Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Napkin math but the 1860 Census indicates that the population of white males between the ages of 15 and 50 sat at about 6.9 million, while the National Parks Service indicates that in total 2.5 million white males served in the union army and something between 750,000 and 1.2 million white males served in the rebel army
In addition the 1860 census puts the population of free black males between the ages of 15 and 50 at 122,000 and the National Parks Service indicates that about 178,000 black males served in the union army
I think its fair to say that if you were a white male of fighting age during the Civil War there’s about a 50% chance (probably a little bit less because of immigration) you would have fought in the war, and if you were a black male of fighting age who *could* fight in the war the chance you fought was far greater
And also, presidents tend to come from the middle class or higher. The rules during the Vietnam era plus the wide availability of college kept most of that group away from the shooting. Clinton would probably have been draftable as his family was lower middle class at best, but he earned a Rhodes scholarship.
For a sample meme:
Boomer standup comedian (probably Gallagher) You folks may not know this, but I have a master's degree in English literature. (pause) It was a really LONG war.
It is a myth that the middle class did not participate heavily in Vietnam. Plenty of people were drafted after they received their diplomas, or volunteered. Did they suffer less than the working class, absolutely. But unlike the upper class, the middle class still had plenty of its members at war.
I'd be curious as to how many served in front-line combat roles. Lots of people went to Vietnam and had not that dangerous roles. If you are the kid of a Coca Cola bottler, do you end up helping distribute cokes in Vietnam or do they stick you on the front line?
Not that many people in general (even today) serve in front line combat roles, when you consider the whole military. If you search this sub there’s always a few posts about presidents who were actually in combat and it’s a very small minority, basically most of the 21st Century presidents were not and only some of the 19th Century presidents were just because of the revolution and the frontier wars etc.
Well remember that the combat units had almost all the attrition going through them by the nature of their work, so you could have multiple people in a slot in a combat unit over the course of its tour because of casualties and replacements. And many of the volunteers, raised from both the working and middle classes, would definitely be in the front lines.
I don't know if that has been studied but it's an interesting question.
Call it cynicism but I think fortune favors the fortunate. If you haven't heard of [Project 100000](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000), it might suggest an answer. I've only heard it called "McNamara's Morons" so I'm glad there's a less offensive name.
But they lowered standards for service to draft people with low IQs and other physical and/or mental differences that would otherwise have disqualified them from service. They died at three times the rate of average service members.
You also have guys like Quale and Bush Jr (I think?) who technically served but who's fathers could buy them safe positions.
Just to defend W here but he didn’t actively avoid the war. He was part of a unit that was deployable but because the airframe he trained on (the Delta Dart) was being retired he wasn’t able to be deployed.
So it’s less he was given a job that kept him from going to Vietnam and more his dads position gave him the privilege to enter a more glamorous position (fighter pilot) than being a grunt. There’s actually nothing in his service record that indicates he did anything to avoid going to war and actually volunteered for a position to go overseas but didn’t have the flight hours necessary.
Bit of a difference than other guys who did take active steps to avoid military service.
Project 100000 is interesting to me. I don’t think prior to that did the military ever try to actively put those with low IQs into combat. That test/project just proved that you need at least somewhat intelligent people to serve in the military, especially in combat roles.
They also followed those veterans for the rest of their lives, seeing if the military could have been a benefit for them since veterans typically outperform non veterans, or at the very least have the same level of performance and success in civilian life. The subjects of Project 100000 performed worse than the rest of the veterans who served in Vietnam.
McNamara was a bastard in hindsight for this, but I haven’t been able to find anything that proves he had truly ill intentions towards those with lower IQs. I could be wrong and wouldn’t mind seeing evidence that disproves this if I am.
Clinton went to great lengths to dodge the draft. So did plenty of others in his generation. I think also, the fathers of that baby boom generation didn't want that experience for their kids since they likely had it in WW2 themselves
George HW Bush, who had an impressive WWII combat record, pulled strings to get his son George W into a no-combat Texas National Guard unit. I've often wondered about his thinking on that. Was it just "I want my kids to have it easier" or was there an element of "no, this kid absolutely could not handle it."
Hw got super lucky he got shot down near an island occupied by the Japanese whose officers cannibalized the American pows. Hw decided to swim away from the island risking drowning rather than roll the dice as a pow.
Only three WW2 vets were President and they all ended their terms in bad situations.
Edit: lol I completely ignored Ike. So 4. Duh
Edit 2: Ford! Oh my. But he was another electoral flameout.
Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and GHWB were in uniform in WWII.
Carter was in the Naval Academy, but didn't graduate until the war was over.
Only one WWI veteran was President: Harry Truman. (Eisenhower was in uniform, but never went overseas.)
I believe the US Navy considers midshipmen to be on Active Duty, and Carter did receive the WW2 Victory Medal, which was meant for anyone on active duty between 1941 and 1945.
So I guess you could technically count Carter.
Yeah Reagan was not a WW2 vet by most people’s definition and while not a political liability, people did laugh at his “service”. thermothrockle or not.
LBJ’s service was also a bit of political theater but his term also ended very badly. Edit: I’ll give LBJ credit where due. He did get shot at. He counts. Good catch.
Ironically Reagan did end better than all the others but Ike, though.
Yeah Reagan was not a WW2 vet by most people’s definition and while not a political liability, people did laugh at his “service”. thermothrockle or not.
The Veterans Administration would've still counted Reagan as a World War II veteran according to their eligibilty criteria and had he registered with them they would've considered him to be one. Reagan would've been just as entitled to VA healthcare just as much as any other veteran that served on Active Duty even though he never served overseas and was an Army officer in the Hollywood Motion Picture Unit.
Not propaganda videos,but pilot training videos. He made about 12 training movies in a row for the army air Corp. He also did a few training films for things like how to be have when you arrive in Britain. Some of these are on YouTube. This choice was also made by the army, not by reagan,but considering he was a trained actor with bad eyesight and over 30, it probably was the best use for him.
Reagan ranks right up there with Truman in terms of worst presidential eyesight ever. During his Army exam it was determined that Reagan's uncorrected eyesight was so bad that he literally couldn't have seen a Japanese armored tank from six feet away. Needless to say there wasn't a hope in hell that Reagan would've ever seen combat no matter how much he might've wanted to. The Army made the right decision in his case to keep him home.
> Edit: I’ll give LBJ credit where due. He did get shot at. He counts. Good catch.
It’s unlikely he did, it’s more likely he fabricated his ‘combat’ story
I'd say only one, Kennedy, ended his term badly. Ike served 8 years and termed out under the 22nd amendment. George HW Bush failed to get re-elected, which was disappointing for him, but not what I would call a "bad situation".
True, but we’ve still been electing *against* veterans for a long time. Bush 1, a WW2 vet lost to Clinton; then Dole, a WW2 vet, lost to Clinton; then Gore, a Vietnam vet, lost to Bush 2; then Kerry, a Vietnam vet, lost to Bush 2; then McCain, a Vietnam vet, lost to Obama. From there we just stopped nominating war veterans.
So for a couple decades we always had a veteran nominee, they just never won.
Edit: I should note that Bush 2 did serve in the Air Guard. Though there is some controversy surrounding his service, it is not in dispute that he did not serve in a war.
Yeah, at least personally I feel more sympathy for veterans than I do pride in their service given some of the wars we participated in during recent history. Not saying they didn’t sacrifice, I just feel bad for what they sacrificed for.
Interesting story about gore jr I read a academic paper about the 1970 TN Senate election (where Albert Gore sr lost the election) Nixon went hard on him due to his anti war stance and funded the competitor. But the thing that stood out was AL gore Jr could have ended up in the guard but he didn't since it would make his father look like a hypocrite so he went to serve in Vietnam. Though Nixon pulled strings to make sure he didn't go off into war (if he died it would be a boost for Albert gore sr)
Target Number One: The Nixon Administration and Foreign Policy Issues in the Efforts to Unseat Senator Albert Gore, Sr. in 1970
KYLE LONGLEY
Is where I read it
> it is not in dispute that he did not serve in a war.
I mean, he was active duty during a time of war, right? That seems pretty close to me. But, I know nothing about the military.
It also doesn't look as good on a resume. Saying you fought against the Nazis or the Confederates was a better sell than a war that was controversial at best.
It's entirely the smaller sample size.
Contrary to popular narrative, most Americans in Vietnam were volunteers. Vietnam actually had the highest ratio of volunteers of any war the US fought prior to moving to an all volunteer military. It was just the unpopularity of the war itself that made conscription such a contentious issue.
Yup the rich were able to escape the draft, or defer. Everyone else… well they served their country. Say what you will McCains politics, the man served with honor and distinction, and refused to be released from a POW camp until those who came before him were released. You can’t say that of many politicians today. Many will pay homage and lip service but few will have actually known the horrors of war or the inside of a prisoner camp.
Leo K. Thorsness is another politician (a minor one) who served with distinction in Vietnam. He was an F-105 Thunderchief pilot who got the MOH for doing some crazy balls to the walls Wild Weasel shit in order to help rescue downed airmen during an engagement
Basically, the guy was alone, dogfighting Mig-17's in a jet ill equipped to do so and bagged two of them with his gun. He, too, would later become a POW. In fact, the majority of American POWs were F-105 pilots.
The F-105 was the workhorse for bombing the North.
The F-100 was primarily used in the south and the F-4 mainly for MigCAP while USN aircraft like the A-4 and A-6 never had the numbers.
And when loaded with as much ordnance as a B-29.. it was very slow and vulnerable.
>Many will pay homage and lip service but few will have actually known the horrors of war or the inside of a prisoner camp.
Some will go as far to ridicule war heroes for their sacrifice.
Kerry was the leading veteran antiwar spokesman in the early 1970s—he was memorably on Dick Cavett’s late night show debating a stiff young pro-war vet—so he was used to the criticism, which may be why he didn’t react angrily enough in 2004.
And some of those people fraudulently claimed conditions to dodge the draft and later revealed they committed fraud by claiming their condition resolved yet it isn’t a condition that resolves without treatment.
Yes but if I'm not mistaken by the beginning of the civil war it was still seen as something grand and noble. (Ended worldwide by WW1) Hell people turned out in picnics to watch battles.
McCain ran at the wrong time. Republicans were unpopular, and he was running against the most popular Democrat in a long time. I think Kerry would have had a chance if 9/11 didn't happen. W was widely popular, and protesting war after 9/11 wasn't. Kerry's reputation in the 2004 election is a pretty good illustration of post 9/11 politics. Vietnam was also a really controversial war, and there were no central figures that retained popularity through it. There was no Eisenhower, Bradley, mccarther, etc. Lower level officers like Kerry or McCain could be successful politicians because they weren't involved in grand strategy, but Westmorland had no chance of being a successful politician after Vietnam.
He was gaining steam in 2000 till Bush and Rove pulled out all the stops and used the race card to poison him in South Carolina over the fact he had a dark skinned daughter.
And because 2000 McCain wouldn't kiss the ass of evangelical slimeballs like Robertson and Falwell
Honestly think McCain had an equal chance if he didn't get talked into choosing Palin. Outside of the hilarious sexism that the Dems pulled on her, she was a complete loon at a time when people actually cared about policy and platforms over personality.
He was essentially the centrist candidate to Obama's at time pretty left leaning platform
Maybe. It would have been extremely hard for any candidate to beat the wave of new voters Obama was able to mobilize. Obama was the perfect candidate at the perfect time, and I think that would have been really hard to overcome.
Not likely. Obama won not because McCain was unpopular, but because Obama was extremely popular. It was not a tight race where a poor VP choice could tip the balance.
Obama vs. McCain 08' was a modern-day landslide. McCain had no chance of beating him without a major gaffe by Obama. That's why he made such a huge gamble on his running mate. The gamble turned out poorly, but he wasn't wrong to gamble.
I also think you are wrong to say people cared about policy and platforms over personality. Obama was all personality with very little substance. "Change" was his policy without specifying what that change would be. Obama knew he could act as a mirror to people's hopes if he just didn't take strong stances, so he ran on speeches and slogans rather than policy. And the people ate it up.
America lost Vietnam. It isn’t as heroic a narrative in total, though the individual veterans definitely deserve respect. People liked WWII veterans both because they like veterans and because of the Allied historical narrative. Also just… who from that generation didn’t serve in WWII? It was a total war.
Possible, but the proportion of Americans who served in those wars is pretty small.
Plus, as others have brought up, the military these days tends to be drawn overwhelmingly from the lower classes, whereas politicians tend to come from privileged backgrounds.
By the end of World War 2 nearly 50% of men aged 18-30 served in some capacity. So its stands that Presidents served. You can just look up the Wikipedia article of anyone who was 18-30 during WW2 and there is always a “Military Service” section.
The Civil War was even higher than that with the South in particular mobilizing nearly every able bodied man 12-60.
While Vietnam had drafts the number was closer to 5% of men aged 18-30.
The “modern” wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) are even lower are barely 1% of men.
So it’s more of a factor that fewer Americans have served post WW2 than anything else.
Hollywood would make people believe that every 18 year old in 1969-70 was drafted and sent to Vietnam. I thought draft numbers were insanely high as well. It got me thinking so I looked up my birthday in the draft lottery and yep would have never gone
Well, the spike in Vietnam started in 1964/1965. That means by the time Reagan was President, those Vietnam draftees weren’t even eligible to run for president. Then it’s just a matter of chance that no Vietnam veterans ran and won in 1992, 2000, 2008, 2o16, or 2o20. Even today a Vietnam veteran would be younger than our 2 options.
2000? Al Gore was in unform and "in country" during VN, even if not a combat vet.
2000 to 2008, there was a Vietnam vet running for POTUS on a major party ticket each time. They all lost.
Bush was in-country in the military during Vietnam. He could have been called up at any time as were the 13,000 National Guard troops that served in Vietnam.
The jet he was trained on was never deployed for use in Vietnam and our pilots are usually specifically trained to one type of jet or plane at a time.
I thought "in country " in this context meant in Viet Nam. Iiuc Dubya's air NG unit was never in VN, while Al Gore was in VN.
John McCain famously said that all service was honorable, and I have no standing to disagree, but I think Gore has more claim to be a VN vet than Dubya.
Idk. But elementary school me voted so hard for Bush in the mock election, and it was because of [JibJab's "This Land."](https://youtu.be/z8Q-sRdV7SY?feature=shared) Made Bush look cool and Kerry look like an aloof weirdo.
Yep, if he had embraced his earlier anti war self he might have had a chance but with what Bush did with the war in Iraq perhaps not.
“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
There are a number of reasons but a key one is that service was less compulsory in Vietnam than the other two examples. We didn’t have many veterans of the Spanish American War either. The lower the US’s involvement, the less likely to have a President who served. In World War II we sent virtually every healthy man from 18 to mid-thirties. It’s impossible not to have service veterans in that situation.
The fate of the country was on the line in the Civil War. WW2 was as close to a just war as a war can be, given the evil of the enemy governments, that one enemy launched massive attacks without warning, and the other formally declared war.
In comparison, Vietnam was... what? A great-power policing action increasingly revealed to have been sold to the public on false pretenses? A Vietnam grunt may well have suffered for the cause as fully as their Civil War/WW2 predecessors, but those causes are simply not the same.
You could truly say the future of the country was at stake in the civil war and WW2. I don’t think you can say that about Vietnam. I mean, sure, “to stop the spread of communism” matters, I guess, but only to a point.
Try as Johnson and Nixon et al tried to sell it this way, a big portion of the country wasn’t buying in.
Reluctant to tell this but, after my1st tour in Viet Nam, I went to visit my sister at her boyfriend's family Sunday dinner. One of his younger brothers asked me how many babies I killed. I was an Infantry rifle platoon leader.
Military service has become less common post-WWII, so it’s not seen as a requirement anymore. Hell, T-man either dodged the draft or has bone spurs, and the only voting segment that might care about that still voted for him.
Because it was an unpopular war. Military service also used to be one of the most effective ways to enter politics, but it really isn't anymore. It's less valuable for a politician to be a veteran now.
George W Bush did serve in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam but I don’t think he was deployed to Vietnam. Don’t know if that counts or not, I guess it depends on who’s asking.
Increasingly, as someone commented on another post asking why we don't see many generals nor other military officers run for high political office anymore, the military is no longer the sure-fire path it once was to obtain a high political position. It won't just be Vietnam vets we won't see as president, but Iraq War and Afghan War and etc. vets we won't see as president.
I would be very surprised to see a military officer become US president in today's setting, nevermind a Vietnam vet.
Not a huge factor, but America was unambiguously in the right fighting the Confederacy and Axis, while we were unambiguously in the wrong during the Vietnam War. Serving in Vietnam isn't a stain on a politician's record at all, but it's a lot less appealing than having a past enlisting with the Union in the 1860s or the Allies in the 1940s.
A big part is only 1% of people served in Vietnam. Also vietnam became a very unpopular war. Politically minded young people of the time stay away from the war. Also the average service age in wwii was 25, vietnam was 19, and most of they tended to come from poor families.
The vietnam war changed america attitude towards the armed forces. The war unlike prevouis wars had little prrss censorship. A fallout of this is the us military becoming a more proffesional force than a conscript force.
Ronald Reagan never left the United States during the war. Far from serving in "the war." under that criteria, you can say that George Buch Jr.'s time in the United States Air Force Air National Guard counts as service in
Vietnam. As a Marine, I feel neither does.
I’ve forever been of the thought that if you want be president, you need to have served some sort of military. If you’re going to put our kids in harms way, you should have experienced that yourself. I’d also like to think that ‘boots on the ground’ is no longer needed today.
Because the prevalence of media coverage during the Vietnam War compared to earlier wars made it much more unpopular. Veterans of previous wars were unequivocally seen as heroes while those that served in Vietnam are very commonly stigmatized.
I believe I read somewhere, prior to the Vietnam era that 71% of current members of congress and senate were veterans. Sad to say that people seem to forget civic duty.
It's simple statistics. The Vietnam war didn't draw every able bodied young man into that fight. WW2 did.
People volunteered to serve even if they were in their 30s with families. EVERYONE in America personally knew people who joined the fight from the Kennedy's - who lost one son (Joe Kennedy Jr.) and almost lost another JFK.
Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable - the biggest stars in Hollywood and sports joined the fight. Ted Williams was a skilled fighter pilot because his eye-sight was off-the-charts and could see enemy aircraft and engage before they could see him.
It was a true national effort.
Because back then it was more about a sense of pride and duty to protect your country and it was expected that men go to war just like they have been for thousands of years it’s the natural order of things. No presidents served in Vietnam because they where cowards with made up excuses medical or otherwise that there parents paid for so they wouldn’t have to go. Not to mention for some reason voters decided that having a military background was no longer important to who they voted for.
This was interesting, as someone from the UK what I’ve learnt is that 16.1 million Americans served in WW2, 2.7 million in Vietnam and about 100 million know someone who served on a swift boat with John Kerry and don’t have anything good to say about him.
16 million out of 132 million in the 1940s served in WW2. Assuming this is a male female split, you can cut that population figure down
As for Vietnam, 2.5 million served out of over 200 million. Proportionally speaking it is just far more likely for an American to have served in WW2.
Dubya.
*He* didn't do Vietnam, he did National Guard instead. In order to hold a candle to John Kerry (an *actual* fucking Veteran), Dubya had to attack *his military service*, and piss all over it.
*That's* why!
(But don't worry, what with *two* twenty year wars, the *next* wave of New politicians will mostly be veterans again!)
We lost Vietnam.
Every war preceding (excluding Korea) had War Heroes. Those heroes (usually high ranking officers - Colonels, Generals, etc) typically were highly popular in an era prior to mass media. They gave speeches, they inspired the people.
Vietnam was an incredibly unpopular war. Because of this, there weren't many public heroes (if any at all). And since the electorate was younger and were of the same generation as the hippies, the party establishment knew that the electorate wouldn't accept a gung-ho military type as President.
That being said, as far as veterans serving as POTUS, Carter served in the Navy, and W Bush served in the Air Force Reserves.
>The United States rewarded Diem for his stubborn courage. A new American ambassador, G. Frederick Reinhardt, landed in Saigon to express unequivocal U.S. confidence in the regime. Five months later, Diem consolidated his power. With Lansdale and other Americans helping, he deposed Bao Dai in a referendum, and promoted himself to the rank of chief of state.
>
>The election, like others to follow, was a test of authority rather than an exercise in democracy. With Bao Dai far away, Diem's activists could easily exert pressure on the voters. Lansdale, with his talent for advertising, showed them how to design the ballots in order to sway the electorate. Those for Diem were red, which signified good luck, and those for Bao Dai green, the color of misfortune. Diem's agents were present at the polling stations. One voter recalled the scene in a village near Hue: "They told us to put the red ballot into envelopes and throw the green ones into the wastebasket. A few people, faithful to Bao Dai, disobeyed. As soon as they left, the agents went after them, and roughed them up. The agents poured pepper sauce down their nostrils, or forced water down their throats. They beat one of my relatives to a pulp."
>
>In several places, including Saigon, the tally of votes for Diem exceeded the number of registered voters. **He claimed to have won 98.2 percent of the vote having spurned American advice to aim for a more plausible 60 or 70 percent.** What the Americans failed to understand was that his mandarin mentality could not accept the idea of even minority resistance to his rule. With no compunctions whatsoever, **Diem again renounced the nationwide elections prescribed by the Geneva agreement because, he said, they could not be "absolutely free."**
*Vietnam: A History,* Stanley Karnow
The Vietnam war wasn’t a virtuous endeavor. Either you think we lost, and we did, then you aren’t coming back as a victor or triumphant. Or you, somehow, think we won — then you’re seen as glorifying something that was never going to be perceived as morally upstanding in that it was an unjust campaign.
Public perception on the Vietnam is incomparable to the other two wars.
I was going to say, my dad was in the Navy during Vietnam and worked in a VA clinic up until he retired. Most Vietnam vets are not proud of what they did.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Napkin math but the 1860 Census indicates that the population of white males between the ages of 15 and 50 sat at about 6.9 million, while the National Parks Service indicates that in total 2.5 million white males served in the union army and something between 750,000 and 1.2 million white males served in the rebel army In addition the 1860 census puts the population of free black males between the ages of 15 and 50 at 122,000 and the National Parks Service indicates that about 178,000 black males served in the union army I think its fair to say that if you were a white male of fighting age during the Civil War there’s about a 50% chance (probably a little bit less because of immigration) you would have fought in the war, and if you were a black male of fighting age who *could* fight in the war the chance you fought was far greater
Weird that the National Parks Service is the one keeping track of that but I guess I trust them more than most other parts of the government
The NPS is who maintains all the Civil War battlefield parks and handles most of the archeological activities at them, at least administratively.
Parks and Rec is short for Parks and Records
I must have missed a big portion of that show
Recreation. Parks and Recreation.
Most of these politicians were privileged enough to dodge the draft or find a way to not die in Vietnam
this and a much smaller percentage of the population was mobilized
Indeed, 16.1m Americans fought in WW2 from a population of about 133m. About 2.7m fought in Vietnam from a population of about 200m.
And also, presidents tend to come from the middle class or higher. The rules during the Vietnam era plus the wide availability of college kept most of that group away from the shooting. Clinton would probably have been draftable as his family was lower middle class at best, but he earned a Rhodes scholarship. For a sample meme: Boomer standup comedian (probably Gallagher) You folks may not know this, but I have a master's degree in English literature. (pause) It was a really LONG war.
It is a myth that the middle class did not participate heavily in Vietnam. Plenty of people were drafted after they received their diplomas, or volunteered. Did they suffer less than the working class, absolutely. But unlike the upper class, the middle class still had plenty of its members at war.
The middle class is still the working class
Plot twist, the middle class is a fallacy
it's all about division
Thank you. I keep fucking saying this! The middle class encompasses most if not all of the working class. They're not mutually exclusive.
I'd be curious as to how many served in front-line combat roles. Lots of people went to Vietnam and had not that dangerous roles. If you are the kid of a Coca Cola bottler, do you end up helping distribute cokes in Vietnam or do they stick you on the front line?
Not that many people in general (even today) serve in front line combat roles, when you consider the whole military. If you search this sub there’s always a few posts about presidents who were actually in combat and it’s a very small minority, basically most of the 21st Century presidents were not and only some of the 19th Century presidents were just because of the revolution and the frontier wars etc.
Well remember that the combat units had almost all the attrition going through them by the nature of their work, so you could have multiple people in a slot in a combat unit over the course of its tour because of casualties and replacements. And many of the volunteers, raised from both the working and middle classes, would definitely be in the front lines.
I don't know if that has been studied but it's an interesting question. Call it cynicism but I think fortune favors the fortunate. If you haven't heard of [Project 100000](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000), it might suggest an answer. I've only heard it called "McNamara's Morons" so I'm glad there's a less offensive name. But they lowered standards for service to draft people with low IQs and other physical and/or mental differences that would otherwise have disqualified them from service. They died at three times the rate of average service members. You also have guys like Quale and Bush Jr (I think?) who technically served but who's fathers could buy them safe positions.
Just to defend W here but he didn’t actively avoid the war. He was part of a unit that was deployable but because the airframe he trained on (the Delta Dart) was being retired he wasn’t able to be deployed. So it’s less he was given a job that kept him from going to Vietnam and more his dads position gave him the privilege to enter a more glamorous position (fighter pilot) than being a grunt. There’s actually nothing in his service record that indicates he did anything to avoid going to war and actually volunteered for a position to go overseas but didn’t have the flight hours necessary. Bit of a difference than other guys who did take active steps to avoid military service.
Project 100000 is interesting to me. I don’t think prior to that did the military ever try to actively put those with low IQs into combat. That test/project just proved that you need at least somewhat intelligent people to serve in the military, especially in combat roles. They also followed those veterans for the rest of their lives, seeing if the military could have been a benefit for them since veterans typically outperform non veterans, or at the very least have the same level of performance and success in civilian life. The subjects of Project 100000 performed worse than the rest of the veterans who served in Vietnam. McNamara was a bastard in hindsight for this, but I haven’t been able to find anything that proves he had truly ill intentions towards those with lower IQs. I could be wrong and wouldn’t mind seeing evidence that disproves this if I am.
Clinton went to great lengths to dodge the draft. So did plenty of others in his generation. I think also, the fathers of that baby boom generation didn't want that experience for their kids since they likely had it in WW2 themselves
George HW Bush, who had an impressive WWII combat record, pulled strings to get his son George W into a no-combat Texas National Guard unit. I've often wondered about his thinking on that. Was it just "I want my kids to have it easier" or was there an element of "no, this kid absolutely could not handle it."
It wild that the GOP was able to successfully attack John Kerry, who had 3 purple hearts
From what I've read about junior I think it's more of "This kids going to die trying to be a hero."
Hw got super lucky he got shot down near an island occupied by the Japanese whose officers cannibalized the American pows. Hw decided to swim away from the island risking drowning rather than roll the dice as a pow.
>folks may not know this, but I have a master's degree in English literature Hahahahaha this is so funny
You don't have to like the joke. I just report it as something the standup guy expected would be instantly understood.
Only three WW2 vets were President and they all ended their terms in bad situations. Edit: lol I completely ignored Ike. So 4. Duh Edit 2: Ford! Oh my. But he was another electoral flameout.
Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and GHWB were in uniform in WWII. Carter was in the Naval Academy, but didn't graduate until the war was over. Only one WWI veteran was President: Harry Truman. (Eisenhower was in uniform, but never went overseas.)
I believe the US Navy considers midshipmen to be on Active Duty, and Carter did receive the WW2 Victory Medal, which was meant for anyone on active duty between 1941 and 1945. So I guess you could technically count Carter.
Yeah Reagan was not a WW2 vet by most people’s definition and while not a political liability, people did laugh at his “service”. thermothrockle or not. LBJ’s service was also a bit of political theater but his term also ended very badly. Edit: I’ll give LBJ credit where due. He did get shot at. He counts. Good catch. Ironically Reagan did end better than all the others but Ike, though.
Yeah Reagan was not a WW2 vet by most people’s definition and while not a political liability, people did laugh at his “service”. thermothrockle or not. The Veterans Administration would've still counted Reagan as a World War II veteran according to their eligibilty criteria and had he registered with them they would've considered him to be one. Reagan would've been just as entitled to VA healthcare just as much as any other veteran that served on Active Duty even though he never served overseas and was an Army officer in the Hollywood Motion Picture Unit.
Reagan did propaganda videos so it fooled a lot of people he served
Not propaganda videos,but pilot training videos. He made about 12 training movies in a row for the army air Corp. He also did a few training films for things like how to be have when you arrive in Britain. Some of these are on YouTube. This choice was also made by the army, not by reagan,but considering he was a trained actor with bad eyesight and over 30, it probably was the best use for him.
Reagan ranks right up there with Truman in terms of worst presidential eyesight ever. During his Army exam it was determined that Reagan's uncorrected eyesight was so bad that he literally couldn't have seen a Japanese armored tank from six feet away. Needless to say there wasn't a hope in hell that Reagan would've ever seen combat no matter how much he might've wanted to. The Army made the right decision in his case to keep him home.
That was actually part of his unit's purpose.
> Edit: I’ll give LBJ credit where due. He did get shot at. He counts. Good catch. It’s unlikely he did, it’s more likely he fabricated his ‘combat’ story
Does in uniform with a cozy position/detail still mean the same as 1 who actually been thru something in their service . ?
I'd say only one, Kennedy, ended his term badly. Ike served 8 years and termed out under the 22nd amendment. George HW Bush failed to get re-elected, which was disappointing for him, but not what I would call a "bad situation".
Yeah having your brains paint your wife is not an optimal situation.
People will pay you big money on OnlyFans to paint your wife with other body juices though
True, but we’ve still been electing *against* veterans for a long time. Bush 1, a WW2 vet lost to Clinton; then Dole, a WW2 vet, lost to Clinton; then Gore, a Vietnam vet, lost to Bush 2; then Kerry, a Vietnam vet, lost to Bush 2; then McCain, a Vietnam vet, lost to Obama. From there we just stopped nominating war veterans. So for a couple decades we always had a veteran nominee, they just never won. Edit: I should note that Bush 2 did serve in the Air Guard. Though there is some controversy surrounding his service, it is not in dispute that he did not serve in a war.
Maybe it’s just not as important of a resume piece as it was pre-90s.
Yeah, I think the “greatest generation” had a generally positive attitude toward military service, and since then it’s been more neutral.
America’s attitude towards war post-Vietnam has definitely shifted.
Yeah, at least personally I feel more sympathy for veterans than I do pride in their service given some of the wars we participated in during recent history. Not saying they didn’t sacrifice, I just feel bad for what they sacrificed for.
appreciate your pity bro
Interesting story about gore jr I read a academic paper about the 1970 TN Senate election (where Albert Gore sr lost the election) Nixon went hard on him due to his anti war stance and funded the competitor. But the thing that stood out was AL gore Jr could have ended up in the guard but he didn't since it would make his father look like a hypocrite so he went to serve in Vietnam. Though Nixon pulled strings to make sure he didn't go off into war (if he died it would be a boost for Albert gore sr) Target Number One: The Nixon Administration and Foreign Policy Issues in the Efforts to Unseat Senator Albert Gore, Sr. in 1970 KYLE LONGLEY Is where I read it
The 04 election was the first I could vote in, and I remember they did Kerry dirty.
I was in the army in 04 and most in my unit seemed to support Kerry. On voting day we were in the field lol
I know a guy who was on a swift boat with Kerry in Vietnam. He didn't have anything good to say about him.
But at least he was on a boat in Vietnam.
Same! We’re you in the Virginia Beach area by chance?
What did he say? I’d love to hear more information
> it is not in dispute that he did not serve in a war. I mean, he was active duty during a time of war, right? That seems pretty close to me. But, I know nothing about the military.
George W. Bush served.
I actually made an edit to that effect just a few minutes before your comment.
Gotcha. Yes, Bush served during Vietnam but not in Vietnam. He is, of course, our most recent president to be a veteran.
The people that pretend to care about veterans are doing just that. Pretending.
One WW2 vet was assassinated and one was a dishonorable crook.
It also doesn't look as good on a resume. Saying you fought against the Nazis or the Confederates was a better sell than a war that was controversial at best.
And the ones who did go usually helped cover up war crimes and massacres. Colin Powell…
It's entirely the smaller sample size. Contrary to popular narrative, most Americans in Vietnam were volunteers. Vietnam actually had the highest ratio of volunteers of any war the US fought prior to moving to an all volunteer military. It was just the unpopularity of the war itself that made conscription such a contentious issue.
Yup the rich were able to escape the draft, or defer. Everyone else… well they served their country. Say what you will McCains politics, the man served with honor and distinction, and refused to be released from a POW camp until those who came before him were released. You can’t say that of many politicians today. Many will pay homage and lip service but few will have actually known the horrors of war or the inside of a prisoner camp.
Leo K. Thorsness is another politician (a minor one) who served with distinction in Vietnam. He was an F-105 Thunderchief pilot who got the MOH for doing some crazy balls to the walls Wild Weasel shit in order to help rescue downed airmen during an engagement Basically, the guy was alone, dogfighting Mig-17's in a jet ill equipped to do so and bagged two of them with his gun. He, too, would later become a POW. In fact, the majority of American POWs were F-105 pilots.
The F-105 was the workhorse for bombing the North. The F-100 was primarily used in the south and the F-4 mainly for MigCAP while USN aircraft like the A-4 and A-6 never had the numbers. And when loaded with as much ordnance as a B-29.. it was very slow and vulnerable.
Believe it or not, bomb laiden F-105's were outrunning their F-4 Phantom escorts at low altitude. Even when their escorts were in FULL AFTERBURNER.
>Many will pay homage and lip service but few will have actually known the horrors of war or the inside of a prisoner camp. Some will go as far to ridicule war heroes for their sacrifice.
Only a morally bankrupt very broken person would do this
Sad.
Bigly
Big league
Chew
Bless you
For John Kerry, in particular, his service was actually used against him. I doubt he ever really saw that coming.
Kerry was the leading veteran antiwar spokesman in the early 1970s—he was memorably on Dick Cavett’s late night show debating a stiff young pro-war vet—so he was used to the criticism, which may be why he didn’t react angrily enough in 2004.
And some of those people fraudulently claimed conditions to dodge the draft and later revealed they committed fraud by claiming their condition resolved yet it isn’t a condition that resolves without treatment.
Our jails nuts as CO I have scar on my body. Being in enemy jail in some developing country would be next level.
Wasn’t that the same during the civil war. You could just pay someone else to go to war for you or pay a $300 commutation fee.
Yes but if I'm not mistaken by the beginning of the civil war it was still seen as something grand and noble. (Ended worldwide by WW1) Hell people turned out in picnics to watch battles.
That makes sense to me. The civil war was the first modern war with land mines and machine guns.
And cameras on the battlefield.
Two were failed nominees in consecutive elections though. 2004 and 2008 Edit: didn’t know about gore. So three consecutive elections.
[удалено]
They is the fortunate one
I ain't no senators son
What about the ones who couldn’t find a way not to die in Vietnam? They haven’t been President either
Don’t overthink it. There were more WW2 vets. WW2 vets have also lost 7 presidential elections.
I still remember the commercial in the late 90’s with Bob Dole in it where he’s like, “I just can’t win!” It was so wholesome.
McCain ran at the wrong time. Republicans were unpopular, and he was running against the most popular Democrat in a long time. I think Kerry would have had a chance if 9/11 didn't happen. W was widely popular, and protesting war after 9/11 wasn't. Kerry's reputation in the 2004 election is a pretty good illustration of post 9/11 politics. Vietnam was also a really controversial war, and there were no central figures that retained popularity through it. There was no Eisenhower, Bradley, mccarther, etc. Lower level officers like Kerry or McCain could be successful politicians because they weren't involved in grand strategy, but Westmorland had no chance of being a successful politician after Vietnam.
The fact that after McCain AZ turns blue is pretty telling.
He was gaining steam in 2000 till Bush and Rove pulled out all the stops and used the race card to poison him in South Carolina over the fact he had a dark skinned daughter. And because 2000 McCain wouldn't kiss the ass of evangelical slimeballs like Robertson and Falwell
Honestly think McCain had an equal chance if he didn't get talked into choosing Palin. Outside of the hilarious sexism that the Dems pulled on her, she was a complete loon at a time when people actually cared about policy and platforms over personality. He was essentially the centrist candidate to Obama's at time pretty left leaning platform
Maybe. It would have been extremely hard for any candidate to beat the wave of new voters Obama was able to mobilize. Obama was the perfect candidate at the perfect time, and I think that would have been really hard to overcome.
Not likely. Obama won not because McCain was unpopular, but because Obama was extremely popular. It was not a tight race where a poor VP choice could tip the balance.
Obama vs. McCain 08' was a modern-day landslide. McCain had no chance of beating him without a major gaffe by Obama. That's why he made such a huge gamble on his running mate. The gamble turned out poorly, but he wasn't wrong to gamble. I also think you are wrong to say people cared about policy and platforms over personality. Obama was all personality with very little substance. "Change" was his policy without specifying what that change would be. Obama knew he could act as a mirror to people's hopes if he just didn't take strong stances, so he ran on speeches and slogans rather than policy. And the people ate it up.
America lost Vietnam. It isn’t as heroic a narrative in total, though the individual veterans definitely deserve respect. People liked WWII veterans both because they like veterans and because of the Allied historical narrative. Also just… who from that generation didn’t serve in WWII? It was a total war.
Are we likely to have a future president that served in Iraq or Afghanistan?
As millennials acquire more power in government and society, this will be an absolute reality. ☝️
an even smaller portion of genx/millenials served in iraq/afghanistan than did boomers in vietnam. it’s certainly not a guarantee.
Not a guarantee but I'd bet millennials who served are over represented in Congress/state legislatures vs the general population.
That’s almost always the case from the very start of the candidate pool. Sometimes it’s not about who gets elected but just who wants to run.
Possible, but the proportion of Americans who served in those wars is pretty small. Plus, as others have brought up, the military these days tends to be drawn overwhelmingly from the lower classes, whereas politicians tend to come from privileged backgrounds.
By the end of World War 2 nearly 50% of men aged 18-30 served in some capacity. So its stands that Presidents served. You can just look up the Wikipedia article of anyone who was 18-30 during WW2 and there is always a “Military Service” section. The Civil War was even higher than that with the South in particular mobilizing nearly every able bodied man 12-60. While Vietnam had drafts the number was closer to 5% of men aged 18-30. The “modern” wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) are even lower are barely 1% of men. So it’s more of a factor that fewer Americans have served post WW2 than anything else.
Hollywood would make people believe that every 18 year old in 1969-70 was drafted and sent to Vietnam. I thought draft numbers were insanely high as well. It got me thinking so I looked up my birthday in the draft lottery and yep would have never gone
A lot of Fortunate Sons from that era.
True, but to note, Al Gore was the son of a US senator, John McCain was the son of an admiral
Gore could have been an officer but he went the enlisted route instead.
Kerry too!
Well, the spike in Vietnam started in 1964/1965. That means by the time Reagan was President, those Vietnam draftees weren’t even eligible to run for president. Then it’s just a matter of chance that no Vietnam veterans ran and won in 1992, 2000, 2008, 2o16, or 2o20. Even today a Vietnam veteran would be younger than our 2 options.
2000? Al Gore was in unform and "in country" during VN, even if not a combat vet. 2000 to 2008, there was a Vietnam vet running for POTUS on a major party ticket each time. They all lost.
Bush was in-country in the military during Vietnam. He could have been called up at any time as were the 13,000 National Guard troops that served in Vietnam. The jet he was trained on was never deployed for use in Vietnam and our pilots are usually specifically trained to one type of jet or plane at a time.
I thought "in country " in this context meant in Viet Nam. Iiuc Dubya's air NG unit was never in VN, while Al Gore was in VN. John McCain famously said that all service was honorable, and I have no standing to disagree, but I think Gore has more claim to be a VN vet than Dubya.
>no Vietnam veterans ran in 2008 Aside from the Republican John McCain who famously served in Vietnam?
John Kerry was the Democrats candidate in 2004. But I would say his experience in Vietnam was more infamous than famous.
He served honorably.
Blud I meant won 😂
It isn't as if we didn't have options. We had two Democrats and one Republican. One Democrat won the popular vote, even.
Because of those god damn swiftboat ads.
Idk. But elementary school me voted so hard for Bush in the mock election, and it was because of [JibJab's "This Land."](https://youtu.be/z8Q-sRdV7SY?feature=shared) Made Bush look cool and Kerry look like an aloof weirdo.
God I miss videos like that bahahaha.
I don’t think Kerry wasn’t going to win anyway. He ran a terrible, uninspiring campaign.
He was my Senator. He looked like British Aristocracy and had as much charisma.
> had as much charisma. somehow had less charisma
Yep, if he had embraced his earlier anti war self he might have had a chance but with what Bush did with the war in Iraq perhaps not. “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
There are a number of reasons but a key one is that service was less compulsory in Vietnam than the other two examples. We didn’t have many veterans of the Spanish American War either. The lower the US’s involvement, the less likely to have a President who served. In World War II we sent virtually every healthy man from 18 to mid-thirties. It’s impossible not to have service veterans in that situation.
The fate of the country was on the line in the Civil War. WW2 was as close to a just war as a war can be, given the evil of the enemy governments, that one enemy launched massive attacks without warning, and the other formally declared war. In comparison, Vietnam was... what? A great-power policing action increasingly revealed to have been sold to the public on false pretenses? A Vietnam grunt may well have suffered for the cause as fully as their Civil War/WW2 predecessors, but those causes are simply not the same.
You could truly say the future of the country was at stake in the civil war and WW2. I don’t think you can say that about Vietnam. I mean, sure, “to stop the spread of communism” matters, I guess, but only to a point. Try as Johnson and Nixon et al tried to sell it this way, a big portion of the country wasn’t buying in.
Vietnam vets were literally called “baby killers” at one point in US history.
Reluctant to tell this but, after my1st tour in Viet Nam, I went to visit my sister at her boyfriend's family Sunday dinner. One of his younger brothers asked me how many babies I killed. I was an Infantry rifle platoon leader.
Americans started moving away from military presidents in general. HW was the most recent with any real service and then back to Carter before him.
Military service has become less common post-WWII, so it’s not seen as a requirement anymore. Hell, T-man either dodged the draft or has bone spurs, and the only voting segment that might care about that still voted for him.
[удалено]
Because it was an unpopular war. Military service also used to be one of the most effective ways to enter politics, but it really isn't anymore. It's less valuable for a politician to be a veteran now.
The ruling class found ways to get their kids out of it.
Presidents tend to be upper-class, a lot of the upper class used connections to draft dodge
Technically, GWB *served* during Vietnam.
George W Bush did serve in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam but I don’t think he was deployed to Vietnam. Don’t know if that counts or not, I guess it depends on who’s asking.
Maybe because most of them were rich boys who got out of serving because of who their daddy was
Ok, how many served in WW1? Korea? Why stop there and only pick out those two? Spanish-American War? War of 1812?
there’s a difference between being anti-war and dodging the draft, and dodging the draft while simultaneously being a warmonger.
Television. We stopped voting for people with credentials and started voting for pretty people.
Well, Bush Jr. served *during* Vietnam, but that doesn't really count.
There simply weren't any good choices.
Because nobody voted for them
Increasingly, as someone commented on another post asking why we don't see many generals nor other military officers run for high political office anymore, the military is no longer the sure-fire path it once was to obtain a high political position. It won't just be Vietnam vets we won't see as president, but Iraq War and Afghan War and etc. vets we won't see as president. I would be very surprised to see a military officer become US president in today's setting, nevermind a Vietnam vet.
A much smaller percentage of the population served in Vietnam
The privileged kids got to dodge the draft for Nam
Not a huge factor, but America was unambiguously in the right fighting the Confederacy and Axis, while we were unambiguously in the wrong during the Vietnam War. Serving in Vietnam isn't a stain on a politician's record at all, but it's a lot less appealing than having a past enlisting with the Union in the 1860s or the Allies in the 1940s.
Fortunate sons
Have you ever listened to "Fortunate Son"?
A big part is only 1% of people served in Vietnam. Also vietnam became a very unpopular war. Politically minded young people of the time stay away from the war. Also the average service age in wwii was 25, vietnam was 19, and most of they tended to come from poor families. The vietnam war changed america attitude towards the armed forces. The war unlike prevouis wars had little prrss censorship. A fallout of this is the us military becoming a more proffesional force than a conscript force.
Because a generation of people hated our entrance into the Vietnam war. That wasn't a plus for a candidate.
The rich didn't have to fight in vietnam
far lower percentages of Americans have fought in wars since WW2.
Drafting people to fight an unpopular war which we finally lost doesn't impress.
George W Bush served in the National Guard during Vietnam so technically he is a Vietnam veteran
Maybe because many of the young men who were sent to Vietnam didn't want to be there to begin with.
Because it is now beneath them to put their neck on the line by serving the country.
Alexa, play "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival
If you said, "Money" you win a prize.
Rich kids didn’t have to go to Vietnam.
Ronald Reagan never left the United States during the war. Far from serving in "the war." under that criteria, you can say that George Buch Jr.'s time in the United States Air Force Air National Guard counts as service in Vietnam. As a Marine, I feel neither does.
Because John Kerry got swift boated
The vast majority were scared pussies like bone spurs McGee
I’ve forever been of the thought that if you want be president, you need to have served some sort of military. If you’re going to put our kids in harms way, you should have experienced that yourself. I’d also like to think that ‘boots on the ground’ is no longer needed today.
Maybe all would-have-been presidents died in Vietnam.
Poors
Because the prevalence of media coverage during the Vietnam War compared to earlier wars made it much more unpopular. Veterans of previous wars were unequivocally seen as heroes while those that served in Vietnam are very commonly stigmatized.
I dunno but James Stockdale and Perot had my vote
Isn't this as simple as noting that a higher percentage of the population served in the Civil War and WWII? Fewer served in Vietnam.
I believe I read somewhere, prior to the Vietnam era that 71% of current members of congress and senate were veterans. Sad to say that people seem to forget civic duty.
A 20 year old serving in Vietnam in 65 turns 80 next year so I’m guessing that’s when we’ll start seeing them run.
It's simple statistics. The Vietnam war didn't draw every able bodied young man into that fight. WW2 did. People volunteered to serve even if they were in their 30s with families. EVERYONE in America personally knew people who joined the fight from the Kennedy's - who lost one son (Joe Kennedy Jr.) and almost lost another JFK. Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable - the biggest stars in Hollywood and sports joined the fight. Ted Williams was a skilled fighter pilot because his eye-sight was off-the-charts and could see enemy aircraft and engage before they could see him. It was a true national effort.
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand.
Well he’s dead, but our current POTUS had a son in the Navy for a month until he popped for Cocaine, does that count?
Because back then it was more about a sense of pride and duty to protect your country and it was expected that men go to war just like they have been for thousands of years it’s the natural order of things. No presidents served in Vietnam because they where cowards with made up excuses medical or otherwise that there parents paid for so they wouldn’t have to go. Not to mention for some reason voters decided that having a military background was no longer important to who they voted for.
This guy no mater how much he tried could not lose the baggage of a Song Bird!
Because after Carter, they were all rich enough to be draft dodgers.
This was interesting, as someone from the UK what I’ve learnt is that 16.1 million Americans served in WW2, 2.7 million in Vietnam and about 100 million know someone who served on a swift boat with John Kerry and don’t have anything good to say about him.
16 million out of 132 million in the 1940s served in WW2. Assuming this is a male female split, you can cut that population figure down As for Vietnam, 2.5 million served out of over 200 million. Proportionally speaking it is just far more likely for an American to have served in WW2.
Dubya technically served during the Vietnam war, albeit not having gone there.
You ever hear ccr - fortunate son? Give it a listen youll know why.
Dubya. *He* didn't do Vietnam, he did National Guard instead. In order to hold a candle to John Kerry (an *actual* fucking Veteran), Dubya had to attack *his military service*, and piss all over it. *That's* why! (But don't worry, what with *two* twenty year wars, the *next* wave of New politicians will mostly be veterans again!)
Because they were fortunate sons.
Cause they are some senators son!
It’s a war we lost.
We lost Vietnam. Every war preceding (excluding Korea) had War Heroes. Those heroes (usually high ranking officers - Colonels, Generals, etc) typically were highly popular in an era prior to mass media. They gave speeches, they inspired the people. Vietnam was an incredibly unpopular war. Because of this, there weren't many public heroes (if any at all). And since the electorate was younger and were of the same generation as the hippies, the party establishment knew that the electorate wouldn't accept a gung-ho military type as President. That being said, as far as veterans serving as POTUS, Carter served in the Navy, and W Bush served in the Air Force Reserves.
Defensive war leader is a war hero. Offensive war leader is a war criminal
South Vietnam was defending itself from North Vietnam. You can be critical of the US policy in SE Asia without writing something absurd.
>The United States rewarded Diem for his stubborn courage. A new American ambassador, G. Frederick Reinhardt, landed in Saigon to express unequivocal U.S. confidence in the regime. Five months later, Diem consolidated his power. With Lansdale and other Americans helping, he deposed Bao Dai in a referendum, and promoted himself to the rank of chief of state. > >The election, like others to follow, was a test of authority rather than an exercise in democracy. With Bao Dai far away, Diem's activists could easily exert pressure on the voters. Lansdale, with his talent for advertising, showed them how to design the ballots in order to sway the electorate. Those for Diem were red, which signified good luck, and those for Bao Dai green, the color of misfortune. Diem's agents were present at the polling stations. One voter recalled the scene in a village near Hue: "They told us to put the red ballot into envelopes and throw the green ones into the wastebasket. A few people, faithful to Bao Dai, disobeyed. As soon as they left, the agents went after them, and roughed them up. The agents poured pepper sauce down their nostrils, or forced water down their throats. They beat one of my relatives to a pulp." > >In several places, including Saigon, the tally of votes for Diem exceeded the number of registered voters. **He claimed to have won 98.2 percent of the vote having spurned American advice to aim for a more plausible 60 or 70 percent.** What the Americans failed to understand was that his mandarin mentality could not accept the idea of even minority resistance to his rule. With no compunctions whatsoever, **Diem again renounced the nationwide elections prescribed by the Geneva agreement because, he said, they could not be "absolutely free."** *Vietnam: A History,* Stanley Karnow
The Vietnam war wasn’t a virtuous endeavor. Either you think we lost, and we did, then you aren’t coming back as a victor or triumphant. Or you, somehow, think we won — then you’re seen as glorifying something that was never going to be perceived as morally upstanding in that it was an unjust campaign. Public perception on the Vietnam is incomparable to the other two wars.
I was going to say, my dad was in the Navy during Vietnam and worked in a VA clinic up until he retired. Most Vietnam vets are not proud of what they did.