The morality of draft avoidance/dodging during Vietnam

Great Debates
1

One of my best friends is a 56-year-old American, so old enough to remember the Vietnam War. He also hates Donald Trump. One of his criticisms of Trump is that he avoided the draft. When he said this, I asked for a simple clarification of whether he disapproved of draft dodgers, he replied that he did and justified his position by saying that someone else had to go to war instead of him. I didn’t debate the point with him in order to avoid conflict. But his comment has me thinking. I’ve always sympathized with those who managed to avoid fighting in Vietnam, which was in my opinion an evil and unnecessary war. But from a purely moral perspective, does my friend have a point? Was it wrong to avoid the draft yourself and thus get someone else sent to risk their life instead? If you disagree with my friend’s argument, how would you justify it? (Offhand I can think of two counterpoints to what he said, viz. 1) that many people who dodged the draft did so not for selfish reasons but due to genuine moral convictions against killing people, including civillians, in an immoral war 2) that the person who supposedly would have been drafted to fill the place left vacant could also have attempted to dodge the draft if he was willing and resourceful enough)…what do you think of this matter?

Would your opinion vary based on the manner in which the person chose to avoid the draft? Would it, for example, make any difference to you whether the person’s method was legal (e.g. getting a college deferment) or illegal/illicit (e.g. faking a medical condition)? Would you only approve if someone refused to be inducted and voluntarily accepted the consequence of going to jail? Or would you be more sympathetic towards those who left the country and went to Canada, Sweden, or whatever, than to those who dodged the draft while remaining in the USA? I would be interested in people’s opinions and their justifications.

I should note that regarding the use of the draft in the first place, I don’t have a personal moral position on conscripting people during an actual national emergency; on one hand, a draft is always a serious infringment of one’s liberty; on the other, given that I am someone who believes in the common good, I can see how conscription might be justified in the event of an actual threat to the nation, though I don’t take any position on the matter (and I don’t pass judgment on those who choose to avoid the draft). However, I consider a peacetime draft (compulsory military service) to be an unjustified government restriction on individual liberties (thus IMO the USA unequivocally wronged Elvis Presley when he was drafted) and a draft to fight a war that is purely political, such as Vietnam, to be GROSSLY immoral and criminal. I think a draft should always be considered at best a necessary evil and a last resort.

2

I’m a vet but I don’t dismiss the reasons for avoiding the draft during the Vietnam War.

However, I do look down on the rich kids whose family connections kept them out of the war itself. This is Trump, Bill Clinton, W and Dan Quayle. I feel negatively towards all of them for this.

Clinton at least did it academically so it is easiest to forgive him.

W. started two wars at the same time without completing his cushy reserve duty in the US with no chance of being sent into the conflict. That is pretty sad.

Quayle, well there was no shortage of reasons to be dismissive of this jerk and he was only a VP.

Trump: This guy wanted a big military review parade like some tin-plated dictator. This from someone who didn’t serve at all. Pretty sucky.

To the kids from middle class and poorer families that found ways to avoid the draft, I’m OK. Many did it by staying in college, or going into teaching. Some fled to Canada or dropped out of society. Many managed to find ways to fake a medical condition. That is less than honorable but I still understand it.

So I guess I have a double standard. If you avoided the draft, you have no business running for office unless your platform is anti-war and no hawkishness. Everyone else, I don’t exactly respect their decision but I do understand it.

3

Nitpick: “Actual threats” often appear suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere. What’s your feeling about a peacetime draft to insure that a trained military will be available and ready if needed?

4

I think characterizing Bill Clinton as a “rich kid” is an error of fact.

He certainly obtained educational deferments, and ultimately, when those ran out, was given a high number, practically ensuring that he wouldn’t be drafted (that’s my memory, anyway – I remember checking all this out when he sought the Democratic nomination and then ran in the general election).

But I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to call him one of the “rich kids whose family connections kept them out of the war.”

5

Not to answer for mapleleaf but we can accomplish the same thing by using economic incentives. And, presumably, this would also result in a more motivated military force.

6

Just as there’s a difference between illegal tax evasion and legal tax avoidance, there are both legal and illegal ways to not become drafted. Any moral taxonomy should include that factor pretty high on the list.

There’s a lot more here, but I’m not up for it right now. All good points upthread.

7

Duh, you’re absolutely correct. I don’t know how neglected to think of that. Thanks.

8

Agreed. Middle-class (maybe shading towards upper-middle-class) is probably more accurate; his stepfather was co-owner of an automotive dealership. He undoubedly had better resources to avoid the draft than poorer young men, but I don’t think he was anywhere near the level of Bush, Quayle, or Trump as far as being from a “rich” family.

9

This would be my position.

I think somewhat more highly of someone who answered the call to serve than someone who avoided it, especially through some sort of illegal means, but I can’t really fault someone for not wanting to go across the world and fight in a meaningless war.

I wouldn’t hold it against them, unless they are looking to go send people off to go fight in a meaningless war.

If a draft dodger runs for office with the intent of preventing meaningless wars, I would support them, assuming that I more or less support the rest of their platform. If they were hawkish, that would turn me off quite a bit, and they would have to have an otherwise very agreeable platform in order for me to support them.

10

I am very much of two minds over the question. I avoided the draft perfectly legally–a student deferment through 4 years of college and 4 of grad school, by which time I was nearly 26 and the army really didn’t want 26 year old recruits. Anyway, I became a math prof and got a job deferment. We were in short supply in the early 60s.

I had a PhD student, now a close friend, who had an actual notice to appear for a physical in hand when he crossed the bridge from Detroit to Windsor and never looked back. He was certainly utterly against the war in Viet Nam, although I don’t think he is an actual pacifist. He has remained in Canada, had a career as a math prof. and has contributed a lot to the local scene. I just cannot criticize his choice.

I see people like Trump, Bush, and Quayle as just gaming the system. On the other hand, Clinton did the same thing as me and played by the rules. Whether those rules were fair is a different question.

I don’t think I really answered the OP, but that is the best I can do.

11

I would not approve of a peacetime draft for this purpose in a large country with an existing large professional military force. Certainly not in the United States. Let’s re-cap: the USA has an Army, Navy, Air Force, and a Marine Corps, the latter being essentially an extra army that is (or was, when I last checked) larger than the British Army. There is also a Coast Guard and now a Space Force. There are some 1,388,103 active personnel and 849,450 reserve personnel. All these are volunteers. They largely are incited to join by economic benefits like Red_Wiggler said. The system is clearly working (and while there is no draft, soldiers do sign a contract that requires them to report for duty if called up within several years after leaving active service AND National Guard units raised by the states can be called up for federal service, so in effect there is potential for an enormous manpower, none of which involves forcing civilians with no commitment to the military to join.)

In the case of smaller countries that might be at more risk of attack by larger forces, I might be OK with compulsory military training, but not a period of one or two years of impressed service under the colors. I would be OK with something like what Switzerland has. If I understand correctly, their “active service” is basically a period of training of how to use weapons and how the military works and - and this is an important point for me, AFAIK they are not subjected to the kind of harsh discipline that one is typically subjected in e.g. an American boot camp. It’s a more palatable experience. Basically their military is a more or less part-time citizens’ militia. Interestingly, though, quite a few of such small countries have managed to avoid participation in wars, and thus the kind of emergency described above, through formal policies of neutrality (a much more complex subject, but let’s not go there now).

Economic incentives and other incentives that would motivate people to join up would be the way to go. Simple example: as a naturalized Czech citizen, I myself would consider joining the Czech army reserves (doubt they’d allow me in due to certain weaknesses in my physical constitution, but still), if only they would allow long hair. (On that note back in Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recently allowed beards (and maybe also long hair on men? I’m not sure) for the first time since basically pioneer days, for precisely that purpose - to encourage more people to join. But this is just an example. Incentives can be varous. But IMHO they are the way to go. You know the expression “it takes two to tango”? People will generally be more effective at any task if not forced to it. A volunteer army or at least one with convictions will probably be more useful than one made up principally of people who would rather be doing something else. And as long as there is no draft, the problem of draft avoidance is non-existent. There have been cases of protesting and dodging the draft in wars before Vietnam as well. In the American Civil War (a conflict that interests me greatly), there were major issues with reluctant draftees in both the North and the South (though for somewhat disparate reasons). In World War II, there was a guy who listed a certain Mary Ann as his dependent - she turned out to be his horse. In Canada, excepting militia service in colonial days, there have only been two drafts, during the two world wars; both were limited and somewhat unpopular. So no, it’s not something I would advocate for preparation for an emergency, except again where absolutely necessary or perhaps in a very limited capacity as a citizens’ militia rather than a period of full induction under the colors.

12

I’m a Vietnam veteran and have run the gamut of feelings on this over the last 50 years or so since I was there. When I was serving, I was against those who fled to Canada or dodged the draft in other ways, and I’ve also been harsh on those who used daddy’s influence to keep them safe (not that I wouldn’t have done that also if my father hadn’t been a bartender). But those feelings were only strong because of the danger I was in, and more resembled frustration than anger I think.

But time can mellow one’s feelings. I now think that if someone has a genuine belief that war is evil and is morally opposed to it, then they have a legitimate reason to either not serve, or to serve in a non-combatant role. For those who fled to Canada or who went underground because of cowardice, well. . .would I really have wanted a coward watching my back in combat? Better for everyone if they just don’t show up.

And then we have the cowards who not only used daddy’s influence to escape service, but who then strut and preen after attaining government office and pass judgement on those who either have served or who are now serving. Yes, I’m specifically calling out the Trumps of the world, who feel no shame in standing on a national/world stage and denigrating the dead son of immigrant parents, or who call dead servicemen “suckers” and “losers”. For people like that, I wish nothing but misfortune and a painful death.

13

Whether running for office or not, I think that avoiding the draft, whether legally or illegally, while supporting the war that one’s not willing to fight, is not a morally defensible position.

Avoiding the draft while opposing the war in question, or wars in general, IMO is a moral thing to do, presuming that one’s motive is more or at least as much ‘I don’t want to kill anybody’ than/as ‘I don’t want to risk getting killed myself’. Wars kill people, and they don’t only kill the aggressors; they kill small children, opponents of the war, domestic and wild animals, endangered plants. This can be reduced, but it can’t be eliminated. There are cases in which it’s arguably worth it (for instance, if not having the war will kill even more small children, opponents of the aggressors, etc.); so it can also be moral to go fight in a war, as well as to prepare to fight one if it should become necessary. But that particular decision I think should be left to the individual; a draft however necessary should at least offer the option of non-military service as an alternative.

But if somebody thinks other people should go and fight in a particular war, and they’re physically capable of doing so themselves, then they ought to go themselves. Sure, it may screw up their lives – but they’re in favor of other people having their lives screwed up in that fashion, and ought to put their asses where their mouth is. (I will give a pass to somebody who’s already served a significant amount of time and thinks it’s now somebody else’s turn.)

Having avoided a draft many years ago while opposing either that war or wars in general, and running for office many years later on a non-pacifist platform, I think can be OK (though the candidate shouldn’t lie about it.) It can be a justifiable moral position to oppose some wars and not others, as long as there’s reasonable arguments about how they differ. And people who vehemently believed one set of things at age 18 sometimes change their minds by the time they’re, say, 48 or 58.

14

If your friend is 56, i.e., born in 1964, he was 9 years old when the draft ended, and 11 when the last U.S. troops left Vietnam. I wonder how he would have felt if he were born during 1946-1954 and he and his friends were faced with the immediate and very real possibility of being drafted.

15

That’s how I feel about it. I knew someone who spent time in federal prison because he refused to go. That, I have the most respect for, as true civil disobedience. It ultimately did not stop him from going into his chosen career, but he risked that. Also, if a person’s privilege allowed them to avoid going, I would still have some respect for taking advantage of that if the person also fought hard against the war.

To the OP: And, no, not everyone was “resourseful” enough to draft dodge. Like, literally did not have enough resources.

16

I am going to start by nitpicking one point here: what I remember from being 18 in 1967 is that the draft priority numbers were assigned randomly based on birth date. No doubt this number could have been changed for an individual, but I would expect it would take a lot of local political influence to accomplish that. Did Bill Clinton have that kind of pull as a college kid?

My birth date generated quite a low number in, I think, 1969. However, I had a medical condition that had rated me as 1-Y, and then later that rating was abolished and I was made 4-F. My medical condition was asthma. I didn’t have to tell them about it at the draft medical, and they certainly wouldn’t have found it from anything they were doing there. But I had a letter from my doctor, and they took my word for the details (“when was the last time you had asthma symptoms?”). I might never have had an asthma attack, or it might have happened at a very inopportune time in battle. I think I did the right thing, but if I am honest with myself, I still feel like I got away with something.

I didn’t have any actual friends who were drafted (I didn’t have all that many friends anyway) although one guy I had known from Scouts was drafted and later killed. A man I met and had a long relationship with several years later had enlisted in the Air Force rather than be drafted, and been assigned for 4 glorious years to a base in England, which he describes as the best years of his life to date. So there was no guarantee of outcome, good or bad.

I often am reminded of the episode of All In The Family, where Archie’s friend who lost his son in Viet Nam, and a draft dodger who had spent the time in Canada, met over dinner at the Bunker’s. After a lot of drama, the father says that he was very proud of his son, but he wishes that he had done the same thing as this draft dodger. So maybe the claims of the country on the one hand may be offset, at least partially, by the claims of one’s family on the other. How much sacrifice does a country have the right to demand, when its own survival is not at stake?

If you have read this far, you can tell that I currently have mixed feelings about this. I did not at the time, I was totally opposed to the draft and to the war. So in spite of mixed feelings, I think I would give any draft avoider or dodger a pass for getting out of that war. If they are in politics, I would base my attitude on what they are doing now.

17

It is morally wrong to avoid danger by putting someone else in danger.

18

This is very well said, and I agree with it completely.

19

That is very black and white. The people putting others (emphasis on “others”) in danger were in the US government, and possibly, unrelated if we hadn’t been there, in the two Vietnamese governments. Would you care to speak to my earlier question: how much sacrifice does a country have the right to demand, when its own survival is not at stake?

20

But they aren’t sending anyone anywhere, and I assume most would have been happy to end the war. I mean, I can see thinking it’s your duty because your number came up, but I can also see saying, I’m not willing to do this for my country, and protesting the war to try to not have anyone sent.