It is really very hard not to Godwinise this thread, but I will remark that one man’s insurgent is another man’s resistance fighter, and conversely one man’s local security force is another’s band of quislings: from the point of view of the insurgent or rebel or patriot or freedom fighter or whatever the hell you want to call him, he is very much at war with an occupying invader.
I think it does. A draftee in that era was given the serial number that began with “US”. A volunteer (enlisted) was given a serial number that began with “RA” (Regular Army, I assume).
So count up the US-es and the RAs and you have draftees and volunteers, right?
Not so fucking fast. I was drafted, but my serial number begins with RA. Why? Because, with draft notice in hand, I went down to the Army recruiter and got a better deal, or so I thought. I would NEVER, EVER, EVER have enlisted of my own free will. I was seriously considering going to jail instead, or to Canada, but I chickened out. Others of my generation did go to Canada or worse.
So which category do I belong in, volunteer or draftee? And whatever you say, I can give you a few dozen, if not hundreds, in my immediate outfit that were in identical circumstances. Unless you can analyze each to a considerable degree, I call foul on your statistics. 75% of my outfit in Vietnam may have been RA (just guessing), but 90% of those “volunteers” were drafted, or about to be.
Most people would be surprised to know the answer to that is China. China got the contracts to run the oil fields and China is by far their biggest customer.
That is what is called confirmation bias. No doubt some did exactly that but your numbers don’t even come close to adding up. If that were true across the board they wouldn’t have to draft, just threaten to. And only slightly more than 30% of combat deaths were draftees. So when those draft dodger volunteers went in to avoid combat they must have stupidly signed up for combat arms jobs. Of course I know that not all the casualties came from combat arms but the vast majority did.
Were you actually around back then or are you basing your arguments on supposition and what you find on the internet? As I mentioned, I joined to avoid the draft, and because I was not the type to be a CO or to flee to Canada. The Army sent me my 1A notification (while I was still in college, I might add). Then I got a letter telling me to report for my physical. Then I got a letter saying that in 21 days I could be called up. If that isn’t a threat, I don’t know what is.
I was designated “Group 8” when I joined the Navy, which is the construction trades, so I went to Da Nang, RVN after boot and trade school. Nearly every one of my fellow Seabees there had had the exact same experience as I did, having been threatened with being drafted into the infantry. There were exceptions, and there were some career types who just got caught up in the war before they could retire. But most of us were extremely reluctant “volunteers”. It’s disingenuous to use a raw statistic to present your case, when there were certainly shades of gray.
Every single person I know who served in Vietnam “enlisted” when it became apparent their Draft number was about to come up. Every one, including my father and my husband. I don’t know a single true volunteer, and I work with a lot of veterans. So, yes, it’s confirmation bias, but it fits my confirmation bias, as well. They all tell me that it was just what you did, if you were smart.
You are making some unwarranted assumptions. I “volunteered” by your definition, not for Vietnam, but was sent to Vietnam anyway. I spent most of my time at an Army base, but we had rocket and mortar attacks, and people were killed even though they weren’t grunts and weren’t on patrol. Everyone serving in Vietnam received combat pay, even those in relatively safe areas (and when Tet arrived, there were no safe areas, because the US was losing the war badly).
You don’t have to sign up for combat to get killed. Had I been killed, and the possibility existed, you would have said I was a volunteer, yet you couldn’t be farther from the truth.
You still haven’t told us what your definition of “volunteer” and “draftee” is. Without this, your statistics may be so skewed as to be meaningless.
Personally, I feel everyone could benefit immensely by reading this (at least) once per year. And every time the question in the OP comes up.
Thanks, 'luci. 
That’s some strong drink, right there.
You’re assuming that everyone agrees the war in Afghanistan is completely pointless, if not immoral. That’s not so: rightly or wrongly, many people believe in the basic cause of the war (fighting the Taliban, etc.). For those people it makes perfect sense to praise the soldiers who are off fighting for a good cause. And, conversely, for people who think the war is completely immoral and unjust, I don’t blame them for not falling all over the soldiers.
Also, I’m not sure what protecting America has to do with anything, necessarily. You can believe that a certain war is worth fighting, even if it has nothing to do with protecting your country.
Finally, the great majority of people who join the military do so for the pay and benefits, not any overriding ideological reasons, or a desire to be seen as heroes or “fighting men and women”. (Though, I hasten to add, they don’t seem to mind being called that). I base that on having spent a year in Afghanistan myself and asking people every day why they joined; pay/benefits was far and away the most common reason - nothing else even came close.
As **Der trihs **has kindly tried to point out, this is the essence of my OP - they aren’t really doing anything for us. They are, however, continuing to bring chaos to that part of the world, generating great enmity against the U.S., and fighting against an amorphous, undefined enemy that is definitely NOT another country. We are not at war with anyone in particular - certainly no government. They had the chance to figure this out before they decided to sign up. It’s not praiseworthy that they laid their lives on the line. It’s foolish. I’m sorry that they weren’t able to see the difference between a video game and the realpolitic that is our U.S. foreign policy, but they do not deserve to be venerated just because they did the same basic things as the GI’s in WWII - shooting, jumping out of planes, or whatever.
Welcome to 4th generation warfare. Because it does not fit your definition of war does make it any less a war, in fact it is war of the most difficult order. We can count on more of the same by an enemy belonging to no flag but resides under many. Any body who volunteers to fight that kind of enemy not only deserves your thanks but your respect as well.
Ok, I see the crux of this issue. I don’t think the soldiers are doing anything for us and other people think they are. Those who think they are doing something for us, believe that the soldiers deserve respect and thanks. Those who don’t, don’t think that. I don’t know how that difference is resolved, but I guess that’s the central issue. Ok, dopers, thanks.
I don’t see a good way to resolve the issue without some sort of extensive survey. My numbers are easily verifiable. You have knowledge of your own personal motivation and were told things by others. But I see no way to assign a percentage to that. Do you? So somewhere between 1-100% of those that signed up during Vietnam were doing so because they were about to be drafted.
Surveys were done by the Defense Department at the time of recruitment. From Wikipedia:
as well as: