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
Don't agree at all with any law to force a private corporation to give money to any service organization.
Earmarking it for the VA, okay, but not service organizations.
We already pay a military tax as part of our overall taxes.
Earmarking it for the VA, okay, but not service organizations.
We already pay a military tax as part of our overall taxes.
(5)
(0)
Just like those clamoring for a confrontation with Iran, while conveniently forget the Iraq debacle. Most never have skin in the game.
(5)
(0)
CW2 Jalistair B
I currently support taking out the Iranian government through any means necessary, I do not forget Iraq and have always thought we entered Iraq correctly yet left it poorly. Iraq should have been a one year operation to go in, destroy Saddam's forces and leave. If it created instability in the area then we can always go back when needed. That is exactly the same way I view Iran. No nation building. No humanitarian effort after the war. No peacekeeping. Go in, destroy their ability to attack others, get out and leave them to clean up the mess.
(0)
(0)
LTC James McElreath
We went back a second time, and still did not accomplish a thing. The Iraqi people demonstrated their training, by withdrawing and leaving their equipment for the bad guys to use against us on the 3d return of our forces! It use to piss me off when you would show the Iraqi how to improve on their goals, SOP's etc. Those in supposed command always had one thing to say: "Have To Get The Change approved through Bagdad. It did not matter the simplicity of the request. They needed to request their balls be returned from Bagdad.
The only thing Bagdad wanted was to remove our rights to be managed by the US forces Command. They were advised that we would not be ruled by Bagdad so we were asked to leave, the 2d time.
The only thing Bagdad wanted was to remove our rights to be managed by the US forces Command. They were advised that we would not be ruled by Bagdad so we were asked to leave, the 2d time.
(0)
(0)
Very interesting! The fact that Americans give 5 times as much charity to animal rights as they do veterans, while not too surprising, does concern me. Unfortunately, there will always be a large portion of the population who will more readily identify with the welfare of stray animals than the people who defend their right to do so. Don't get me wrong, I love animals, too, but our veterans deserve better! The $15 military tax is an interesting idea. It would definitely generate a lot of debate about the way we treat our veterans, but it also may set an undesirable precedent for additional taxation and the government has already proven to be a terrible manager of funds for veteran support. No matter how designated, the funds would end up going into the General Fund and be mismanaged the way other special funding is, a la Social Security.
(4)
(0)
LTC James McElreath
The US Gov needs to make an asserted effort to find fraud, waste and abuse and prosecute the wrong doers! I am sure there is plenty of money that might be recouped. Next have the end of year funds not used ( give no warning), but freeze those funds. Every unit out there, hurries to spend every last dime by physical years end.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Terry P.
LTC James McElreath - If they don't use the allocation it will probably be cut and if they use all of the allocation it may be increased the next year. Wrong to me,but seems to be the way it works.
(1)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Excellent counter points Colonel Whicker. i totally agree that hte $15 Military tax is an interesting notion, but the funds, ultimately, will wind up in the general fund so Congress can fund other programs or projects...Congress has a history of mismanaging funds to serve their preferred programs...
(1)
(0)
I agree with some but I think Korea and most importantly Vietnam Veterans we're terribly treated and forgotten. It tends to happen a lot in jobs that you risk the most
(4)
(0)
Nicci Eisenhauer
PVT Mark Zehner I agree. Look at how law enforcement is being treated today, with no regard for the sacrifices of the officers or our families. The average American has a complete disconnect from military and first responders service.
(2)
(0)
CMSgt Randy Beck
Thank you lawyers and dishonest media for today's problems. The Vietnam era issues can be attributed to the war being orchestrated by someone sitting behind a desk in D.C. versus the generals on the ground being allowed to do their jobs. America is great a war, we do it very well, (except in the case of Vietnam), our biggest issue is we never plan appropriately for what to do after we win those wars.
(1)
(0)
Sorry, but I disagree with just about everything stated here. I joined the Navy in 72, we still had a draft and at the time the court systems also considered the military as some sort of a dumping ground for bad boys... Join the Navy or go to jail... In my boot company I was 1 of about a dozen volunteers, the rest were either draftees who didn't want to go Army or Marines. We also had a fine selection of court room rejects. My first night I wondered just what in the hell I had gotten myself into.
During my first tour I can remember just how crappy the morale was, most folks didn't want to be there and resented it. Acronyms like NAVY - Never Again Volunteer Yourself and snide comments about lifers and wanna be lifers were abundant.
I didn't then and wouldn't want to now serve with someone who doesn't want to be there. I can't see where forcing folks to do some sort of 2 year public service gig will be any better, there is little point in paying someone a wage to do something they were forced to do, they won't do it well and ultimately it is a sentence of slavery by some other name.
As to the notion of requiring large companies to "donate" to a charity they don't believe in, it's simply extortion under a new title. The notion that colleges must provide tuition assistance to veterans is equally unfounded, veterans already have an educational fund available to them, I certainly made use of mine after I retired - requiring the school to provide yet another stipend on top of it is neither necessary or helpful; all that will happen is that they will charge everyone else more in tuition to support the program.
Since 9/11 the Nation has shown a gratifying reverence for the military - I get 10% discounts for just about every purchase I make and I am grateful, sure beats the attitude toward the military that existed during Nam! Having said all that, trying to bash the public over the head with some sort of enforced love for the military will NOT engender the public to us; it will instead build resentment. One should take pride in one's service because one believes in what one is doing, if that's not enough glory and adulation perhaps one should choose a different profession.
During my first tour I can remember just how crappy the morale was, most folks didn't want to be there and resented it. Acronyms like NAVY - Never Again Volunteer Yourself and snide comments about lifers and wanna be lifers were abundant.
I didn't then and wouldn't want to now serve with someone who doesn't want to be there. I can't see where forcing folks to do some sort of 2 year public service gig will be any better, there is little point in paying someone a wage to do something they were forced to do, they won't do it well and ultimately it is a sentence of slavery by some other name.
As to the notion of requiring large companies to "donate" to a charity they don't believe in, it's simply extortion under a new title. The notion that colleges must provide tuition assistance to veterans is equally unfounded, veterans already have an educational fund available to them, I certainly made use of mine after I retired - requiring the school to provide yet another stipend on top of it is neither necessary or helpful; all that will happen is that they will charge everyone else more in tuition to support the program.
Since 9/11 the Nation has shown a gratifying reverence for the military - I get 10% discounts for just about every purchase I make and I am grateful, sure beats the attitude toward the military that existed during Nam! Having said all that, trying to bash the public over the head with some sort of enforced love for the military will NOT engender the public to us; it will instead build resentment. One should take pride in one's service because one believes in what one is doing, if that's not enough glory and adulation perhaps one should choose a different profession.
(3)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Interesting perspective and I enjoyed your counter points and to a degree, I concur with your post.
(0)
(0)
CPT Bobby Fields
SCPO Lonny Randolph I don't believe the narrative that all those who are (were) drafted won't do well because they don't want to be there. We have many generations of draftees who performed very well, and we have volunteers who joined the military and realized very quickly they made a mistake, yet choose to serve honorably and work hard until their time is finished. And yes, there have been both draftees and volunteers throughout many generations who were just marking time until they moved on. Senior Chief, I am sure you served next to draftees who decided to stay in for a career who were consummate professionals, (I know I did, although they were all at 30 to 40 years of service by the time I came onto active duty). I don't believe my Dad was any less of a Soldier because he was a draftee, and the guys he served alongside wholeheartedly agree, especially the ones he led in combat.
Having said that, I don't support any kind of peacetime draft although I used to. I would prefer we increase military benefits and retention incentives so we don't have the high turnover we traditionally have in the active force. Bridging the civilian-military divide will always be hard because people who never served will also never be able to fully empathize with those who served. We can only hope the support of the American public improves, or at least doesn't decrease, but the reality is that civilians don't understand what it is like to live the life we lived and they never truly will.
Having said that, I don't support any kind of peacetime draft although I used to. I would prefer we increase military benefits and retention incentives so we don't have the high turnover we traditionally have in the active force. Bridging the civilian-military divide will always be hard because people who never served will also never be able to fully empathize with those who served. We can only hope the support of the American public improves, or at least doesn't decrease, but the reality is that civilians don't understand what it is like to live the life we lived and they never truly will.
(0)
(0)
SCPO Lonny Randolph
CPT Bobby Fields - Like any general statement there are always exceptions to the rule. Clearly the veterans of WWII who were drafted were a different sort of animal who either joined or acquiesced to being inducted because they believed the Nation depended on them. The draftees of Viet Name were largely a different cadre, they were no less men than the previous generation, nor likely less patriotic, but they didn't have the same commitment, Viet Nam was not after all - WWII. I cannot say that any of the draftees or folks who were in the "join or else" category decided to go career, but perhaps SOME did... I do know that when I voluntarily enlisted the military was anything but a respected endeavor and I do know that most if not all of the folks who were forced to join were NOT happy to be there and were NOT putting their best effort into their service. Having said all of that, I honor their service given freely or not and this is certainly not a forum on the nature and quality of your Father's patriotism or that of anyone else who chose to dive in to the pool even after being shoved in...
(0)
(0)
Every President, Senator and Congresssional rep should have a adult age child automatically drafted into the military upon assumption of office. That would cut down the need for fruitless and drastic war.
(3)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
So.... You advocate removing the rights of an US citizen based on the career choices of their parents?
Oh... Also.... What about folks with no kids? Automatically ineligible for office?
Oh... Also.... What about folks with no kids? Automatically ineligible for office?
(1)
(0)
Unfortunately, it feels like the military is just the closest thing we have to a jobs & education program now. It's an area where the wealthy can milk ever-increasing amounts from our taxpayers without having to give a good justification for it anymore. It's the only area where spending increases and nobody asks how we'll pay for it.
That's why people are joining as a vehicle to something else. So many troops told me they chose transportation because it was quickest to the big bonus. They don't have a compelling explanation from our leaders about what we are doing and why we are doing it. People are just trying to survive as their wages stagnate and their medical bills overwhelm them.
That's why people are joining as a vehicle to something else. So many troops told me they chose transportation because it was quickest to the big bonus. They don't have a compelling explanation from our leaders about what we are doing and why we are doing it. People are just trying to survive as their wages stagnate and their medical bills overwhelm them.
(3)
(0)
CPT Alexander Grant
SFC Bernard Walko - I'm with you. It is probably much better in the areas of the Army that have more advanced training and commitment. But until there is a different option for the poor than jail, the military will be that as well.
(0)
(0)
Maj Michael Haynie I agree sir. Great article. When I came back from Vietnam, I was warmly greeted by a horde of maggots, aka, protestors. I would have liked to see some of these maggots share some of our experiences.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Terry P.
Sgt (Join to see) - Have to agree with your statement,Ted. Experiences like ours changes the attitude toward everything.
(2)
(0)
Maj Michael Haynie I'd also take a look at how we incentivize volunteerism with GI Bill benefits and perhaps look at the sociodemographics and socioeconomics of many who join voluntarily. I'd posit that many service members these days have volunteered for the purposes of getting an education, finding a way out of challenging upbringings and lack of opportunities where the grew up (example: Native Americans who serve at 10x the rate of average Americans). Patriotism has fallen by the wayside as a motivator in many instances, I would guess. And the high school kids showing lack of interest? Who'd serve when all we talk about is PTSD/TBI and suicide? We never put into perspective that military service are not the sole causative factors in any of those things. 117 Americans die by suicide daily. 22+ of those are Veterans. That's 25%-ish, and a statistically highly significant disparity. But when we chant "22 a day, 22 a day", we make it look like service=suicide. That's patently not accurate -- furthermore, military service HISTORICALLY showed significantly lower rates of suicide when compared with rates non-military suicide. When and why did we shift from service being a protective factor to service becoming a risk-factor? These are crucial discussions. Especially when combat PTSD accounts for a very low % of military PTSD overall. We see from research that the risk factors for military-affiliated suicides correlate directly with the same ones as civilian deaths by self-infliction. Why? Perhaps the fact that service members now serve far longer than in prior eras... they have the complexities of families and relationships, compounded by multiple deployments which destabilize those relationships that were not highly-prevalent in the past when lifers were few and far fewer served more than 4.
Big conversation, here. But I'd say that if we continue to push the topics of PTSD/TBI and suicide in the manner we do, then we demonize service. It's like saying, "serve and you'll come out emotionally broken, with a brain injury, and kill yourself." Not good marketing, is it? Yet, the same is true of the kid who was beaten up by his/her parent and played a crashing sport. Suicide risk factors and TBI causative conditions.
I'm not saying PTSD/TBI suicide these aren't discussions, I'm saying the context is "off" when not put into proper perspective. Further, when we assign these outcomes to military service, exactly why do employers want to hire Veterans?
We are wonking up our messaging overall. I truly appreciate your thought leadership in the space, Mike. We need more of you.
You posted this on LinkedIn, too?
Big conversation, here. But I'd say that if we continue to push the topics of PTSD/TBI and suicide in the manner we do, then we demonize service. It's like saying, "serve and you'll come out emotionally broken, with a brain injury, and kill yourself." Not good marketing, is it? Yet, the same is true of the kid who was beaten up by his/her parent and played a crashing sport. Suicide risk factors and TBI causative conditions.
I'm not saying PTSD/TBI suicide these aren't discussions, I'm saying the context is "off" when not put into proper perspective. Further, when we assign these outcomes to military service, exactly why do employers want to hire Veterans?
We are wonking up our messaging overall. I truly appreciate your thought leadership in the space, Mike. We need more of you.
You posted this on LinkedIn, too?
(3)
(0)
LTC James McElreath
You speak of PTSD and TBI, being deterrents for not joining the service! The real problem is the length of time necessary to apply for those benefits! I am aware of one soldier (Served Viet Nam) twice and finally after 9 yrs of fighting he passed away. Now his wife picked up the torch since 2009, and has been declined 2-3 times for the survivorship benefit and she too is on 2d decline. My ex-father in law's medical records have been sent and resent to whom ever has the records this time. The new inquirer asks for the same copies as the previous enquirer. She sends everything asked for certified and has all those receipts to prove it! A copy was sent to President Trump but has not been signed for!!? All those things are important to us the veteran
PTSD,TBI, Agent Orange , Mesothelioma. More often if one leaves AD with this stuff and goes home that will be the last time the vet will be treated.
PTSD,TBI, Agent Orange , Mesothelioma. More often if one leaves AD with this stuff and goes home that will be the last time the vet will be treated.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next


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