The American Spectator

br> — Mike Roush /p> p> HE COULD HAVE MADE ADMIRAL br> Re: M. Merritt’s letter (under “McCain, Chessmaster”) in Reader Mail’s Signed, Nobody : /p>

In an otherwise fine letter by Mr. Merritt, he repeats a version of a phrase that has come up in several places and sources in the last week. He writes, “John McCain would, indeed, have made a fine general.”

I really am not trying to nit pick, but why is it assumed that any good warrior or warfare strategist must be a general? Sen. McCain’s father and grandfather were admirals. Why is it not PC to say that McCain would have made a fine admiral? Now Sen. McCain’s father and grandfather were not thought of to have reached the level of expertise of Admiral Nimitz, still they were fine warriors that fought their fleets well. One could certainly make the case that they were on a par with Admiral Halsey.

Sen. McCain graduated from Annapolis. He chose to serve in the Navy, and make it a career. He flew in combat in Vietnam. He was appointed to take over an under performing Navy squadron, which he subsequently brought up to standard. He left the Navy as a Navy captain, one step below admiral

In recent times Admiral Fallon was appointed to head Centcom, which is the command in charge over the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters in the current war. I believe that the admiral in command of the Navy SEALS, and a SEAL himself, would certainly be considered an outstanding warrior.

p>Now I served with the USMC, but even I think that the Navy should get their fair share of the kudos. Can we in the future say that Sen. McCain would make a fine admiral in command of combat operations, instead of insinuating that he would have to be an Army or Marine general to recognized for his strategic skill in war fighting? br> — Ken Shreve /p>