By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin has faced significant backlash for his comments on Fox News regarding the “smell of war,” despite never having served in the military. Mullin, a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, evoked the sensory experience of conflict, drawing sharp criticism from veterans and activists who questioned his authority to speak on the matter. Critics pointed to his age during key military conflicts and his decision to inherit his family’s business instead of enlisting. The senator also made notable gaffes, confusing Iran with Iraq and misidentifying a defense secretary, further fueling online outrage.
Read the original article here
A MAGA senator’s recent remarks about the “smell of war,” despite never having served in the military, have drawn considerable criticism. The senator, who sits on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, made these pronouncements while discussing U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iran. He described war as ugly and something that “smells bad,” asserting that those who have experienced it will never forget the sensory assault. This vivid, albeit secondhand, description has struck a nerve with many, particularly veterans and those who have directly experienced the realities of conflict.
The senator’s commentary drew immediate comparisons to fictional characters, most notably Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore from “Apocalypse Now,” known for his infamous love of the “smell of napalm in the morning.” The irony of a non-veteran waxing poetic about the sensory experience of war has not been lost on critics. The senator’s pronouncements seemed to imply a personal understanding of combat that, according to those who have served, he simply does not possess.
One of the most pointed rebukes came from a veteran and activist who highlighted the senator’s age during key periods of recent U.S. military involvement. The activist pointed out that the senator was of age to serve during the Iraq War but instead reportedly chose to take over his father’s business. This contrast between the senator’s pronouncements and his personal history has been a central theme in the backlash.
Another critical voice suggested that the senator’s understanding of war is likely limited to simulated experiences, such as video games like “Call of Duty,” rather than the harsh realities of actual combat. This perspective paints a picture of a politician disconnected from the very conflicts he is involved in shaping, capable of speaking about them in abstract, almost performative ways. The implication is that his words lack the weight and authenticity that comes from firsthand experience.
Further fueling the outrage are past incidents that critics have used to paint the senator as someone who talks tough but lacks courage. A photograph allegedly showing him hiding during the January 6th Capitol insurrection has been widely circulated, casting a shadow over his claims of understanding the visceral nature of conflict. This juxtaposition of his war rhetoric with his perceived behavior during a domestic crisis has led to accusations of hypocrisy and “stolen valor.”
The senator’s educational background has also been brought up in discussions, with some pointing out that he is reportedly the least educated member of the Senate, lacking a four-year degree. This has been used to suggest a broader pattern of his being ill-equipped to speak on complex issues, including matters of war and national security, and that his pronouncements are more about bluster than substance. His past confrontations, including a challenge to a Teamsters president, are also cited as examples of his combative style overriding reasoned discourse.
The backlash extends beyond individual critics to broader observations about the political landscape. Many commenters express a general disillusionment with elected officials who they feel are quick to send others to war without understanding the personal cost. There’s a sense that these politicians, often from comfortable backgrounds, engage in performative patriotism without ever facing the true consequences of their decisions. This sentiment is amplified by the fact that the senator is a member of the MAGA movement, which itself has been criticized for a perceived disconnect between its strong rhetoric and a willingness to personally engage in conflict.
The senator’s perceived lack of genuine understanding is often contrasted with the visceral, often traumatic, sensory experiences described by actual veterans. These descriptions frequently involve the smell of diesel fuel, burning trash, cordite, and the overwhelming stench of death and decay. The senator’s generalized and, to many, disingenuous portrayal of the “smell of war” is seen as a disservice to those who have endured such horrors.
Ultimately, the criticism leveled against the senator centers on a perceived lack of authenticity and understanding. His attempts to evoke the sensory experience of war, without having lived it, have been interpreted as performative, self-aggrandizing, and disrespectful to those who have actually served and sacrificed. The episode serves as a stark reminder of the disconnect that can exist between political rhetoric and lived experience, particularly when discussing the profound and often terrible realities of war.