[Cowperson]

It all works well and good if the military is working at the behest of the electorate but I don't think that was the case in this particular war.

Well, we all have an opinion.

As I said, the more common lament - and a well documented one - coming out of that war was the opposite of your interpretation, that the civilian authority was micro-managing the war from the White House to the detriment of the military on the ground in theatre.

In other words, the common complaint in Vietnam was the military was hamstrung by the civilian armchair quarterbacks, that there was too much control of the military by elected civilians.

You've seen that charge colour every American military venture since that time, including the current one.

I don't believe it was a case of "the people agreed with it all through the ballot box at the time".

A lot of wars start off as popular endeavours - something most don't want to admit - but most lose their luster with the electorate the longer they go on.

Many of America's potential foes assume correctly that a democracy can't really stomach a prolonged conflict . . . . . and that's actually a positive thing to say about a democracy, if not its strength.

Kennedy essentially started Vietnam, Johnston escalated it, Nixon shut it down, Jimmy Carter reaped the wind of distaste for conflict (and corruption) and Reagan reaped the distaste over the lack of spine shown by Carter.

Democrat, Democrat, Republican, Republican (two Nixon terms), Democrat and Republican.

A lot of elections. A lot of leaping back and forth between the left and the right.

Also, it was The Age Of Protest, fueled by the idealistic boomer generation in its youth, with many observors feeling the Vietnam conflict was lost on the home front . . . . .

Considering the level of dissent and unhappiness the conflict stirred, the repeated changing of governments, I don't see how you can say the public didn't have an opinion and didn't act on those opinions.

my point for Azure is basically that contracts can be broken if the deal has been reneged on. Whether this guy was justified in doing so in this case is open for interpretation,

That's not open for interpretation. He broke a contract. The law, created by democratically elected forces, says he did at the time and the law still says that today, 30 years of elections and varied opinions later.

People disagree about the morality of Vietnam but, strangely, they don't seem to disagree enough about draft dodgers and deserters to change laws even after 30 years.

Cowperson