That's a very challenging question (Knowing everything you do now, would you go back to Nam and fight?). I will have to think about it. For the moment, I would have to say yes I would fight in Viet Nam because I believe in the essential goodness of our country and therefore of [most of] its leaders. Knowing that they have the best interests of the country at heart is very important. If you don't know that, then the proper place to declare your opposition is in the ballot box, not on the streets. My generation produced the flower children but to me they were spoiled rotten brats and I never accepted their views or their behavior. Then or now.
Since knowing what I know now is a theoretical exercise, my answer might change depending on who was theoretically in office at the time. For example, if Bill Clinton were the president I would have great difficulty fighting in Viet Nam because it would be hard to believe that his reasons for being there were true. On the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate if Ike, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush and George W. Bush were the president under those circumstances because you can believe what they say. If--a very big if--they said we needed to fight in Viet Nam it would have been true and worthwhile. Whether they would have said we needed to fight is an entirely different matter because they know what constitutes a good foreign policy and what the military is supposed to be used for (unlike Clinton, who was clueless). Johnson was president when I was vulnerable to the draft. I would have gone. My principal goal would have been to survive.
Knowing everything you do now, would you go back to Nam and fight?
TK |
