Almost certainly true. But people like Senator Mitt Romney, who sat out the War in Paris, were certainly the worst of the worst. In the same way it is hard to see what good Presidents Bush (the Lesser), Clinton, or Trump did with their refusal to serve either. They were just out for themselves.
You can argue that, but I deny it. The war was bullshit from the beginning. Domino theory my eye. Anyone who knew the history of the region (including all the China hands that McCarthy had had kicked out of the State Dept.) understood from the getgo that Viet Nam would strongly resist Chinese encroachment. And in fact, did China overrun Viet Nam after the US withdrew? No, the biggest effect was to destabilize the region and make way for Pol Pot next door.
No, this was the military industrial complex in action. And lots of people understood this perfectly well. Certainly I did.
But, how many 18-25 year old draftees knew that, at that time? I’d suspect it wasn’t widely known then (or even now).
I remember watching a documentary on the draft dodgers and how at a campaign event in 1976 Jimmy Carter promised he would issue a blanket pardon to all of them. That comment got booed in the footage shown. Nonetheless he did go ahead with it on his second day in office.
Exactly. They weren’t drafting Rhodes Scholars or college graduates or history majors. I was 19 when they came looking for me and could barely tie my shoes. Domino theory? Please.
By all means, argue the morality of individuals who found a way not to go to that war. But that’s a far cry from the absolutism of your earlier statements:
And so on. If your statements were based on bitterness towards those who got out of it, or anger about the betrayal of your government, I can understand those kinds of feelings. I only object to your broad brush approach to an issue that is still sensitive to many people.
I think you’ve lost a thread here. Romney was serving as a missionary and, just like other faiths’ missionaries, was exempted from conscription. Actually, in Romney’s case, the exemption only lasted as long as he was serving as a missionary. Other faiths ministers were exempt whether they were missionaries or not. For the LDS, each ward would only send out one new missionary every six months, no matter how many of the men otherwise qualified per their church for missionary service. Your characterization of the Bushes and Clinton might be a bit more biased than you think. IMHO, you call it “refusal to serve” when it is a situation you do not like for them for whatever reason you have. AFAIK, those individuals did not flat out commit fraud as a certain extremely recent officeholder certainly did to avoid draft.
The larger issue in this thread seems to be “Should someone who did not serve in the military be in charge of the military?” My answer–mind you, I’m a veteran myself–is a resounding yes. Our system is set up with civilian control over the militaray. As I learned in elementary school, middle school, and high school civics/government classes and also in Army Basic Combat Training, the idea for this is so we would not have situations such as Thailand has with the military controlling the goverment.
Availing oneself of legal exemptions is neither illegal nor immoral to me. What is wrong is the aforementioned recent officeholder’s fraud and that’s wrong because it’s fraud. During World War II, thousands of men requested conscientious objector status and most were denided, leading a number of them to accept incarceration instead of going into the military, or by serving in the military as non-combatants (aside: many, including some on this board, call them cowards; I do not–and Desmond Doss certainly was no coward). Each person chose his course of action, be it prosecution, serving in an unarmed capacity, or flight from the country to avoid participating in what he saw as an injustice. It’s rather simplistic in my view to accuse those individuals of their choice because they wanted others to go in their place. From what I remember of the protests, they wanted nobody to go.
Take the above however you wish, remembering that I am absolutely against conscription and always have been. I see nothing wrong with serving in one’s country’s miitary, but I feel that any country that must force someone to defend it is not worthy of defense, even during wartime. And a quick reminder: the conflict in Vietnam was not a declared war and thus the US government was, IMHO, playing fast and loose with laws relating to military service at the time.
There are a lot of things I dislike about George W. Bush but his service in the Air National Guard during Vietnam is not particularly objectionable to me. I don’t consider the National Guard to be a lesser form of service. Someone has to fly those planes stateside, it’s part of the country’s defense, and it seems to me that if Bush truly wanted to evade any form of military service, he could have easily done so.
Well this I agree with overall. I have the least respect in this area for W, who started 2 wars at the same time while having avoided real service.
I just can’t begrudge the average kid that chose to avoid the draft for Vietnam. Especially after February 27, 1968 when Walter Cronkite told everyone that the war could not be won. Let’s call that the big bright dividing line. Anyone that resisted the draft after that mostly gets a pass (from me) unless they ran for Federal office and were Hawks.
The National Guard was used as a dodge by well connected families to protect their sons. W and Quayle are both examples of this being done. Worse yet, W never even completed his obligation.
I am very sorry. I understood I was allowed to speak freely. Please excuse me.
Have you considered the delicate feelings of those who feel differently from you?
Is resisting the draft quite the same thing as simply dodging service? As I pointed out, a great many people did one and not the other.
(I regret that I neglected to mention Rush Limbaugh in this category.)
If a kid drew the short straw in 1969 and decided to flee to Canada or drop out to avoid a unjust war and a war the most trusted man in America said we couldn’t win. No, I forgive them. Unless they years later ran as a Hawkish candidate.
Keeping in mind, I’m a vet from a family of many vets. And I was a Hawk.
My almost niece grew up without a father thanks to the Vietnam War. A war that really never made sense and fought with the lives of mostly poorer kids or less learned kids. That draft was especially unfair in nature.
You are free to write what you want. I am free to criticize what you write, and to object to it if I see fit.
You will recall his exemption lasted three years in Paris. Most LDS missionaries serve only one year. Few serve in Paris. He left his mission once he was safe from the draft.
I do not think any is arguing what these gentlemen did was illegal. They simply took the exits clearly marked for those with the wit and wealth to use them. As a result someone else was in danger. Not illegal, the system is of course set up to protect the rich.
Such behavior was simply morally wrong.
The comparison with those who refused to serve in World War II is obvious. They paid the price in terms of alternative service or even time in jail. During Vietnam, our rich simply got on with their lives. I cannot even a draft refuser who was active in the anti-war effort. (There must have been some.)
I can mention those who were simply silent on the war. Some (Romney, Limbaugh) were in favor of the war. As long as they protected their skins.
It seems our ruling class simply did not reflect on the morality of their actions, just so long as they and their sons were safe.
Go ahead, take a moral stance. Serve the republic if you think that is right. Fight against a war if you feel it unjust. These people did neither. Most people who used legal loopholes to avoid their obligation never gave morality a thought.
If you have a moral code that allows you to do whatever you want to be happy and safe, who does that differ from having no moral system at all?
LDS missions are now, and have been for quite some time, two years for males, eighteen months for females, and extensions are not uncommon.
I don’t agree.
You can be just fine with war fought by professional soldiers, as the US has today, and yet still think that conscription is wrong and it is moral to avoid it.
Not that again. W was a fighter pilot which is and was especially then a dangerous profession. Also pilots from the National Guard could and would be sent. He flew in a squadron that sent people to Vietnam and he himself could have been sent, the main reason he wasn’t was that by the time he has enough hours in type the drawdown had begun.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml
In case W all evidence is that he was looking less for a way to avoid service (though he wasn’t seeking it out) and more that he wanted a chance to fly fighters (yeah a young man wanting to fly fast jets, unheard off).
Even if we accept that he “gamed” the system, so did many people. There were ways to avoid dangerous service even if you were drafted. Know how to type, get assigned as a clerk. Having some photography experience, military journalism and or some intel outfit. Play some instrument, become a musician.
So these people also “gamed” the system. But they fact that they might have spent some time in country makes it ok?
Thank you.
That article seems to disagree with other materials. I’m not going to derail this thread though on W. If you want to continue it in a new thread. I’ll join you.
Other materials are aerospace experts?