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.
Posted in these groups: 
Syracuse
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) - Afghanistan
Congress
IVMF
Military Family
Syracuse Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) - Afghanistan Congress IVMF Military Family
Edited 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 94
0
0
0
I graduated high school in 1974. My year group registered for the DRAFT, but were not drafted.
In 1975 I made it a personal goal to complete college and earn a commission in the Marines. I wanted the military to pay as much money on me as possible. I qualified for pilot training. In my first two years of college, my classmates were knuckle headed draftees who were taking advantage of V.A. Education Benefits. I also enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in DEC 1976 and served on active duty for 1977 for aviation electronics education. My training paid the way for me to complete College & University (1978 to 1980).
In other words I was a participant in the transition from compulsory service (DRAFT) to all volunteer service.
I would never want to go back to a Drafted Military Force. I would rather fight undermanned and WIN, instead of pandering to the inconsequential wants or aberrant behavior of people who never wanted to be in harms way.
Anyone ever see the movie “300”?
Another sickening trend is the self-emolation of American Youth.
The Liberal-Trash in America finally destroyed the impact of the Boy Scouts of America with the insistence on accepting homosexuality into the organization.
Without an effective vehicle to instill a sense of citizenship, physical & spiritual development, you get the sorry excuse for young men with stupid tattoos, gang membership (instead of Troop membership), and the use of psychotropic pharmaceuticals to “Manage” normal developmental behavior in young men.
70% of American Youth are ineligible for military service because they are video-game playing, marked-up couch potatoes that can’t be criticized for being lazy and useless because the message will hurt some preadolescent feelings.
Draft that crap into a coercive training environment (pre-1976) and you will washout 70% of the material you are trying to develop to their potential. Drafted Military Manpower undergoes a purely coercive training process. Instead of adapting training to smart motivated people you adapt the dross of humanity to the training.
Everyone take a breath and watch Stanley Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket” and get your own personal copy of Robert Heinlien’s book “Starship Troopers” (1959).
I would rather fight short of optimum manpower strength than to take any crybaby draftee into a situation where mortal combat is the preferred activity.
On the reintegration of American Veterans into the workforce, that remains an area of National Defense in search of a solution.
In 1975 I made it a personal goal to complete college and earn a commission in the Marines. I wanted the military to pay as much money on me as possible. I qualified for pilot training. In my first two years of college, my classmates were knuckle headed draftees who were taking advantage of V.A. Education Benefits. I also enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in DEC 1976 and served on active duty for 1977 for aviation electronics education. My training paid the way for me to complete College & University (1978 to 1980).
In other words I was a participant in the transition from compulsory service (DRAFT) to all volunteer service.
I would never want to go back to a Drafted Military Force. I would rather fight undermanned and WIN, instead of pandering to the inconsequential wants or aberrant behavior of people who never wanted to be in harms way.
Anyone ever see the movie “300”?
Another sickening trend is the self-emolation of American Youth.
The Liberal-Trash in America finally destroyed the impact of the Boy Scouts of America with the insistence on accepting homosexuality into the organization.
Without an effective vehicle to instill a sense of citizenship, physical & spiritual development, you get the sorry excuse for young men with stupid tattoos, gang membership (instead of Troop membership), and the use of psychotropic pharmaceuticals to “Manage” normal developmental behavior in young men.
70% of American Youth are ineligible for military service because they are video-game playing, marked-up couch potatoes that can’t be criticized for being lazy and useless because the message will hurt some preadolescent feelings.
Draft that crap into a coercive training environment (pre-1976) and you will washout 70% of the material you are trying to develop to their potential. Drafted Military Manpower undergoes a purely coercive training process. Instead of adapting training to smart motivated people you adapt the dross of humanity to the training.
Everyone take a breath and watch Stanley Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket” and get your own personal copy of Robert Heinlien’s book “Starship Troopers” (1959).
I would rather fight short of optimum manpower strength than to take any crybaby draftee into a situation where mortal combat is the preferred activity.
On the reintegration of American Veterans into the workforce, that remains an area of National Defense in search of a solution.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Wounded Warrior charity, CEO misusing money from charity. Now it's changed to Honor Warrior. Which of these charities can one trust?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Very good points and well thought out article. Would agree on all the budget and small taxes for veteran funds, with the delta that we take away from other less important taxations to implement. All due respect to the author with a well thought out gameplan, i would respectfully disagree with conscript service notions. I have seen firsthand what those entail with the iraqi military and would not wish that for our forces. Would not want to disagree without a probable alternate... the current knowyourmil campaign by the DOD pr folks is addressing some of these things already. Make your hero's know they are hero's, inspire high school grads to Live up to their predecessors, recruit the best and brightest of young americans. There is a divide between those who serve and those that dont, but i want those inspired to serve to be on the front lines, not those who dont. Young men need to step up and neec to know its the right thing to do.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
OUTSTANDING post! You have put a lot of thought into the problem and possible solutions. I totally agree with your post and think you should share it with your Congressman and maybe it could become a reality and SM’s like Tim won’ continue to feel anonymous!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I agree with that when you turn 18 men and women be drafted or some kind of mandatory training so they have some way of having our young people learn the lessons of conflict. I grew up in a family where we all sat down for dinner, believed in god, and loved our country and the American flag, and we showed respect to our law. Now days kids don't know anything about our history, or show respect to the country or law. When you join you start learning that freedom isn't free, I was a D I for two and half years and I can tell you that back in 1986 there were kids who didn't even know how to wash their cloths, brush their teeth. But after 9 weeks of hard training they became a team knew how to do things as a team. They also learned about the flag and some history of the Army. Before anyone say that I don't know what I am talking about. I served in West Berlin, been all over Europe and spent time in the middle east and served in desert storm reason I say this cause I will never live in a socialist country, and I will not give up my 2nd amendment right God Bless America
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I was a platoon leader in Korea in 1969-1970 when the draft was in effect. I had draftees in the unit ranging from high school grads to a PhD and from choir boys to gang members. I recall the few who were problematic but the rest were trying to get something out of their service like it or not. I volunteered for Infantry OCS right out of college and just attended my class's 50th Reunion at Ft Benning. Most of us agreed that we had other things we wanted to do to but as with others, we were trying to get the most out of the situation. I did and wound up with eighty odd brothers and Christmas Carded with my gang members for years.
Bottom line, when I hear "boots on the ground" from non-serving politicians, I think "boots under the ground" and on hearing "thanks for your service" I really hear "thanks for serving so I do not have to."
Bottom line, when I hear "boots on the ground" from non-serving politicians, I think "boots under the ground" and on hearing "thanks for your service" I really hear "thanks for serving so I do not have to."
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think I would rather have an apathetic public rather than a resentful public. If people are taxed unfairly or it even seems like it they may become resentful.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sir,
I am not sure I concur that sharing the burden should start from a financial perspective. It should begin with a moral view. And that means involving the citizens of the country in a much more direct way. A draft for military or other government service is really the only way, I can see that happening. Even though the argument is made that the "rich" will still get out of it, the draft will make decisions regarding war actions much more of a general concern to the overall public, and thus make "chicken hawk" politicians (sorry, but it fits) much less likely to push their agendas. It may be true, that it makes or military somewhat less efficient, but the core will always be there as the base. I think we could live with that. Financial support for veterans, and well as active soldiers, should be a part of every congressional approval of any authorization for military action. I do not think that has ever been done in the past. We now clearly know what issues (and related costs) result from these actions, have to face up to that funding need. Whether we make that a part of any military-related contract or use general tax funds (actually one and the same as we will simply see an increase in the contract cost bid), is a decision for the Pentagon or Congress.
I am not sure I concur that sharing the burden should start from a financial perspective. It should begin with a moral view. And that means involving the citizens of the country in a much more direct way. A draft for military or other government service is really the only way, I can see that happening. Even though the argument is made that the "rich" will still get out of it, the draft will make decisions regarding war actions much more of a general concern to the overall public, and thus make "chicken hawk" politicians (sorry, but it fits) much less likely to push their agendas. It may be true, that it makes or military somewhat less efficient, but the core will always be there as the base. I think we could live with that. Financial support for veterans, and well as active soldiers, should be a part of every congressional approval of any authorization for military action. I do not think that has ever been done in the past. We now clearly know what issues (and related costs) result from these actions, have to face up to that funding need. Whether we make that a part of any military-related contract or use general tax funds (actually one and the same as we will simply see an increase in the contract cost bid), is a decision for the Pentagon or Congress.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
WWP was originally there for me but dropped me like a bad habit when I had finished a program. I've learned that I don't need an organization to do things, but having an outing here and there sure helps. Vet organizations are supposed to be there but fall short on a ton of things. When vets need home repairs, who do we call? There's no one. We don't technically need food, but we need mechanical work done so we can drive to work. We need more jobs that are accustomed to our 24/7/365 lifestyle in the military. We need help in finding funding for a vet run business and help that way. Not some stupid ass seminar telling us how great we are blah blah blah.
I was less than the ideal soldier, I did my own thing, showed up, got the job done and went home... nothing special, nothing ideal.
I wasn't a ground pounder and I wasn't a paper pusher. I can't claim combat arms references nor could I suggest I know office work. Did I do it all? Yes, I did, but nothing was noted in writing, thanks to Former 44.
Freedom and who we are is who we stand out to be. We are only what we make our time in service to make us be. We learned how to show up, get shit done and party at the end. Worked hard, some harder than others (jokes on you AF). We can only rely on ourselves to fully understand what we need and how we need it. We all know the VA is a joke and shouldn't be used to rectify anything. They're a gov't agency and sucks the life out of everyone.
I was less than the ideal soldier, I did my own thing, showed up, got the job done and went home... nothing special, nothing ideal.
I wasn't a ground pounder and I wasn't a paper pusher. I can't claim combat arms references nor could I suggest I know office work. Did I do it all? Yes, I did, but nothing was noted in writing, thanks to Former 44.
Freedom and who we are is who we stand out to be. We are only what we make our time in service to make us be. We learned how to show up, get shit done and party at the end. Worked hard, some harder than others (jokes on you AF). We can only rely on ourselves to fully understand what we need and how we need it. We all know the VA is a joke and shouldn't be used to rectify anything. They're a gov't agency and sucks the life out of everyone.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I was drafted into the Army in Sept. 1969. I had Advanced Infantry Training @ Ft. Ord and was sent to Vietnam as grunt in March 1970, assigned to 1st Cavalry Division. Even as a lowly E-4, I realized the ARVN could never win vs the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong.
Anyway, I had more respect for the anti-war demonstrators than the so called "Silent Majority". There were so many ways to avoid the draft. What angered me the most when I came home in April 1971, was this "Silent Majority" on the Home Front. As long as it was someone else's boy who was drafted and sent to Vietnam the "Silent Majority" could care less.
Profound indifference was the reaction on the Home Front is what I witnessed. In WW 2, we had not only those millions in uniform, the Home Front was expected to sacrifice: Rationing of food stuffs, gas, rubber, and recycling, was the norm and everyone had to sacrifice. War Bond drives were organized.
WW 2 was a declared War. Since, then we have had s series of "Painless Wars". The Wars are not "Painless" for the active participants or their immediate families but, for the vast majority of Americans, they sacrifice nothing. Oh, yeah at sporting events the they stand for the National Anthem and think they have done their duty.
Perhaps if Congress had to Declare War and enact a tax increase to pay for it, and had a universal draft, they might be IMHO, less likely to hand off all responsibility to the President.
Anyway, I had more respect for the anti-war demonstrators than the so called "Silent Majority". There were so many ways to avoid the draft. What angered me the most when I came home in April 1971, was this "Silent Majority" on the Home Front. As long as it was someone else's boy who was drafted and sent to Vietnam the "Silent Majority" could care less.
Profound indifference was the reaction on the Home Front is what I witnessed. In WW 2, we had not only those millions in uniform, the Home Front was expected to sacrifice: Rationing of food stuffs, gas, rubber, and recycling, was the norm and everyone had to sacrifice. War Bond drives were organized.
WW 2 was a declared War. Since, then we have had s series of "Painless Wars". The Wars are not "Painless" for the active participants or their immediate families but, for the vast majority of Americans, they sacrifice nothing. Oh, yeah at sporting events the they stand for the National Anthem and think they have done their duty.
Perhaps if Congress had to Declare War and enact a tax increase to pay for it, and had a universal draft, they might be IMHO, less likely to hand off all responsibility to the President.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google