Veterans Day will soon be upon us. Only about 7% of U.S. adults have experienced military service. Such a small proportion of families having connections with military service are yet another source of national division.
This has not always been so. During much of the 20th century military service touched a major share of American families. During the 1940s and 1950s, able-bodied American males were expected to serve at least two years. A majority of living males now between the ages of 80 and 100 are vets.
The largest group of living vets is those of the Gulf War era, having surpassed Vietnam era vets in 2016. Although many families were touched by the Vietnam era, a major difference between that era and earlier times is that military service was not near-universal as it was during the ’40s and ’50s. During the Vietnam era, due to demographics, military service was neither needed, nor expected, of all able-bodied males — just some of them. And with the now-volunteer military, even fewer families have military connections.
Conflicting American opinion regarding military involvement in foreign wars is not in itself new. During the 1930s when the Nazis were overrunning Europe and threatening Great Britain, and Japan was committing atrocities in Korea, China, and the rest of Southeast Asia, there was much controversy over whether the U.S. should involve itself in those wars far beyond our shores.
A few hours during the morning of December 7, 1941 changed all that — and forever changed history. The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and its near total destruction of the American Pacific Fleet, with the exception of two aircraft carriers that were at sea, united Americans in a way that no political discourse, or anything else for that matter, ever could have.
Admiral Yamamoto, who planned the attack, is reputed to have written in his diary after the attack, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
Thus began the long road back and, with it, an increasingly powerful military establishment staffed with “citizen soldiers,” a combination of volunteers and draftees. It was not a matter of if, but when and in what form, able-bodied males were expected to serve. With that, virtually all American families had some connection to military service. It was, in one sense, a unifying American experience. Several American presidents were WWII vets, including Presidents HW Bush and Jack Kennedy who were combat vets.
During the Post Korean war years, a majority of the U.S. Congress were vets, reaching a high of 81% of the Senate, a remarkable difference from today’s 17% of the Congress having military experience. Eventual presidential candidates, South Dakota liberal George McGovern, and Kansas conservative Robert Dole, were both decorated combat vets.
In June 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea and it was back to another ground war, the continuing draft, and expectations that able-bodied males “owe two years to your country.” Baseball great, Ted Williams, interrupted his baseball career with duty as a Marine Corps fighter pilot in Korea. That was considered nothing exceptional then, a vastly different era from today.
Although military service was expected, and the draft was nothing new, the Korean War was unpopular. WWII Commander of the European Theater, Dwight Eisenhower, was elected president in 1952 with the promise to “get us out of Korea.” The truce was signed in July, 1953.
In late May 1954, the time of my high school graduation, the French got kicked out of Vietnam, formerly “French Indo China.” The president who “got us out of Korea” was reluctant to get us into yet another land war in Asia. But neither did he want to be accused of “losing Vietnam,” as Truman had been accused of “losing China,” even though it was never ours to lose. Ike finessed the dilemma by sending “advisors” to Vietnam.
There was little American military action during the decade between the Korean Truce and escalation of American combat in Vietnam in the early 1960’s. But it was still a dangerous era with the Soviet Threat and the Cold War. Military readiness was maintained, as was the draft.
Those of us of military age during that decade were born during the “birth dearth” of the 1930’s Great Depression; there weren’t very many of us. The draft was still necessary to fill the ranks. Since it was considered “routine” during WWII and the Korean War, military service just seemed normal, whether in war or peace.
During those years of relative peace, the popular GI Bill with its education benefits was ended in January 1955. (It was reinstated in 1966 and made retroactive. On a personal note, I had a year remaining for my Ph.D. at UC Berkeley, so I did receive some benefits from it.)
As the 1960s began, the Communist threat in Vietnam was becoming more menacing. President Kennedy didn’t want to be accused by Republicans of “losing Vietnam” as Truman had been accused of “losing China.” American military involvement escalated. It further escalated under President Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964.
Just as the Korean War was unpopular, American military involvement in Vietnam was controversial, becoming ever more unpopular as it continued with mounting American casualties. The previously accepted military draft became increasingly unpopular, particularly with changing demographics. The gigantic Baby Boom, then reaching military age, was large enough that, even in war time, not all males of draft age were needed to fill the ranks. As the war became increasingly unpopular, resistance to the draft increased. Inequities associated with race and class added to that resistance.
Compulsory military service was eventually replaced with the present volunteer system. Without the draft, pay and benefits of military service have necessarily increased for its members. This, along with increasing numbers of females and admission of LGBTQ members, are necessary to fill ranks with the skills needed by today’s all-volunteer military. But even with that, relatively few families now have any connection to military service.
One can debate the pros and cons of compulsory military service. But one result of strictly volunteer military service is another source of national division — loss of a commonality we once had.
— John Waelti of Monroe can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears monthly in the Monroe Times.
