and Kerry needs to clarify the discrepancies.

Finally, there has been criticism of Kerry's anti-war activities. He was free to express his opinion and some allowance for context is fair. However, questions about how he views his role in retrospect is also fair. He is now citing his Vietnam era service as a qualification for the Presidency. While in his youth he viewed Vietnam service much differently. People are allowed to change. He needs to talk about that transformation to clear it up for those who are upset by his testimony before Congress.