Good Mooorning, Vietnam (and all working-class soldiers)!

Of the 2.5 million enlisted men in Vietnam, roughly 80% were from working-class and poor backgrounds (Appy). In contrast, World War II witnessed virtually all young, able-bodied men enter the service—with class status being an irrelevant factor. Personal connections to the military permeated society “regardless of class, race, or gender” (Appy). However, the Vietnam war experienced a disproportionate amount of working-class, poor, and young men enlist into the military. Appy provides a detailed list of statistics that demonstrate the social and economic gap between working-class and wealthier men; of these statistics, one concludes that “men from working-class neighborhoods were four times more likely to die in Vietnam than men from families with a median and above family income” (Appy). In a brief discussion, Appy contends that although racial tensions existed within U.S. troops, increased racial integration in the ranks led to greater segregation based on class. The total percentage of black men that served in Vietnam was roughly 10%; however, roughly 80% of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam had no more than a high school diploma. Additionally, the average age of enlisted soldiers was nineteen years old (!!), which is a stark contrast to the average age of 26 years old in World War II. Based on these statistics and broader trends in the U.S., such as the suburbanization of blue-collar workers, the Vietnam War was a working-class war in which powerless young men were sent to fight an undeclared war despite not being eligible to vote (this changed in 1971 with the 26th Amendment). 

By the late 1960s, soldiers’ disillusionment and demoralization with the war mirrored a crisis of confidence in America as a whole. Shifting away from the naive certainties of the 1950s, the 1960s and 1970s were marked by self-doubt and growing disillusionment with the government. The evaporation of support for the war at home coupled with the lack of formal indoctrination led troops to question their mission in Vietnam. Vietnam was a very public war with journalists scouring the Vietnam countryside and newspapers publishing the protests at home; all of these materials would inevitably make their way into the hands of troops serving in Vietnam. DeGroot writes, “Innocent men became scapegoats for an unpopular war” (DeGroot). By the late 1960s, the sense of purpose in which American soldiers had entered had now evaporated. In turn, low morale impacted social relations between soldiers as respect for authority eroded. Acts of fragging (the intentional killing of a military officer) increased, with 730 recorded cases between 1969 and 1971 (DeGroot). Additionally, drug use increased among troops as marijuana, heroin, and hallucinogenic drugs were supplied via the RVN Navy (DeGroot). However, with low morale, troops instead found purpose in battlefield morale. As one soldier put it, “Your family was your squad, and that’s who you look after” (DeGroot). 

While a class divide exists in the U.S. today, it is nowhere near the working-class division in Vietnam. Today, the majority of military personnel come from middle-class backgrounds, while those from the highest and lowest economic brackets are the least represented (CFR Report). I think this is reflective of the post-Vietnam military: the U.S. military has grown to be more professionalized, smaller, and better paid. In fact, unlike Vietnam, many military roles today require high scores on the ASVAB (Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery) which can pose a barrier to poor individuals. I believe that benefits like the G.I. Bill are designed to attract working-class and middle-class individuals; however, the military today is disproportionately composed of those from the middle class.