The distinction between the troops and the war is very much a situational and conditional to how they ended up in Veitnam, and who's orders they took while there. Draftee's for Veitnam get sympathy, volunteers don't, and the leadership gets no benefit of the doubt at all.
We did not need to move on Veitnam at the behest of the French (the part you keep ignoring), and the people who had trained Ho Chi Min to fight the IJA tried to tell DC that repeatedly, to no avail.
Bacle.
Had we been allowed to do what we had done before this we would have pushed them out....
and Volunteering is fine. Do you think every volunteer in Vietnam wanted to go out there and kill civies? We sogn up to kill the bad guys.
Oh, in case you hadn't noticed, Desert Storm was only a success in the short term, because Bush Jr. undid all the good PR the military had from Desert Storm when he unjustly invaded Iraq in 2003.
he was using chemical weapons om his own people as well as were making bio weapons.
And we kicked thier butt so hard and fast they had to switch tactics and still didn't survive.
Desert storm was a masterpiece
And yes, it is clear you come from a dyed in the wool family who would never think to question if the DoD is still righteous, or think to dare to call a war unjust, because it might hurt the feeling of troops sent to fight said wars.
My grandfather would tell you off. He thinks the wars in the middle east were wrong as well as Vietnam.
Doesnt mean he doesnt have respect for those serving.
Also, once again, war is not won on the battlefield most of the time; war is a continuation of politics by other means, and the politics around Veitnam are a lot of why it is not a subject the DoD should be trying to push/find silver linings for.
You mean a war that was over 50 years ago and most people joining have only learned through history books and movies?
Literally no one in the current military cares about Vietnam.
it was 50 years ago. Stfu about it.
It's also worth considering there are more people like me in the US now, or people even more skeptical of the DoD, and recruiting isn't going to get better if the military only tries to cater to people like you. And that ratio is only going to get more lopsided as time goes on, so it's going to be an ongoing issue.
the military caters to people who want to have a better starting point in life.
i know rich and i know poor i worl woth.
I have met people who will be life long friends in the Army.
it is an experience you will never truly get anywhere else.
It doesn't matter that Veitnam was 50 years ago, the cultural legacy of it is still very much alive and relevant for recruiting, as the Army Secretary was told.
She is out of touch.
WHAT LEGACY? Literally answer that question.
Of course I also know you just expect to be able to fall back on a draft to make up the numbers if needed, so...
You do know we have the reserves, followed by the IRR, then Guard before we ever do a draft right?
DoD flavored propaganda doesn't really work for recruiting purposes much anymore, and Hollywood doesn't really like the US military as much as it used to, for good reason (not just Lefty bias).
And you wonder why there are less movies involving acrual US military equipment?
any use of actual military equipment has to be signed off by the DoD. Top gun for example had that.
so did BHD, and any movie involving the militaru.
The Outpost for example
And as I said above, there are more people like me and those even more skeptical who are an increasing part of the population, who the DoD cannot just ignore to focus on recruiting from just one chunk of the population, a shrinking chunk at that.
uh what? You mean a population of people who think they are to high and mighty fir the military?
we dont recruit from the 75% of the population. We recruit from 20 something percent.
Just like you don't win elections by subtraction, you don't increase recruiting numbers by only focusing on what works with established military families and the hardcore GOP DoD base. Recruiting from inner cities like Chicago is a very real, very important thing for the DoD, and places like that do need a different recruitment approach than works down in the South.
you do know that I know plenty of people personally that have used the military to escape city life right?
My DS back in basic joined because he needed to have a better life for his family and leave Oakland.
i work with guys from bad families and areas.
believe it or not. The military offers somethomg they may mit have gotten outside of it.
Also, some of those political concerns are things the DoD has some control over, particularly the 'up or out' BS that hurts retention and recruitment (sometimes people are good at one level of stuff, and don't need to push up or out), as well as the ability to pass the findings to Congresscritters to try to handle.
you mean the Up or Out that mainly only effects officers? You can be a 12 year fucking SPC now like the old days.
However, continuing to try to polish the turd that is the Veitnam war won't win over many people who control recruiter access to kids, and that lack of access is one of the main complaints of the article.
Literally no one in the military cares about Vietnam.
No one in the military served then and only the oldest of people in the military were around then as kids.
The only ones who remember anything are the civies that need to get kicked out and are ruining things.
And people like you who think they know better then what people in the military think.
