written by Todd DePastino
We have another hot-button topic that triggered reader responses rivaling our post about the Navy peacoat’s demise, our attempt to define what a Warrant Officer is, and stories about elephant sightings in Vietnam.
The subject this time is the term “combat veteran.” What prompted our discussion was an article by Vietnam veteran Marc Leepson, who argues that the term “combat veteran” demeans the service of “rear echelon” soldiers, sailors, and Marines.
Leepson published an article in Vietnam magazine in 2019, recently reprinted on Vietnam War website cherrieswriter.com, titled “What Did You Do in Vietnam?”
Leepson writes:
I admire and respect every Vietnam veteran who served in the combat arms. . . . . But using “combat veteran” obliquely demeans the service of all of us clerks, cooks, truck drivers and other rear-echelon types. I realize that most people who use that term don’t intend to minimize or mock the wartime service of hundreds of thousands of other veterans, but that’s exactly what it does.
I understand that infantrymen could have negative feelings about us rear echeloners, but we were doing the jobs the military asked us to.
Although there are no official statistics, the best estimate is that 75 to 90 percent of those who served in Vietnam were in support units. That’s more than 2 million men and women who came home without the label “combat veteran.”
My suggestion to fellow veterans and those who never put on the uniform: Please consider dropping “combat veteran” from your vocabulary and replace it with “war veteran.” Or “Vietnam War veteran.” Or “Iraq War veteran” or “Afghanistan War veteran.”
We’re curious to know how many in our Veterans Breakfast Club group feel similarly. So we asked you if you agreed with Leepson.
As if a chorus, veterans responded in the spirit of a Vietnam Marine who sent a one word answer in supersized font: “NO!”
Below is a selection of the emails we received about our discussion and Leepson’s article:
Dave Beck, USA, Vietnam:
I respect every soldier that was in Vietnam and the ones that were in the military all over the world. But they didn’t have to put up with what the Infantry men had to put up with. At night they slept in a nice bed with sheets and blankets. The Infantry men slept on the ground in the dirt, water, and mud. They stayed up half the night if there were two men on the bunker to pull guard. If they were lucky and had three men on the bunkers they got two thirds of a nights sleep. That’s unless they were sent out on an ambush or on an LP (listening post). Then they didn’t get any sleep. You got up at dawn, ate C rations, filled in your fox hole, saddled up and went hiking through the jungle looking for the enemy. Late in the afternoon we would dig foxholes and get ready for another night of hardly any sleep again. Most of the time we ate C rations. They would try to get hot chow to us once a day. Sometimes they couldn’t get choppers in to resupply us so we went without what we needed. So I think the Infantry men deserved the name combat veterans. I am a proud Combat Veteran.
Bill Silver, USMC, Vietnam:
I would like to express my thoughts about being called a combat vet. I am quite aware of the service rendered by all vets who served during the Vietnam war and I honor their service. However being in combat and especially fired upon we have earned at least the respect to be called combat vets. Semper Fi.
A. Todd Wilson, USN, Iraq:
I served with Military Sealift Command during the Iraq Campaign in 2003, performing & supervising ‘combat cargo operations.’ That’s just a fancy way of saying we shipped combat equipment, ordinance, and fuel. While what I did was important, I did not serve in combat, and my service was in no way comparable to those who did serve in combat. I’m sure what “the clerk” did was important too, in its own way. But it’s not the same as combat.
I would like to add that as a naval hospital corpsman from 1974 to 1978 and who didn’t serve in combat, even though I was and continue to be proud of my military service history as well as other military noncombat duty personnel, we must continue to highlight combat veterans as they risked their lives on a daily basis.
If your MOS was to kill and you did, I’d say you’re a combat veteran. If you’re supporting the troops in war and happen to be. in the wrong place at the wrong time and fought your way out, I’d say you’ve experienced combat.I believe the psychological aspect of training to take another’s life and in many cases carrying it out to save our liberty are what makes a veteran a combat veteran.I received hospital corpsman training at Great Lakes. In the lobby was a wall covered with many plaques of corpsmen who were decorated, and as you know most of the medals were given posthumously.I’m grateful to those brave personnel who came before, are currently in a war type situation, and to those who’ll step up in the future. I would never downgrade their supreme sacrifice.
I will not say I’m correct about term combat veteran, but I will always identify myself as a combat veteran with pride and do not think it equates with others who did not have the same experiences. Nobody can possibly understand combat unless experienced. Where did they sleep, eat? Did they always have food, water, clean utilities, fatigues? Were they constantly under attack, engaged in firefights, snipers? What is sad and unfortunate is those who did not serve in combat have been made to feel their service is less honorable or they also feel that about themselves. This is inexcusable and unacceptable. Without support services those of us out in bush could not do our job or function. These experiences were not less honorable rather different. I do not present myself as Green Beret or Special Forces. I don’t equate my combat to those who served at Hamburger Hill, Hue or other areas who experienced much more brutal combat. I don’t feel my service is less honorable just different. This controversy occurs because some veterans insinuate this to non combat veterans but also non combat veterans create this feeling themselves either due to guilt or other personal reasons. Both are incorrect. No veteran should ever dishonor another veteran. We experienced divisiveness and rejection from society and do not need to do to each other. Too much divisiveness in this country and world.
Veteran is the noun. All the other descriptors are just adjectives. The noun is the important part.
