I disagree that this was a rich man's war. I heard a lot of conspiracy theories about why we were in VietNam, including oil, rice, and heroin, but none of them panned out over time.
Most war's are "rich men's wars". WWI and WWII were anomalous in this sense. Very few people of privilege go and fight. Some do. Most don't. Viet Nam was a more "traditional" case. If you were poor, you went. Middle class, you chose (accepting the penalty and inconvenience). If wealthy, you got National Guard. On weekends. Or, a deferment.
Billions were made in munitions. It was profitable. My family's income was because of Viet Nam and the Cold War. Yeah, we were just another aerospace engineer's family, but we there at the teat. But at the bottom of the pyramid.
Starting with Korea, we haven't had (ick, I hate to say it) a "popular" war. Actually, that's a good thing. Now, we should be asking ourselves "What are we doing in a conflict, if it can't be explained who the good guys are and who the bad guys are?" And I don't mean this week! This weak cost-benefit calculus is the signature of pretty much all the conflicts of the last half of the 20th century. |
