05 Sept 2020--
Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues, 1965
IMMEDREL//ATTN:PVTJC@EOC/FM:COC-CMD/CTRL//URGENT/TTYP
Cited
IMMEDREL//ATTN:PVTJC@EOC/FM:COC-CMD/CTRL//URGENT/TTYP
Incline Village, Nev. (EOC)-- The prospect of being called a "loser" or a "sucker" for serving in the armed forces of the United States is nothing new. The stigma of the combat soldier being the loser has probably been around since the founding of the Republic, but no more so emphasized following the retreat of America from the Vietnam battlefield. It was here that the notion evolved that since the United States "lost" the war, the returning soldiers were, and in many ways still are, the "losers." The first to point this out in any credible way was probably Tom Tiede, in 1971 who's article, "Is Concern For Vietnam Vets Coming Too Late?" which was picked up by numerous newspapers;
"Retiring GIs Losers. Now again, it might be argued, our returning soldiers are losers. Or at least not winners. And this might explain the reluctance of the citizenry to honor them, the business world to welcome them, and the Congress to protect them." (1)
The byline to the article indicated Tiede would be on assignment for "several weeks, writing exclusively about the problems, opinions and future of Vietnam veterans." At least one journalist in the postwar era in the early 70s understood that stigma, one that existed in an extremely narrow minded society at the time. The end of that Southeast Asian war brought about the end to the military draft, at least on a formal basis. Registration was still required and the lottery eventually phased out.
In 1978, The Scranton Tribune reported that General John R. Guthrie faced criticism of the all-volunteer army with relation to its combat readiness;
"Some of you may have seen the ABC documentary, 'A Shocking State of Readiness,' which was broadcast last month . It may have left an impression that American soldiers are 'losers' who are not willing or competent to defend the United States." (2)
Apparently, if an army general was under the impression given him by "some of you," although it is unclear who he referred to, that soldiers were losers, the sentiment may well have existed throughout command, disillusioned by the move from the draft and the all volunteer force. Still, by 1980, the Department of Defense found itself defending the volunteer.
The Carlisle, PA Sentinel ran a story in 1980 where the army secretary had to again defend the all volunteer force;
"WASHINGTON (UPI) The all-volunteer army is not composed of 'losers' and 'misfits' as some people seem to believe, Army Secretary Clifford Alexander says...He repeatedly rejected what he called a national perception that the army is made up 'of a bunch of losers.' ... 'THE ARMY IS not made up of misfits,' he said. 'They are not people who can't do anything outside. That is not true.' "
The secretary obviously had certain people in mind for the stigma laid on the common soldier but only referred to "some people" and a "national perception." It was unclear even a decade after the end of the Vietnam conflict who was responsible for promoting the degradation.
In 2006, in the words of a Viet vet posted in the Tucson Citizen with regard to Iraq, the connection between losing the war and the soldier being the loser became even more clear;
"Every bad statement about the war is a reflection on the soldiers, not on politicians. It hurts soldiers. If we leave before the war is won, we will have branded the soldiers as losers. That is what the country did with us with Vietnam. We did not lose a battle or the war. Protesters and politicians lost the Vietnam War. " Mike Dyer (4)
In 2014, Murray Brewster reported for the Canadian Press in The Saskatchewan Leader-Post concerning the high rate of attrition of in the ranks due to suicide. Citing depression and substance abuse, Brewster interviwed Sheila Fynes in relation to the death of her son, Cpl. Stuart Langridge, in 2008;
"Fynes said she and her husband are in regular contact with Afghan veterans who often call looking for non-judgemental support. The sheer number of conversations convinced her that soldiers who ask for help are often treated like 'losers and drunks' who had a problem before putting on a uniform." (..)
The headline for the article read " Forces treat suicidal soldiers like 'losers'." Again, the premise is that command itself, possibly from the top down, takes a dim view of at least one category of personnel, although it is unclear where the problem begins and ends. Is it only a stigma existing in enlisted personnel or do the NCOs and officers face the same dilemma?
The stigma of the GI being a sucker, loser, misfit and suicidal drunk lives on today. Even with the gradual acceptance of the Vietnam vet back into society, he/she is often compared nowadays as the survivor of the other war, the one of opinion. The new victim is the Iraq-Afghan vet, due possibly to the nature of that modern ongoing quagmire. There is an innate truth to the theory that if the war is lost, the soldier is a loser. It's just one more thing the vets will have to carry in their field packs, whether they like it or not.
Cited
1.) Tiede, The York Dispatch, 21 July 1971, Page 35.
2.) Guthrie, Scranton Tribune, 18 May 1978, Page 3.
3.) Clifford, The Carlisle Sentinel, 13 June 1980, Page 18.
..) Suicidal, Saskatchewan Leader-Post, 14 January 2014, Page 23.
4.) Vietnam, Tucson Citizen, 16 Sept 2006, Page 13
Bob Dylan lyrics, https://www.lyricfind.com/
Rambo image, https://fineartamerica.com/featured/john-rambo-first-blood-bill-pruitt.html?product=art-print
Pvt. "JC" L'Angelle, USMC, Reno, NV
IMMEDREL//ATTN:PVTJC@EOC/FM:COC-CMD/CTRL//URGENT/TTYP
China Beach (on a clear day), DaNang, 1968
27th Marines, Radio Operator
IMMEDREL//ATTN:PVTJC@EOC/FM:COC-CMD/CTRL//URGENT/TTYP