Christian Appy’s work in Americans in Combat critiques the ways in which the Vietnam War’s realities were obscured by sanitized narratives of heroism, particularly emphasizing on how the working class bore the disproportionate burdens in the American military and how their contributions later got ignored. All of his arguments that he presents truly reflects how the working class bore the brunt of combat. However, though the heroism of war is romanticized to this day, the lived realities of these working class soldiers are ignored, most of whom returned to a disillusioned and alienated society than what they left before fighting for the country. He shows how persisting inequalities among both white and non-white Americans was taken advantage of when enlisting soldiers to this war. Unlike the wealthier groups who had the means to avoid being enlisted, the working class Americans did not. This economic conscription demonstrates the structural inequalities that shaped military service at that time, which to much extent is a reality till date (Appy). Although these personnels loved their country, more than patriotism, economic conditions was the main driver behind serving in the military.
DeGroot’s work on the other hand was very eye-opening to me. As a soldier mentions, the nurses did not want to get close or know to anyone to avoid attachment to the people who would eventually be killed in the war. Similarly, his work further demonstrates how the US heavily underestimated the guerrillas and did a little on training the US soldiers. Soldiers were killing to avoid being killed rather than defending their principles and sides. Moreover, the soldiers were not indoctrinated unlike the guerrillas and did not fully have an idea why they were defending. The morale of these soldiers became low when the war started to lose support at home itself and they felt embarrassed defending the southern leader who openly appreciated Hitler and sought joy with imprisoning and killing the Buddhist monks. And the US soldiers were compelled to contribute in this mission, which showed the very hypocrisy of the US regime of defending freedoms. DeGroot’s claims are thought provoking, especially when he claims that “the war has often been presented as a morality tale; especially when the good men are used for corrupt purposes”.
Both of these essays highlight the reality that still exists today. As I mentioned earlier, poverty and systemic inequalities have much more to do than patriotism while enlisting in the US armed forces and the military. The working class people are the ones that are deployed in the high risk zones while the elites that have more means to avoid deployment stay at home and enjoy higher ranks, and reap the benefits of the military service without facing major dangers. Military recruiters target low income neighborhoods, high schools in economically disadvantaged areas, and communities with less alternative career paths. And after these poor enlistees return home, they are the victims of PTSD, humiliation, and other health issues. At the same time, Vietnam is only an example of “good men being used for corrupt purposes”. US’ invasion of Iraq and false claims of existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction is another example where the US troops were the victims of Washington’s temper tantrums and political motives. The list expands more to Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and so on. This remains just as relevant today: the military has been used as a tool for advancing political agendas and more so, the working class Americans are in the frontlines in this fight. Until this cycle of exploitation, misinformation, and unequal burden sharing in the military is addressed, the story of Vietnam will continue to repeat under itself but with different names and in different battlefields.
Will Wright 