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
First, I don't agree with the additional taxes and fees proposed by Major Haynie, nor do I agree with the preferential quota for veterans to be accepted in colleges and universities. Most of the service members I know who would succeed in those educational institutions are perfectly capable of competing with their civilian counterparts and have gained the benefit of maturation that the military provides.
I do agree with the imposition of the draft, but do not agree with universal service. The draft provided those numbers of personnel who were required for the services to accomplish their mission and universal military service would be a poor investment of funds that can be used by the military.
So how do we solve the decrease in available manpower? First, as some have cited in their discussions, a great portion of those ineligible for service are so because they are obese. The services didn't used to be alarmed by that and there were specific programs designed to correct that deficiency.
Now let's discuss pay and benefits. When I enlisted, I was paid $95.00 per month. As an newly commissioned officer, I believe it leaped to around $500.00. I look with envy at the current pay scale and allowances for my retirement grade and wish I had made the six figure incomes currently available when I retired. But then I look back over those years since I retired and the number of times congress opted to put a ceiling lower than would be set by the promise years ago that military raises would be comparable to the civilian sector raises, perhaps my contemporaries on active duty would be well above their current pay had those promises been kept. Quarters allowances were adjusted years ago to correspond to actual expenses by geographical region; but I have heard rumblings that they may have to be lowered now so that only a portion of the living expenses are paid by allowances and the servicemembers will have to pay out of pocket to live in places they are required to live for the good of the service.
How about the GI Bill. Of course our people now must contribute to gain educational benefits after release and must pay administrative fees to get their VA loan at rates that are not significantly lower than conventional or FHA loans. The biggest advantage to the current VA loan is the lack of mortgage insurance. How does this compare to the GI Bill that expired in 1956? No investment was required by the servicemen to receive educational benefits which included a stipend for living expenses in addition to education. The VA loan required no down payment of administrative fees. If you didn't go to school, you drew unemployment funded by the Feds for 12 months (of course, this was seldom used because most returning servicemen were able to gain employment quickly upon return)
How would we fund these enhanced, no contribution benefits and salaries that increase according to the promised levels? By taxes. Right size our military to meet existing requirements (and I don't mean reduce it based upon fiscal considerations), buy the equipment necessary on the modern battlefield and identify it as Defense expenditure. Don't load up the DOD budget with congressional mandates that have nothing to do with defense and don't treat the services as social test beds, but identify the true costs and tax accordingly. This policy alone would tend to discourage diplomatic warmongering and confine our wars to those specifically in our national interests or those of our allies.
By maintaining our military at necessary levels with adequate pay and allowances and providing education and other post discharge benefits comparable to what was given in the past, the military would again be regarded as a viable career option in addition to the respect it currently enjoys. Judicious use of the capability would be necessary on a pay as you go venture which could only be set aside under extreme circumstances such as we experience in WWII or as required by defense treaties. When the taxes rise, the average citizen will then have the skin in the game so many have suggested. The draft would be there to expand our manning levels as it had been in the past.
I do agree with the imposition of the draft, but do not agree with universal service. The draft provided those numbers of personnel who were required for the services to accomplish their mission and universal military service would be a poor investment of funds that can be used by the military.
So how do we solve the decrease in available manpower? First, as some have cited in their discussions, a great portion of those ineligible for service are so because they are obese. The services didn't used to be alarmed by that and there were specific programs designed to correct that deficiency.
Now let's discuss pay and benefits. When I enlisted, I was paid $95.00 per month. As an newly commissioned officer, I believe it leaped to around $500.00. I look with envy at the current pay scale and allowances for my retirement grade and wish I had made the six figure incomes currently available when I retired. But then I look back over those years since I retired and the number of times congress opted to put a ceiling lower than would be set by the promise years ago that military raises would be comparable to the civilian sector raises, perhaps my contemporaries on active duty would be well above their current pay had those promises been kept. Quarters allowances were adjusted years ago to correspond to actual expenses by geographical region; but I have heard rumblings that they may have to be lowered now so that only a portion of the living expenses are paid by allowances and the servicemembers will have to pay out of pocket to live in places they are required to live for the good of the service.
How about the GI Bill. Of course our people now must contribute to gain educational benefits after release and must pay administrative fees to get their VA loan at rates that are not significantly lower than conventional or FHA loans. The biggest advantage to the current VA loan is the lack of mortgage insurance. How does this compare to the GI Bill that expired in 1956? No investment was required by the servicemen to receive educational benefits which included a stipend for living expenses in addition to education. The VA loan required no down payment of administrative fees. If you didn't go to school, you drew unemployment funded by the Feds for 12 months (of course, this was seldom used because most returning servicemen were able to gain employment quickly upon return)
How would we fund these enhanced, no contribution benefits and salaries that increase according to the promised levels? By taxes. Right size our military to meet existing requirements (and I don't mean reduce it based upon fiscal considerations), buy the equipment necessary on the modern battlefield and identify it as Defense expenditure. Don't load up the DOD budget with congressional mandates that have nothing to do with defense and don't treat the services as social test beds, but identify the true costs and tax accordingly. This policy alone would tend to discourage diplomatic warmongering and confine our wars to those specifically in our national interests or those of our allies.
By maintaining our military at necessary levels with adequate pay and allowances and providing education and other post discharge benefits comparable to what was given in the past, the military would again be regarded as a viable career option in addition to the respect it currently enjoys. Judicious use of the capability would be necessary on a pay as you go venture which could only be set aside under extreme circumstances such as we experience in WWII or as required by defense treaties. When the taxes rise, the average citizen will then have the skin in the game so many have suggested. The draft would be there to expand our manning levels as it had been in the past.
(2)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
Col, thanks for sharing your opinion and advice on this never ending topic. It seems to me that if we really get into a bigger fight with one of our biggest adversaries in the World we would be in deep kimchi. Our society like their freedom and free speech and anything else that is free except fighting for our freedom. I personally enlisted in the Marine Corps because I wanted to serve my Country and my Countrymen. There’s just way too much politics involved with DOD. This agency has been overlooked for so long that our society think it’s okay as it is. But the bottom line is will they take care of the people who do serve their Country.
(1)
(0)
Fascinating dissertation. Enjoyed it immensely. I chair my VFW Post's youth and education programs and can see a shifting attitude among intermediate and high school students. They are growing curious. Hopefully, we can tap into their curiosity to inspire them to learn more and participate more. At least, that's the focus of my efforts. And yes, putting war on the tab is not a good idea. Either we're sufficiently committed to fund it or we shouldn't do it. Personally, I see the gap between America and its wars as emblematic of the gap between the people and their government.
(2)
(0)
Mike, very well written and thought provoking piece, but I think you make some big leaps of logic in your argument that you don’t back up. You state that a fundamental aspect of the all volunteer military is that those we serve have to somehow repay that; I joined to “serve” which implies I’m voluntarily and selflessly doing it. I’m grateful for the tangible and intangible benefits I have/do receive, but don’t feel I’m owed anything beyond what is contracted with me.
I also think it is a big leap to move from saying the military is a very small slice of society to saying the all volunteer force is going to fail. You may be right, but you never showed me why.
I agree the civ-mil divide is a problem, but don’t think more taxes will fix it (I like the concept of universal service). All this being said, I appreciate you taking the time to write this, and am glad people are talking about this.
I also think it is a big leap to move from saying the military is a very small slice of society to saying the all volunteer force is going to fail. You may be right, but you never showed me why.
I agree the civ-mil divide is a problem, but don’t think more taxes will fix it (I like the concept of universal service). All this being said, I appreciate you taking the time to write this, and am glad people are talking about this.
(2)
(0)
TL;DR version. We have a problem, let's throw (other people's) money at it. Oh and also reinstate indentured servitude.
(2)
(0)
Great article but I disagree with some of your suggestions. First of all requiring a business to give away some of it’s profits to help anyone sounds like communists way of governing. I will agree that the contracting process needs reworking though. I read in one of the posts that voting rights should be tied to service in the Armed Forces. Well not be rude sir, but the right to vote is given to you by the USC and not some government agency or worker. Now as for the draft I will also disagree. Our early wars were mostly won by draftees. And I think it would be good for us as a nation to use the draft when we have to. Troublemakers can be felt with as most know plus these draftees will not hang around after the fighting is over.
I also agree that the military is not a nation builder, we break stuff and go away. The nation builder thing is for the civilian leaders to figure out.
I also agree that the military is not a nation builder, we break stuff and go away. The nation builder thing is for the civilian leaders to figure out.
(2)
(0)
LTC James McElreath
My experience in Iraq with the PRT's were for the most part non existent. The PRT boss wanted to be the fob boss. The PRT's did not know or want to know about security.
(0)
(0)
"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." EVERYTHING is debt these days. It has probably passed the point of no return.
"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." One problem with America's lack of interest in intellectual knowledge is their ignorance of this particular chapter in Roman history. The world has seen this movie before. They just don't remember it.
Having said that, (and fed my compulsion to pontificate), I support your proposition.
"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." One problem with America's lack of interest in intellectual knowledge is their ignorance of this particular chapter in Roman history. The world has seen this movie before. They just don't remember it.
Having said that, (and fed my compulsion to pontificate), I support your proposition.
(2)
(0)
Nicci Eisenhauer
SGT (Join to see) And that 70% "unfit" has a lot to do with being overweight! The stats on who/why unfit are interesting.
(0)
(0)
SPC Colin Jenks
Exactly Sgt, one if the reasons for Rome's demise was the lack of citizens serving in the military. They perfered to conscript forigners into the military. Couple that with a lack of income from invading lands, and Romans themselves not working, receiving money and food from the government you had a mix for disaster.
(0)
(0)
Um no!!! You chose to serve and you own your own decisions... For as long as you have served and live...
NO ONE PUT A WEAPON TO YOUR HEAD AND MADE YOU JOIN...
NO ONE PUT A WEAPON TO YOUR HEAD AND MADE YOU JOIN...
(1)
(0)
This demonstrate the importance, or lack thereof, of these so-called wars to the US citizen. For the most part, they are barely covered on the news; are a waste of resources, degrading military readiness, costs $Trillions, 10's of thousands of young lives and to what end? When the US goes to war, it should be to annihilate and achieve unconditional surrender of the enemy and its allies and we all are involved or no one is involved.
(1)
(0)
I'll propose something else, granted it's not my idea but I I believe it is worthy of consideration.
To wit one must volunteer for a term of service to the nation prior to being granted the franchise to vote.
To wit one must volunteer for a term of service to the nation prior to being granted the franchise to vote.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next


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