Chances are, we're NEVER going to have a president who served in Vietnam.

Carter, Reagan and Bush I were too old
Clinton and Bush II evaded service.

Kerry was the last real chance, and McCain is probably finally done for.

Considering this was easily the longest, deadliest American war of the last half-century or so, does anyone else find else find this strange, or is it just me?

Washington, Madison, Monroe--Revolutionary

Jackson--Revolutionary and 1812

Harrison, Tyler, Fillmore--1812

Taylor--1812 and Mexican-American

Grant--Mexican-American & Civil War

Johnson, Garfield, Arthur, Harrison, McKinley--Civil War

T. Roosevelt--Spanish-American

Truman--WW I

Eisenhower--WWI & WWII

Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush I--WW II

Seems a strange omission.

Abe lincoln did some militia duty during the Black Hawk War. President Carter was in the Naval Academy during WWII, he graduated with the class of 46.

and "those" people do not usually serve in the military (unless it's for political expediency of a parent)

Previously, the U.S. went to war only when it was necessary. In those wars, many volunteered, even the sons of the wealthy because it was the right thing to do and they didn't want to be called a coward when it was over. Then there was the draft.

Korea was a short war, and most young men were subject to the draft. There weren't that many men in the Korean years--they were born in the depression-- and they were greatly out numbered by the WWII vets, of whom there were many.

Vietnam started out okay, and it seems that many of our Vietnam vets were from the pre-67 or 68 variety, before the war became completely unpopular. Some actually volunteered, like Kerry and Gore. Others ended up in the draft after college, but not all college-educated kids ended up slogging through the jungle. After '68, everyone tried to stay out.

If we ever get into a real war where the average person thinks, "We have to fight or we'll be in real trouble," it will be interesting to see if the middle class and up actually volunteers or submits itself to the draft.

Personally, I think that our next war will be fought by the poor and the mercenaries who will be offered citizenship for themselves and a spouse.

I would say, "did everything they could to avoid serving." It's not like it was a real option.

I would disagree on Korea, however. Some people then believed that the Russians were going to blow us up. There wasn't much civil disobedience in the 1950s.

...including freedom from the obligation of military service.

or is my timing off? That not *exactly* evading, though it is availing oneself of an educational opportunity to avoid the war. Can't say I blame him, but its a more legit excuse than some.

Rush "I have sores on my ass" Limbaugh
George aW.ol. Bush

And at least Clinton took a principled stand and actively protested against the war.

After he graduated from Georgetown he won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford in 1968. That takes care of the war for him. But a lot of people got educational deferments from Vietnam, including a lot of the GOP chickenhawks.

(on a personal note, we cannot really go after them for doing what the Big Dog did. Fear not, though...most of them had other war-related asshattery that we can use.)

I have no idea. I don't know what your source was, or where it came from, so I can't comment on that. I think the important thing is that the letter is consistent with everything I've been saying for the last 13 years, since I was first asked about this in late 1978. I was in the draft before the lottery came in. I gave up the deferment. I got a high lottery number and I wasn't called. That's what the records reflect. A Republican member of my draft board was given an affidavit in the last couple of days saying that I got no special treatment and nothing in that letter changes that, although it is a true reflection of the deep and conflicted feelings of a just - turned - 23 - year - old young man. I felt that at the time.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

(totally agree on your personal note) :hi:

He avoided going to a war he did not support. They avoided going to a war they supported. There is a difference.

and drew a high lottery number.

The guy has incredible luck.

He would have been drafted after he graduated college, but he made an agreement with an AR national guard Colonel to return to AR after his time at Oxford and join ROTC while in law school there. Later, a lottery was instituted and he drew a high number. He then told the Colonel he had no intention of going back to AR. This was 1969 - every guy I knew in college was trying to find a way out too. My only problem is that when asked in 1992, he tried to hide it and lied.

What I'm talking about is a matter of timing.

Men who fought alongside other soldiers will be far more circumspect about using other such young men as fodder.

They will also understand intuitively the limits of military force, and therefore be more open to using diplomatic leverage.

Eisenhower and Truman served in WWI. JFK, Johnson, and Poppy served in WWII. It looks like Vietnam is going to be skipped for some strange reason.

I don't believe a single Korean war vet was even nominated.

He didn't win the nomination but he was a candidate in 1980.

He commanded allied forces in Western Europe.

Not to minimize Ike's accomplishments but interestingly enough he never actually was in combat.

only 16 % percent of U.S. Army personnel were assigned to armor, artillery or infantry. The remaining 84% supported the 16% actually fighting. Most people that serve in the armed forces of the United States do not see combat.

He carried the burden of ordering thousands of young men to their deaths. Don't minimize that.

Just ask him...

bush served...if you want to call it that, and we all know how well that turned out.

Clinton didn't serve and he was a decent president that we could be proud of. No military service.

But I had hoped that when Kerry won, it'd be symbolic that we'd finally gotten past our nation's strange ambivalence/disrespect for veterans of the Vietnam era...and we all know how THAT turned out.

I don't think I'm wrong about this--our urban centers are FULL of homeless Vietnam vets, and no one seems to care. Why? Because the US lost? I also think it affects the way our country and media operates when it comes to war, to this day.

it's probably a very small percentage of the overall population- plus, vietnam was an unpopular war, and a lot of people, from the pacifist poor to the sons and daughters of privilege and all stops in between, found one way or another to opt out.

i don't find it all that strange, actually.

disappointing, perhaps in one way- maybe someone who had been thru it might be more prone to reducing the size of some of our overseas commitments, and avoiding war at all costs.

But that's reflective of the nation's changing values. We no longer honor our veterans; we just "support our troops". And by that, they mean slap a magnetic ribbon on their SUV.

We'll probably never have a President from the Iraq War, either. The American people are even more disconnected from this war than they were from the Vietnam War.

I think our last Prime Minister to have served in a war was Lester B. Pearson. And that was in WWI.

And later HE was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the end of the Suez War and starting the concept of Peacekeeping soldiers.

Our Toronto Airport was named after him.

So I disagree with the notion that a candidate who has personally seen war is automatically the best candidate.

I agree with that. But if might be useful for someone in the position to start a war to have first hand experience on what that really, really means.

It was such a deeply divisive war. Its sad to see it happening all over again.