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
Please sir, how can I join the army, it's my dream, wish, ready, Willing & dying to join the service to do by best to defend any country who consider me to join it military service. Thank you for anybody who's ready to help me
(0)
(0)
History shows when the citizenry becomes too comfortable and relinquishes national defense and military service to a small group of professionals that they then become even more disconnected and disinterested from national defense often resulting in one of two bad outcomes. 1, the professional military group takes over. 2, the nation is conquered by another nation.
Therefore, I am in favor of required national defense service. It is a duty and an investment in the nation of nativity. I would prefer to see military service obligation along the lines of the Swiss model, where one serves a short time on active duty, enough to be trained in a specialty, and then placed in the reserve for a few years.
Therefore, I am in favor of required national defense service. It is a duty and an investment in the nation of nativity. I would prefer to see military service obligation along the lines of the Swiss model, where one serves a short time on active duty, enough to be trained in a specialty, and then placed in the reserve for a few years.
(0)
(0)
CW2 Jalistair B
That is the first argument for a mandated national defense service requirement that I find compelling. Well said.
(0)
(0)
My comment on this is bringing back the Draft as a solution to fix growing obesity levels is roughly analogous to a Single Payer Healthcare system to fix a small percentage of people without access to healthcare. Neither solution really fixes the root cause issues and makes the rest of us carry more of a burden then we are doing now.
(0)
(0)
You bring up a lot Maj Haynie. We have had way too many UNDECLARED and UNJUST wars since I came home from South Vietnam in June of 1971. I re-enlisted and retired in September 2001. I agree there is no reason we should be in Afghanistan. But drafted soldiers historically have been a lot of head aches for leaders. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan was based on lies. In both nations spreading (contaminating) depleted uranium there as well as Bosnia-Herz. (a war crime). The incidents on 9/11 as discussed by our Federal Government and main stream media is basically BS. There is irrefutable scientific evidence and hard evidence from eye witnesses, that proves the World Trade Center buildings collapsed due to EXPLOSIONS. And there are so many facts that demand a new public Congressional investigation.
WHEREAS some 3,057 architects and engineers (AE911truth.org,), some 320 skilled commercial of military pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth), some 600 PhD scientists and some 58 elected public officials are saying that scientific irrefutably evidence proves that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by explosives,
And WHEREAS these experts believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) committed criminal negligence (LIED) in doing their investigation and writing the final report and NIST made no recommendations to improve the steel makeup of future high rise buildings to prevent them from collapsing due to fires.
And WHEREAS David Ray Griffin, PhD lists over 100 lies included in the official 9/11 Commission report in his book, The 9/11Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,
And WHEREAS 911 Commissioners Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton said that the FAA and NORAD did not tell the truth to the Commission, the Commission failed to bring charges against witnesses who they alleged gave false testimony, and 9/11 Commissioners former US Senators Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland called the Commission’s investigation a cover up,
Tell me how the terrorist knew that all the war games would be on-going prior to and during 9/11? The four Air Force exercises wherein false radar blips were inserted onto FAA and NORAD radar scopes? How did the terrorists know the best places to turn off the transponders so when making a u-turn air traffic controllers could not easily see them on radar?
Here is a very good video by 3057 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
https://www.ae911truth.org/continuing-ed/ae911-aag-l#p1
Irrefutable Evidence - The 9/11 Official Story is Total BS
about 120 pages
send me an email at [login to see] and I will reply with it attach for free.
or For sale at Amazon Kindle books
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=Some%20Unpopular%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States%20
And would you believe it is high likely we could use a new investigation of the JFK assassination and the prosecution of AWOL Bush et al for war crimes.
9/11 Truth Seattle
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 2870/
Science Teachers for a New 9/11 Investigation
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 96379/
What Pilots are saying about 9/11 Truth
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 19106/
WHEREAS some 3,057 architects and engineers (AE911truth.org,), some 320 skilled commercial of military pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth), some 600 PhD scientists and some 58 elected public officials are saying that scientific irrefutably evidence proves that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by explosives,
And WHEREAS these experts believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) committed criminal negligence (LIED) in doing their investigation and writing the final report and NIST made no recommendations to improve the steel makeup of future high rise buildings to prevent them from collapsing due to fires.
And WHEREAS David Ray Griffin, PhD lists over 100 lies included in the official 9/11 Commission report in his book, The 9/11Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,
And WHEREAS 911 Commissioners Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton said that the FAA and NORAD did not tell the truth to the Commission, the Commission failed to bring charges against witnesses who they alleged gave false testimony, and 9/11 Commissioners former US Senators Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland called the Commission’s investigation a cover up,
Tell me how the terrorist knew that all the war games would be on-going prior to and during 9/11? The four Air Force exercises wherein false radar blips were inserted onto FAA and NORAD radar scopes? How did the terrorists know the best places to turn off the transponders so when making a u-turn air traffic controllers could not easily see them on radar?
Here is a very good video by 3057 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
https://www.ae911truth.org/continuing-ed/ae911-aag-l#p1
Irrefutable Evidence - The 9/11 Official Story is Total BS
about 120 pages
send me an email at [login to see] and I will reply with it attach for free.
or For sale at Amazon Kindle books
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=Some%20Unpopular%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States%20
And would you believe it is high likely we could use a new investigation of the JFK assassination and the prosecution of AWOL Bush et al for war crimes.
9/11 Truth Seattle
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 2870/
Science Teachers for a New 9/11 Investigation
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 96379/
What Pilots are saying about 9/11 Truth
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 19106/
(0)
(0)
CW2 Jalistair B
Oh!!! Another conspiracy theorists! So who do you propose bombed the WTC since clearly the muslims didn't fly two planes into them? All those eye witnesses were incorrect after all.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Dick McManus
Yes, I believe there are criminal conspiracies. I did not say I think muslims didn't fly large commercial size airplanes into the Twin Towers and the other two incidents. What I said was some of the alleged hijackers could not safely fly a Cessna in the opinion of a guy who took out for a test flight and he decided not to rent it to him. And this own of the Cessna said in his opinion "he could not fly at all." Now the hardest thing to do in learning to fly is to land the airplane safely, so I have been told. I am saying some 3078 architects and engineers and I are saying there is irrefutable scientific evidence that EXPLOSIONS was the reason the World Trade Center buildings collapse and not just airplane and office fires. And there are an overwhelming list of ear and eye witnesses who alleged they heard or saw explosion and/or saw molten steel within the wreckage of the WTC buildings. Here is a very good video by 3078 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
https://www.ae911truth.org/continuing-ed/ae911-aag-l#p1
The odds just don't add up to only due to chance
Tell me how the terrorist knew that all the war games would be on-going prior to and during 9/11? The four Air Force exercises wherein false radar blips were inserted onto FAA and NORAD radar scopes? How did the terrorists know the best places to turn off the transponders so when making a u-turn air traffic controllers could not easily see them on radar?
These allegedly devout Muslims drank alcohol and used hookers just prior to September 11h. We have numerous witnesses to that. There is no way would that kind-a guy fly into buildings on 9/11. Maybe a couple of them crashed United flight 93, but those Saudi bad boys could not even safely fly a small private Cessna air-o-plane.
FEMA reported severe erosion of a piece of steel plus eutectic steel attached to this piece of steel, was recovered from the 9/11 wreckage of the World Trade Center buildings was VERY UNUSUAL . A “eutectic piece of steel” means a re-solidified piece of mostly original steel but other chemical elements have been added when it was a liquid, therein lowering the melting point of the original structural A36 steel. You can even see with your eyes the re-solidified eutectic hanging down off of the 45 degree angle cut thru a steel center core column that the thematic incendiary had cut. The chemical element of concern was sulfur. By mixing sulfur it lowers the temperatures needed to melt steel. For example, 1,000 degree C vs. A36 steel requires 1,500 degrees C. to melt it. Structural steel (A36) does not have sulfur in it. The sulfur likely came from nanothermite which can be made with sulfur to help more easily melt or cut thru steel beams.. For more see:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/15-9-11-experiments-the-mysterious-eutectic-steel
What intergranular melting means see:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
NIST did not do experiments to determine stated the source of the sulfur, for example, was it from normal building materials found in the wreckage, like gypsum dry wall (aka calcium sulfate dehydrate)
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) spent $20 million, but they did not investigate why after the top 20 floors or the top 30 floors of the Twin Towers started to fall down, why the lower floor gave way vs. stopping these floors from falling to the ground. BECAUSE these two sections of 20 and 30 floor sections, they were made up a much lighter steel beams and columns. A light object CAN NOT COMPLETELY crush a heavier object. These top 20 and 30 floor sections should have stopped falling down. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) spent $20 million, but they did not investigate why this happened.
In this video is one of the best explanations of the seismic data recorded 20 miles away from the Twin Towers. We now can say that there were likely explosions prior to the airplanes impacting the Twin Towers and also explosions prior to the collapse of both towers.
Witness statements from 503 FDNY first responders and of these, 118 observed flashes of light and sounds of explosions. Witnesses reported they felt the ground shake moments before the beginning of the collapse. One witness stated he/she saw flashes of light inside the building somewhere between the floors 10 thru 15 before the state of the tower collapsed. There are another 156 witnesses from people in New York City who say they saw the same things. It took a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to force the New York City's fire Commissioner to make public this hard evidence. In August 2006 the Court order these statements made public. And none of this was in the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) report.
https://www.ae911truth.org/continuing-ed/ae911-aag-l#p1
The odds just don't add up to only due to chance
Tell me how the terrorist knew that all the war games would be on-going prior to and during 9/11? The four Air Force exercises wherein false radar blips were inserted onto FAA and NORAD radar scopes? How did the terrorists know the best places to turn off the transponders so when making a u-turn air traffic controllers could not easily see them on radar?
These allegedly devout Muslims drank alcohol and used hookers just prior to September 11h. We have numerous witnesses to that. There is no way would that kind-a guy fly into buildings on 9/11. Maybe a couple of them crashed United flight 93, but those Saudi bad boys could not even safely fly a small private Cessna air-o-plane.
FEMA reported severe erosion of a piece of steel plus eutectic steel attached to this piece of steel, was recovered from the 9/11 wreckage of the World Trade Center buildings was VERY UNUSUAL . A “eutectic piece of steel” means a re-solidified piece of mostly original steel but other chemical elements have been added when it was a liquid, therein lowering the melting point of the original structural A36 steel. You can even see with your eyes the re-solidified eutectic hanging down off of the 45 degree angle cut thru a steel center core column that the thematic incendiary had cut. The chemical element of concern was sulfur. By mixing sulfur it lowers the temperatures needed to melt steel. For example, 1,000 degree C vs. A36 steel requires 1,500 degrees C. to melt it. Structural steel (A36) does not have sulfur in it. The sulfur likely came from nanothermite which can be made with sulfur to help more easily melt or cut thru steel beams.. For more see:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/15-9-11-experiments-the-mysterious-eutectic-steel
What intergranular melting means see:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
NIST did not do experiments to determine stated the source of the sulfur, for example, was it from normal building materials found in the wreckage, like gypsum dry wall (aka calcium sulfate dehydrate)
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) spent $20 million, but they did not investigate why after the top 20 floors or the top 30 floors of the Twin Towers started to fall down, why the lower floor gave way vs. stopping these floors from falling to the ground. BECAUSE these two sections of 20 and 30 floor sections, they were made up a much lighter steel beams and columns. A light object CAN NOT COMPLETELY crush a heavier object. These top 20 and 30 floor sections should have stopped falling down. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) spent $20 million, but they did not investigate why this happened.
In this video is one of the best explanations of the seismic data recorded 20 miles away from the Twin Towers. We now can say that there were likely explosions prior to the airplanes impacting the Twin Towers and also explosions prior to the collapse of both towers.
Witness statements from 503 FDNY first responders and of these, 118 observed flashes of light and sounds of explosions. Witnesses reported they felt the ground shake moments before the beginning of the collapse. One witness stated he/she saw flashes of light inside the building somewhere between the floors 10 thru 15 before the state of the tower collapsed. There are another 156 witnesses from people in New York City who say they saw the same things. It took a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to force the New York City's fire Commissioner to make public this hard evidence. In August 2006 the Court order these statements made public. And none of this was in the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) report.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next


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