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
Let's face a few facts, and see who is willing to shoulder the costs.
1. The government does not collect enough in taxes to pay for everything in the budget.
2. People are going to have to pay more taxes, or we are going to owe more then we are worth.
3. We already owe more then we can ever take in
4. The companies in the U.S. realized this years ago and moved their factories to lower costs and make more profits.
5. During WWII we sold war bonds and stamps to help pay for the war.
6. Equipment costs for the wars could be cut by bringing the equipment home when the units come home and they aren't being replaced
Just some ideas to look at. Remember after the war is over the real cost comes into play, taking care of the ones who fought it, 17 years, 8 to 10 tours for the professional soldier. Even the young men who were just doing 6 years were doing 4 years in a combat zone, why because there wasn't a draftee pool to draw on tho replace them..
1. The government does not collect enough in taxes to pay for everything in the budget.
2. People are going to have to pay more taxes, or we are going to owe more then we are worth.
3. We already owe more then we can ever take in
4. The companies in the U.S. realized this years ago and moved their factories to lower costs and make more profits.
5. During WWII we sold war bonds and stamps to help pay for the war.
6. Equipment costs for the wars could be cut by bringing the equipment home when the units come home and they aren't being replaced
Just some ideas to look at. Remember after the war is over the real cost comes into play, taking care of the ones who fought it, 17 years, 8 to 10 tours for the professional soldier. Even the young men who were just doing 6 years were doing 4 years in a combat zone, why because there wasn't a draftee pool to draw on tho replace them..
(0)
(0)
My mother grew up during the Depression and the government had a program (CCP) where men would be hired for 1-2 years and they would work for various jobs for the government. She always said,and I agree, that everyone should spend 1-2 years working for a program like that.
(0)
(0)
May I propose that there should a tax bracket that recognizes ones service? Personally I do not want to go back to a conscription military, because the non volunteer just does not have it in his or her heart to do what it takes to win.
(0)
(0)
I agree all should share the burdern. But the military cannot absorb the forced conscription of all 18 year olds. There is not enough room. I would return to a draft by lottery if I had my druthers. But the idea of a forced conscription is unworkable.
(0)
(0)
I can relate to how he feels, no one really care about what happens to us unless they can benefit somehow from the so called help they give us
(0)
(0)
This is absurd. Reinstating the draft? I don’t know of anyone whom wants to serve next to someone forced to be there. That’s a great way to have someone watching your back that doesn’t give a fuck. That will get more killed than it will “fix society.”
Forcing any company with a defense contract to pay a donation? That’s called a tax. Compelled donations aren’t really dontations. Forcing colleges to have 1% of their whole student body being vetetans and active service members? What if less than 1% of total applications make up that requirement, forcing colleges to recruit and admit students not deserving of admission.
Currently there is no need for a draft. There are hundreds of thousands being turned away every year for reasons that could most definitely be overlooked were there a need for more enlistees. Why would we draft, which was intended only to be used in absolute necessity to ensure the safety and security of our domestic homeland, if we don’t need it.
Compelled enlistment by every eligible 18 year old would be just as bad as a draft. The end result is men and women watching your back that don’t want to be there, putting lives at risk. You CANNOT expect effort to be put in by someone not wanting to be there. If it’s necessary, then so be it, but using it as a deterrent for congress to authorize military involvement is NOT a solution.
Forcing any company with a defense contract to pay a donation? That’s called a tax. Compelled donations aren’t really dontations. Forcing colleges to have 1% of their whole student body being vetetans and active service members? What if less than 1% of total applications make up that requirement, forcing colleges to recruit and admit students not deserving of admission.
Currently there is no need for a draft. There are hundreds of thousands being turned away every year for reasons that could most definitely be overlooked were there a need for more enlistees. Why would we draft, which was intended only to be used in absolute necessity to ensure the safety and security of our domestic homeland, if we don’t need it.
Compelled enlistment by every eligible 18 year old would be just as bad as a draft. The end result is men and women watching your back that don’t want to be there, putting lives at risk. You CANNOT expect effort to be put in by someone not wanting to be there. If it’s necessary, then so be it, but using it as a deterrent for congress to authorize military involvement is NOT a solution.
(0)
(0)
Another large part of the disconnect between the soldiers and America is a large percentage of soldiers spend one year+ deployed to a desert somewhere in the world, then a year "off" training for their next one year+ deployment. I am so glad I retired when I did.
(0)
(0)
I feel you really hit on something with the strategic interests. Most of this in my opinion falls back to the The National Security Act of 1947. I feel this has contributed to using the military as an approach to force foreign policy and has diminished the role of the military. Winning wars has morphed into a temporary geopolitical strategy that fluctuates wildly with every presidential election. Most often a our use of force is a reactionary result of previous administration foreign policy feedback. This all started rather quickly after WWII with Korea and has continued to this day. A uniformed enemy is now an illusive ideology hiding in a border-less battle-space.
One good example of how things have gotten cross threaded is examining how the CIA became militarized during the Vietnam War. Seems we allowed missions to get crossed threaded on many levels.
Our foreign policy I feel jumped the tracks back in 1947 as such not so sure linking the military with geopolitical strategic goals was a good idea.
One good example of how things have gotten cross threaded is examining how the CIA became militarized during the Vietnam War. Seems we allowed missions to get crossed threaded on many levels.
Our foreign policy I feel jumped the tracks back in 1947 as such not so sure linking the military with geopolitical strategic goals was a good idea.
(0)
(0)
I do agree with a lot that you've stated. I do not agree with forced donations,nor giving it to veteran organizations. None of these organizations have helped veterans that I know who are homeless, in need of clothes, medical care, dental care and more. The VA has dropped the ball when it comes to choice, community Care, and now the mission act.
I'm watching what's happening right now at the Atlanta VA. Rated a one star, entire command staff terminated two weeks.ago and it's all the problems continue.
The problems the United States has have been compounded by the political rift that has grown over the decades while fighting endless wars. Also the health of the young is terrible because they are no longer enticed to do outdoor activities, instead they are brainwashed into playing video games. It's sad but true.
I'm watching what's happening right now at the Atlanta VA. Rated a one star, entire command staff terminated two weeks.ago and it's all the problems continue.
The problems the United States has have been compounded by the political rift that has grown over the decades while fighting endless wars. Also the health of the young is terrible because they are no longer enticed to do outdoor activities, instead they are brainwashed into playing video games. It's sad but true.
(0)
(0)
Not sure which is worse, holding the line with too few troops or standing shoulder to shoulder in a Fox-hole with someone who doesn’t want to be there which is what would happen with the draft. Here’s an idea, quit forcing retirement based purely on Time-in-service.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next


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