America’s War in Vietnam
One way to quantify the moral tenor of America’s foreign wars is to examine the comparative number of those who sought and were granted exemptions as conscientious objectors (CO). During World War II, which is often identified as a “crusade against evil,” approximately 37,000 draft-eligible men were granted CO status. In the course of one year of war in Vietnam, nearly twice that number – 61,000 – were identified as conscientious objectors (Szmedra, p. 144). In all, roughly 170,000 men earned CO status during the course of America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia (Ibid).
The unprecedented numbers of those seeking deferment on moral grounds reflected unprecedented turmoil in the United States, a widespread “questioning of authority, and thegenerational revolution that swept through American middle-class youth” (Szmedra, p. 144). What amounted to no less than a social revolution included mass protests, draft evasions, violence and even American citizens leaving the country for safe haven in Canada. With much of America already split over the issue of civil rights, Vietnam plunged the country into an internal conflict the likes of which hadn’t been seen since the Civil War. War had come to America in the most literal sense.
Perhaps the most telling sign of the Vietnam War’s unpopularity was the increase in the numbers of veterans who voiced their opposition to a war fought for dubious reasons and vague, intangible goals. None had a better sense of the futility inherent in fighting an unseen (and uncertain) enemy in the jungles and rice paddies of Vietnam than the men who had been through the experience. Those who survived the fighting could well attest to the fact that the nation’s involvement in Vietnam violated many of the standards established by the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, which published a handbook outlining the ethical rationale for conscientious objection (Burch, 202). Significantly, “The rights of the US hadn’t been violated, and the US hadn’t been attacked.
The war was undeclared. Far from there being a chance of victory, no one in the government even knew what ‘victory’ meant” (Ibid).
Frustration over the government’s often inscrutable actions concerning Vietnam provoked an explosion of protests and incidents of civil disobedience throughout the country. One of the most well-publicized and consequential from a legal standpoint was an incident that took place in Boston in March 1966, when four young men burned their draft notices in front of the South Boston District Courthouse. The matter went before a U.S. District Court, where one of the protestors, a student named David O’Brien, held that he had “severed his ties to the Selective Service on moral grounds” (Tucker, 1217). As the trial unfolded, O’Brien indicated that had he been drafted into the military he could have applied for an exemption as a conscientious objector, but on the grounds of his pacifist views rather than on religious-based principles (Ibid). The court ruled that O’Brien’s CO exemption status was insufficient reason for his actions and sent him to prison. However, an appeals court overturned the decision based on First Amendment principles, which, it was decided, permitted the burning of draft cards as an expression of free speech (Ibid).
The appeals court decision in the O’Brien case basically established the “ground rules” for subsequent protest activities. The O’Brien protest was one of the earliest examples of prospective inductees objecting to military service on purely nonreligious grounds. To complicate matters, many of those who sought conscientious objector status based on religious precepts did not profess to believe in God. A 1965 Supreme Court trial, which arose from a case involving four conscientious objectors, resulted in a decision in favor of the defendants. The high court ruled that the conscientious objector exemption should also be extended to those harboring a “belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those” who had previously been granted CO status (Supreme Court of the U.S., 1965).
The timing of these important cases coincided with the formation in 1967 of an organization called Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). The VVAW amounted to what was probably “the first antiwar group formed by veterans of an American war still being waged” (Hunt, p. 5). Today, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and consequent wars in the Middle East, it is difficult to imagine an organized protest movement initiated by returning veterans. But with key legal decisions having favored conscientious objection and other forms of protest, the VVAW was able to leverage its credibility in the struggle to end America’s involvement in Vietnam. The group’s founding members attended, and were inspired by, the 1967 Spring Mobilization protest march led by Dr. Martin Luther King. In April of that year, the VVAW staged a mobilization of its own in New York City’s Central Park, where 200 participants gathered to burn draft cards (Hunt, p. 6). Most of those involved were former Vietnam War soldiers, including one ex-Green Beret (Ibid).
As the VVAW’s membership grew (the group included about 600 members by 1970), its influence began to be felt, through the media, at the highest levels of government. As veterans, VVAW members were well-positioned to expose war atrocities, many of which came to light at a 1971 event in Detroit, where more than 100 veterans testified about “war crimes which they either committed or witnessed” (Lewy, 316-17). In spite of what later turned out to be inconsistencies in many of the veterans’ accounts, Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon had the transcript of the Detroit hearing entered into the Congressional Record and, in April 1971, an ad hoc Congressional committee was formed to hear testimony from veterans (Ibid).
The VVAW came under the scrutiny of the FBI as early as 1967, with J. Edgar Hoover having ordered agents to closely monitor the group’s activities. The group’s political activities, however, carried a moral weight that was missing from many of the more fringe-based protest organizations. In spite of questionable testimony (and despite some recanting), VVAW members who testified before Congress had a palpable effect on public opinion, and on the changing attitudes about the war among members of Congress. The VVAW also played an important role for returning veterans who, as the war dragged on, found themselves reviled by everyday Americans, who accused them of being “baby killers” and agents of foreign oppression. Not only did the organization give returning veterans a badly needed sense of belonging, it provided a forum in which they could tell their stories in a sympathetic environment. “By speaking out against the war (veterans) could hope to improve their rapport with the dominant currents of opinion in the society they were re-entering” (Lewy, p. 319).
Arguably the most famous Vietnam veteran to take an anti-war stance was Ron Kovic, whose injuries left him in a paraplegic state. In spite of his handicap, Kovic became one of the most ardent and active voices raised in opposition to the escalation of America’s war in Southeast Asia. Though not a conscientious objector – Kovic had been injured in combat – he took up the cause of injured veterans, whose treatment and ongoing care Kovic found to be inadequate and a scandal in itself. He joined the VVAW in 1970 after the National Guard shootings at Kent State University, and went on to help stage protest activities, such as disrupting Richard Nixon’s speech at the 1972 Republican Convention and a 17-day hunger strike at Sen. Alan Cranston’s offices in Los Angeles (Tucker, p. 610). In 1976, he published Born on the Fourth of July, his personal memoir, which was subsequently made into a movie.
The argument over whether the anti-war movement would have been as effective and meaningful without the involvement of men such as Ron Kovic and other Vietnam veterans is a debatable point. At the time, these men were considered by many Americans to be traitors to the very cause for which they had fought. But with the passage of time and the exposure of questionable, even criminal, government policies concerning the conduct of the war, the actions of protesters, conscientious objectors and organizations such as the VVAW were vindicated in the forum of public opinion. Ironically, the same men who opposed the government they were sworn to support actually upheld their oath in a sense, though not in ways they had foreseen. An examination of the Vietnam era must conclude that the First Amendment right to free speech functioned as intended and played an invaluable role in preserving representative Democracy in the United States.
Works Cited
Burch, H. A. (2009). What’s Right?: Social Ethics Choices and Applications. Bloomington, IN:
Author House.
Hunt, A. (1999). The Turning: A History of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. New York, NY:
New York University Press.
Lewy, G. (1978). America in Vietnam. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Szmedra, P. (2010). “Vietnam and the Conscientious Objector Experience.” A. Wiest, M.K.
Barbier, & G. Robins (Eds.). American and the Vietnam War: Re-examining the Culture and History of a Generation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tucker, S. (Ed.). (2011). The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military
History. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
United States v. Seeger, et al. 380 U.S. 163. Supreme Court of the United States. 1965. Web. 7
Dec. 2011.
