>>103456899Mostly three factors.
First, as you mentioned, the war reporting was much more intense. Vietnam is known as the first media war. We have more photos of murdered civilians, the cameras got far closer to the worst of it and global TV broadcasted it.
Second, it lacked the immediate justification of previous massive wars in the 20th century. WW1&2 were motivated by great power politics and ideological conflict. You can easily motivate the country against the monstrous invasion of all Europe. But Vietnam was the USA intervening in a colonial conflict on behalf of French interests and for the bizarre anti-Communist reasoning of the Domino Theory.
This led to a lot of open resistance in the population. People hated a war that drafted hundreds of thousands to fight in a jungle against people who wanted to liberate their country, while supporting a corrupt colonial junta.
It is noteworthy here that the French troops deployed in the previous conflicts in Indochina were largely Foreign Legion. Which was into the 60s stacked with former SS troopers who had fled persecution into the arms of their former enemies. It is no coincidence that the song of the Foreign Legion is sung on the melody of the Panzerlied.
So the American troops were really fighting the continuation of a very questionable war.
Anyway, the third big point is that America fought to a very costly stalemate and after throwing down the great evil of their time could not seem to defeat headstrong farmers with rifles.
The trauma of a pointless war with big losses and huge cost that proved unwinnable and scarred a generation forced the USA to examine all about it. To learn from this mistake.
And since then there was no draft. All modern conflicts now proceed with nothing but trained professionals. Even though they are no more justified than Vietnam they can just proceed with minimum opposition now because the framework for war has changed.
War is no longer felt or seen by the people.
