|
|
|
|||||
|
George, Ahhh, those heady days from '67 to '74. Talk about your polarization--that was the US then as well. I got out of the service just before Nam became daily news fare, and I am glad I did get out. What is oft forgotten, is that the war was portrayed as Democracy vs. Communism. We took a stand in Korea and we took a stand (sort of) in Cuba and we had to take a stand in South East Asia. Well, most Americans thought we did. So why did the war lose enthusiam? Was the war on the TV news? Perhaps somewhat. But I really think it was because it was seen as wasting lives on a war not being fought to win! That's right, the war was not fought to win! If we wanted to win, we would have invaded the Laotian trails upfront and in force and we would have attacked North Vietnam with ground troops. Instead our troops were forced into their little enclaves giving the initiative to the NVA. It was a stupid way to fight a war and there was sufficient history to reinforce that fact. People no longer wanted schoolmates, sons, friends and brothers to be cannon fodder for a non-cause. The sensitivity of the young grew as the government kept giving us body counts and gore. The insensitivity of the WWII generation did little but widen the generation gap and the rebellion grew. It could have and should have been predicted. It also had the bad effect of desensitizing the youth to the rest of the world. And we can see some of those effects in our current situation. Vietnam--good intentions derailed, war fought badly, goals undefined. Government lying to its citizens. Good grief, maybe Iraq is the new Vietnam. - Bob Johnson (electronic mail, March 24, 2004)
|
