What do you think about the "Veterans of Foreign Wars" (VFW) one day changing their policies to include veterans with no foreign service?

It is not just changing the name or policies. It is killing the VFW organization, with all its special intent, and replacing it with a new one. It is analogous to what happened to the "Boy" Scouts of America when it was no longer limited to boys. It is literally not the same organization. It is also unfortunate, because it is frequently just temporal leadership dependent, and instead of just leaving the organization as is, they follow whatever "vision" they have to be more "inclusive," or whatever is irrelevant to the original intent. Meanwhile, after the death of the original organization, other smaller organizations pop up that fulfill the original intent, as happened with the creation of smaller, local actual BOY scouting organizations.

I would probably quit the VFW if they did this just on principle, and sign up with one of any new organizations that still catered to those who served in actual war.

I have seen little to no other rationale to make such an organization-killing change than increasing numbers (selling out) and "we don't like we can't join your club" envy, not something you would really expect from hardened combat veterans.

Their club, their rules.

I am not eligible to join the VFW, as I never served in an eligible location or action. Nor should I be eligible. Though I cannot join the VFW, I respect those who can and I believe that they should be a distinct and separate organization, and stay true to their charter.

They’re many of us who deployed but weren’t included in our DD214 because they were places we weren’t supposed legally be. I deployed to Panama where we crossed into Columbia but for drug trafficking; I’m in the process of getting that changed

If they did, it would be against the provisions of their Federal Charter...So whomever has been making it a "topic of discussion" needs to be told to stand down and ease up on the cheap beer.

No. VFW should remain what it stands for.

A veteran is a veteran and has no say in where he's deployed.

A veteran is a veteran, period. None have a say in where they're deployed.

First, I think a "foreign deployment" is very different from a "foreign war." That said, when I was growing up most of the adult men in my town were either WWII or Korean War vets. They all belonged to one or the other and membership was so large they did a lot of community events. The American Legion Park hosted the Little League baseball diamond and the 4th of July Festival and fireworks, for example. I noticed a big decline in membership after Vietnam and we all know why. Currently the post I belong to can't attract new members. The Desert Storm/Iraq/Afghanistan vets seldom sign up, or, if they do don't come around very often. So perhaps it is this decining membership that is the problem. If so then both organizations need to improve to become more relevant to younger vets. Changing the basic membership rules will do nothing to stem the decline.

Historically, the VFW was organized about 1900 in Denver, CO, largely for veterans of the 1st Colorado Volunteer Infantry Regiment which served in the Philippines 1898-99. It expanded nationally before WW1 for Sapnish American War vets who had served in the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. Only later did the VFW start to admit veterans of WW1 and expanded their membership criteria to anyone who had served overseas in any conflict.

The American Legion was organized in Paris, France in 1919 for veterans of the "Great War. Different group, different criteria for membership. As private organizations they get to set their own membership requirements except for unconstitutional ones (gender, race, creed, etc.) While similar they do have somewhat different goals.