This isn't intended to be offensive, diminish/negate current troops etc, nor intended to be anything close to a political debate. If taken as offensive - apologies in advance
It's merely a question based upon observations from afar.
Geopolitical/cultural gap and reason's for occupation aside, what is the fundamental difference between a Vietnam Vet and an Iraq/Afghan vet?
Both wars sent brave young people to foreign lands to face horrors civilians will never understand. Both have a high attrition rate - be it mental, physical or life itself.
Yet the former were treated with utter contempt, the latter are lauded as heroes. Yet, essentially the are doing the same job - which is protecting US interests.
Again no offence intended for the 'elephant in the room' question because I am truly curious - but is the 'over the top
' support for current serving troops a way to compensate for former attitudes and behaviour and as such, perhaps one aspect intended to avoid making the same mistake twice?
Or is it simply because a 'troop friendly' media and populous attitude makes up for the shortfall that conscription once filled?