[Ryan L. Cole is a writer based in Washington, D.C.]

Two million Americans fought in Vietnam.

But not one of them has ever been elected president. If John McCain's bid for the presidency is unsuccessful, no veteran of that war will ever occupy the White House.

This would make it unique among American wars and the political fortunes of their heroes.

From the beginning of the republic Americans have looked to former warriors for leadership. America's first president, George Washington, was the hero of its first great war. The fifth president, James Monroe, was also a Revolutionary War veteran. The Battle of New Orleans, the final engagement of the War of 1812, helped General Andrew Jackson become president.

Victory over the Shawnee leader Tecumseh at Prophetstown (near the Tippecanoe River) enabled William Henry Harrison to win the presidency with the slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler too." The Mexican War produced Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce. Save for Grover Cleveland, every president from Ulysses S. Grant (who also saw action in the Mexican War) to William McKinley fought in the Civil War.

Theodore Roosevelt led the Rough Riders' charges up San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. Harry Truman was a veteran of World War I. Except for Jimmy Carter, who served in Korea, every president from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush served in some capacity in World War II (Ronald Reagan was in the Army Enlisted Reserve but remained stateside due to his nearsightedness.)

AS THE ABOVE LIST CONFIRMS, Americans have viewed service in war as a distinguished and prized commodity in their leaders, and this has traditionally been a crucial feature of a potential president's resume. Veterans, viewed as returning heroes, held up as role models and idols, have found an easy transition to political roles. But Vietnam reshaped this pattern...

---

Email sent to HNN 7/18/08

To the Editor:

This is how myths get started. The Ryan L. Cole article"Vietnam Syndrome" says that Jimmy Carter"served in Korea." He did not. While Carter served aboard the submarine USS Promfret (SS-391) as an ensign, he was transferred back to the US Navy's submarine base at New London, Connecticut, on February 1, 1951. The ship did not sail for Korean waters until later that month. Presidents Carter and George W. Bush are"era" vets.

Kathryn Moore

Author, The American President TheAmericanPresident.US

R.R. Hamilton - 7/23/2008

First, Carter joined the Naval Academy in WW II, graduating in 1946 IIRC. Thus, the easiest formulation to include Carter with the other WW II veteran presidents is to say that "Every president from Ike to Bush 41 wore a military uniform in WW II". That's actually pretty remarkable, as it covers every Presidency from 1953 to 1993 -- a 40-year run.

Second, former Pennsylvania governor (and Homeland Security director) Tom Ridge is a Vietnam vet. So there's still a chance of having a Vietnam vet as president.

Arnold Shcherban - 7/22/2008

I repeat <Vietnam war on the part of the US was a war of agression and dirty war of agression at that, filled with terrible war crimes and crimes against humanity.>
This is not an exclusive opinion of the US hater, but well known opinion of the world majority, including the majority of historians.
Responding to your argument
of being bloodthirsty or not I would like to point out its irrelevance to the quoted factually and legally justified accusations by resorting to the following analogy:
Only the minority of Nazis were bloodthirsty murderers, but the crimes
have been committed by them personally, but mostly on their orders, are numerous enough, aren't they? (It is not that I equate major Nazi criminals with the US presidents and military commanders.)
If you consider Soviet military invasion to Afghanistan in 1989 and its consequent military operations there as illegal and criminal, you, pretending on the role of more or less objective
observer, cannot help admitting that the US invasion to Vietnam and Iraq (not already mentioning some other countries invaded one time or another by US) was also illegal (what International law calls "agression") and consequent military actions - criminal.
Double standards (that have become a cornerstone of the US foreign policy long time ago) are not gonna pass here.
As far as other American presidents are concerned, I'm not much impressed
with any. Clinton, with his invasion in Kosovo under fraudulent premises, which not only resulted in the expulsion of Serbians from their historical territory and, recently, in the pronouncement of Kosovo independence from Serbia, but will predictably lead to further confrontations between different nations involved, is no less criminal, through much less bloody and destructive, than the invasions and occupations noted above.

Vernon Clayson - 7/20/2008

You speak as an innocent with no sense of history. Even worse, you paint all Vietnam veterans with the same brush, the vast majority were not crazed bloodthirsty out of control individuals. Even Lt. Calley of Son Tay (Mai Lei) infamy wasn't crazed and bloodthirsty, he was just ill-suited for the responsibilities give him, he won't be running for office. Most were little more than teenagers, scared and confused, they were not the motley crew of bearded, long haired and fat old motorcyclists you see at parades. That's a sad affectation of a few, the vast majority (those words again)came back and chose to live out their lives productively. There's little about those men that sets them apart from the world of middle aged men, as capable as any to become political leaders. (As an aside, some of the actions and statements of Democrat Senator Harry Reid, who is not a veteran, has some of the signs of PTSD with his rambling comments, set opinions and spastic gestures, to say nothing about his looking as if always on the verge of tears.) Bill Clinton, no doubt your idea of a great leader, saw the military as loathsome, sadly, you seem to share that view. For some history of leadership from American veterans, start with George Washington and proceed from there.

Arnold Shcherban - 7/20/2008

Some of those so called veterans, the US presidents included, are no more no less than war criminals.
As we don't know that Vietnam war on the part of the US was a war of agression and dirty war of agression at that, filled with terrible war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Do we need one of those guys in the White House, as a President, "until it's too late"?

Vernon Clayson - 7/20/2008

Neither the author, Ryan Cole, or Kathryn Moore, in her codicil, attempt to clarify a point they seem to infer, that would be that veterans that didn't see combat are the lesser for it. Perhaps 10 percent of those in country during the Vietnam War saw combat. All military forces have huge and complicated support systems whose members see no direct contact with the enemy, and many among them serve that purpose stateside, all serving during the Vietnam war years were part of the war effort. Al Gore, for instance, served an abbreviated tour in Vietnam but saw no combat, John Kerry saw combat in an even more abbreviated tour and was even wounded, earning three Purple Hearts and talking points for various scratches. Are they really more of a veteran than those who supported the effort, that would include the bodyguard assigned to Al Gore while he was there. It's always been the same, during WWII, every Marine was not at Iwo Jima, every soldier in Europe was not on the beach on D-Day, every sailor was not at Pearl Harbor, but every Marine, soldier and sailor, during those perilous times was a veteran. Eisenhower saw no combat, therefore, in your view he was not a veteran. The author's contention may have seemed like a great revelation to him but it is a minor and petty point,