It was a sunny April day in Madison as I strolled into freshman English class, the only male in the class that day. ROTC was required of all freshmen and sophomore boys, and they were excused for their annual parade.
I had just passed my 22nd birthday but easily passed for 18. The instructor of that section of freshman English, a soft spoken Texan from Midland, gave me, an apparently healthy male not in ROTC, a rather hard look.
"Waelti, how come you're not in ROTC?"
I tried to be modest, replying, "Mr. Odum, three years in the Marines is enough to exempt me from ROTC."
His demeanor changed noticeably. "Oh," he replied. "I thought you seemed more mature than the rest of "em."
In those days, prior to grade inflation now rampant on college campuses, freshman English was a "weeder course," used to flunk students out. It seemed nearly impossible to get a decent grade in freshman English at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Incredibly, I got an "A" in that course, maybe not because he knew I was a vet. But being a vet surely didn't hurt my cause.
I'm reminded of this because of stories of recent vets having a difficult time assimilating back into civilian life and, especially, adjusting to college life.
It was an entirely different era back then. The majority of the male half of the population, including administrators, department heads, and professors in academia, had some military experience behind them. As military service was then a common experience, there was no "problem" identifying with vets, and no cultural divide to overcome.
Granted, the vets of my era, post Korea and pre-Vietnam, were "peace time vets" who didn't experience the horrors of combat and its aftermath. Adjustment problems today may be partly due to a shaky employment market, but I believe it goes deeper than that. It's a combination of the nature and length of these wars, and a shrinking minority of Americans who have so much as 10 minutes in a military chow line.
For America, WWII was over in less than four years, and the Korean War in three. Whether combatants came back alive or dead, one way or another, it was over.
In contrast, recent and current wars go on and on, with the same combatants being redeployed over and over and over, all while few Americans have any connection whatsoever to war, or any of its participants. W. Bush and Richard Cheney advised civilians "to go shopping" to show that we were not intimidated by terrorists.
Recent wars are not considered urgent enough that the sons of our corporate CEOs, scions of Wall Street, and powerful politicians, lead the charge. After all, as long as there are volunteers, including young women, to fill the ranks, why should the sons of the powerful do it? Some women are even pressing to go into combat units, even as sons of the mighty prefer to let someone else, including women, do the fighting.
Pardon me, but does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?
Okay, I realize that women already serve in combat zones, as opposed to combat units. And I'm for equal opportunity for women - to a point. After all, I have a daughter who is a Major in the U.S. Army. But she's not in a combat unit, and for multiple reasons I don't believe she or any other woman should be.
But then, I do come from a different era.
And our professional athletes? It's more convenient for them to thank the vets, including women, for their service than to participate in the fighting.
Or, maybe these lengthy wars are not as urgently necessary as politicians and our obsequious national media would have us believe?
So with the incessant lengths of recent wars, and vets returning among civilians, ever fewer of who have experienced military service, it's understandable that there are some adjustment problems, and maybe some frustration. But in contrast to experiences of the returning Vietnam vets, today's vets are, at least on the surface, getting some respect.
I'm sure that the fawning CEOs, big time politicians, and professional athletes who thank today's vets for their service are well intended. But the cynic in me suspects that they're just thankful as hell that they, or their own privileged kids, don't have to get into it.
So, from a vet who had an academic career, here's my advice to vets returning to college. You have fawning civilians thanking you with varying levels of sincerity and understanding. Maybe you appreciate that. Even if you don't, politely go along with it - that's the cynic in me.
You have G.I. Bill money - you have earned it. You can graduate without a load of debt - that's the economist in me.
You have professors who are willing to assist you if you do your part, hit the books, and give "em a chance - that's the professor in me.
You have eons of maturity beyond the 18-year-old brats fresh out of high school. The guys among you have gorgeous co-eds admiring you - if you give "em a chance. So, go for it - that's the Marine in me.
WWII vets were taken for granted. Korean vets who fought the "forgotten war" were themselves forgotten. Peacetime "cold war" vets were ignored - we were never shot at, but did they have to take the GI Education Bill away from us for ten years?
The Vietnam vets got a raw deal - not only had to fight that dirty war but got blamed for it and trashed when they got home.
Now, even as returning vets face a stagnant economy and a cultural divide, at least they are getting some respect from civilians who are thankful that their own kids don't have to do it.
Thus, the cultural divide, unintended consequences of an all-volunteer force and incessant war.
- John Waelti's column appears in the Times every Friday. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
I had just passed my 22nd birthday but easily passed for 18. The instructor of that section of freshman English, a soft spoken Texan from Midland, gave me, an apparently healthy male not in ROTC, a rather hard look.
"Waelti, how come you're not in ROTC?"
I tried to be modest, replying, "Mr. Odum, three years in the Marines is enough to exempt me from ROTC."
His demeanor changed noticeably. "Oh," he replied. "I thought you seemed more mature than the rest of "em."
In those days, prior to grade inflation now rampant on college campuses, freshman English was a "weeder course," used to flunk students out. It seemed nearly impossible to get a decent grade in freshman English at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Incredibly, I got an "A" in that course, maybe not because he knew I was a vet. But being a vet surely didn't hurt my cause.
I'm reminded of this because of stories of recent vets having a difficult time assimilating back into civilian life and, especially, adjusting to college life.
It was an entirely different era back then. The majority of the male half of the population, including administrators, department heads, and professors in academia, had some military experience behind them. As military service was then a common experience, there was no "problem" identifying with vets, and no cultural divide to overcome.
Granted, the vets of my era, post Korea and pre-Vietnam, were "peace time vets" who didn't experience the horrors of combat and its aftermath. Adjustment problems today may be partly due to a shaky employment market, but I believe it goes deeper than that. It's a combination of the nature and length of these wars, and a shrinking minority of Americans who have so much as 10 minutes in a military chow line.
For America, WWII was over in less than four years, and the Korean War in three. Whether combatants came back alive or dead, one way or another, it was over.
In contrast, recent and current wars go on and on, with the same combatants being redeployed over and over and over, all while few Americans have any connection whatsoever to war, or any of its participants. W. Bush and Richard Cheney advised civilians "to go shopping" to show that we were not intimidated by terrorists.
Recent wars are not considered urgent enough that the sons of our corporate CEOs, scions of Wall Street, and powerful politicians, lead the charge. After all, as long as there are volunteers, including young women, to fill the ranks, why should the sons of the powerful do it? Some women are even pressing to go into combat units, even as sons of the mighty prefer to let someone else, including women, do the fighting.
Pardon me, but does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?
Okay, I realize that women already serve in combat zones, as opposed to combat units. And I'm for equal opportunity for women - to a point. After all, I have a daughter who is a Major in the U.S. Army. But she's not in a combat unit, and for multiple reasons I don't believe she or any other woman should be.
But then, I do come from a different era.
And our professional athletes? It's more convenient for them to thank the vets, including women, for their service than to participate in the fighting.
Or, maybe these lengthy wars are not as urgently necessary as politicians and our obsequious national media would have us believe?
So with the incessant lengths of recent wars, and vets returning among civilians, ever fewer of who have experienced military service, it's understandable that there are some adjustment problems, and maybe some frustration. But in contrast to experiences of the returning Vietnam vets, today's vets are, at least on the surface, getting some respect.
I'm sure that the fawning CEOs, big time politicians, and professional athletes who thank today's vets for their service are well intended. But the cynic in me suspects that they're just thankful as hell that they, or their own privileged kids, don't have to get into it.
So, from a vet who had an academic career, here's my advice to vets returning to college. You have fawning civilians thanking you with varying levels of sincerity and understanding. Maybe you appreciate that. Even if you don't, politely go along with it - that's the cynic in me.
You have G.I. Bill money - you have earned it. You can graduate without a load of debt - that's the economist in me.
You have professors who are willing to assist you if you do your part, hit the books, and give "em a chance - that's the professor in me.
You have eons of maturity beyond the 18-year-old brats fresh out of high school. The guys among you have gorgeous co-eds admiring you - if you give "em a chance. So, go for it - that's the Marine in me.
WWII vets were taken for granted. Korean vets who fought the "forgotten war" were themselves forgotten. Peacetime "cold war" vets were ignored - we were never shot at, but did they have to take the GI Education Bill away from us for ten years?
The Vietnam vets got a raw deal - not only had to fight that dirty war but got blamed for it and trashed when they got home.
Now, even as returning vets face a stagnant economy and a cultural divide, at least they are getting some respect from civilians who are thankful that their own kids don't have to do it.
Thus, the cultural divide, unintended consequences of an all-volunteer force and incessant war.
- John Waelti's column appears in the Times every Friday. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
