An important difference between this war and the war in Viet Nam

As I mentioned in an earlier entry, while at Philcon I moderated a panel on military science fiction. One of the panelists made the usual analogies between the war in Iraq and the war in Viet Nam, and I generally agreed with his points. A small part of one comment, however, really upset me, because it basically implied a difference of intent on the part of the soldiers in each war.

When it was my turn to talk, I illustrated my point by asking the audience members to raise their hands if they felt the soldiers in Iraq were evil.

As you would expect, no hands went into the air.

I then said that if I had taken this same survey about the soldiers in Viet Nam in a typical conference room in 1970, at least half the hands would have shot up.

No one disagreed with that assessment.

That attitude difference--on the part of civilians about the soldiers, not on the part of the soldiers--is, I submit, huge.

I continued by saying that I was not a veteran, but of course I do know some. (The only thing for which I'm likely to thank that dead crook Nixon is canceling the draft a few weeks before I was due to report after high school.) All the vets I know, including my friend, David Drake, went to Viet Nam because they thought it was their duty, not because they believed that particular war was a great idea. (I'm sure some vets did; I just don't happen to know any who held that opinion.)

When these poor souls came home, however, they faced outrage and anger against them, as if they, not the politicians, had chosen the war.

To put it mildly, I'm not a fan of this administration or its PR machine, but I will say that as part of selling the war they've done at least one good thing: the men and women coming home from Iraq don't face what Dave and other vets encountered when they hit the World again.