Costs of the Wars: Sacrifices by the Few
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-07/costs-wars-sacrifices-few
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates landed in Afghanistan today on an unannounced trip. Gates is meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to begin assessments of how many U.S. troops can be withdrawn from the country in July. The war in Afghanistan has been going on for nearly a decade, making this one of the longest periods of sustained combat in U.S. history. Yet unlike past wars, only a small percentage of the population, namely military members and their families, carries the burden. A look at the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and whether the military has a growing sense of isolation in its sacrifices.
Guests
James Kitfield
senior correspondent, National Journal magazine.
Michelle Joyner
director of communications at The National Military Family Association.
Joseph Collins
professor at the National War College; retired Army colonel; former deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations from 2001 to 2004; author of the upcoming book "Understanding War in Afghanistan."
Matt Pottinger
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Wall Street Journal reporter, and a U.S. Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"the military's growing sense of isolation in..."
Hopefully the U.S. military will be less functionally isolated in the admirable world roles it takes on after the upcoming 'Emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers on Libya- March 10-2011' and the 'extraordinary EU summit called for the next day, March 11-2011':
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_641005.html
Despite not as smooth delivery as was likely planned, the UK is attempting to carry at least some of the Libya-issues weight:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363540/SAS-rounded-booted-Libya...
After all of man's troubled stay here on planet earth... the rights and legal guarantees which we in the developed west take for granted such as:
universal-suffrage democracy; human rights-based rule-of law; equal application of a country's laws to its residents/citizens regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and creed; freedom of speech, thought, association, expression and belief....
surely, are sufficiently worthy for one country to fight for- or at least support- the establishment of in another country whose citizens are demanding such??
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
The United States has about the same number of military personnel as it holds in prison, more than 2 million each. Only about one in ten active duty personnel are in Afghanistan (approaching 100K) and Iraq (fewer than 100K) at any given time. Most are at the Pentagon, on ships, or at about 700 bases around the world. Considering the disproportionate part of the budget spent on "defense" maybe we should be inquiring what the 90% not currently engaged in our two major occupational conflicts are doing. Since the military destroys far more than it builds (in character too) materially and is fully funded by tax money we should have a full accounting but we never do. So we have room for suspicions and assumptions. Looking at the casualty lists on the Newshour and elsewhere I've come to the conclusion that war zone personnel are disproportionately young people who join because of no other opportunity. (John Kerry said this in 2004, then backpedaled.) My other conclusion is that our military is deployed for the primary purpose of making the world safe for corporate capitalism. I ask why since most of the corporations benefiting pay few taxes and are often based, or have their primary income stream from, overseas. (No national loyalty) It is easy to track the military elite as they move back and forth between defense and security firms and others manufacturing and financial firms and the Pentagon and government. So we see that the military has its own class structure and does not facilitate appreciable upward mobility. For the grunts mobility may be downward into a grave.
The question is then, how do we reward a few who fight unquestioningly to serve the needs of a wealthy elite, and why would we honor them?
I find it incredible that, as republicans call for drastic domestic budget cuts on one hand, on the other they are calling for committing millions (or billions) of dollars to new military actions aimed at the conflict in Libya! How can we afford to commit more American lives and tax dollars to function as the world police when we are, "broke at home?"
What is the average pay for these "volunteers"? Seems like a total waste of money to me.
For better or worse, I don't see members of the military offering "sacrifice" -- I regard them, by and large, as performing the duties that they are paid to perform. Talking about "sacrifice" adds a moral aspect to the situation that in my opinion is inappropriate. Soldiers are government employees fulfilling a certain job description, just like everyone else. I don't deny that in certain situations certain soldiers will act in ways that result in sacrifice on behalf of their comrades in arms, just as all sorts of people sacrifice for others. (And generally speaking I object to the elevation of soldiers above the ordinary citizen. As members of an egalitarian democracy, we are equals.)
If our leaders decide the nation should go to war, then the entire "nation" should go to war. We need war taxes. We need to reinstate the draft so that citizen soldiers, and their families, share the burden of the sacrifices and costs of combat.
Politicians now get a hall pass on sending Americans to die without having to be held accountable to the larger public.
Yes, a non-volunteer force may be less efficient, so that becomes a factor then in the decision process to go to war. Let's truly "support our troops".
A vet.
I would create legislation to institute a "war tax", that when American troops are sent into conflict, a payroll tax would show up on everyones payroll check until all the troops are brought home from the at conflict. Besides helping us to pay for the conflict, the tax might make us less likely to get into conflicts and more likely to get out of conflicts more quickly.
I'm a Viet Nam veteran and would like to know why we didn't have this type of discussion when I was over there.
Also, why aren't the wounded being given the proper treatment they deserve and how can the American people tolerate the attitutes of that Baptist church and all their protests.
Robin Towsley
US Army, SP4
1969 to 1972
In order for the country to be involved, there should be universal service, draft or community. Also, a country that decides to go to war should pay for it up front.
A draft - cadre military CAN be effective, depending on how it is trained and used. Contrary to your panelists opinion, it highly unlikely that any serving leader have any experience with the draft; do the age math. Those that may have had some draft contact and are still on active duty would have been the leader who went along with the program.
The best soldiers in my units, in and out of Vietnam, were draftees.
The lack of sacrifice by the nation as a whole has lead to a nation of give me everything for nothing.
Your guests have commented on the lack of elite representation in today's volunteer military. I would like to point out that the sons of the elite did not go to Veitnam under the draft system either. Recall George W. Bush's "service" in the National guard - that was the typical path for those unfortunate elite young men who received a low draft number. Most sons of the elite received high enough draft numbers they simply didn't have to worry about being drafted.
The public is suffering silently from the effects of the war. The current deficits owe a lot to the expenses of the war. Moreover, the current generation was poised to be the first one not to go to war. What we we've lost cannot be recovered in that regard. The peace option -- and the power of diplomacy has yet to be realized in this country, but northern Africa is proving how much more powerful grassroots action is.
We are paying with a deep recession and a generation lost to the idea that violence resolves issues. Brave leaders would make this connection clear.
Wait! When we were protesting at the start of this war we were told by military families we were not being "supportive" and "un-American". Now that this endless unwinnable war is no longer popular, the military families are not happy that people are not protesting the war? Want more of our tax dollars to suppot THEIR war? And want to draft those of us who were against this war? Really?
The Republican leadership created this war and military families are pawns for the Republican political games, too bad they want to change the game now--- you got what YOU wanted when you supported this war, now YOU have to live with it!
AND Why aren't they calling for PEACE to be a national priority?
My son serves in Afganistan, Marine Reserves
re: society/support vs. military support
We are stunned by the lack of support for our troops.
Family and friends have mailed hundreds of letter, cards and packages.
He has rec'd very few of them.
Part of the problem:
His local stateside commanding officer failed to notify us of a change of address for his unit.
How hard could that possibly be???
How can our soldiers concentrate on their job at hand, while feeling that family and friends have forgotten them?
He has not rec'd the mail, nor has it been returned to the senders.
It is the very least we can do for them.
thank you so much for addressing this entire subject. Pat
At a time when the prevailing political dialogue is about downsizing government, getting the government off the backs of the people so that they are free to put themselves to work, any talk about a program of national service is surely pie-in-the sky.
I have been trying to sort my thoughts on this subject every since the war(s) started and more so since an article in last week's Washington Post about the General who lost his son and felt the country didn't care. He said--even if a person opposes the war--be engaged.
Your panel is pointing up an interesting point--that people in the country need to be attached in some way to the activities of war. We live in Annapolis and sponsored Midshipmen from the Naval Academy for twenty years (in response to my being an anti-Vietnam war protester--and wanting to figure out who would ever want to be in the military). We got to know these young men and women personally. When George Bush started talking war, we were aware that some of our graduates were being deployed to the Middle East. Because of our personal involvement with these individuals, both my husband and I were adamant that we should not go to war--yet our friends who had no attachment to individuals in the military thought going to war was "OK."
Second, we HAVE protested the war and feel that there is nothing more we can do. We voted against Bush because of these wars. We voted for Obama in part because he promised to end the war. I think it is unrealistic to expect people to be active and involved when these wars have gone on for so long--despite votes and protests against them.
thank you for this stimulating conversation--as always.
I would like to point out "Daddy's Home", a picture book that helps parents explain the invisible wounds of war (including PTSD) to their children.
It can be viewed for free at: http://www.carolinanadel.com/books.html
It has received excellent reviews from military spouses, psychiatrists and therapists who work with military families and was approved by the Military Child Education Coalition.
Thank you!
Carolina
cnadel999@yahoo.com
after 30 years of National Guard for myself and 20 years for my wife, and four deployments between us, I agree that the 350,000 guard-members serve proudly around the world and bring General Abrams' goal in focus. We bring the reality of the conflicts to cites and towns and rural areas around our country.
The war cannot be isolated to the professional force and the draftees of LBJ's Vietnam. I also agree that the draft is not the solution. The motivation of a volunteer force is very different, the second and third level negative effects of "Draft Motivation membership" on the reserves would also be perversive.
Vietnam was the exception to the history of the Reserve participation in 20th Century conflicts. The National Guard had been on active duty for a year before the attack at Pear Harbor.
If we wish to increase the representation of the "Elite Classes" in the force; raise "service to the country", in what ever role, in our modern culture as something to aspire to.
Erik Brun, spouse, parent, dependent, Guardsman
Most Americans don't know HOW IT FEELS to have a loved one in the military in combat. My 19 year old son, nine moths out of high school was in some of the fiercest combat in Iraq. Twenty-three of his brother Marines from his unit were KIA. We were so devistated as a family...I wanted others to know what we were experiencing. I wrote and published a book called, SKIN IN THE GAME: JOURNEY OF A MOTHER AND HER MARINE SON. In my book I try to share how it feels so that other Americans will know and care. It doesn't seem just that less than 1% are sacrificing. No one volunteered to go back and go back and then come home and commit suicide. That is not what our young people volunteer to do. They trust our decision makers. I support our troops by speaking out on their behalf. Thank you. Peggy Logue
What about reservists? Far from the supports of a military post, ignored by our neighbors, we struggle completely alone, as do our families. After we return from combat we are dropped into the civilian world which gets exasperated with us for not "getting over it" fast enough. There is not enough support for reserve and national guard troops which are asked to deploy as often as active duty soldiers.
Horrifying irony: the guests' most disturbing observations are also true of every major issue facing the US today (environment, education, deficit, infrastructure, healthcare...).
+ "We're ignoring the predictable long-term costs."
+ "No one is required to pay for what we're consuming."
+ "The American people think it's not their problem."
+ "Privileged people/legislators are insulated from reality."
+ "We all will pay the price for today's lack of attention."
+ "No one seems willing to make the hard decisions."
The real issue here: America has been put into service to corporate and financial powers who are happy to profit wildly as society digs itself deeper into debt. This will continue until we again demand ethical behavior from our leaders.
Diane Rehm:
Thank you for this program. I joined the Naval Reserve in 1965 as a Seaman Recruit. I served on board an aircraft carrier after college as an Ensign, in 1970, in the Tonkin Gulf. I was very much against the Vietnam War. There were many other people against the war. I left the Navy as a Lieutenant.
The primary purpose of the Vietnam War was to support the Military Industrial Political Complex. We had civilians from Westinghouse and Grumman as well as other corportations on board. We had pilots who refused to bomb North Vietnam.
If we had a return to a draft we would have to reorganize the military to allow open discussion, and opposition to any policy of the military and the government.
Many young people join the military today, just as they did many years ago for the G.I bill education benefits.
We shouild never have started the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. We will leave these areas just as we left Vietnam.
Thank you,
Jim
Why all the whining? You can't be a pirate without keeping sharp and regularly renewing your stale munitions. It doesn't matter WHO we're fighting, they're all little people. We on the other hand are special.
Soon we'll be fighting over food and water and I guarantee you, when you're starving or dying of thirst you won't care whether you're in the right or not, or how much national treasure we've frittered away preparing ourselves for the End Days.
I have a son who is landing in Iraq today. He is in the special forces and a green barret. It has not been a year since his return from Afghanistan. The more deployments he goes on the more difficult it is to say good bye. He never deploys from an area close to home so I never get to say good bye in person. He texted me 4AM Sun. Morning as he had a layover for three hrs. before heading to Germany, then on to his final destination. One of the problems with all of this is the soldiers do change, with each deployment and each mission from that deployment there is change. When he is here there are very few people who are interested in what he has experienced so there is not a lot to talk about on a social level. The american people are very disconnected. Most of their opinions are based on money, not the purpose ( for the most part they are not educated in what that purpose really is ) and it makes transitioning back into society quite challenging. I will get a letter from the government about a month into this deployment about some services available to me while he is gone (for emotional support only) and a mailing address for him. That is the one and only bit of correspondance I will receive. ( Unless something happens to him) This is not really a hands on kind of govt. when it comes to our soldiers and families. I pray that someone who has the power and authority will change this. He has dedicated his entire adult life to serving ,and when he goes out in uniform never gets any acknowledgement from john Q public. Its very disturbing to me.
Sorry about the double post. First time here with this format.
I'm speaking here as a moderate-conservative and neolibertarian here and recognize that my pov might annoy some. Here goes: I do not understand why Diane and the Guests have overlooked the OBVIOUS third option. Do Not Send The US Armed Forces To Fight Unnecessary Wars. The Iraq war is at all levels a complete waste of US time and money, and has nothing to do with defending Americans' liberty or US Sovereignty. It is not our perview, nor is it in the basic interests of Americans, to underwrite the world's defense needs, nor to engage in Nation Building or voluntary wars of liberation (whether they are such is debatable) far from America's shores.
I have explained to my son, who is ten, that I do not wish him to join the US armed forces. It is an honorable profession, but that honor is undermined by chief executives who usually deploy the armed forces for dishonorable reasons. I have explained to him that the Coast Guard is an acceptable option to me, because their chief duties are defense of Americans shores and rescue at sea.
Unlike one of your guests, I faced three wars as a child/teenager. My father deployed to WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. I still have occasional nuclear nightmares that began during the Bay of Pigs, when we were taught to fire a gun, where to aim, and how to protect our food supply. We had to face the fact that Dad would not survive a direct hit, and that if we were in school when it happened we'ed be bussed to a different location than our families on base.
Your guest was one lucky military brat!
I believe the schools DO know the military kids in their schools - they receive money from the governmet for each of them.
Nexcerpt wrote - Horrifying irony: the guests' most disturbing observations are also true of every major issue facing the US today (environment, education, deficit, infrastructure, healthcare...).
+ "We're ignoring the predictable long-term costs."
+ "No one is required to pay for what we're consuming."
+ "The American people think it's not their problem."
+ "Privileged people/legislators are insulated from reality."
+ "We all will pay the price for today's lack of attention."
+ "No one seems willing to make the hard decisions."
The real issue here: America has been put into service to corporate and financial powers who are happy to profit wildly as society digs itself deeper into debt. This will continue until we again demand ethical behavior from our leaders.
-end quote
GREAT comment among many great comments - I really wish Diane would have had Andrew Bacevich on this program.
The military industrial complex must be curtailed. Unfortunately it appears that it will take an economic crisis more dire that the one we're in before there is ANY possibility that that might happen. Troops all over the world by definition are not defending the US. They are projecting power for the benefit of our multi-national corporate elite.
pancake is right on. Corporate America is behind this. 400 people own half of the wealth in our country, the rest is divided by
310,950,000 people.
that is most of us.
400____
310,950,000 is this aceptable???
I feel bad for the military, the active duty people and their families.
The veterans also are receiving very little for their service. The VA is miserly and are not serving our brave fighting men.
Many vets are coming back emotionly crippled.
It's the corporate greed thaqt is causing it and other nations are not likeing us for this. Our people are being sucked dry.
I would like yoiu to adress this issue please! thanks
Kayte -
May I ask you to consider though, that when young people choose this path, they ( and their frontal lobes) aren't able to see down that road, can't possibly understand the ramifications of that choice. Asking for our support during an incredibly terrifying experience is a natural human reaction - even though we may have put ourselves into that experience by choice.
If our soldiers are 18- 25, their wives are also. His wife, his college sweetheart, was so proud and happy when he joined. She believed the recruiting PR as much as he did; they would see the world (Only he has traveled - to Afghanistan). He would learn new skills and have management training(detecting bombs?!). They would have fantastic medical coverage ( only when he is actually deployed - it goes dormant when he is stateside). She would now give ANYTHING to have him home, cleaning out the barn and sleeping by her side each evening. His two year old daughter really has no memory of him, except by photo. He realizes - NOW - that they as a family are making a sacrifice that will continue to impact them for years to come. And he is very aware that it's because of a decision he made before he'd had enough life experience to really understand if fully.I won't try to describe the agony a parent feels when a (young) adult makes such a precipitous decision. He is determined, though, to be the very best Marine he can be. He is very proud of the people he serves with, and in awe of the careful, respectful way the government treats the people of Afghanistan; he works hard every day to learn about and understand the culture around him, while doing his country proud.
Meanwhile, we here at home hold our breath all day, every day, terrified of what might happen to him. I would not wish war on anyone - not on anyone's child, not even on the children of those who made the decision to go to war. Not on anyone.
I wish you PEACE - Pat