• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Changing Attitudes On Veterans Day

Thoreau72 said:
Actually, there IS and HAS BEEN a deep state. Some government Big Whig named McLoughlin, John just wrote about it and talked about it, praising it and expressing thanks that the Deep State is protecting the country from deranged individuals like Trump.

More, the Vietnam war was based on a lie, as the OP has pointed out, and so is the Global War Of Terror an even bigger lie.

Yes, returning to the draft might end these perpetual wars, who knows?

Smedley Butler was right about all of it.
Click to expand...


Major General Butler is well worth reading up on, if not familiar with his story!.............:thumbs:
 
ecofarm said:
Is this a history lesson or are we discussing the realization of geopolitics in the 20th century. If you have a point, make it.
Click to expand...

I think you have helped him make his point--you would rather not 'explain' how US 'security' was threatened 1955-1975
 
Doc91478 said:
Changing Attitudes On Veterans Day​

Changing Attitudes On Veterans Day | Zero Hedge
11/11/2019 ~ By Kelli Ballard via LibertyNation.com,
Throughout history, there have been conflicts and wars, and the attitude about the engagements – and its warriors – change depending on the public opinion at the time. Consider the medieval era where being a knight was romanticized. They were considered chivalrous with a code that expected them to be pure in both thought and deed. When the brave knights returned after a battle, they were honored and celebrated. Great feasts were given in their name and the ladies swooned and threw lace, ribbons, and other personal effects to show their support – and hopefully catch a legendary hero husband in the process.
But now, let’s flash forward to the Vietnam War and the veterans who suffered not only from wartime injuries (both physical and mental), but also from hostility and disrespect from the very citizens they put their lives on the line to protect. Whether being drafted into service or signing up on their own, young men, boys, and women, did their duty and served their nation. They went into unfamiliar and hostile territory to fight against the enemy; some being injured or even losing their lives. They witnessed atrocities, saw their platoon brethren die, and dreamed of the day when they could return home, to their loved ones. However, when that day came, instead of open, welcoming arms, many veterans were met with anger, people spitting on them, calling them “baby killers.” Far from being worshipped as heroes, as their former soldiers were, Vietnam veterans were harassed and made to feel ashamed for their patriotic service. It took another 20 years after the Vietnam War for Americans to return to respecting their warriors. The first step in the healing process began in 1982 with the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. After the Gulf War (1990-91), people began waving flags and celebrating soldiers. Langenus, who had suffered as a Vietnam veteran, and also a veteran of Desert Storm, couldn’t believe the change around.


Comment:
Vietnam was a tragedy based on a lie, and had ZERO to do with protecting America from any sort of threat, because duh, despite horror FAKE NEWS of "Domino Theory" Communism is inherently economically incapable of sustaining itself long term. Those boys were used by the government plain and simple. Those boys were used by Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Tx) and the government plain and simple.
I firmly believe that our military would be given more respect and honor if the draft was reinstated. Today, Americans don’t give a damn because the military is currently a tool of the MIC and Deep State. When families have skin in the game they'll pay attention to where/why their children are. Vietnam taught the Elitist Progressive Democrats there is blowback when war is fought and lost for profit and not for Country if there was a draft no friggin way we’d be in the ME
Click to expand...

Psst the draft didnt stop the vietnam war nor the korean war nor did it stop the CIA and the US government from screwing up latin america in rather disturbing ways.
 
bomberfox said:
Psst the draft didnt stop the vietnam war nor the korean war nor did it stop the CIA and the US government from screwing up latin america in rather disturbing ways.
Click to expand...

No one said that in my post. It was Truman who created MAAGV and MAAGL, etc. after the fall of Dien Bein Phu in 1954, Eisenhower expanded the number of MAAGV in Nam but never more than 600. The cadre consisted of multi-service MAAGV advisors... There was a greater degree of conflict in Laos than in South Vietnam. US combat involvement was, at first, greater in Laos, but the activity of advisors, and increasingly US direct support to South Vietnamese soldiers, increased, under US military authority, in late 1959 and early 1960. JFK(D-Ma) increased the number of advisors, after his assassination Lyndon B, Johnson(D-Tx) began the increase of U.S. involvement dependent on the Draft system.


Congress passes Civil War conscription act - Mar 03, 1863 ...
Congress passes Civil War conscription act - HISTORY
During the Civil War, the U.S. Congress passes a conscription act that produces the first wartime draft of U.S. citizens in American history. The act called for registration of all males between the ages of 20 and 45, including aliens with the intention of becoming citizens, by April 1. Exemptions from the draft could be bought for $300 or by finding a substitute draftee. This clause led to bloody draft riots in New York City, where protesters were outraged that exemptions were effectively granted only to the wealthiest U.S. citizens.
Although the Civil War saw the first compulsory conscription of U.S. citizens for wartime service, a 1792 act by Congress required that all able-bodied male citizens purchase a gun and join their local state militia.

See: Casualty list:
American Vietnam War Heroes - Vietnam Pre1963
American Vietnam War Heroes - Vietnam Pre1963
3rd Radio Research Unit, MAAGV Livingston, Tennessee 12-22-1961 Cau Xang, South Vietnam Hostile - Small Arms Fire Recovered Panel 01E - Line 4 : The first battlefield fatality of the Vietnam War was Specialist 4 James T. Davis (from Livingston, Tennessee) who was killed on December 22, 1961 on a road near the old French Garrison of Cau Xang.
Chester Melvin Ovnand - 44, Master Sergeant, Military Advisory and Assistance Group, Vietnam, Copperas Cove, Texas, 07-08-1959 In South. Vietnam, Hostile - Small Arms Fire, Recovered.
 
Last edited:
Doc91478 said:
No one said that in my post. It was Truman who created MAAGV and MAAGL, etc. after the fall of Dien Bein Phu in 1954, Eisenhower expanded the number of MAAGV in Nam but never more than 600. The cadre consisted of multi-service MAAGV advisors... There was a greater degree of conflict in Laos than in South Vietnam. US combat involvement was, at first, greater in Laos, but the activity of advisors, and increasingly US direct support to South Vietnamese soldiers, increased, under US military authority, in late 1959 and early 1960. JFK(D-Ma) increased the number of advisors, after his assassination Lyndon B, Johnson(D-Tx) began the increase of U.S. involvement dependent on the Draft system.


Congress passes Civil War conscription act - Mar 03, 1863 ...
Congress passes Civil War conscription act - HISTORY
During the Civil War, the U.S. Congress passes a conscription act that produces the first wartime draft of U.S. citizens in American history. The act called for registration of all males between the ages of 20 and 45, including aliens with the intention of becoming citizens, by April 1. Exemptions from the draft could be bought for $300 or by finding a substitute draftee. This clause led to bloody draft riots in New York City, where protesters were outraged that exemptions were effectively granted only to the wealthiest U.S. citizens.
Although the Civil War saw the first compulsory conscription of U.S. citizens for wartime service, a 1792 act by Congress required that all able-bodied male citizens purchase a gun and join their local state militia.

See: Casualty list:
American Vietnam War Heroes - Vietnam Pre1963
American Vietnam War Heroes - Vietnam Pre1963
3rd Radio Research Unit, MAAGV Livingston, Tennessee 12-22-1961 Cau Xang, South Vietnam Hostile - Small Arms Fire Recovered Panel 01E - Line 4 : The first battlefield fatality of the Vietnam War was Specialist 4 James T. Davis (from Livingston, Tennessee) who was killed on December 22, 1961 on a road near the old French Garrison of Cau Xang.
Chester Melvin Ovnand - 44, Master Sergeant, Military Advisory and Assistance Group, Vietnam, Copperas Cove, Texas, 07-08-1959 In South. Vietnam, Hostile - Small Arms Fire, Recovered.
Click to expand...

Its a response to the claim that somehow despite evidence to the contrary reinstating the draft will magically make people contain the desires of people highly invested in war.
 
bomberfox said:
Its a response to the claim that somehow despite evidence to the contrary reinstating the draft will magically make people contain the desires of people highly invested in war.
Click to expand...

You're correct, while Democrats according to history have been at the forefront of making war in the 20th and 21st century.....
 
Doc91478 said:
You're correct, while Democrats according to history have been at the forefront of making war in the 20th and 21st century.....
Click to expand...

the republican party happily takes up the mantle right now.
 
bomberfox said:
Its a response to the claim that somehow despite evidence to the contrary reinstating the draft will magically make people contain the desires of people highly invested in war.
Click to expand...


The Selective Service Draft makes everyone equally responsible to serve. Those who refuse to serve their country by falsifying their medical status are no better than draft dodgers. That goes for all political stripes.
The idea to my previous response was to enlighten you to the true beginnings of the Vietnamese War.
 
bomberfox said:
Psst the draft didnt stop the vietnam war nor the korean war nor did it stop the CIA and the US government from screwing up latin america in rather disturbing ways.
Click to expand...

No it did not, BUT it did lead to the situation in which many ordinary americans had skin in the game, the game being the bull**** war begun by special interests including the MIC.

That then led to the situation where the public complained loudly about that bull**** war.

Today, with football field sized flags being displayed every Sunday, and NFL sideline staff wearing quasi-military clothing, our perpetual war of terror is glamorized for the uninformed.
 
Rexedgar said:
Answer my last question, please.

Where was the US security endangered in the years from 1955-1975?
Click to expand...

Allow me thx.

#The Suez Crisis of 1956.

#The Berlin Wall Crisis of 1961 in which the US deployed an additional regiment to West Berlin on construction of the wall amid considerable alarm in the city and region.

size0-army.mil-89543-2010-10-22-101015.jpg

U. S. Army tanks face off against Soviet armor at Checkpoint Charlie, Berlin, October 1961. (Photo Credit: USAMHI)



#The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in which the Russian Soviet Union entered Cuba with nuclear armed missiles and troops to operate them and the United States armed forces globally went to DefCon 3 ready to deploy in 6 hours to include a possible invasion of Cuba; masses of US troops mobilized to Florida and the Gulf Coast states while 2nd Fleet Naval forces moved to between Cuba and the US coast; Strategic Air Command was ordered to DefCon 2 mobilize fully to airborne prepared to execute nuclear war. (I recall this vividly.)

#The Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War of 1973 in which Nixon took the USA to DefCon 3 on CIA reports the Russian Soviet Union had embarked a ship to Egypt containing nuclear warheads and missiles. The ship arrived but never unloaded any possible cargo, returning later to Russia.

#The collapse of South Vietnam in 1975 to control by the North which was partnered with Soviet Russia.





ecofarm said:
Whatever one's beliefs about Vietnam, the changes it realized on a global scale remain. The world was now a global political community willing to engage in war to ensure the victory of the West.
Click to expand...

While Europe stood off from participation in the Vietnam War, US treaty allied nations in the region sent troops to VN in support of the US to include Australia, NZ, South Korea, Thailand, Philippines. While your point is very well taken, it was rather the attacks on the USA of 9/11 that engaged Nato, ie, the West, in the global war on terror as it's called. Generally speaking, significant areas of the Global South began a low intensity military conflict against the USA to include Nato and certain EU nations. This includes certain ideological opposition in political and economic terms in areas of the Global South. Central Command is the locus of the US and Western response in each respect. Southern Command has been reinforced to ensure US security in the areas directly south of Mexico to include land, sea, air.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
Allow me thx.

#The Suez Crisis of 1956.

#The Berlin Wall Crisis of 1961 in which the US deployed an additional regiment to West Berlin on construction of the wall amid considerable alarm in the city and region.

#The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in which the Russian Soviet Union entered Cuba with nuclear armed missiles and troops to operate them and the United States armed forces globally went to DefCon 3 ready to deploy in 6 hours to include a possible invasion of Cuba; masses of US troops mobilized to Florida and the Gulf Coast states while 2nd Fleet Naval forces moved to between Cuba and the US coast; Strategic Air Command was ordered to DefCon 2 mobilize fully to airborne prepared to execute nuclear war. (I recall this vividly.)

#The Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War of 1973 in which Nixon took the USA to DefCon 3 on CIA reports the Russian Soviet Union had embarked a ship to Egypt containing nuclear warheads and missiles. The ship arrived but never unloaded any possible cargo, returning later to Russia.

#The collapse of South Vietnam in 1975 to control by the North which was partnered with Soviet Russia.







While Europe stood off from participation in the Vietnam War, US treaty allied nations in the region sent troops to VN in support of the US to include Australia, NZ, South Korea, Thailand, Philippines. While your point is very well taken, it was rather the attacks on the USA of 9/11 that engaged Nato, ie, the West, in the global war on terror as it's called. Generally speaking, significant areas of the Global South began a low intensity military conflict against the USA to include Nato and certain EU nations. This includes certain ideological opposition in political and economic terms in areas of the Global South. Central Command is the locus of the US and Western response in each respect. Southern Command has been reinforced to ensure US security in the areas directly south of Mexico to include land, sea, air.
Click to expand...



Sorry, my post wasn’t clear. !955-1975 was the duration of the Viet Nam conflict. This is the window I was referencing.
 
HumblePi said:
Why do you think military men and women are returning from Afghanistan and Iraq with PTSD? It's because our men and women have been given the job of defending something or other and possibly giving up their lives or at best coming home missing an arm or a leg, for a fake war? Our last real war was WW2, more than 75 years ago. I lost a lot of friends from high school, they were drafted to serve in Vietnam and never came back. They didn't want to go fight a war in a weird place nobody could even find on a map. Vietnam was a horrible 'non-war' that should have never happened. And yes, those that came back home weren't welcomed as heroes.

Soldiers need a reason to fight wars. Patriotism, preservation of democracy, defeating dictators, stopping humanitarian abuse, preventing genocide. Those are reasons to fight and die for. Oil isn't a reason to die for. Protecting heroin poppy fields isn't a reason to die for. Overthrowing a political adversary to install a puppet US government isn't a reason to die for.

I heard a statistic today that was somewhat sobering. Arlington National Cemetery is running out of room to put the graves of military that died in battle. There's enough space for 95,000 more dead to be buried at Arlington, but there's 2 million active military right now. I suppose the U.S. government can always build mausoleums and inter dead soldiers there. But how many more will be interred in Arlington that should be home enjoying life and not fighting unfounded battles for some foreign country in the Middle East or Central America?
Click to expand...

We had 2 million before 9/11. So I'm not sure of the relevance. Have you have heard of the Carter Doctrine? Look it up, and you'll understand some of your last sentence better
 
Dayton3 said:
.................And most soldiers are not buried in Arlington.
Click to expand...

Right.

For informational purposes:

"Establishing Eligibility

Arlington National Cemetery's eligibility requirements for burial and inurnment are different from other national cemeteries that are maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Eligibility for in-ground burial at Arlington National Cemetery is the most stringent of all U.S. national cemeteries. However, most veterans who have at least one day of active service (other than for training) and an honorable discharge are eligible for above-ground inurnment. Eligibility is determined at the time of need."

Arlington National Cemetery > Funerals > Scheduling a Funeral > Establishing Eligibility
 
Rexedgar said:
Sorry, my post wasn’t clear. !955-1975 was the duration of the Viet Nam conflict. This is the window I was referencing.
Click to expand...

I took you to the window and showed you the landscape so now I'm ready and willing to meet your request to go out into the territorial forests and the fields.

From 1955-1975 in Southeast Asia there were communist insurgencies in Malaysia, Burma/Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Philippines, Indonesia. Sihanouk of Cambodia rejected US assistance and eventually lost his government and country to Pol Pot who took control of a bombed out country anyway.

By 1955 and further north the uneasy truce had quieted things down on the Korean peninsula where much uncertainty remained.

China had entered the Korean Conflict on the side of North Korea which left Washington keen to preclude or check any further incursions by Mao Tse Tung to include Mao's support of Maoist guerillas in the various insurgencies occurring throughout the region. Mao had already seized by military means Buddhist Tibet and the former Islamic Republic of East Turkistan to rename it Xin Jiang (New Territory).

Throughout the 20 year period the Kremlin and India were BFF while India kept its distance from the USA and its allied nations of the SE Asia region. India called itself non-aligned while Washington knew India was non trustworthy given its ruling Congress Party socialists. (India is presently under the governing BJP and is a US strategic partner to include US use of Indian military bases.)

As far as the US was concerned the geostrategic landscape of Southeast Asia from 1955-1975 was dense, deep and often dark, to include South Asia, ie, Pakistan, India and the Indian Ocean. While we've rehashed the VN War to death the fact remains the US was wholly unprepared to wage a large scale war against guerillas in jungles. The commitment of the US to the Indochina Peninsula 1955-75 was significant however in geostrategic terms that have become particularly acute in the present time of the CCP-PRC Dictator Tyrants in Beijing.
 
Tangmo said:
As far as the US was concerned the geostrategic landscape of Southeast Asia from 1955-1975 was dense, deep and often dark, to include South Asia, ie, Pakistan, India and the Indian Ocean. While we've rehashed the VN War to death the fact remains the US was wholly unprepared to wage a large scale war against guerillas in jungles.
Click to expand...

Well, Johnson never made the case, therefore, the public wasn't willing to make the commitment.
 
dave8383 said:
Well, Johnson never made the case, therefore, the public wasn't willing to make the commitment.
Click to expand...

There was no case to make either politically or militarily.

VN was a civil war between the communist north and the fascist South. Neither China nor Russia ran either place nor did they want to try to control 'em. USA had no direct business in it.

US was rightly assisting in fighting communist insurgencies successfully in various countries of SE Asia. While JFK and the Joint Chiefs were concerned about Laos as the geostrategic key to the Indochina Peninsula the Johnson people got carried away over VN which the French had bungled miserably just a decade earlier.

Militarily the US armed forces were oriented almost entirely to fighting the Soviet Russians in Europe, to include education, training, weapon systems, warfighting platforms, doctrine. Pentagon had no plan whatsoever to conduct a major war against guerillas and the North VN regular Army in the jungles and among the villages and swamps of that land on that peninsula. Westmoreland fought Russian ghosts the entire time he commanded in VN and so did the generals and colonels right on down to the captains and LT Calley who remains the definitive modern case of war crimes for the US armed forces never to commit.

A major reason the US can engage in Afghanistan long term as it must continue to do is that we have an all volunteer Army. Middle class Americans of draft age simply would not go to Afghanistan, which is a vital lesson of VN and the resistance to military conscription and to the predominant rejection of it since. Neither political party nor are the JCS going to advocate a draft.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
There was no case to make either politically or militarily.

VN was a civil war between the communist north and the fascist South. Neither China nor Russia ran either place nor did they want to try to control 'em. USA had no direct business in it.

US was rightly assisting in fighting communist insurgencies successfully in various countries of SE Asia. While JFK and the Joint Chiefs were concerned about Laos as the geostrategic key to the Indochina Peninsula the Johnson people got carried away over VN which the French had bungled miserably just a decade earlier.

Militarily the US armed forces were oriented almost entirely to fighting the Soviet Russians in Europe, to include education, training, weapon systems, warfighting platforms, doctrine. Pentagon had no plan whatsoever to conduct a major war against guerillas and the North VN regular Army in the jungles and among the villages and swamps of that land on that peninsula. Westmoreland fought Russian ghosts the entire time he commanded in VN and so did the generals and colonels right on down to the captains and LT Calley who remains the definitive modern case of war crimes for the US armed forces never to commit.

A major reason the US can engage in Afghanistan long term as it must continue to do is that we have an all volunteer Army. Middle class Americans of draft age simply would not go to Afghanistan, which is a vital lesson of VN and the resistance to military conscription and to the predominant rejection of it since. Neither political party nor are the JCS going to advocate a draft.
Click to expand...


A major reason the US can engage in Afghanistan long term is because compared to Vietnam it's a small operation, not because we have an all-volunteer force. Not that I'm advocating for a return to the draft. And the problem in Vietnam wasn't due to using conventional forces against guerrillas plus the NVA in a difficult landscape, it was a lack of a total commitment.

There was no case to make either politically or militarily.
Click to expand...

Therefore he couldn't make the case.
 
Praxas said:
Your post was good up until this hidden bull**** claim:



There is no deep state.

I'll give you Kudos for the rest of the post though.
Click to expand...

There is a Deep State. It is composed of career bureaucrats who remain on with their jobs regardless of which party is in power. They are the reason that Putin doesn't give a damn normally who is President. He knows regardless, the trajectory, the policy, the aims of the United States will be the same. Why? Because these analysts, these advisors, these day to day-ers aren't all the sudden going to change their analysis, their opinions, their ideas just because the People found a shiny new toy to hoist up and idolize. Their life's work is tied up into the positions they've taken and they'll see them through regardless of who is in power.


What I don't believe is that people are less appreciative of Veterans. From my experience, and I'm here in the belly of the liberal beast that is Chicago, I've seen a year over year increase in recognition.
 
dave8383 said:
A major reason the US can engage in Afghanistan long term is because compared to Vietnam it's a small operation, not because we have an all-volunteer force. Not that I'm advocating for a return to the draft. And the problem in Vietnam wasn't due to using conventional forces against guerrillas plus the NVA in a difficult landscape, it was a lack of a total commitment.


<<snip>>
Click to expand...

Compared to 500,000 troops in VN with 57,000 killed plus chaos at home over the war, Afghanistan is a patrol in the desert. A distant rumor to borrow a term (A Rumor of War).

I'm not trying to reduce the effort in Afghanistan but rather to point out the key factor to the US sustainability there, which is the all volunteer Army (and total force). This is so because it is impossible to conceive of draftees returning to Afghanistan (or Iraq) for a second tour. (Career AVF volunteers can get a 3rd tour as some have.) Or of draftees accepting being subjected to stoploss orders so they can be shipped over again.

It's tough enough on the AVF troops but they go and they fight without reservation while respecting their leaders who are also professional soldiers -- it's mutual. This includes of course the National Guard and Reserves. While there's no question the extended fighting the AVF has done since 9/11 has taken its toll in respect of recruitment, retention and PTSD, the AVF suits the US geostrategic needs since 9/11.

It's not the low intensity level of the fighting in Afghanistan that enables the US to sustain the effort. It is rather the willingness of the all volunteer Army to fight there and to return to fight there as necessary that enables the USA to keep the malicious enemy at bay over there instead of more 9/11 incidents and others like it occurring in the homeland.

In VN low intensity warfare was what the US needed -- the kind that would have been executed by myriad groups of specialized forces. Pentagon and Congress alike plus LBJ had no clue of it at the time however and given the cold war and the full on US preparation to fight Soviet Russia in a big war in Europe. A total commitment of the US to the VN war was impossible and unwise to boot.

Indeed the USAF doing a Curtis LeMay in NVN by bombing dams and dikes and civilian population centers while destroying seaports, airports and the national infrastructure was completely beyond the pale to even consider doing. The world would have viewed the US as a nation with war criminals running it. LeMay was a war hero rather than a war criminal because we won a world war against the obvious evil of the time and under the extreme circumstances of it. VN was nothing whatsoever like it.
 
Tangmo said:
Compared to 500,000 troops in VN with 57,000 killed plus chaos at home over the war, Afghanistan is a patrol in the desert. A distant rumor to borrow a term (A Rumor of War).

I'm not trying to reduce the effort in Afghanistan but rather to point out the key factor to the US sustainability there, which is the all volunteer Army (and total force). This is so because it is impossible to conceive of draftees returning to Afghanistan (or Iraq) for a second tour. (Career AVF volunteers can get a 3rd tour as some have.) Or of draftees accepting being subjected to stoploss orders so they can be shipped over again.

It's tough enough on the AVF troops but they go and they fight without reservation while respecting their leaders who are also professional soldiers -- it's mutual. This includes of course the National Guard and Reserves. While there's no question the extended fighting the AVF has done since 9/11 has taken its toll in respect of recruitment, retention and PTSD, the AVF suits the US geostrategic needs since 9/11.

It's not the low intensity level of the fighting in Afghanistan that enables the US to sustain the effort. It is rather the willingness of the all volunteer Army to fight there and to return to fight there as necessary that enables the USA to keep the malicious enemy at bay over there instead of more 9/11 incidents and others like it occurring in the homeland.

In VN low intensity warfare was what the US needed -- the kind that would have been executed by myriad groups of specialized forces. Pentagon and Congress alike plus LBJ had no clue of it at the time however and given the cold war and the full on US preparation to fight Soviet Russia in a big war in Europe. A total commitment of the US to the VN war was impossible and unwise to boot.

Indeed the USAF doing a Curtis LeMay in NVN by bombing dams and dikes and civilian population centers while destroying seaports, airports and the national infrastructure was completely beyond the pale to even consider doing. The world would have viewed the US as a nation with war criminals running it. LeMay was a war hero rather than a war criminal because we won a world war against the obvious evil of the time and under the extreme circumstances of it. VN was nothing whatsoever like it.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why exactly it is that you think it is impossible to conceive of draftees returning to Afghanistan (or Iraq) for a second tour when todays soldiers have been reenlisting year after year with many, myself included, doing a lot more then 3 trips down range. There were a decent number of drafties that reupped to do more trips to Vietnam so why is one happening as we speak and the other impossible to conceive.
 
Tangmo said:
Compared to 500,000 troops in VN with 57,000 killed plus chaos at home over the war, Afghanistan is a patrol in the desert. A distant rumor to borrow a term (A Rumor of War).

I'm not trying to reduce the effort in Afghanistan but rather to point out the key factor to the US sustainability there, which is the all volunteer Army (and total force). This is so because it is impossible to conceive of draftees returning to Afghanistan (or Iraq) for a second tour. (Career AVF volunteers can get a 3rd tour as some have.) Or of draftees accepting being subjected to stoploss orders so they can be shipped over again.

It's tough enough on the AVF troops but they go and they fight without reservation while respecting their leaders who are also professional soldiers -- it's mutual. This includes of course the National Guard and Reserves. While there's no question the extended fighting the AVF has done since 9/11 has taken its toll in respect of recruitment, retention and PTSD, the AVF suits the US geostrategic needs since 9/11.

It's not the low intensity level of the fighting in Afghanistan that enables the US to sustain the effort. It is rather the willingness of the all volunteer Army to fight there and to return to fight there as necessary that enables the USA to keep the malicious enemy at bay over there instead of more 9/11 incidents and others like it occurring in the homeland.

In VN low intensity warfare was what the US needed -- the kind that would have been executed by myriad groups of specialized forces. Pentagon and Congress alike plus LBJ had no clue of it at the time however and given the cold war and the full on US preparation to fight Soviet Russia in a big war in Europe. A total commitment of the US to the VN war was impossible and unwise to boot.

Indeed the USAF doing a Curtis LeMay in NVN by bombing dams and dikes and civilian population centers while destroying seaports, airports and the national infrastructure was completely beyond the pale to even consider doing. The world would have viewed the US as a nation with war criminals running it. LeMay was a war hero rather than a war criminal because we won a world war against the obvious evil of the time and under the extreme circumstances of it. VN was nothing whatsoever like it.
Click to expand...


I don't know where to start.

First of all, when we had a draft the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and within the Army the 173rd, 101st, 82nd, Ranger School grads, Special Forces, Helicopter pilots, fixed-wing pilots, etc., etc., were all voluntary. It wasn't a military made up exclusively of draftees. Not by a long shot. So something tells me we could have covered Afghanistan without much of a problem.

Back to Vietnam. Again, Vietnam could have been won with a conventional force. There was no need fora "myriad groups of specialized forces" or the total destruction of the north by "doing a cUrtis LeMay". I served in both a conventional infantry unit and a specialized unit. The way the NVA operated a conventional force could have prevailed with the availability of enough troops. But, as we know, that level couldn't be reached because the public wouldn't allow it.

You're mixing two problems. The fact that Vietnam wasn't a wise war to get involved in is one problem. The question of whether or not a fully committed conventional force could have prevailed is another. I'm only debating the latter.
 
braindrain said:
Can you explain why exactly it is that you think it is impossible to conceive of draftees returning to Afghanistan (or Iraq) for a second tour when todays soldiers have been reenlisting year after year with many, myself included, doing a lot more then 3 trips down range. There were a decent number of drafties that reupped to do more trips to Vietnam so why is one happening as we speak and the other impossible to conceive.
Click to expand...

Your doing more than three trips downrange is in itself commendable and meritorious and it serves as an instance of how the all volunteer Army suits the US national security in the post 9/11 era. We couldn't be as safe as we are in the homeland without you and our AVF troops like you rotating back to Afghanistan (and Iraq) upwards of several times. America would be quite screwed without you guys out there meeting the elephant in the defense and preservation of the United States. Which is why most Americans support your continued presence in Afghanistan, Syria, the Horn of Africa and elsewhere in the dark and nasty world we live in.

Nothing is happening with conscript draftees as we speak however because there aren't any. You know well conscription ended in 1973 so no conscripts are being raised by draft and none are reupping, because there aren't any. Nor is it any surprise some certain conscripts reupped for Vietnam and that some conscripts made a career of the Army. It happened always that some certain draftees took to the Army well.

I got out in 1970 so I served my entire 4 years in the conscript Army where draftees in general had the reputation of being among the best soldiers during their two years in. Post WW II draftees were mature about their inevitable service in the Army, they generally were a few years older than the volunteer, they accepted induction when it occurred, did their sincere best to make the best of it by serving honorably and with dignity. I made it a point to ask senior career NCO about draftees and all I ever got was hallelujahas from the snco about draftees as a class of soldier. I was easily in agreement about 'em. The national unity of the cold war had a lot to do with this reality.

It was the RA volunteer who was susceptible to the bad attitude because after joining the Army at 18 to save the world the gung ho RA found himself cleaning latrines and maintaining his area each day, doing kp, pacing off night guard duty and the like to include being forced to buy a US Government bond each payday to pay for the war he thought was a dubious idea at best (all of us had to buy a bond on payday to pay for the war, as if the conscript era Army was well paid Ha).

So I'm not speaking in absolutes. If the draft were reinstated presently a number of conscripted Americans would go to Afghanistan and would have gone to Iraq. They'd go to the Horn of Africa and so on. Conversely, a large number of present day conscripts would not go. You fight out there because you know for real the real enemy is out there and that he wants to come to America to wreck it and us. Too many Americans and draft eligibles however won't do anything until the enemy is crossing the borders here in force which is when it would be too late and a hellova mess right here at home.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom