Soldados: Historical Comparison: Then and Now

• Facts and Figures
• Interview: Dr. Peter S. Kindsvatter

Facts and Figures

The United States recently observed the thirtieth anniversary of the All-Volunteer Force, with ceremonial re-enlistments performed at the White House and around the nation. The AVF was established in 1973, largely in response to vociferous opposition to the Vietnam War and to compulsory service. Since then, the armed forces have developed a much different image. Recruiting campaigns emphasize the practical benefits (college funds, technical training) as much as they mention the ideals of national service, and military leaders speak frequently of the benefits of an army of committed professionals.

Despite ongoing controversy over the role of military service in society, and the economic imbalances that often correlate to volunteer service, a great deal has changed over the last thirty years in the way soldiers and support staff are recruited, trained, and deployed.

Numbers of active-duty and reserve troops

On the whole, the Army has grown smaller, with less active-duty and reserve troops. The last time the Army was this small was before WWII.

Assignment

In 1971, inductees did not have a real choice in their jobs nor where they were assigned. Everyone took the Armed Forces Aptitude Battery (a test which identified skills) and based on those results, and the needs of the Army, inductees were given assignments. Volunteers took the same test, but would talk their aptitudes through with their recruiter and choose among their options. Today, everyone entering the Army takes the Armed Forces Aptitude Battery, which is updated on an annual basis, and they are offered a number of choices based on their aptitudes and on projected openings.

Recruiting

During the Vietnam era, the Army did not need to offer incentives. The draft filled the ranks, based upon the Army's needs, for the most part. Today, there is the Montgomery G.I. Bill, there are incentives such as bonuses for choosing certain positions that the Army needs particularly to fill, the Army can offer a choice of assignment, both in unit and location. Those were not options during the Vietnam era. Back then, in the case of career soldiers, for soldiers who had served out the period of their draft and wanted to re-enlist, there were options in assignment, as a matter of retention, not recruiting.

The Role of Women

During the Vietnam era, women played a support role. They were part of what was called the Women's Army Core (they were known as WACs). They served as nurses, secretaries, administrative support, they worked in finances. Today, women serve in all sorts of positions in the Army, with the exception of infantry, armor, and field artillery, which are considered the combat arms branches. Those are the forces you can expect to be in direct combat with the frontline. All women are, however, trained to be infantry (to shoot a rifle, to do road marches, first aid, etc.), even though they won't serve in those branches. Every soldier gets that training. As the war in Iraq has shown us, even support forces are vulnerable.

Based on information supplied by the U.S. Army Public Affairs Media Relations Division

• Facts and Figures
• Interview: Dr. Peter S. Kindsvatter

Interview: Dr. Peter S. Kindsvatter, Command Historian at the U.S. Army Ordnance Center and Schools

Dr. Peter S. Kindsvatter is the author of "American Soldiers: Ground Combat in the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam."

POV: What are the biggest differences between serving in the army in the Vietnam era and today?

Dr. Peter S. Kindsvatter: In my book, I focused on what I call the "draft era" wars -- the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. So the draft era versus the all-volunteer force of today is a very important basic difference. I would point out, though, that even in the wars of the draft era, many of the soldiers that served were volunteers, especially in the beginning. As the wars proceeded, of course, there were more and more draftees.

The only war I served in was Desert Storm, as a staff officer, and I noticed that with an all-volunteer army, one basic difference is in attitude. They knew they signed on the dotted line, and even though some may have joined because they were looking for an education, or just a job, they were pretty stoic about it. Nobody forced them to do this; they weren't drafted. Earlier draftees were not happy to be there.

Another factor now is the professional soldier, those who volunteered and stayed in the service, who decided to make the army their profession. There's a sense for them that when a war comes along, "This is what I've been training for. I'm not eager to go through the dangerous life of a combat soldier, but this is what I've trained for. And I want to exercise my training, and be a part of this."

POV: The U.S. now maintains an all-volunteer force, but most of those who served in Vietnam were inductees. How does that affect the soldiers' outlook?

Dr. Kindsvatter: Studies have shown that reluctant draftees make reluctant soldiers. If a young draftee doesn't have a positive attitude in the first place, when they hit basic training, that tends to be their attitude throughout. If they start unhappy, they stay unhappy. Your typical volunteer might be enthusiastic about joining the service, and tends to stay enthusiastic. There are exceptions, of course. But the initial attitude tends to stay with the soldier through his term of service.

POV: How have the changes in the army's makeup and training affected the way soldiers cope with the alternating high amounts of stress and (for lack of a better word) boredom?

Dr. Kindsvatter: It's something close to a truism that a soldier in a combat zone is never out of danger. You may not be actively involved in fighting at the moment, but the danger is there. The danger may take different forms: in Vietnam or Iraq, it's when the next suicide bomber or booby trap shows up. Even when ostensibly bored, sitting around playing cards, and it seems like nothing's really happening, you're still in the midst of a conflict, so there's always a level of danger. There's always a level of stress that's with you. There's always a level of fear that's with you. It could be more prevalent in a war like Vietnam, where you're out "humping the boonies," as they said, and you could step on a landmine, or there may be an ambush up around the bend. There's a cliché that war is 90% boredom and 10% sheer terror, but even in the boredom there's danger and fear.

POV: Some of the soldiers in "Soldados" were volunteers at a time when most of the armed forces were made up of draftees. How unusual was that?

Dr. Kindsvatter: By the later years of the war, a majority of soldiers were draftees. By then, most of the early volunteer soldiers had been rotated out. In Vietnam, once a unit was deployed, the unit stayed in country, and soldiers were rotated out on an individual basis. When a soldier set foot in the country, he knew exactly when he would leave.

There's also a kind of semantic difference between then and now: some of those who volunteered did so to avoid being drafted. At that time, volunteering meant three years of service as opposed to two years of service [as a draftee]. So some volunteers signed up so they could pick a specialty to teach them a skill, or perhaps just to try and keep themselves out of a foxhole. There were also the guard and reserve units, which weren't sent to Vietnam. It's very different now. In the other wars of the draft era, the guard and reserve were called up. In WWII and Korea, they were called up quite early. Suddenly in Vietnam a decision was made not to deploy the guard and reserve. So there were young men standing in line to join those units. Today, a lot of reserve and guard units are called up. The active Army is dependent on those units for support, maintenance, police and civil affairs. A lot of the structure is in the guard and reserve. If you're an MP or a civil affairs guy, you can get called up a lot.

POV: How was the rotation system for replacing soldiers different in Vietnam than it is now?

Dr. Kindsvatter: Rotating individual soldiers out and bringing in new ones was not very good for unit cohesion. But on the other hand, if you're a soldier in a long-term war, you know that if you're not going to get rotated out, you're not going to survive. You're going to get killed, wounded, or you're going to crack up. So the rotation system provided some light at the end of the tunnel besides getting shot. To the extent that we've done that since Vietnam, we've done unit rotation, keeping the unit together and replacing them as a whole. It's probably the best way to do it. We couldn't do that in Vietnam because we didn't call up the reserves, and without them we just didn't have enough units.

POV: And how does the Army handle rotation now?

Dr. Kindsvatter: The Army is asking itself that question right now. We're looking at a long-term situation, obviously, in Iraq and Afghanistan. What are we going to do? Are we going to rotate units in and out of there?

POV: How long does the typical enlistment last now?

Dr. Kindsvatter: They typically sign up for three years. It can be longer, depending on your specialty. Sometimes the initial enlistment is up to five years. That's longer than your average group of draftees, but there are other factors, too. Some are looking for educational benefits, and they may join up for only one hitch. Others may join up thinking that they may like this as a career.