Wars of Generations
Gen-X'ers complain that we can't get away from Vietnam. A war that ended 30 years ago still dogs us shaping our debates about fighting an entirely different war. But that is how every war is fought. The ghost of the wars that a generation of leaders fought in as youths still haunt them when become the nation's elders. Vietnam still haunts us because it was the war of the youth of the baby-boomers currently directing national policy.
A generation does not become the decision makers in warfare and policy until their central cohort reaches their late 40's or early 50's. We usually associate a war with the generation who served as it's foot soldiers but to understand the policy decisions and direction of the war we must look to the prior experiences of the generation that directed it.
The "Greatest Generation" fought in WWII but it did not direct it. The political and military leadership of WWII all came from the generation that fought in WWI. It was their experiences in WWI and its aftermath that shaped their policy of total defeat of the Axis powers and reversed America's isolationism in the postwar era. The WWI generation directed US policy up until the early sixties when the first of the "Greatest Generation" reached political maturity.
We think of Vietnam as the baby boomer war but it was directed by the generation that fought in WWII. They launched the war in part because their WWII experiences stamped them with an optimistic view of Americas role and capabilities in the world. They lost the war in large part because psychologically, they kept trying to cram the conflict into the same mold as WWII. When Vietnam did not evolve like WWII they became confused, frustrated and defeatist. The "Greatest Generation" did recover from Vietnam and successfully steer the Cold War to its graceful end.
The baby-boomer came to power in the 90's and their pessimistic and hesitant view of American power that they learned in Vietnam became the template for use of American force. Clinton's tepid response to Al-Quada was in part due to his perception that, as in Vietnam, America could not successfully project force into 3rd world nations. Even Bush came to office extremely leery of the use of force in most situations. He was critical of "nation building" interventions. Some even described him as isolationist.
Part of the immense divide in political debate today occurs between those boomers for whom 9/11 radically shifted their generational world view and those boomers still stuck in the rice paddies. For far to many boomers, Vietnam became the platonic ideal for all wars. Every use of American power is just another road production of Vietnam with slight changes in costume. They seem incapable of viewing the current conflict through a separate lens.
The boomers will dominate American politics for at least the next decade. If we don't understand their perception of Vietnam we won't understand their perceptions of contemporary conflicts.
A generation does not become the decision makers in warfare and policy until their central cohort reaches their late 40's or early 50's. We usually associate a war with the generation who served as it's foot soldiers but to understand the policy decisions and direction of the war we must look to the prior experiences of the generation that directed it.
The "Greatest Generation" fought in WWII but it did not direct it. The political and military leadership of WWII all came from the generation that fought in WWI. It was their experiences in WWI and its aftermath that shaped their policy of total defeat of the Axis powers and reversed America's isolationism in the postwar era. The WWI generation directed US policy up until the early sixties when the first of the "Greatest Generation" reached political maturity.
We think of Vietnam as the baby boomer war but it was directed by the generation that fought in WWII. They launched the war in part because their WWII experiences stamped them with an optimistic view of Americas role and capabilities in the world. They lost the war in large part because psychologically, they kept trying to cram the conflict into the same mold as WWII. When Vietnam did not evolve like WWII they became confused, frustrated and defeatist. The "Greatest Generation" did recover from Vietnam and successfully steer the Cold War to its graceful end.
The baby-boomer came to power in the 90's and their pessimistic and hesitant view of American power that they learned in Vietnam became the template for use of American force. Clinton's tepid response to Al-Quada was in part due to his perception that, as in Vietnam, America could not successfully project force into 3rd world nations. Even Bush came to office extremely leery of the use of force in most situations. He was critical of "nation building" interventions. Some even described him as isolationist.
Part of the immense divide in political debate today occurs between those boomers for whom 9/11 radically shifted their generational world view and those boomers still stuck in the rice paddies. For far to many boomers, Vietnam became the platonic ideal for all wars. Every use of American power is just another road production of Vietnam with slight changes in costume. They seem incapable of viewing the current conflict through a separate lens.
The boomers will dominate American politics for at least the next decade. If we don't understand their perception of Vietnam we won't understand their perceptions of contemporary conflicts.

10 Comments:
If you take your examination further, be sure to seperate the baby boomers by their ideology. I would venture to speculate that the lesson for the Right and the majority of the Center was beware the Left and their insidious partners (media) to distort and shape the news to fit their agenda. The Left learned this lesson as well as it re-enforced their perception that the US causes more harm than good and shouldn't be trusted with military power.
MaDr
For many (most?) Boomers, their protest of the Vietnam war was less an ideological revolt than a matter of self interest and self preservation - they simply did not want to put themselves in harm's way, to risk injury or death for what they perceived to be merely a governmental policy. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather, what you can do for your country," uttered shortly before, fell on deaf ears.
As they waged the Vietnam war, The Greatest Generation simply could not comprehend the reaction of the generation to whom they had passed the torch. Perhaps, having fought and suffered through the Second World War, the Greatest Generation sheltered and pampered their children to the point of overindulgence. In any case, many of the Boomers felt no responsibility to answer the call of their country. Rationalizations were constructed, resting upon a "new" moral code. Responsibility was replaced with permissiveness. The expressed notion of questioning authority degenerated into ridiculing authority. The political embodiment of the new morality became political correctness. It is amusing that the political left has come full circle to worshiping at the alter of big government - the very government from which their idiology was born - rebelling against.
Doug Hill
Doug
I partially disagree. Very few boomers actually "protested" the war which is very different from not enlisting. No, this country has never had many volunteers for anything unless we feel directly threatened which certainly wasn't the case with Viet Nam. What I saw happen (I'm an early boomer) - the majority of boomers were in support of the war UNTIL it became apparent that we weren't trying to win the war. This is when the tide turned, even among the Greatest Generation. This being said, the majority of boomers still didn't "protest" in the manner with which we usually associate that word. Yes, opinion polls shifted and more letters were sent to the editor and congressmen.
Maybe the boomers in the later cohort were pampered, sheltered, etc, but I sure wasn't, nor were any I grew up with. Now I did run into some of those when I attended a very liberal (expensive) university.
MaDr - my TypePad ID; don't have a blog so can't get a Blogger ID
MaDr
I do not understand your reference to there being little protest. I too am an older Boomer, and saw the war from two sides, as a Marine in Vietnam during the Tet offensive, and as a student at a liberal (very expensive) Northeastern college. In the space of less than a decade this country went from a 1950's "Ozzie and Harriet" mentality to Woodstock. Virtually all of the campuses across the country were torn apart by protests and sit-ins. The cultural (hippie) movement was born in protest to the Vietnam war.
Doug
I think it is important to remember that while the boomers were not the decision makers in the era of the Vietnam war. The protest where highly visible but they had little effect on the course of the war. It was only when the parents of the protesters turned on the war that it failed.
None of the major political players in the policy decisions related to the war on either side were actually boomers. People in their 20's, no matter how attention getting, do not set national policy.
Vietnam wasn't the boomer's war. Iraq is.
Shannon
Let me put it another way. Absent the anti-war movement and protests, would the United States have cut and run from Vietnam?
Doug
Doug
"I do not understand your reference to there being little protest"
By this I mean relative to the entire voting age population. The protesters were very vocal and well supported by both the media and academia, but in the minority. Their smaller numbers were magnified by the media while not actively counteracted by the silent majority. When these latter started to turn because we weren't trying to win the war, they for the most part did not join the protest lines/events/etc.
Without the anti-war movement it is not entirely clear to me that we would have cut and run. I think, however, this "movement" was a coalesing point that accelerated the cut and run which I believe in all likelihood would have happened eventually. Because, my perception was that the Center and Right came to believe that our government had no intention of winning the war. Very few were willing to accept a stalemate where we could expect the continuing high casualty rates.
MaDr
Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! » » »
This is very interesting site... »
Very nice site! »
Post a Comment
<< Home