"Let's face it," says one broad-vowelled Ivy Leaguer, "the army gets the people who don't have the where--withall--in brains or money--to stay out. The real leadership is avoiding it--no one with any sense would fight of his own free will."
Against the recriminations of those who serve, and those who have served in past wars, the young men who avoid the draft have constructed a variety of defenses.
The army would only waste their talent, they argue, by assigning them to jobs fit for high school drop-outs. "If they really could use some of this intelligence," says one college student, "then it might make sense to take the more privileged people, but right now they misallocate most of their talented draftees, or send them off to get shot at."
Even if the army were able to put some of this potential to good use, many argue that they can do more for the country in the long run by developing skills in other areas in preparation for positions of leadership in the future. "After I finish my education," says one law school student, "I'll be able to serve my country in some meaningful way, instead of just standing up for cannon fodder."
No Inspiration
And behind all the rhetoric, there is the war itself. A conflict of controversial objectives and disputed morality, it inspires no crusading fervor among those who may be called upon to give their lives. Few can think happily of making the ultimate secrifice in a war that seems to involve no clear or vital national interest. And although being drafted is not equivalent to being sent to Vietnam, one is often equated with the other in their minds.
As one student puts it: "This war is different from the others, To want to be a soldier you've got to want to fight for something. To kill someone you have to see the situation in black and white. We just don't see anything to fight for in Vietnam--not with guns anyway--and there just isn't any black or white."
Doubt and confusion, not outright disapproval or opposition, is the most prevalent sentiment. Some students have marched in protest, criticizing U.S. aggression, intervention and all the rest. But the vast majority of young men think of the situation in less cosmic terms. To them, it is the individual predicament that matters--the problems of delaying a career, postponing marriage, leaving home.
Once they are inducted of course, their outlook changes. The war becomes more immediate, whole-hearted support becomes a necessity. The process of training, and the nearness of sacrifice, encourage the fighting spirit: pride in the skill and efficiency of the military, an aggressive comaradery and a disdain for those who manage to stay out.
Permanent Division
The gulf of experience which results from this change in attitude is too deep for either group to cross completely. The two-group classification oversimplifies the split, lumping together a wide variety of complicated feelings and outlooks. But the basic difference in mentality is real and important, and may have very practical implications for the future of this country.
Surviving in the form of attitudes toward foreign policy, military spending and the like, the split in experience may tend to polarize opinion in future elections, creating disagreement between two segments of the public on major issues. The division would not necessarily be expressed in the ideological terms of left and right. It could be demonstrated just as easily in agitation for increased intervention, or a more militant foreign policy in specific situations.
This political impact may be considerable because the antagonisms nurtured by the burdens of service are superimposed on already existing differences in income and education--thereby hardening the lines of class and widening the gaps in outlook which follow them. The veterans will see all too easily that the more fortunate members of their generation are primarily members of two groups: the culturally and economic elite, and the culturally and economic poor. They will have more reason to discriminate against the second group, and disregard leadership from the first.
Difficult Adjustment
The adjustment to civilian life is likely to be increasingly difficult and frustrating. The deferred students can parlay the degrees they earn in the next few years into high-paying jobs in government and industry. The disadvantaged, already darlings of the Great Society, can press for urban renewal and massive income transfer programs, such as the negative income tax, particularly after defense spending is reduced. But the veterans will find their experience in the arts of warfare of little use in peacetime. Coming disproportionately from the lower middle class, they must return to a society that is grateful for their service, but eager to forget the war. Embittered and disillusioned by a negotiated peace that cannot possibly offer total victory, they must compete in an economy that has grown more and more competitive and demanding; contend with a political system that appears more and more beyond their influence and understanding.
It is impossible to predict the exact expression the split in experience will take. But in view of the origins of support for totalitarian movements in the 1930's there is good reason for apprehension. Historians have usually attributed the stability of this country's political order to the ambiguity of class distinctions and the prevelance of common (middle-class) out-look. Though the split in experience could never destroy this stability, it could certainly weaken it. The war has thus brought out the worst in the draft and the draft has highlighted some of the most dangerous weaknesses in American society