I didn't experience a whole lot of animosity ... a couple of minor incidents in the first couple of years is all.<quoted text>
And Willie, thank you for your service (and for your ability as a walking encyclopedia). It must have been a tough time to be in the service with so much animosity aimed at the military.
I certainly don't think of myself as a walking encyclopedia ... I'm just a guy interested enough in how the U.S. got it so wrong in Vietnam that I've read anything and everything I could get my hands on about it for the last thirty years.
As a matter of fact, I just finished a book by the general who served as the chief intelligence officer for General Westmoreland. I started it last summer, actually, but I got to a paragraph in the book where he attributed part of the reasons for our lack of success to the senior non-commissioned and junior officers (the 1st & 2nd Lieutenants and Captains).
The book kinda went flying across the room at that point, and I couldn't finish it until I cooled down.
Just look at the posts about Vietnam that have appeared here. You have one who is only interested in excoriating post-Kennedy Democratic presidents, another apologist for Kennedy, and one who only wishes to talk about the last of four Presidents to manage our involvement in that "damn little pissant country". In each of those posts there is a certain amount of truth - but not enough to form anything definitive.
It's really easy to read that document by the Kennedy Administration and think "gee, if he'd lived things would have been so different. Easy, that is, if you don't know that absolutely NONE of what he wanted to do was possible in that time frame, and that the team who advised Johnson was the same team advising Kennedy.