UNSHARED
SACRIFICES LESSEN RELEVANCE
Generational
shift in demographics of Military Veterans reflects profound changes
in society
since Viet Nam Era
(Sunday, November 11, 2012 –
NYC) Today Military Veterans and active
duty troops marched up Fifth Avenue as an enthusiastic yet relatively small
crowd lined the parade route waving American Flags, holding up handmade signs
thanking all those who served, and photographs; some in black and white, others
in color, pictures of their relatives who died in the service of their Country. While the number of New Yorkers and tourists
who watched as the vets and troops marched proudly in cadence uptown did not
rival the numbers who annually view the St. Patrick’s Day, Columbus Day, or
Thanksgiving Day Parades, they represented the diminishing yet loyal number of Americans
for whom this federal holiday holds personal and often painfully emotional
meaning.
Since the birth of our Nation,
itself a product of a war with England for Independence, we have had virtually one form or another of a “conscripted Army”. In 1917 Congress enacted the Selective
Service Administration (SSA) which became the authority by which men between
the ages of 21 through 34 could be drafted to serve in World War I. Until 1973 there was an uninterrupted draft
requiring mandatory military service of all able bodied men of a certain
age. This imparted a certain sense of
cohesion, a common experience and measure of sacrifice born by all young men in
almost all American families. Once that
commonality of military service vanished from the landscape, a fissure opened
that continued to widen, dividing American families in profound ways. It was arguably the first of what would
eventually become many great “divides” in society that have increased in number
and depth to this day.
MILITARY EXPERIENCE: PART OF THE FABRIC OF SOCIETY
Until President Richard Nixon
instituted the “19 year old draft” and subsequently the “random selection”
lottery system both in 1969 as the raging, bloody war in Viet Nam was becoming
increasingly unpopular with the American people and particularly among those of
“draft age”, the overwhelming majority of men served some time in one of the branches
of the military. Prior to Nixon’s
actions having "been in the service” was one common element shared by young men
from every background, socioeconomic strata of society, region and nationality. This was one common denominator that gave
society a bonding element since almost every family throughout the land knew
what it meant to have a loved one serve.
Men who would go on to be doctor, lawyers, judges, bankers or
businessmen or truck drivers, police officers, coal miners, laborers,
contractors, teachers, cooks and everything in between could communicate with
each other in a certain personal way made possible by their shared Military
experiences. Branch of Service, duty
station, rank at discharge were but minor differences between them; it was what
they had each commonly been through that provided them the ability to relate to
and interact with one another that ceased to exist after 1973 and the
dissolution of the SSA.
THE FABRIC OF DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY
Until very recently in our
history, a draft eligible young man was considered as unpatriotic at best, a
coward or un-American at worst, to shirk his duty by attempting to avoid
serving. So fundamental to the American
Spirit was this obligation that men who could have avoided service were compelled to perform their
“duty”. John F. Kennedy, the Harvard
educated son of billionaire tycoon and former Ambassador to Great Britain,
Joseph P. Kennedy, enlisted in the Navy and served with valor on the PT-109
sustaining a lifelong injury after his small wooden craft was rammed by a
Japanese Naval vessel. Another of the
many “Yankee Blue Bloods” who served was George H. W. Bush, another Ivy League
educated scion of a powerful political family and the son of a US Senator. Bush left Yale University, became a Navy Pilot
and was shot down over the Japanese-held atoll, Tichi Jima, in the South
pacific and was forced to parachute into the sea after his plane sustained
fatal damage after he completed his bombing run. The brainy black and white footage of the
young future President being pulled from the sea to the safety of a submarine
deck became a campaign staple during his ill-fated campaign for a second term
against a “draft dodging” Bill Clinton in 1992.
From the wealthiest of
dynasties to the most anonymous, poorest clans, young men served because it was
simply the right thing to do. This was,
of course, before our government lied to us, deceived us in many unforgivable
ways on matters of life and death regarding our youth in uniform. Until that reckoning the thought of “not
serving” when your time came was so abhorrent, so alien a concept that it was
barely spoken of even between the closest of brothers, the best of friends. Everyone knew that at some time their time
would come and off they’d go. Be they
famous professional athletes or Hollywood stars, they served when called
because to not do so would forever tarnish their image in the minds of their
fellow citizens. But, the matter of “image”
aside, each of them served, some in lethal combat missions with many very
notable men voluntarily enlisting in WWII, Korea and some in Viet Nam.
Many served in times of peace
but that did not detract from the respect they earned by having served. Americans of a certain age can recall icons
of their day being inducted. Some can
recall the furor caused by the young Heavyweight Champion of the World, an
articulate, graceful athlete blessed with superb skills, a 1960 Olympic Gold Medalist
from Louisville Kentucky who changed his given name of Cassius Clay to his
Muslim name, Muhammad Ali, after he converted to Islam in 1964. When he received his draft notice in 1967 he
refused to be inducted famously stating that “Ain’t no Viet Cong ever called me
Nigger”. He was stripped of his Title
belts, banned from boxing at the height of his career for 5 years and initially
served a brief time in jail because of his refusal to serve. No,
in the America of that day to refuse to serve was a federal offense.
Juxtapose the respect the American public expressed when NFL All Pro player, Pat Tillman of the Arizona Cardinals quit his multimillion dollar contract to enlist in the Army after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Pat joined his brother as an Army Ranger and died in combat operations in Afghanistan. In a sense Muhammad Ali was "ahead" of his time while Pat Tillman represented something of a "throwback" to a distant era.
Juxtapose the respect the American public expressed when NFL All Pro player, Pat Tillman of the Arizona Cardinals quit his multimillion dollar contract to enlist in the Army after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Pat joined his brother as an Army Ranger and died in combat operations in Afghanistan. In a sense Muhammad Ali was "ahead" of his time while Pat Tillman represented something of a "throwback" to a distant era.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Aside from some physical,
medical or mental condition that exempted a draftee from serving, there was
always another recognized and widely accepted reason for not serving at that
was to claim the status of a “conscientious objector”. Typically those readily granted this status
were members of well-established religious denominations the very tenets of
which forbade them to engage in military conflict. Some came from strict doctrines such as
Quakers, Shakers and The Amish while other sects were well known “pacifists”
such as Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, Jehovah’s Witness’ and Mormons*. The government, sometimes begrudgingly,
accepted the fact that there were those young men among the population who
simply could not serve on moral, ethical and religious grounds. Certainly, there were some who mocked these
young men, their religions and traditions but, in a nation founded on the
bedrock principal of “Freedom of Religion” could no more force such young men
into the service as they could impose a national faith.
There is no shame in being an avowed pacifist. It took a good reserve of courage and personal fortitude for those who truly could not in their hearts and minds justify going into military service and perhaps find themselves in the position of having to take another human life in battle. Many of these young men did, however, serve as medics and other "non-front line posts". However, given the pervasive sense of accepting military service for most of this young Nation's history, there was always an element of controversy that was difficult for some to understand.
There is no shame in being an avowed pacifist. It took a good reserve of courage and personal fortitude for those who truly could not in their hearts and minds justify going into military service and perhaps find themselves in the position of having to take another human life in battle. Many of these young men did, however, serve as medics and other "non-front line posts". However, given the pervasive sense of accepting military service for most of this young Nation's history, there was always an element of controversy that was difficult for some to understand.
THE DIVIDE BEGINS: COLLEGE DEFERMENTS AND RARE NATIONAL GUARD
SLOTS
Until the election of Bill
Clinton to the Presidency military service was almost as much a prerequisite as
was any other single factor. Actually, it was difficult to run for public
office on any level without having been a military veteran. So deeply embedded in society for generations
were the concepts of Duty, Honor and Courage, that if the military ticket was
not punched there was not much a candidate could do to gain the votes or acceptance acceptance of his
(and until the 1960’s electoral politics was almost a purely male domain)
intended constituency.
Certain members of the draft
eligible population were granted deferments for various reasons. Professions such as medical doctors were
commonly granted deferments, (although thousands of physicians served) as were
most full time college students, Seminary, Rabbinical and other religious
schools as well as some of those considered “vital” to the war effort on the homfront and could be of
most service remaining home working as farmers, ranchers and some skilled
tradesmen. Not all these deferments were
granted automatically and, as the Viet Nam war devolved into a difficult to
understand quagmire, more and more young men sought deferments. University and college enrollments
skyrocketed as did the ranks of those young men suddenly “called” to the Seminary
or Yeshiva.
Essentially, college
deferments were viable options for those who had come from the
financial means to afford a college education.
This was the beginning of the socioeconomic divide that would, by 1972
have the conflict in Viet Nam come to be known as “The Poor Man’s War”.
Deferments had historically been a series of conditional classifications by
which a draftee could be permanently exempted or granted short term relief from
having to serve. These were not “one
time deals”. Short term deferments could
be granted consecutively year after year after year for those able to
qualify. Arguably, the very nature of deferments
was the beginning of one of the huge cultural divides we see today; those
eligible for deferments were very different from those who were not and the
defining difference was class, finances, and the social pecking order.
To no ones surprise, in short order, this
system became widely taken advantage of, abused in some respects, as draft
eligible boys who came from families with the financial means to afford a
college education began enrolling in droves.
Colleges and universities saw unprecedented enrollment numbers thanks to
the draft. So, for whatever reason you
claimed to not want to go in the military, all you needed to do if you could
afford it was jump into college.
By the height of the war
in Viet Nam and the widespread grassroots anti-war movement evolving on college
campuses from coast to coast, for the first time in our history we saw a
profound alteration in the demographics of our military. This dramatic change
in the composition of our fighting force was so pronounced that by 1970 87% of
the boys fighting, being maimed and killed in Viet Nam came from the lowest socioeconomic strata of our society.
Those college grads who did wind up serving in the military went in as
“commissioned officers” who served primarily in “non-combat zones” and those
who did serve in combat had an astonishingly 79% better chance of not being
wounded or killed than did a regular Army or Marine in the field. The
equitable shared burden of military service was fading into oblivion as the
troops fighting came from the poorest urban and rural communities with a
disproportionate number of African American boys among the ranks. This is a well-documented fact.
Of course, an alternative to
direct deferments were the scarce and highly coveted open slots in the National
Guard, particularly the Air National Guard.
The National Guard quickly became the respectable refuge for the sons of
privilege and politicians as well as the moneyed class with influence. Often this option was exercised more for the
benefit of a powerful, famous political father than merely for the benefit of
keeping his son out of “harm’s way”.
Around 1969-1970 then Texas Congressman George H.W. Bush pulled every
available string he could to secure a rare position in the Texas Air National
Guard for his hapless son, George W. Bush.
George Senior’s Father, Prescott Bush, was a Senator from Connecticut
when his son joined the Navy during WWII so, most definitely, the times they
were a changin’. While guys like George
W, Bush and Dan Quayle were securing the skies over Texas and Alabama, guys
from the South Bronx, the South side of Chicago, the hills and hollers of
Appalachia, the Mississippi/Arkansas delta region and other lowly places across
the land were dying in Viet Nam. We were
approaching what would soon become the 1% Doctrine.
Service in the Guard cloaked
the likes of George W, Dan Quayle and THEIR PEERS with the respectability of
having “served”, of fulfilling their patriotic duty, while virtually
guaranteeing they would never spend a minute in combat and would leave the
service without so much as a case of athlete’s foot. Nixon ended the draft for good in 1973 and
that was the beginning of our “all volunteer military”. The concept of shared responsibility and the
bonds that came from the commonality of military experience among men of all
walks of life was gone.
Just recently we’ve seen the
results of having elected officials vested with the authority to send our boys
and girls off to fight for whatever “interests” they perceive worthy. The Air Guard Pilot George W. and Dick Cheney
– 5 college deferments, began a preemptive war of choice in Iraq with the
callous ease of men who have never experienced the horrors of combat. We have
never before engaged in such a war and we have never had a “chain of command”
so devoid of actual personal military experience. Even Bush Sr., a combat veteran wrestled
mightily with sending our troops into Kuwait at the behest of the Saudi’s after
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and cast his gaze on the riches of the Saudi oil
fields. When he decided to send troops
he did so with overwhelming force, a clearly defined mission and an established
exit strategy. Only a military man would
think so responsibly. Cheney and his
Messianic puppet George W. were surrounded by a cadre of multiple-deferment
neo-cons more intoxicated by power and ideology than tempered by experience and
judgment.
THE GROWTH AND PROLIFERATION OF DIVISIONS
The advent of the all-volunteer
military was one of the first artificial but intentional divides that continue
to reverberate in America to this very day.
As the ranks of our Armed Forces became populated by young men and women
for whom the military was the only available option for betterment, it quickly
became evident that these young people were coming in overwhelming numbers from
the low and lowest socioeconomic strata.
Some enlisted for noble reasons, to continue established and honored
family tradition and for the pure desire to serve their country. Many others enlisted to take advantage of the
ever increasingly attractive educational and financial incentives for
enlistment. The National Guard also
became a viable option for young people seeking funding for a higher education
for what had typically been a “low risk, high reward” proposition. Unfortunately, many of these Guardsmen and women
as well as Reservists from all branches of the military would soon learn the
painful lesson that there was indeed a price to pay, an obligation to fulfill;
some of who paid with their limbs, minds, and lives. The all voluntary military simply did not provide
the troop levels needed when our country found ourselves engaged in two far
flung, long term military engagements.
THE 1% DOCTRINE
THE 1% DOCTRINE
As the percentage of American
families with a member on active duty in the military shrunk to a mere fraction
of 1% of our total population, the sacrifices became not only inequitably
distributed but largely confined to those with direct involvement. The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan became
just so much background noise and back page news to the majority of the
population. Military families were
forced to endure the trials and stresses of multiple deployments and many came
to be intimately acquainted with the human, personal costs of battle, combat
and having experienced such brutality.
Just this past Tuesday,
November 6th, we witnessed the end of one of the most divisive,
antagonistic, ideologically bitter Presidential elections in recent memory if
not since the earliest days of this Republic.
Many of the arguments presented passionately from both major Parties were
predicated overtly and covertly, subtlety and blatantly on exploiting divisions
that already divide us socioeconomically, culturally, morally and in many other
significant ways among us or creating
and fomenting new ones intended to deepen already wide fissures in the Country
today.
The predominant, most fiercely
contested of all the many issues that were called to attention during the long
contentious campaign focused on what can generally be referred to as matters of
“Class Warfare”. “Us” against “Them”, haves versus have nots, rich against poor, the
working class pitted against the entrepreneurial class, with the oft spoken of
and fought over but ever shrinking “middle class” essentially pawn-like
spectators to many of the particulars of both Party Platforms. Yes, our society is rife with divisions.
Are all of these dividers
directly related to the end of mandatory military service? Probably not.
Has the inception of the all-volunteer military played a role in helping
to create wedge issues and divisions among us that seep easily into all other
political, policy and social matters?
Probably more than we realize.
As the highly respected CBS
Anchorman who has covered many wars during his storied journalistic career,” The
Iraq war was fought by one-half of one percent of us. And unless we were part of that small group or
had a relative who was, we went about our lives as usual most of the time: no
draft, no new taxes, no changes. Not so for the small group who fought the war
and their families.”
And therein lays the crux of
this matter discussed here on this Veteran’s Day.
A nation that sends its youth
to fight in wars owes to them and their families a tremendous debt that
transcends gratitude, platitudes, parades and pageantry. Since 2001 we have seen the growth of an
entire generation of new veteran many of whom have survived injuries so
horrific that if not for the sophisticated medical techniques and resources
available today would have died a certain death just 20 years ago. The loss of limbs, the sheer numbers and
severity of traumatic brain injuries, burns, and the myriad other methods by
which human bodies are ripped, torn, mutilated and destroyed on the modern
battlefield, to say nothing of the last unseen and often undiagnosed ravages of
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) demand our government maintain their side
of the sacred oath and do everything possible to help these veterans and their
families. We do not need to create any
additional divisions among us by disregarding our collective responsibility,
our obligation to those who have served us in war and peace, as a draftee or
enlistee, no matter when, where or how.
"America will never be
destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be
because we destroyed ourselves."
President Abraham Lincoln
TAGS: VETERAN’S DAY, VETERAN’S DAY 2012, SELECTIVE SERVICE
ADMINISTRATION, THE MILITARY DRAFT, SHARED SACRIFICE, COMMON EXPERIENCE,
CONSCRIPTED ARMY, VOLUNTEER ARMY, RICHARD NIXON, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, BILL
CLINTON, DIVISIONS AMONG US, SOCIOECONOMIC DIVISIONS, HUMAN COST OF WAR,
OBLIGATION TO VETERANS.
LINKS:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/veteran-day-new-york-city-war-heroes-1776-2012-article-1.1197561
Copyright The Brooding Cynyx 2012 © All Rights Reserved
