Jump to content

Vietnam: The State of the War in the Important Year 1967


DaveO

Recommended Posts

A series of posts here in dr.com ( TV piece on Con Thien and a discussion about My Lai with researched comments by Brian R (that I appreciated) about the Vietnam conflict  and a recent series of articles in the NYTimes has reawakened me to the Vietnam period:  The most recent article in the NYTimes:

The Grunts War by Kyle Longley a Professor of History and Political Science at Arizona State University  Longley has studied and published extensively on the Vietnam period. 

I turned draft eligible during the conflict, received a student deferment and by the time the US involvement in the war ended my college years ended.  I didn't serve.  I was around and affected by the tremendous level of political acrimony attached to that period.  In many ways the political environment of that time mirrored the politicization of this period.  On top of the politicization around the Vietnam War there were also tremendously violent Urban Race Riots in the 1960's and later.  The period was rife with political strife and politicization as it is today.

I find similarities between then and now.  While currently we are involved in military engagements overseas they are clearly less involving than earlier in the past 15+ years.  Our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are far less involved than during the 2000's.  Far fewer American soldiers involved and far fewer American soldiers dying in conflict.

Going back to the Grunts War, Longley references that almost 300,000 American's entered military service in 1967.  He references that they were all drafted.  But records from the selective service state that about 220-230,000 were drafted.  (I haven't found data to work through that discrepancy.)   Additionally Longley refers to the fact at that time that soldiers entered military service with a 1 year or 13 month commitment (Marines).   Once their term was up they left service.  Clearly some re upped but most didn't.  One year of service.

One astounding difference between then and now or in the 2000's when the US was fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan was that during Vietnam a drafted soldier or enlistee has a definitive discreet period of service.   During Iraq and Afghanistan and to this day, soldiers and members of the reserves are called up for multiple periods of duty.  This could and does go on for years.

Prior to Vietnam there were drafts associated with Korea, WWII and WWI and enormous numbers of young men fought overseas.   Huge numbers.  We live in different times.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the major differences between then and now is the All-Volunteer Force.  After Vietnam, General Creighton Adams purposely designed the National Guard and Reserve components to house critical support (and combat) units.  This was so if the country ever went to war with the volunteer force, the hometown reservists would also have to be called up making the decision to go to war a harder commitment.  Needless to say, we've figured out ways around that.  

Enlistments can still last 2-4 years, depending, and people still get out.  Commissioned active duty officers typically have a four-year commitment, with aviation (because of a year of flight school/officer's course) at six.

Two combat tours for career soldiers and officers was normal then.  Today, I have several friends who stayed in who were deployed 6-7 times for a year each over 20 years. The strain on the force is immense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2017 at 9:08 PM, Brian R said:

One of the major differences between then and now is the All-Volunteer Force.   

...and obviously so it is.  

The Longley piece above covered a lot of territory.  My interest is in the differences between the all volunteer force and the draft force.

Quote

After Vietnam, General Creighton Adams purposely designed the National Guard and Reserve components to house critical support (and combat) units.  This was so if the country ever went to war with the volunteer force, the hometown reservists would also have to be called up making the decision to go to war a harder commitment.  Needless to say, we've figured out ways around that.  

 That is fascinating and not something of which I was NOT aware.  I'm in the midst of researching that but have yet to find references.  

Clearly the length of time with regard to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the need for multiple call ups confirm that as a nation "we've figured out ways around that".  

That is one way to put it.  Alternatively one might argue this concept has been ignored, forgotten, and been replaced by a different concept whose result ends up in repeated call-ups and years of service.

Boy, somehow the length and demands of the Iraq/Afganistan wars changed things in a considerable way. 

Quote

Enlistments can still last 2-4 years, depending, and people still get out.  Commissioned active duty officers typically have a four-year commitment, with aviation (because of a year of flight school/officer's course) at six.

Two combat tours for career soldiers and officers was normal then.  Today, I have several friends who stayed in who were deployed 6-7 times for a year each over 20 years. The strain on the force is immense.

This is a side perspective on the strain and how it has been articulated in and to the public.

Here it is decades later and as I reflect on that period I have no doubt a very significant level of the anti Vietnam War perspective was fear of getting one's ass in the conflict or having one's child's ass in the conflict.  Much of the political language of the time might have skirted around that issue but I have no doubt it was an enormous part of the equation.

Alternatively, with the Iraq/Afghanistan wars there was a protest movement but it was a tiny shell of the protest against Vietnam.  Moreover the people of age for military service didn't raise up with vehemence.  College kids and their parents knew they didn't have to serve in Iraq/Afghanistan. 

What I found interesting is that those who served have had a "muted" voice about the topic. Their perspectives range across the board, as they did during Vietnam...but clearly soldiers in the Army and Marines, the vets of those wars, and members of the reserves have not bellowed against it.  Nor did the overwhelming volume of vets from Vietnam.   Overall, one of the side impacts of the all volunteer force has been to dramatically reduce opposition to the wars. 

But way beyond that observation the fact that there are so many multiple call ups is extraordinary and clearly has to strain the Pentagon and put an enormous strain on both enlisted and reserves.  Its an amazing change and I find that the topic is way undercovered in any discussions about our nation. And yet its profound 

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DaveO said:

And with the length of those wars and multiple call ups...I question the "figured out ways" perspective.  It seems the wars outlasted the "intent" of this concept.

Well, no one planned for Afghanistan and Irag to last ten years.  The plan was a quick mobilization, then out.  We had "Mission Accomplished", and when that did not work, it was followed by numerous surges and repeats of "the next six months are crucial."  

With less than three percent of Americans serving, most of the public is removed from the question of war.  I would argue we've gone a little too overboard with the admiration (adoration?) of the military, as that has become a substitute for asking the hard questions.  And let's face it, we have fewer casualties than with Vietnam, never mind Korea or WWII.  So out of sight, out of mind is a factor.  

My concern is the long term.  We are the best military in the world at tactics.  We lacked (and still lack) any coherent strategy.  "Hope is not a plan."  

Many vets have raised concerns, and have entered government and elected offices of both parties.  The trend traditionally was for military personnel to be neutral.  Some of the older officers I knew did not even vote, as that would be partisan.  I don't believe that's the case now.

Anyway, there's certainly lots to consider going forward....

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Brian R said:

Well, no one planned for Afghanistan and Irag to last ten years.  The plan was a quick mobilization, then out.  We had "Mission Accomplished", and when that did not work, it was followed by numerous surges and repeats of "the next six months are crucial."  

With less than three percent of Americans serving, most of the public is removed from the question of war.  I would argue we've gone a little too overboard with the admiration (adoration?) of the military, as that has become a substitute for asking the hard questions.  And let's face it, we have fewer casualties than with Vietnam, never mind Korea or WWII.  So out of sight, out of mind is a factor.  

My concern is the long term.  We are the best military in the world at tactics.  We lacked (and still lack) any coherent strategy.  "Hope is not a plan."  

Many vets have raised concerns, and have entered government and elected offices of both parties.  The trend traditionally was for military personnel to be neutral.  Some of the older officers I knew did not even vote, as that would be partisan.  I don't believe that's the case now.

Anyway, there's certainly lots to consider going forward....

As to the paragraph bolded:  I entirely agree.  and with that I think we are missing a lot.  There has been a certain number of more recent vets that have entered politics.  I think that is a plus.  Their perspectives are needed.  Amazingly their perspectives cover a lot of territory.  Like the rest of the population their perspectives are quite varied, but at least they add a perspective and experience that is both vital and increasingly an ever smaller minority of the population at large.

And there is a lot to consider going forward.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I look at history such as Con Thien, My Lai, and a brief summary of conditions in Vietnam the more relevant questions are always what can or did we learn from that period that may be applicable now.

Some issues keep reappearing over time:  John McCain was one of many American soldiers tortured in Vietnam, he became a member of Congress, disagreed with the Bush administration about torture when it became apparent we were applying it....and the topic continues to be argued:

The discussion about levels of soldiers in Vietnam comes up and the general discussion that most enlisted and drafted soldiers served 2 year terms with about 1 year in service.  In today's military enlisted and reserves can get called up repeatedly...3,4,5,6,7 times.   The draft in Vietnam put enormous political pressure on the military and the nation at that time period.  In today's time period repeated call ups, as Brian R noted puts tremendous "strain on the force".   

Either way you look at that maintaining a large military is going to put strains on the force, the nation, the politics.  Should there be a large military that gets involved world wide, should there be alternatives besides an all volunteer army, a very involved reserves and enormous usage of quasi military government contractors?   All questions.

These and other questions are overlayed by the politics of this age which is so contentious, similar to that period of the 60's and the 70's.   

Its why I dwell on these topics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2017 at 0:21 PM, Brian R said:

With less than three percent of Americans serving, most of the public is removed from the question of war.  I would argue we've gone a little too overboard with the admiration (adoration?) of the military, as that has become a substitute for asking the hard questions.  And let's face it, we have fewer casualties than with Vietnam, never mind Korea or WWII.  So out of sight, out of mind is a factor.  

As one of the people who probably annoys you with my adulation, I'm curious to know why you think we've gone overboard. From my point of view, it is soldiers who are prepared to fight and die for *my freedom* (and often *have*) whom I openly respect and honor - what, exactly, is wrong with that?

There's actually a similarity in my respect for soldiers and my respect for kitchen rats, rather than restaurateurs (I'm not saying I *don't* respect restaurateurs; merely that I have a *lot* of respect for people busting their asses for $16 an hour, when it's people like me getting much of the benefit from their labors). Now, I don't for a moment think they're doing this "for me," but I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "thank you" and showing some respect (and, in my case, arguing for pay increases).

I'm very interested in your take on this. I don't think soldiers are fighting "for me," but undeniably, there is that side effect - I am free to live a free life because of what these soldiers do - why should I *not* honor and respect them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, in the current environment there is a lot of blind adulation that gets wrapped up in vicious politics that labels people traitors or patriots.  It ends up worsening and distorting the important and serious discussions and decisions about the biggest topics--war and peace.   In the midst of the worst fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, love and commentary about soldiers was turned into political attacks.

On another level, as a civilian, I'm stunned by the multiple deployments.  I don't know...I equate it to involuntary servitude.   It is not how people conceived of enlisting in the reserves years ago...and for years post Vietnam...but pre Iraq/Afghanistan.  Those men and women who are serving are doing MUCH more than I imagined in the past.  I've resolved and acted in that it is worth far more than adulation...it requires actions.  This tiny tiny percentage of the population carries an astounding load.   

Those are opinions, not facts.   In my mind and experience soldiering is different in many ways from how it once was.  I think it deserves deep thought..beyond automatic "adulation".   These are people who are subject to life and death and big decisions.  It doesn't equate well with other functions and jobs now.  It has many more consequences.

Currently there is "talk" about the serious conditions vis a vis China (the South China Sea), N Korea, the Middle East, the Ukraine, and who knows where.  If something worse evolves its these soldiers lives who get thrown in.   Its young people's lives.  It merits the most serious consideration...not bromides.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DonRocks said:

As one of the people who probably annoys you with my adulation, I'm curious to know why you think we've gone overboard. From my point of view, it is soldiers who are prepared to fight and die for *my freedom* (and often *have*) whom I openly respect and honor - what, exactly, is wrong with that?

I'm very interested in your take on this. I don't think soldiers are fighting "for me," but undeniably, there is that side effect - I am free to live a free life because of what these soldiers do - why should I *not* honor and respect them?

You ask the hard questions...

My opinion only, and tons of caveats: the plural of anecdote is not data; service members and veterans are, like the rest of the country, are not a monolithic group and are highly diverse in thoughts, feelings, and experiences; etc.  Also, I'll point out that I have never spent any time in combat, watching the first Gulf War on CNN (but getting other briefings in the build up.  Aside:  The Army estimated that 2,500 servicemen would die each day of combat.  My flight school group was told that if the combat continued for a couple of months or more, we would be shipped over as pilot replacements without being trained on flying via instruments.)

The folks deployed are fighting for you, on behalf of an elected government that has decided military action is the most effective policy.  Our wars are our responsibility.  The decisions to go to war are too easy, because very few people have "skin the game."  In any given action, would you be willing to send your son/daughter/brother/sister?  It would have to be for a really good reason, right?  Yet we seem to have little problem sending someone else's.  Partly this is because we've been very successful (tactically). We win the short battles/campaigns.  Partly because of the success of the all-volunteer force. Partly because we have stopped being strategic to use other tools at our disposal, and if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

I would argue that individual actions like tying a yellow ribbon, the constant "thank you for your service", and other actions, are not objectionable in and of themselves.  However, they can collectively add up as a societal reaction that substitutes sincere respect for the hard thinking (and work) of why we are sending these folks overseas over and over, and how we take care of them and their families.  I can't find the cite, but society pays roughly 4-5 times the cost of an actual war/deployment over decades after it's over.

You can Google "please don't thank me for my service" and get a plethora of responses.  To quote from one New York Times article:

Quote

To some recent vets — by no stretch all of them — the thanks comes across as shallow, disconnected, a reflexive offering from people who, while meaning well, have no clue what soldiers did over there or what motivated them to go, and who would never have gone themselves nor sent their own sons and daughters.

To these vets, thanking soldiers for their service symbolizes the ease of sending a volunteer army to wage war at great distance — physically, spiritually, economically. It raises questions of the meaning of patriotism, shared purpose and, pointedly, what you’re supposed to say to those who put their lives on the line and are uncomfortable about being thanked for it.

As they say, read the whole thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brian R said:

As they say, read the whole thing.

I promise you I will (but that article is EXACTLY the one I referred to in an earlier discussion we had, so I already have read the whole thing, many weeks ago).

But only if you promise me you'll watch "Elegy for a Pig" (and if you don't have a Hulu membership, you can use mine).

Then, we'll reconvene.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brian R said:

You ask the hard questions...

My opinion only, and tons of caveats: the plural of anecdote is not data; service members and veterans are, like the rest of the country, are not a monolithic group and are highly diverse in thoughts, feelings, and experiences; etc.  Also, I'll point out that I have never spent any time in combat, watching the first Gulf War on CNN (but getting other briefings in the build up.  Aside:  The Army estimated that 2,500 servicemen would die each day of combat.  My flight school group was told that if the combat continued for a couple of months or more, we would be shipped over as pilot replacements without being trained on flying via instruments.)

The folks deployed are fighting for you, on behalf of an elected government that has decided military action is the most effective policy.  Our wars are our responsibility.  The decisions to go to war are too easy, because very few people have "skin the game."  In any given action, would you be willing to send your son/daughter/brother/sister?  It would have to be for a really good reason, right?  Yet we seem to have little problem sending someone else's.  Partly this is because we've been very successful (tactically). We win the short battles/campaigns.  Partly because of the success of the all-volunteer force. Partly because we have stopped being strategic to use other tools at our disposal, and if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

I would argue that individual actions like tying a yellow ribbon, the constant "thank you for your service", and other actions, are not objectionable in and of themselves.  However, they can collectively add up as a societal reaction that substitutes sincere respect for the hard thinking (and work) of why we are sending these folks overseas over and over, and how we take care of them and their families.  I can't find the cite, but society pays roughly 4-5 times the cost of an actual war/deployment over decades after it's over.

You can Google "please don't thank me for my service" and get a plethora of responses.  To quote from one New York Times article:

As they say, read the whole thing.

Brian:  Tou write eloquently on the topic; far better than can I.  Your expressions capture my perspectives.  We make decisions on war and peace to lightly.  People's lives are at stake, primarily young people.  And I am very far removed from a pacifist.

Bravo on the response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2017 at 8:06 PM, Brian R said:

The folks deployed are fighting for you, on behalf of an elected government that has decided military action is the most effective policy.  Our wars are our responsibility.  The decisions to go to war are too easy, because very few people have "skin the game."  In any given action, would you be willing to send your son/daughter/brother/sister?  It would have to be for a really good reason, right?  Yet we seem to have little problem sending someone else's.  Partly this is because we've been very successful (tactically). We win the short battles/campaigns.  Partly because of the success of the all-volunteer force. Partly because we have stopped being strategic to use other tools at our disposal, and if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

 

I found this to be an eloquent beautifully written paragraph responding to a topic that is among the biggest issues of any time period for any nation.  To take it back to the reference to "Vietnam: 1967, the thread title, I bolded the lines above wherein our society is different now than in 1967 when a draft prevailed: 

The comments that follow speak to the ways we make decisions about war and peace and how when "there is no skin in the game" the decisions become more remote from the consequences of war on peoples lives.

And then I read the following headline and story and thought back to Brian R's piece:   From CNN today it describes that: Retired generals send a letter decrying drop in state department budget and increase in military budget

Over 120 retired generals sent letters to various people in the administration and Congress suggesting we not alter the budget as suggested by Trump:  10% increase in Pentagon budget and dollar for decreases in other department budgets with most of the cuts coming from State and EPA.  The generals didn't address taking the money from EPA or other agencies but they argued that money for state was money well spent, especially as it serves to reduce the likelihood of war and the cost in lives and on pressure on the military:

I think the article speaks for itself:

Quote

Washington (CNN)More than 120 retired generals signed a letter Monday pushing back on the White House's proposal to make major cuts to diplomacy and development.

Retired Gen. David Petraeus, a former CIA director, and retired Gen. James Stavridis, the former NATO supreme allied commander, are among the former three- and four-star generals who wrote that State Department funding is "critical to keeping America safe." They sent the letter to congressional leaders, two Cabinet officials and the White House national security adviser.

President Donald Trump's first budget proposal would increase military spending by about $54 billion dollars, with administration officials telling CNN they would cut funding elsewhere by a similar amount this year, in large part by targeting the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department.

"The State Department, USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps and other development agencies are critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way," the generals wrote.

They went on to quote a 2013 remark by Defense Secretary James Mattis while commander of US Central Command: "If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition."

Foreign aid makes up about 1% of the federal budget and is seen by most military and foreign policy experts as an excellent investment in US national security interests.

"We know from our service in uniform that many of the crises our nation faces do not have military solutions alone -- from confronting violent extremist groups like ISIS in the Middle East and North Africa to preventing pandemics like Ebola," the generals wrote.

Congress is not mandated to follow Trump's budget plan, and in the coming weeks committees are expected to call administration officials to Capitol Hill to explain their proposal. The generals are likely to make appearances as well, arguing against the dramatic cuts. 

The letter was organized by the Global Leadership Coalition, which backs investments in development and diplomacy alongside defense.

 

To return to what Brian wrote: 

Quote

If your only tool is a hammer than every problem looks like a nail

.  When the war in Vietnam coincided with the draft, and it went from a small containment effort to a major war effort with hundreds of thousands of new soldiers being sent to Vietnam every year of the conflict, and a significant portion of them were draftees...a much larger portion of the population felt as if it "skin in the game". 

In the fifteen full years since we went to Afghanistan and then Iraq approximately a total of 2.7 million Americans have served in those two fronts in service  (and then countless contractors).  In the 11-12  years between 1961 and early 1973, 2.5 million American soldiers served in Vietnam.  The vast bulk of those soldiers served during the period between 1967 and 1970.  The war quickly escalated, the fighting was significant and fierce, during that period and then the US began to withdraw forces and deescalate its involvement on the ground, thus minimizing death and injuries.

Not to diminish giving honor to current soldiers in service, but their efforts and sacrifices are at a level that we civilians don't approach.  Beyond that honor we need to treat the actions and policies that might result in wars death and injuries with a seriousness that it demands.  Its the type of seriousness one would give if as Brian writes above if:

On 2/22/2017 at 9:17 PM, DaveO said:

your son/daughter/brother/sister

were involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...