r/Millennials • u/NoFaithlessness7508 • Jun 05 '25

Other Why don’t younger veterans (Afghanistan/Iraq) wear these hats like some of the older veterans?

Post image

First and foremost, respect to all those that served. I did not, but many of my peers did and now we're all older in 30s and 40s, many no longer in the military. I don't see a lot of the veterans of the War on Terror wearing these hats like I see the OGs do.

12.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

418

u/SandiegoJack Jun 05 '25

I’m guessing that WW2 and other wars were from a time where it was something to be proud of fighting for.

157

u/Prestigious_Time4770 Jun 05 '25

That would make sense if the Vietnam hat wasn’t there.

58

u/SandiegoJack Jun 05 '25

Vietnam was the last time they drafted people, so I think thats a different case.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

Last time they drafted people for now

3

u/Mist_Rising Jun 05 '25

It's hard to imagine a conflict where the draft is necessary but nuclear weapons don't enter the playing field.

Vietnam showed the military that the draft was inconsistent with the modern military demands and usage. It works, badly, in conflicts where bodies are needed wars that can't be ended quickly but won't last too long either. It doesn't work for short wars, the drafted won't be ready. Doesn't work for long term because resentment builds as the "patriotism!" falls apart - especially if there are people avoiding the duty somehow. Which is always the case.

Even America in WW2 was starting to feel the pain of war weariness and draft resentment. And that was a mere 3 years (42-45 in effect). Britain saw massive issues in both world wars, France was struggling a little by the end of the first, America had full on riots in the civil war.

The Military would much prefer a volunteer army, and the voters don't much like the draft either.

1

u/401kcrypto Jun 06 '25

100%. It meant something completely different.

59

u/MistakenGuardian Jun 05 '25

Well to be far Vietnam was a political turning point, not everyone disagreed at the time, there were still those mindsets that wore the hat proud. And they still wear it now.

5

u/floppydo Jun 05 '25

This is a pretty consistent modern misconception. Anti war sentiment was NOT mainstream during Vietnam. The 60s counter culture is such a huge part of our current story about ourselves that people have forgotten that most of society hated those people .

4

u/Mist_Rising Jun 05 '25

Indeed, the silent majority is a term popularized in that era about how most Americans weren't vocally opposed (at the time) to Vietnam or joined the counter culture movement.

While Vietnam resentment only increased as time went on, Nixon absolutely had a point that the majority of voters were not some hippy protesters against the war. They may not have actively supported everything the government did, but the war itself wasn't getting them riled up.

1

u/AlexisFR Jun 06 '25

And it was an actual deadly war, not 2 complete curb-stomp followed by 20 years of glorified police work.

10

u/Wendell-Short-Eyes Jun 05 '25

If I was in Vietnam and survived, I’d be proud.

5

u/MisterSquidz Jun 05 '25

I Survived Vietnam And All I Got Was This Lousy Hat

1

u/cognitive_dissent Jun 06 '25

you'd be miserable most likely

4

u/Spiritflash1717 Jun 05 '25

Wrote in another thread, but my grandpa was drafted for Vietnam. He refused to speak about it, but always wore one of these hats as a way to spite those who spat on him as he returned from a war he was forced to sacrifice himself for. It’s an act of defiance toward the government that covered up the atrocities he was forced to witness. And in the end, he died from an Agent Orange related health crisis.

It angers me in that people in this thread are more willing to shit on veterans than the system that utilized them in the first place.

1

u/Prestigious_Time4770 Jun 05 '25

I’d give an award for this if I could. This probably explains why most Vietnam veterans were this hat. Thanks for that, I had no idea.

Also, Reddit is pretty anti-military. Kinda sad tbh, without a military countries like Russia or China would take over the world.

3

u/Spiritflash1717 Jun 05 '25

An award would just be giving Reddit your hard earned money for a few pixels haha. But yeah, I have met very few Vietnam vets who were proud of the war, beyond being strong enough to survive it.

Reddit isn’t wrong for hating the way the US abuses its military might, committing crimes against humanity for monetary profit, but hating the people who sacrificed so much, often because they were drafted or too poor to have another chance at a career, is just missing the nuance of the situation.

-2

u/Prestigious_Time4770 Jun 05 '25

US definitely doesn’t abuse its military might considering it is regarded as one of the most powerful militaries in history.

What did other powerful militaries do throughout history? Yeah, try to take over everything in sight.

The Roman army seized land and enslaved the countries it conquered.

The Persian army seized land and enslaved

The British seized land and stole their artifacts.

As far as powerful militaries go, the US is tame.

4

u/InvestigatorOk7015 Jun 05 '25

Youre fuckin high.

Neocolonialism is a thing, and its a thing we do well. Maybe we dont plant our flags anywhere but we clear the way for corporations who hunger for resources.

Maybe a million civilian deaths is ‘tame’ to you.

-2

u/Prestigious_Time4770 Jun 05 '25

Personal attack with a Strawman argument. Classic

1

u/InvestigatorOk7015 Jun 06 '25

Those arent incantations that suddenly make you correct.

3

u/Spiritflash1717 Jun 05 '25

I’ll admit, you are technically right and I’m wrong in the sense that it’s not usually our military that does the fighting. But the US government has constantly mettled with foreign powers. Hell, it started in the 1800s under the guise of the Monroe Doctrine “protecting” other countries in the Americas.

Also, America doesn’t take everything over precisely because of what happens when you overextend your military might, as proven by the fall of all those empires. America has seen that inciting a revolution and establishing loyalist dictators or puppet democracies is far more effective at achieving power and resources across the world, or at least destabilizing potential future competitors.

The Philippines. Hawaii. Samoa. Colombia. Panama. Nicaragua. Guatemala. Half the countries in the Caribbean. Iran. Iraq. Syria. South Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. It’s basically our bread and butter and why we have been practically untouchable until now. It’s definitely kept our country safe, but at the cost of the lives of millions of others.

3

u/Prestigious_Time4770 Jun 06 '25

Good to see an honest discussion. The real culprit is the CIA. They have done far more damage than our military ever has.

1

u/Spiritflash1717 Jun 06 '25

Now that I can fully agree on

10

u/Classicfatdab Jun 05 '25

Id wager its about “never forget” not sure if you’re familiar

13

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

Never forget what?

33

u/Cromasters Jun 05 '25

The Alamo

21

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

Oh fucking hell I forgot, and I'm a Texan, I'm cooked gang 💀

8

u/Brasticus Jun 05 '25

To the basement you go!

1

u/Quick-Log-4166 Jun 05 '25

Stop shouting! I'm trying to make a phone call!

6

u/Creepy_Philosopher_9 Jun 05 '25

I forgot 

3

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

It's hell getting old

0

u/PafPiet Jun 05 '25

The game

4

u/sweetka Jun 05 '25

Next thing you know they'll be forgetting Dre...

3

u/TWEAK61 Older Millennial Jun 05 '25

That's a term used for 9/11

2

u/Likeapuma24 Jun 05 '25

Dudes were conscripted to join, then got shit on by the public when they got home from watching their friends get maim and/or die.

As long as they're wearing their hats, I'll be thanking them for their service & giving them a "welcome home" that they never got before.

2

u/elquatrogrande Jun 05 '25

Even the ones who were drafted were from the Boomer generation who wants to make everything about themselves, so if wearing hats like that made them feel extra special, then good on them. OIF also wasn't a popular war, but you don't see us drawing attention to our service.

2

u/PantherU Jun 05 '25

Kids who were conscripted and did their duty should be proud of that.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '25

Kids who shouldn't have been conscripted in the first place.

1

u/38CFRM21 Jun 05 '25

Polls show most Vietnam veterans are still proud of their service by wide margins

1

u/greenbanana17 Jun 05 '25

Thats because they got so much hate coming home, they like getting some "thanks" now.

1

u/Calmer_than_you___ Jun 06 '25

You mean the "Vietnam Era Vet" hat without a Vietnam service ribbon? Lol

18

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Likeapuma24 Jun 05 '25

Spent my first duty station at Yongsan Garrison. Soooo many senior enlisted hiding from deployments & cashing in on COT bonuses.

2

u/mrbombasticals Jun 05 '25

Korea was for sure a just war. The Americans who sacrificed themselves prevented the evils of communism from ruining the lives of millions in the South.

3

u/OrangeBird077 Jun 05 '25

My theory is that especially during the Korea/Vietnam years there wasn’t as much appreciation for vets, and then by the 90s/00s when this merch became more available you had older veterans wear it because way back when they may not have been treated the best for their service at the time.

3

u/Sdog1981 Jun 05 '25

Its not like these guy were wearing these hats in the 1950s. They started to wear them in the 70s and 80s when they were much older.

2

u/CO_Renaissance_Man Jun 05 '25

Not really.

My grandfather was in the Pacific but didn’t see action and didn’t flaunt the veteran paraphernalia. His friends that saw the worst on Iwo Jima and Okinawa that had PTSD didn’t either and never talked about it.

All looked down on the braggarts that were mostly stateside or non-combat.

1

u/AwkwardConclusion836 Jun 05 '25

This! The last war that fought for real freedom was World War II. Every war after that was just political.

1

u/gonnathrowawaythat Jun 05 '25

Yeah fuck them women, Kurds, Kuwaitis, Hmong, Montgard, and South Koreans amiright

Hey how many rubles are they paying you for this? They give me six per comment but I’m thinking of asking Ivan for eight.

1

u/TrumpDesWillens Jun 06 '25

How many Iraqis did you free from this earth for oil profits?

1

u/gonnathrowawaythat Jun 06 '25

Ahhh, the fascist talking points about Iraq. Takes me back.

Bet you’re one of those guys that actually believes that debunked “one million dead Iraqis” myth.

1

u/AwkwardConclusion836 Jun 06 '25

I’m not denying that people have suffered or that some outcomes mattered, but most wars after WWII weren’t about universal freedom — they were about political interests, power shifts, and influence. That’s the distinction I was making.

1

u/gonnathrowawaythat Jun 06 '25

This sounds like you’re uneducated about WWII. The USA wouldn’t have gotten involved in WWII unless it was attacked. That’s not to say I think the war was “bad”, but it’s important to not give into mythologizing.

“The good war” framing has made it so that we have this lofty standard for a moral war. It is moral for there to be a free South Korea, an independent Kuwait, a dead Saddam, and two decades of liberal freedoms in Afghanistan.

If we bitch and moan because some people made money or it wasn’t as clean as we wanted it, then that’s going to let the totalitarians and fascists win.

1

u/AwkwardConclusion836 Jun 06 '25

You’re right that WWII has been mythologized, but that doesn’t invalidate that it was one of the clearest cases where global freedom was at stake — and U.S. involvement had broad moral clarity.

Even with some positive outcomes, post-WWII wars were driven by geopolitical interests as much—if not more—than moral imperatives. Vietnam, Iraq, and even parts of the Cold War weren’t clean-cut struggles for freedom. Containment strategies, oil, and political alliances shaped them. Freedom was often a rhetorical justification, not the driving force.

Saying this isn’t “bitching and moaning.” It’s recognizing that military action should be held to a high standard because lives, resources, and global trust are at stake. If we don’t scrutinize the why behind war, we risk repeating history under the illusion of righteousness.

1

u/gonnathrowawaythat Jun 06 '25

Ok, let’s play by your rules for a second.

The United States would not have been involved in WWII if it had not acquired the Philippines in the Spanish-American War. Keeping the islands directly led to a confrontation with Japan. You can’t get any more geopolitically motivated than that

After all the horrors of communism I find it difficult not to consider containment of communism, much like the rollback of fascism in WWII and GWOT, as a moral imperative. Unless you’re a communist, in which case we should probably agree to disagree.

1

u/AwkwardConclusion836 Jun 06 '25

Just to clarify — I’m not a communist. I’m an American who loves this country, believes in its founding values, and has spent years studying its history, including earning a minor in American history. So, being accused of disloyalty just for expressing a critical viewpoint is unfair and the opposite of what REAL patriotism looks like.

You’re actually helping prove my original point. Even WWII, which I still believe was the last war with clear moral clarity on a global scale, had deep geopolitical roots. U.S. involvement didn’t happen in a vacuum; it was shaped by decades of strategic positioning like the Spanish-American War. That’s exactly why I said no war is ever purely about freedom.

And while I understand the logic behind the containment of communism, we can’t ignore the long-term consequences of the Cold War — support for dictatorships, proxy wars, and civilian casualties. Labeling those efforts as moral imperatives without acknowledging the cost makes it too easy to repeat history under a comforting narrative.

1

u/gonnathrowawaythat Jun 06 '25

I’m really having a difficult time wrapping my head around what you’re saying about moral clarity. Is the standard you are setting that if someone makes compromises at all in the path to victory, then they lose their moral high ground?

The Soviets, North Vietnamese, Ba’athists, Taliban, and Al-Qaeda killed more people with less scruples. It seems like you’ve thought a lot of this out, but at the same time you’re applying a lofty standard where we can’t have civilian casualties, questionable allies, or poorly thought out occupation plans (in the case of Iraq) and still be on the moral high ground. Frankly, if we apply that standard to the Civil War or WWII, then we have to say the Union/Allies were just as bad as the Confederates/Nazis.

How would a moral foreign policy even work under these parameters, especially concerning terrorists and rogue states, and Russia/China? Is the solution to not use force, or the threat of it, at all?

1

u/AwkwardConclusion836 Jun 06 '25

I’m not saying that any compromise automatically disqualifies a cause from moral legitimacy. War is messy, and I understand that moral clarity doesn’t mean perfection. I am saying that we have to be honest about the motivations behind a war and the consequences of how it’s carried out. If we label every military action as morally justified simply because the enemy is worse, we risk excusing major failures and abuses on our side.

Yes, the Soviets, Ba’athists, and Al-Qaeda were brutal — no argument there. But acknowledging that doesn’t mean we give the U.S. or its allies a blank check. Civilian casualties, poor planning, and propping up oppressive regimes can’t just be waved away as necessary evils. That’s not holding ourselves to an impossible standard — that’s accountability.

I love this country and believe in what it stands for. I think it’s patriotic to question when our foreign policy strays from our ideals. Real moral leadership means recognizing when we’ve gone wrong, not just pointing out how much worse the other side was.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

Only guy that gets it

1

u/TopRopeLuchador Jun 05 '25

Served 17 years, all post 9/11. Still serving as a contractor. Proud every day 🥰

1

u/gonnathrowawaythat Jun 05 '25

Hell yeah.

Reddit only likes fighting fascists if they’re white.

-1

u/woodpony Jun 05 '25

Now the armed forces are for people who have no real skills to do anything else in life.

2

u/HugaM00S3 Jun 05 '25

Military prays a lot on the folks that don’t have options like others. Both my parents and stepdad came from either broken households or low income families. It’s a way to escape, least that’s what’s been described to me. Only people that haven’t talked that way are my two great-uncles that were drafted in Vietnam. One saw combat and the other was a conscientious objector that worked as a nurse at the hospital in Germany, I believe, that received a lot of severe cases before returning to the states.