Vietnam Veteran Status and the Judgement of Character

[Checkmite]

We live in a period of time when many of our national leaders have or could have fought during the Vietnam War. Because of this, it's quite natural that the status of "Vietnam Veteran" has become politicized.

The Vietnam War had to have been the most unpopular war, domestically, that the US has ever fought. Protest against it was massive, and occasionally violent. Soldiers returning home - some of whom were drafted and had no choice but to serve - were shunned by many of the public.

But things have changed. Being a "Vietnam Veteran" seems to have become necessary and singular proof of competence in the eyes of some people. Many politicians who did not serve are insulted and made fun of. Some politicians who did serve in the military are still made fun of, because their particular MOS didn't put them in the thick of combat.

Take, for example, the current president. He was in the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War. That's military service, of course, yet people make fun of him for it, as if it's "not good enough". Same thing with former VP Al Gore, who served in Vietnam but is still not "man" enough, because he was only a photographer. But Bush and Gore are only two examples out of many. Why is having combat time so much more important a qualification than, say, working knowlege of geopolitics? Why is a Warrior more desirable than a Statesman? When was the last time we actually had either in the White House?

People who were in college at the time of the Vietnam War are also put down. This seems to be because several people avoided the draft by enrolling in college - but the problem is, this isn't true of every college student. Were they expected to quit college to go and fight? What about people who signed up for the draft, but were never picked? Should they have gone and enlisted anyway? Why is the status of "Vietnam (Combat) Veteran" so essential?

[Victor Danilchenko]

I don't think veteran status per se is important; but it becomes important if the politician in question is a hawk, because nobody likes hypocrisy inherent in being a chicken-hawk. This is why Shrub's National guard tenure and his AWOL therefrom is a rather interesting reflection on his current international policies.

[aerocontrols]

I don't get it at all, Joshua.

I voted for Clinton in '92 despite the 'draft-dodger' charge, and would have preferred to vote for Gore at the time.

The 'chicken hawk' charge would carry more weight with me if the chicken hawks in question were advocating a draft in order to carry out an unpopular war.

MattJ

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I don't think veteran status per se is important; but it becomes important if the politician in question is a hawk, because nobody likes hypocrisy inherent in being a chicken-hawk. This is why Shrub's National guard tenure and his AWOL therefrom is a rather interesting reflection on his current international policies.

I do not agree with your assessment, because Clinton was not a hawk, yet - as aero pointed out - his alleged "draft dodging" was an issue (or at least, some tried to make it an issue) during his campaign.

An interesting question...if a president should decide, based on all available information, that military action is necessary (this is hypothetical, I'm not arguing for the validity of any particular military action or particular president), yet that president served (for example) in the National Guard just long enough to pay for college, or never served at all, should those facts play a part in the decision to use military action? Should a president's guilt or conscience about his youth have an active role in the decision making process?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Joshua Korosi

I do not agree with your assessment, because Clinton was not a hawk, yet - as aero pointed out - his alleged "draft dodging" was an issue (or at least, some tried to make it an issue) during his campaign.But most people didn't care; then again, most don't care that Shrub is a chicken hawk.

Perhaps what it comes down to, is that people tend to seize upon excuses to mar someone.

An interesting question...if a president should decide, based on all available information, that military action is necessary (this is hypothetical, I'm not arguing for the validity of any particular military action or particular president), yet that president served (for example) in the National Guard just long enough to pay for college, or never served at all, should those facts play a part in the decision to use military action? Should a president's guilt or conscience about his youth have an active role in the decision making process?I would state the problem differently. It would be beneficial for the president who would take the country to war, to have had first-hand experience of what it is he is leading the population to.

President's thinking should play an active role in decision-making; but in the absence of a well-considered policy, personal experience of war may counter the hawkish tendencies.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Take, for example, the current president. He was in the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War. That's military service, of course, yet people make fun of him for it, as if it's "not good enough". Same thing with former VP Al Gore, who served in Vietnam but is still not "man" enough, because he was only a photographer. But Bush and Gore are only two examples out of many. Why is having combat time so much more important a qualification than, say, working knowlege of geopolitics? Why is a Warrior more desirable than a Statesman? When was the last time we actually had either in the White House?

People who were in college at the time of the Vietnam War are also put down. This seems to be because several people avoided the draft by enrolling in college - but the problem is, this isn't true of every college student. Were they expected to quit college to go and fight? What about people who signed up for the draft, but were never picked? Should they have gone and enlisted anyway? Why is the status of "Vietnam (Combat) Veteran" so essential?

The problem with the "National Guard" bits from Bush and Quayle is that going to the National Guard was well known in the Vietnam era as a way to get out of the war, and it took connections to get in it.

The problem is not necessarily that they were not in the war (hence, I wouldn't care about someone who was not drafted, for example) but that they used political/family/status connections to avoid the war. There is a concern about "elitism".

[Khalid01]

Veteran status is usually not a criterion for me, I care more about someone's philosophies and how they'll apply them in their policies rather than their capability in combat. There is more than one way to serve the Republic. However, when other people drum up military service as a positive or negative point, then I'll chime in and compare the candidates and apply that to the arguement.

For example, in this context, if one claims that former military service is a positive trait, than I would lean towards Gore. Despite the fact I dislike our fighting in Vietnam and war in general, if I can twist someone's own ideals around, than that's just lovely. :D

On the other hand of course are people who would prefer a candidate who didn't serve, in which case I'd shut up and hope no one asks me. :o

I believe pgwenthold and Victor took care of the other points rather well.

[DanishDynamite]

Personally, I don't give two hoots about a political candidate's military record, marital status, educational record or whether he/she enjoys humping chickens (as long as it is consentual. :) )

What matters is his/her political viewpoints and his/her record of keeping promises.

[Rose]

The Commander in Chief does not need military experiance in order to command our armed forces. However, if someone aspires to that job, they should have an understanding of the military mindset, the capabilities and limitations of the military ways of doing things, and a certain amount of respect for those who do serve. While I would not rule out a candidate without military experiance, I am inclined to look more favorably on someone who has served time in uniform.

[schplurg]

Victor:
President's thinking should play an active role in decision-making; but in the absence of a well-considered policy, personal experience of war may counter the hawkish tendencies.Great point!

And that's why we need to have a war every few years, otherwise future presidents won't have that experience! Joking...