This is just a quickie diary that if anyone has problems with relative to pushing more important diaries off the list I'll delete. The issue is what should those of us that served during the Vietnam war, but not in the country of South Vietnam, be called or call ourselves. A Vietnam Vet or a Vietnam Era Vet. We didn't have to cruise on suicide runs thru the Mekong Delta, or crawl down into tunnels as the Tunnel Rats did, or traipse through jungles with rucksacks and hollow eyes. But we did serve during the war and according to official government designation, we are all "Vietnam Era Veterans", whether having served in country or not.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because I'm a Vietnam Era Veteran. I usually call myself a Vietnam Era Veteran, but during my time blogging, I occasionally call myself a Vietnam Vet. For some reason a tinge of guilt comes over me. I served on a submarine, a fast attack called the USS Aspro out of Pearl Harbor. A purely voluntary assignment. We went under the water for sixty days at a time, surfacing in Guam, Phillipines, Japan, and Hong Kong. We cruised the coast of North and South Vietnam. We took clandestine pictures of a Russian sub testfiring a missle, which of course they didn't know about.
The more common usages are to separate those who served in country from those who did not. I suppose generally that could suffice, but as we get older, things seem to change. Take World War II Vets, or Korean War Vets. The term "era" doesn't seem to be used significantly with describing those vets. Plus, just because someone served "in country" doesn't mean they automatically deserve some special designation. Many were REMFs, Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers, who didn't come any closer to the Viet Cong than I did. And I'm sure there were many who served during the Vietnam war that risked there lives even though they didn't serve in country.
Semantics, much ado about nothing, perhaps. But since I've been inconsistent and feeling somewhat guilty for doing so, I thought a poll seeking Kossack's opinions would be helpful. Thanks!
Update: Got my answer already from the wise Kossacks. The poll is somewhat divided, but the crux is the accepted public understanding. I agree with what Oblomov says below:
"If someone claims to be a Vietnam vet because they expect to get something (e.g., to be elected to public office or to get themselves some slack cut for bad behavior) that they think they'd be less likely to get as a "Vietnam Era" vet then yes, there's obviously a problem."
My main goal would be to not be misleading, therefore, I'll stick consistently with the "Era" tag. Mucho thanks to everyone.