Posted on Nov 19, 2018
Americans must share the consequences of our wars
116K
642
193
287
287
0
In 2014, I shared the story of an encounter I had on an airplane with a United States military veteran named Tim. He had overheard a fellow passenger suggest that the challenges facing some veterans after 9/11 were “fake news” and unlike during the Vietnam era. “America supports its veterans,” the woman said. Tim then shared his experience after serving in the Marine Corps in Afghanistan. He tried college, but it never stuck. He was battling with Veterans Affairs, and he was unable to find a job.
But then Tim said something that gave me goosebumps. “Worse than all that, now at home, I feel anonymous,” he told told us. Home among the very people who sent him to fight and kill our enemies, Tim feels invisible. For years, our elected leaders have debated strategies to end our wars after 9/11. However, only a brave few have acknowledged that until the costs and consequences of war are equitably shared by all Americans, our wars will drag on, military conflict will remain too painless a pursuit, and the experiment of an all volunteer military will fail us as a nation.
Three truths inform this proposition. First, our wars after 9/11 are not initially funded, at least in part, by taxpayers. Instead, the $5 trillion and growing cost has been largely paid on credit. Second, an exceedingly small number of Americans have directly shouldered the burden, and those who do serve are increasingly not representative of the citizenry. Finally, the assumption we have a ready pool of volunteers is becoming a myth. An estimated 70 percent of American youth are ineligible to volunteer, and the willingness of high school students to consider military service is at a record low. This could explain why the United States Army missed its recruiting goals this year for the first time since 2005.
Most agree that a military composed entirely of volunteers is superior to a conscripted force. However, many also acknowledge that this type of system is beginning to show cracks. Some of those cracks stem from fielding military members separate and apart from those who benefit from a safe and prosperous nation. The worst fears of those who architected the all volunteer military included a concern that because only “some” would shoulder the burdens of war, then war as an instrument of foreign policy would become too easy. They also feared that when those who fight come home, they would be cast as a government problem.
More than four decades and several wars later, I would describe these fears as prophetic. Since 1973, the United States has used military force on more than 220 occasions. Alternatively, in the 45 years prior when a draft was the law of the land, the United States leveraged military force as an instrument of foreign policy on just 24 occasions. Some of this contrast can rightfully be attributed to an complex global security situation, but it is also likely true that when you do not have to pay the bill, and when it is not your child being compelled to fight our battles, war is too easy.
Why do those who volunteer come home and cite lack of connection to civilian society? It is because after 17 years of war, we have discounted the foundational assumption sustaining the all volunteer force that those who benefit from the military service of others incur a moral obligation to those who serve the cause of defending our nation. Today, while a laudable segment of Americans remain committed to the concerns of veterans, the majority is not. Last year, less than 1 percent of charitable contributions in the United States went to veterans organizations. By comparison, Americans gave to animal welfare charities at five times that level. Most Americans are against reinstating the draft. Consequently, it is time to have a conversation focused on mechanisms to equitably share the burden of current and future wars with all members of our society.
I can offer a likely provocative start to that conversation. Congress should enact law requiring companies generating revenue from federal defense contracts to make annual philanthropic contributions to organizations that serve veterans and their families, equal to 1 percent of total operating profit generated from those contracts. Congress should enact law requiring colleges to make financial aid available to veterans, equal to 1 percent of the federal funding received annually by each institution. Those colleges must also admit students connected to the military, equal to or exceeding 1 percent of the total student population. Furthermore, Congress should enact law requiring all households to pay an annual military tax of $15. This would fund a national veterans trust designated to public and private programs serving the needs of military families.
After 17 years in Afghanistan, our elected leaders must demonstrate the courage to introduce policy requiring all Americans to shoulder the costs and consequences of war. In the absence of courage, war as a tool for diplomacy will remain far too easy a pursuit, our battles will drag on without end in sight, and veterans like Tim will remain anonymous.
Michael Haynie is a veteran of the United States Air Force, vice chancellor of Syracuse University, and executive director of the Institute for Veterans and Military Families. The views expressed in this column are his alone and not the views of RallyPoint.
*This article originally appeared on the Hill.
But then Tim said something that gave me goosebumps. “Worse than all that, now at home, I feel anonymous,” he told told us. Home among the very people who sent him to fight and kill our enemies, Tim feels invisible. For years, our elected leaders have debated strategies to end our wars after 9/11. However, only a brave few have acknowledged that until the costs and consequences of war are equitably shared by all Americans, our wars will drag on, military conflict will remain too painless a pursuit, and the experiment of an all volunteer military will fail us as a nation.
Three truths inform this proposition. First, our wars after 9/11 are not initially funded, at least in part, by taxpayers. Instead, the $5 trillion and growing cost has been largely paid on credit. Second, an exceedingly small number of Americans have directly shouldered the burden, and those who do serve are increasingly not representative of the citizenry. Finally, the assumption we have a ready pool of volunteers is becoming a myth. An estimated 70 percent of American youth are ineligible to volunteer, and the willingness of high school students to consider military service is at a record low. This could explain why the United States Army missed its recruiting goals this year for the first time since 2005.
Most agree that a military composed entirely of volunteers is superior to a conscripted force. However, many also acknowledge that this type of system is beginning to show cracks. Some of those cracks stem from fielding military members separate and apart from those who benefit from a safe and prosperous nation. The worst fears of those who architected the all volunteer military included a concern that because only “some” would shoulder the burdens of war, then war as an instrument of foreign policy would become too easy. They also feared that when those who fight come home, they would be cast as a government problem.
More than four decades and several wars later, I would describe these fears as prophetic. Since 1973, the United States has used military force on more than 220 occasions. Alternatively, in the 45 years prior when a draft was the law of the land, the United States leveraged military force as an instrument of foreign policy on just 24 occasions. Some of this contrast can rightfully be attributed to an complex global security situation, but it is also likely true that when you do not have to pay the bill, and when it is not your child being compelled to fight our battles, war is too easy.
Why do those who volunteer come home and cite lack of connection to civilian society? It is because after 17 years of war, we have discounted the foundational assumption sustaining the all volunteer force that those who benefit from the military service of others incur a moral obligation to those who serve the cause of defending our nation. Today, while a laudable segment of Americans remain committed to the concerns of veterans, the majority is not. Last year, less than 1 percent of charitable contributions in the United States went to veterans organizations. By comparison, Americans gave to animal welfare charities at five times that level. Most Americans are against reinstating the draft. Consequently, it is time to have a conversation focused on mechanisms to equitably share the burden of current and future wars with all members of our society.
I can offer a likely provocative start to that conversation. Congress should enact law requiring companies generating revenue from federal defense contracts to make annual philanthropic contributions to organizations that serve veterans and their families, equal to 1 percent of total operating profit generated from those contracts. Congress should enact law requiring colleges to make financial aid available to veterans, equal to 1 percent of the federal funding received annually by each institution. Those colleges must also admit students connected to the military, equal to or exceeding 1 percent of the total student population. Furthermore, Congress should enact law requiring all households to pay an annual military tax of $15. This would fund a national veterans trust designated to public and private programs serving the needs of military families.
After 17 years in Afghanistan, our elected leaders must demonstrate the courage to introduce policy requiring all Americans to shoulder the costs and consequences of war. In the absence of courage, war as a tool for diplomacy will remain far too easy a pursuit, our battles will drag on without end in sight, and veterans like Tim will remain anonymous.
Michael Haynie is a veteran of the United States Air Force, vice chancellor of Syracuse University, and executive director of the Institute for Veterans and Military Families. The views expressed in this column are his alone and not the views of RallyPoint.
*This article originally appeared on the Hill.
Edited 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 94
I agree that the cost of freedom is not being equally shared and should be. Not sure how the forced donations to vet organizations would do more than insure more corruption and graft in those organizations. I would like to see a mandatory two year conscription, whether that is in the military service or other federal service. IMO, one of the strengths of the draft was the diversity.
(73)
(0)
Sgt Jay Jones
The biggest "Welfare" group in the United States are those who have done nothing for their freedom. Freedom isn't free, but the "All Volunteer" force is being forced to shoulder deployment after deployment. You had more people concerned about Demi Lovato's drug overdose, than the U.S. Servicemen killed in combat to protect our freedom that week.
(1)
(0)
PO2 David Ball
Nope, the weakness of the draft was that some groups were either targeted or could not make the arguments to get out of service... Also what diversity are you talking about???
Whites are still the largest group of people in the United States by race and sex (around 70%). Blacks, however, are 7 percent by race and sex... (14% in total) so what is the total rate of service by race anyway???
Whites are still the largest group of people in the United States by race and sex (around 70%). Blacks, however, are 7 percent by race and sex... (14% in total) so what is the total rate of service by race anyway???
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CPT Philip Bailey
The draft or conscription needs to be a last resort to filling the needs of the service. If we can meet the needs of the nation with an all volunteer force then we should do so. The all volunteer force is far superior military when compared to a conscripted force. An all volunteer force is more expensive and typically smaller. I remember the problems with a force that contained draftees. The problems with discipline, evasion of service, and uneven distribution of exemptions from the draft made the system difficult to manage and created perceptions that the wealthy could avoid combat or service all together. The draft did not make Americans appreciate the service of members. The opposite was true.
(0)
(0)
When the masses do not have to experience any of the hardships lived by others, they have no buy in... No reason to care at all. Not for the use of the troops or against..
Its not on their radar at all if they are here in the states or in some far away land.,,, the troops are just a bumper sticker, a quick flash in view when the media makes some coverage, or they see someone in uniform, and as quick as moment came, its gone just as fast....
The saying "America is not at war, America is at the mall, the Military is at war" is silly, yet true.
An excellent article Maj Michael Haynie, thank you for the efforts you make for vets, current and future.
Its not on their radar at all if they are here in the states or in some far away land.,,, the troops are just a bumper sticker, a quick flash in view when the media makes some coverage, or they see someone in uniform, and as quick as moment came, its gone just as fast....
The saying "America is not at war, America is at the mall, the Military is at war" is silly, yet true.
An excellent article Maj Michael Haynie, thank you for the efforts you make for vets, current and future.
(36)
(0)
Well written sir, and I agree with virtually everything stated. Any half decent history buff knows about the war bonds and rationing that occurred during WWI and WWII. That was a big connection between civilian and soldier. And yet we face none of that now. At most we might see fluctuations in gasoline prices, but nothing significant. This leads to what I have seen as described as the warrior caste or culture, creating significant separations between the military and citizenry.
The draft, as you pointed out, is another reason. I am against reinstating the draft for several reasons. Chief among them was rather selfish but well founded. I volunteered for the military and I would not want to be stuck with a draftee who did not want to be there. There were times I downright hated being in the military, but I would not trade those experiences for anything. And if given the chance I would do it again. A draftee is unlikely to have the same feeling.
I do not believe all hope is lost. After my deployment overseas I went back to college. A military university. While I was on campus news broke out that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in a US raid. Oh to see that campus erupt! Suddenly students put on an impromptu fireworks show and celebrated on the border of rioting. Myself and several other veterans were among the celebrations. Classmates who had never seen war shared an elation with me that was incredible.
The draft, as you pointed out, is another reason. I am against reinstating the draft for several reasons. Chief among them was rather selfish but well founded. I volunteered for the military and I would not want to be stuck with a draftee who did not want to be there. There were times I downright hated being in the military, but I would not trade those experiences for anything. And if given the chance I would do it again. A draftee is unlikely to have the same feeling.
I do not believe all hope is lost. After my deployment overseas I went back to college. A military university. While I was on campus news broke out that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in a US raid. Oh to see that campus erupt! Suddenly students put on an impromptu fireworks show and celebrated on the border of rioting. Myself and several other veterans were among the celebrations. Classmates who had never seen war shared an elation with me that was incredible.
(15)
(0)
SP5 Arthur Ben Ephraim
Propaganda is an ongoing THREAT. I recently met a Vietnam 390th SMW SAC USAF who is maintaining an excellent attitude after serving 12 hard years for saying he would terminate a judge with extreme prejudice (Judge is US military and sitting on top of a massive cover up of KIA and Rotary Wing loss of S/W Asia). We must all be CAREFUL of words and deeds when facing Domestic Enemy traitor of the 4th Reich neo Nazi Sonnenkinder Heliocentric Model sun god cult. How many her are Heliocentric Model neo Nazi Sonnenkinder ? How many her understand the avionic ATTITUDE GYRO ?
(0)
(0)
CW2 Jalistair B
So you are one of those guys that thinks we blew up our own WTC? Start doing the science and math behind a fire and you will see that fuel reaches a burning temperature that is able to ignite aluminum which then burns at a hotter temperature that allows for the burning of steel and so forth. Stop demeaning the lives of those lost in 9-11.
(2)
(0)
LTC James McElreath
I just happened to be stationed in Germany with the last of the draftee soldiers. Most had more integrity than when the Volar service kicked in. I found them to be honorable, did what they were supposed to do (job) and it was to their ability. They didn't go AWOL like the volunteers did. They had a two year obligation, served it and generally speaking did not reenlist, and ETS'd and went home.
(2)
(0)
SPC Casey Ashfield
SGT Joseph Cabra - Thank you very much for the sentiment, but my ETS was in 2015. Being an officer never was in the cards for me starting from when I was denied a commission in 2009. Too bad. I was told over many years I would have made a great mustang.
(1)
(0)
I came home from Vietnam in 1967, talk about anonymous,from my once was young now a bit elderly perch I don’t think average Americans realize or even care who fights our wars as long as their privileged sons (and daughters now) don’t come home in government caskets or lie in underfunded,mismanaged VA facilities waiting to be treated ,our Nation’s ideals and principles haven’t changed ,just the manner in which we are willing to preserve them are,all societies weaken over time maybe ours is reaching that point.
(14)
(0)
Nicci Eisenhauer
SGT Philip Roncari I don't think most parents or families want their kids to serve at all, frankly. It doesn't help how we stigmatize normal (and PHYSIOLOGICAL) responses to trauma and make PTSD and TBI conditions assigned to Veterans. It's critical to normalize these outcomes or no one will ever serve.
(4)
(0)
SGT Philip Roncari
Nicci Eisenhauer -First thanks for listening to my cynical views of the American public ,all I can say is I come by it honestly after wearing the uniform in the 60s,you are spot on with your comments about PTSD,TBI and how they are viewed by our Countrymen.
(2)
(0)
SPC Mara Manzer (Spurgin)
My dad is a Vietnam veteran. He was a corpsman attached to a Marine unit. He came by his opinions honestly to be sure. He believes as you do. He often says "this isn't my world". It now belongs to younger generations full of people who have no idea how it is that they are able to roll out of their beds each morning, make their coffee and bitch about the country on Facebook.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Terry P.
SPC Mara Manzer (Spurgin) - First--Glad your father made it home,our Corpsman were there with us(Marines) and have our unending respect.I completely agree with his statement.
Semper Fi
Terry
Semper Fi
Terry
(0)
(0)
to put this as GRUNT friendly as possible - It is not the "wars" themselves that have such a high cost (I do not mean in terms of human cost) - but the stupid and counterproductive need to constantly "Nation Build" after our Government decides that a military action is required. Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over years ago if our Government did what must be done - a punitive action, with a clear and realistic mission statement, that had a clear exit statement. If a Military action is required, we go in, we "fuck shit" up, we leave. Let the Nation that provoked a military response build their own shit back up. The heavy monetary cost comes from rebuilding, protecting, and trying to establish a government more in line with The US interests.
Take Iraq for example - once Saddam was caught, tried, and Hanged, mission was accomplished, we should have left, and let the Iraqi people sort shit out for themselves, we did not bear a burden or responsibility to these people to rebuild their nation.
Same with Afghanistan, once Bin Laden was killed, mission accomplished, we take our shit and go home.
Take Iraq for example - once Saddam was caught, tried, and Hanged, mission was accomplished, we should have left, and let the Iraqi people sort shit out for themselves, we did not bear a burden or responsibility to these people to rebuild their nation.
Same with Afghanistan, once Bin Laden was killed, mission accomplished, we take our shit and go home.
(12)
(0)
SSG Robert Perrotto
Nicci Eisenhauer - the only way to accomplish that is to declare a formal war on the nation, which we have not done since WW2 - every conflict since has been "Police actions", or a "War on Terror", which amounted to a police action. No formal declarations of war were declared against Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan. No terms of surrender, yet we still poured an insane amount of money into these countries.
(0)
(0)
CW2 Jalistair B
Agree with you 100% and would even go so far as to say that we didn't even have to capture/kill Saddam. Go in, take names, kick butt, get out and leave the mess for them to clean up if they can. Repeat as necessary.
(0)
(0)
CW2 Jalistair B
Nicci Eisenhauer - What you fail to consider is the culture of both Germany and Japan. Both of these nations were civilized even when ruled by evil parties. The muslim is not. You cannot win an eastern war with western thoughts. You fight the war in the way they understand. You kill them, destroy their ability to wage war with others, and leave them. Repeat as necessary. The muslim only understands strength, which the US has not exhibited in decades.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Harvey Morris
SSG Robert Perrotto - I agree with everything you just said. The problem from my viewpoint is, War has become America's greatest export. Extremely profitable. It enriches the "Military Industrial Complex" and thus enriches our elected Criminals. The human cost is not a consideration by the giant corporations, or Congress. The war in Afghanistan has gone on for 17 years simply because the longer it lasts, the greater the profits. Congress is not committed to allowing our young Men and Women in the military win. Winning is not profitable. Nation building as you mentioned, is just another profitable aspect of war. God Bless America
(0)
(0)
So... just a thought.
How about we try considering more carefully when we are going to engage militarily as an instrument of policy. And while we are at it, actually communicate real goals and objectives for that engagement that upon being achieved, the mission ends.
I would say much of the issue is not with the volunteer force per se, but rather with the cavalier manner in which that force has been employed.
This is a bipartisan issue, as every President since I can remember has done this multiple times. Some did it on a bigger scale than others, but it is entirely too easy to employ military force without any check or balance on its use.
I think Congress should reclaim it's Article II powers and reassert that it is the one to declare war, not the executive.
That would solve a lot.
How about we try considering more carefully when we are going to engage militarily as an instrument of policy. And while we are at it, actually communicate real goals and objectives for that engagement that upon being achieved, the mission ends.
I would say much of the issue is not with the volunteer force per se, but rather with the cavalier manner in which that force has been employed.
This is a bipartisan issue, as every President since I can remember has done this multiple times. Some did it on a bigger scale than others, but it is entirely too easy to employ military force without any check or balance on its use.
I think Congress should reclaim it's Article II powers and reassert that it is the one to declare war, not the executive.
That would solve a lot.
(8)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG Robert Perrotto - I can cite example after example where your points have been flouted or negated. Let's go back to our last declared war. The Japanese showed up at Pearl Harbor - before they declared war. They shot at us and we shot back.
Congress convened for a declaration of war the next day IAW Article II. No problem there with the speed Congress can convene. At issue really on this point is the reflexive nature in which partisans find it expedient to oppose the policies - to include war-making - of the President. Again, examples abound.
In the case of the GWOT which you cite, we DID make war on a country, Afghanistan, and depose it's government, the Taliban, in pursuit of the culprits. It was also one of the reasons cited to invade Iraq in 2003, more dubiously. Many of the folks in Congress at the time came to rue (at least publically) there vote in favor of that blank check they wrote - John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden... it's a pretty long list - but they did indeed vote for a blank check, and three administrations have been using it so far to wage operations in dozens of countries. This is an absolute disaster Constitutionally and as a matter of policy and statecraft. Several of those operations were extremely dubious in their goals, scope, and relationship to the original resolution to attack the terrorist network responsible for 9/11.
Abu Sayaaf (Philippines)?
Houthi rebels (Yemen)?
Libya?
Boko Haram (Nigeria and adjacent areas)?
Kony/ Lord's Army (Uganda/ DRC)?
Whatever the hell Obama was trying to do in Syria (or not)?
And the granddaddy of these, Iraq?
All of those didn't have a damn thing to do with Al Queda, or the links were tenuous at best. Just because some desert bandits decide that their pitiful band is a part of Al Queda or the Islamic State does not make them a Clear and Present Danger to the United States (that is he wording of the original ceding of power to the President to wage operations for 90 days absent Congressional authorization), much less a strategic one.
President Obama, despite railing against the Iraq War (he was consistent on that, to his credit) waged operations in Libya well beyond 90 days, denying that we were doing anything besides logistical support (LOL) the whole time.
I think operations against non-state actors are more the purview of the CIA, with military operators attached for execution of Ops as needed under the Clandestine Operations Act. That is nothing like how we've been employed (for the most part) for the bulk of my career, but we need to start somewhere.
I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the military has been very casually used dating back to at least the Carter administration.
That is my point.
Congress convened for a declaration of war the next day IAW Article II. No problem there with the speed Congress can convene. At issue really on this point is the reflexive nature in which partisans find it expedient to oppose the policies - to include war-making - of the President. Again, examples abound.
In the case of the GWOT which you cite, we DID make war on a country, Afghanistan, and depose it's government, the Taliban, in pursuit of the culprits. It was also one of the reasons cited to invade Iraq in 2003, more dubiously. Many of the folks in Congress at the time came to rue (at least publically) there vote in favor of that blank check they wrote - John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden... it's a pretty long list - but they did indeed vote for a blank check, and three administrations have been using it so far to wage operations in dozens of countries. This is an absolute disaster Constitutionally and as a matter of policy and statecraft. Several of those operations were extremely dubious in their goals, scope, and relationship to the original resolution to attack the terrorist network responsible for 9/11.
Abu Sayaaf (Philippines)?
Houthi rebels (Yemen)?
Libya?
Boko Haram (Nigeria and adjacent areas)?
Kony/ Lord's Army (Uganda/ DRC)?
Whatever the hell Obama was trying to do in Syria (or not)?
And the granddaddy of these, Iraq?
All of those didn't have a damn thing to do with Al Queda, or the links were tenuous at best. Just because some desert bandits decide that their pitiful band is a part of Al Queda or the Islamic State does not make them a Clear and Present Danger to the United States (that is he wording of the original ceding of power to the President to wage operations for 90 days absent Congressional authorization), much less a strategic one.
President Obama, despite railing against the Iraq War (he was consistent on that, to his credit) waged operations in Libya well beyond 90 days, denying that we were doing anything besides logistical support (LOL) the whole time.
I think operations against non-state actors are more the purview of the CIA, with military operators attached for execution of Ops as needed under the Clandestine Operations Act. That is nothing like how we've been employed (for the most part) for the bulk of my career, but we need to start somewhere.
I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the military has been very casually used dating back to at least the Carter administration.
That is my point.
(1)
(0)
SSG Eric Cooper
Was in Somalia in 93 and although that started as a "Humanitarian Aid" mission we all know far south that went. I think there needs to be far better checks and balances in how our Military gets used then just throwing them to the wolves at every turn.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Perrotto
1SG (Join to see) - we did make war - but we never declared war on Afghanistan - that's the difference, congress approved it by "GWOT" to avoid declaring formal wars. Look I am not disagreeing with you, I am saying there is valid reasons for POTUS to have leeway in deciding to deploy troops without immediate congressional approval.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG Robert Perrotto - I see that we don't disagree on what the law is. My issue is that Congress abdicating responsibility to be the ones to determine when war is warranted is one of the worst things that has happened to us as a country, and as the military men and women to serve it. They need to reassert their authorities in both this and the power of the purse.
(1)
(0)
Sorry, I can't relate to this article. I joined the guard out of high school because I wanted to and had the goal of becoming a pilot. I became a pilot in the guard and later went active duty. Two tours in Iraq, one tour in Afghanistan, and never once did I feel distanced, separated, invisible, or ignored by civilians or the civilian lifestyle. Today I enjoy a career in investments and must create my own business opportunities day in and day out. Grounding me during my military career and now is my faith in God. When your eyes are on Jesus and not on the waters around you, it is easier to integrate into the military or back into civilian life.
As for the GWOT, it has become a farce. We went into Iraq with a mission of destroying Saddam's military and no objective of what to do after that was complete, so we did what we always do and we turned to "nation building." We entered Afghanistan in retaliation to 9-11 with the goal of capturing or killing OBL and destroying the Taliban. Again, we had no clue what we would do once we controlled the ground... so we turned to nation building.
I for one have no problem with going to war and accomplishing the mission. But accomplish the mission and then get out. Before we ever go into war we must have clear defined objectives AND an exit strategy that we stick to. What happens to their land after we leave is their problem. For example, if we take out Saddam and his military and then leave only to see that forces we oppose take over Iraq, then we can always go back in and destroy them too. Lastly, at no time should our hard earned tax dollars be forked over to nation build nations that don't even like us.
As for the GWOT, it has become a farce. We went into Iraq with a mission of destroying Saddam's military and no objective of what to do after that was complete, so we did what we always do and we turned to "nation building." We entered Afghanistan in retaliation to 9-11 with the goal of capturing or killing OBL and destroying the Taliban. Again, we had no clue what we would do once we controlled the ground... so we turned to nation building.
I for one have no problem with going to war and accomplishing the mission. But accomplish the mission and then get out. Before we ever go into war we must have clear defined objectives AND an exit strategy that we stick to. What happens to their land after we leave is their problem. For example, if we take out Saddam and his military and then leave only to see that forces we oppose take over Iraq, then we can always go back in and destroy them too. Lastly, at no time should our hard earned tax dollars be forked over to nation build nations that don't even like us.
(7)
(0)
LTC James McElreath
Both times I was in Iraq, the only thing that mattered to the Iraqi government was to pay back monies we had of theirs. It was always about how much we owed them! Excuse me but those castrated government personnel should had been told to FO or we pack up and go home. Then the issue with them wanting us to be governed by their laws! BS to that too!
(2)
(0)
When the majority of Americans have no stake in the game; i.e. losing a son or daughter, the mechanisms of power are free to operate uncontested.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next


Syracuse
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) - Afghanistan
Congress
IVMF
Military Family
