Wear of the Uniform/Appearance Off-Installation

[Ken White]

Ken--I would like to believe you misinterpreted me.

So would I but the venom of your posts makes that difficult. The intent of this Board is to discuss the practices of warfare, obviously there is a political quotient and equally obviously people have beliefs and feelings on the current war and the employment of the force. Fine; we should be able to discuss the whole gamut without vituperation.

You may have been in it before me and you may have been in it after me. But I was in the army from 1962 to 1972, and I was airborne (trained), I was a ranger, and I was even in Special Forces for a very, very brief time.

I was.

I would stack my brief career up against anyone's and I would stack the ability of many of my soldiers up against anyone, today or yesteryear. ... I don't like being told the man who died in my arms was not as smart as the man who died in RTK's arms.

Not a thing wrong with taking up for the troops you served with -- I dislike using the possessive when discussing Troops, A. Lincoln made that illegal many years ago -- and I suggest re: your latter point that folks who serve today do not like being told that, as you said in your first post today "To me, it's just another case of lowering the bar, but maybe that's what a volunteer military needs. ... Pretty soon, the bar won't have any lower to go." You flung first and you predictably got it back; don't like snark, don't lead with your chin.

By being treated decently, I mean that they were sent over to fight a war that wasn't ours. Pick your venue.

That's apparently your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Can't speak for others here but I personally strongly disagree with you on that.

As for the tactics used in Vietnam, it depends on how you look at it. It isn't that simple, it isn't that cut and dried. We had different forces doing different things. Maybe if we had some of the understanding the men in Iraq are also missing, things would have been different a lot sooner than 1969.

Doubt it; the Army was hooked on fighting land wars in Europe in the paddies from 62 until late 68. In Iraq, the same thing was initially true but that changed as soon as a GO in the wrong place at the wrong time departed; same thing in RVN. The good news is, that as I said, in Iraq it took only about 20% as much time to get smart as it did in RVN.

As an aside, I spent two infantry tours in RVN all in the woods with two pretty good units and also briefly did some advisory work. I have watched the kids today train at Bragg and I have little doubt about the improved quality of the troops overall and their training in particular. Thats why I think your "lowering the bar" comments are quite incorrect. The Bar is higher now than it was in 1965-75. That's a matter of public record.

RTK... I also never said what you and your men were doing was not right; it's just that we had no business doing it. That's the whole crux of my point, my argument.

RTK can speak for himself but I will point out that's not what you initially said.

Only do me a favor, will you: don't tell me your men are better men than mine, either today or yesterday.

Since RTK did not say anything along that line and I did, I'll point out that I did not say today's men were better than in your day. What I actually said was ""these kids today, officer and enlisted, are across the board, smarter, better educated, better trained and far more tactically and technically competent than the vast majority of folks who served in Viet Nam."" Note that does not address their manhood or say they're better men, just that they're those things I said. I stand by that remark.

[Steve Blair]

The Bar is higher now than it was in 1965-75. That's a matter of public record.RTK can speak for himself but I will point out that's not what you initially said.Since RTK did not say anything along that line and I did, I'll point out that I did not say today's men were better than in your day. What I actually said was ""these kids today, officer and enlisted, are across the board, smarter, better educated, better trained and far more tactically and technically competent than the vast majority of folks who served in Viet Nam."" Note that does not address their manhood or say they're better men, just that they're those things I said. I stand by that remark.

And this is historically pretty normal. I could go off on one of my rants about how the volunteer force has actually been the historical NORM for the Army, but I'll spare folks....

Education and technology always drive an overall improvement in troop quality. The GI in Vietnam was better educated than his World War II counterpart, who in turn was better educated than his World War I forefathers. And the same statement applies to the population at large. Better than what came before? Possibly in some ways, but not in others. Where the spikes take place is often in the quality of volunteers (something we've seen in the Civil War, Spanish-American, Mexican, and so on). The draft was never really equitable, and tended to be less so as soon as any shooting started or there was a planned drawdown.

This sort of vitriol is also as old as the United States...and in some ways predates it. Traditionally pacifist/isolationist New England states were against just about every major conflict we had prior to 1900 (except when they got all riled up about slavery). Troops on the Frontier were routinely accused of being tools of just about everyone in close proximity. And similar attacks came against troops in the Philippines.

Reassuring? Not really. But it does show that there are some constants in our social history, I suppose....