The American involvement in Vietnam, which increased dramatically after 1965, changed that. "The limited warfare in Vietnam allowed the military to be very selective in procurement and assignment."6 During the early stages of the U.S. involvement, there was little trouble meeting the increased demands for men on the battlefield, and to maintain our commitments in other parts of the world.
"Vietnam was a war which did not require full mobilization . . . The male eligibility pool, much deeper than during the Korean conflict because of the post-World War II baby boom, enhanced the possibility of selective channeling of the 26,800,000 men of draft-eligible age during the Vietnam War, from 1964 to 1973.
Less than one third served, 8,615,000 (including those who served in the reserves, which were not called to active duty during Vietnam). Only 2,150,000 served in Vietnam, 8% of all eligibles, and 25% of all those in service."7 The Selective Service System utilized a classification system, and rules defining those classifications, to determine the level of eligibility of all males above the age of eighteen. The application of those rules was left to the individual local draft boards, with applicants able to appeal any ruling by a local board to regional and federal boards in any dispute.
Being a student at a university earned a draft-eligible male a deferment to continue his education. At a time when there was little aid for young men wishing to enroll in college, the standards for classifying potential draftees were biased toward those from middle- and upper-class families, and against those from the lower socioeconomic classes. The Selective Service System used a process called "channeling" to route those with the ability to continue their education, and those without to be drafted into the military.
Its official publication, Channeling, issued on 1 July 1965 by the National Office of the Selective Service System, describes the patriotism of those who were deferred to continue their education. "Patriotism is defined as 'devotion to the welfare of one's country'. It has been interpreted to mean many different things. Men have always been exhorted to do their duty. But what that duty is depends upon a variety of variables, most important being the nature of the threat to national welfare, and the capacity and opportunity of the individual."8
The armed forces, by law integrated since 1948, were decades ahead of the rest of American society in their efforts and their success at fielding a force that reflected the racial makeup of all of American society. That success came at a cost, though. "In contrast to the two world wars, and the early days of Korea, when blacks had to 'fight for the right to fight', the advent of the Vietnam war brought charges that blacks were doing more than their fair share of the fighting . . . Many black leaders and others now questioned the 'special efforts' and methods that favored [italics in original text] the recruitment of blacks over whites."9
National leaders wrote and spoke not of the inequities of the system, rather of the opportunities. Democratic Senator Daniel Moynihan, in 1966, wrote that "as employment, pure and simple, the armed forces have much to offer men with the limited current options of say, Southern Negroes. By rights, Negroes are entitled to a larger share [italics in original] of employment in the armed forces, and might well be demanding one."10 By 1967, "the proportion of blacks in the military stood at 9.7%,"11 slightly less than the 12% of the population of the U.S.
Bogus draft-reg card used by Lee Harvey Oswald
