Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_108780635-scaled

These veterans want more than corporate perks and 'thank you for your service'

A majority of former servicemembers say they want out of Afghanistan and endless war. Is anyone in Washington listening?

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

Like every Veterans Day, active and retired members of the U.S. armed forces will receive their annual gifts of a free breakfast at Denny’s, a free coffee at 7/11, and now, socially-distanced gratitude in place of handshakes. But what they want (and deserve) more than corporate perks and routine compliments, is an end to America’s endless wars.

Year after year, veterans register their dissatisfaction with the direction of U.S. foreign policy, and like the rest of the similarly-minded American public, they are rebuffed and ignored. A poll conducted in November 2018 by Smithsonian magazine — in conjunction with Stars and Stripes and George Mason University — found that 84 percent of veterans believe the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have been going on too long. Another poll conducted in May 2019 by Pew Research concluded that 58 percent of veterans believe the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting, while a further 64 percent would say the same about Iraq. 

Washington, however, hasn’t delivered. Even Donald Trump, who for four years promised to withdraw the U.S. military from its exhaustive overreach overseas, has failed to end a single war (and in several theaters, escalated them). 

This obvious inaction from the political class has led, in just the last year, to a greater number of veterans willing to become more active in political debates. They say they are tired of seeing their brothers and sisters-in-arms being sent overseas to patrol the same desert and mountainous locales of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and then return, sometimes with broken bodies and trauma, only to be redeployed again, and again.

The most prominent example of this frustration came from former Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Five veterans — ranging in rank from admiral to lieutenant — entered the 2020 Democratic primaries, but only U.S. Army Major Gabbard’s platform aligned with the supermajority of veterans who want to end America’s involvement in Middle East quagmires. 

Pursuing a “country first” agenda on foreign policy throughout the campaign, Gabbard also pushed to have her “no more regime change wars” rhetoric included in the greater primary conversation. Her insistence led to her exclusion from debate stages, while former party nominee and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused her of being groomed by the Russian government. When Vice President-elect Kamala Harris was asked then about this baseless accusation against an active member of the military, she laughed and responded, “everyone is entitled to their opinion.” In contrast, President-elect Joe Biden did defend Gabbard against the smear. 

While Tulsi Gabbard provided a lodestar for veterans and non-interventionists of all types, her influence in the Democratic Party never registered above negligible. But what about anti-war proponents on the right?

The aforementioned Pew Research poll shows a gap of 20-30 points between Republican-leaning veterans and Democratic-leaning veterans in how they feel about withdrawal. Many on the right invariably hold onto their hawkish inclinations from previous administrations. But as James Antle observed Monday on this website, “For all of the faults of his foreign policy in the end, Trump got Republicans talking about ending endless wars and extricating the U.S. from the Middle East.”

A new group of veterans seek to bring both that message and our soldiers’ home. Founded in 2019, Bring Our Troops Home is a right-of-center veterans’ organization whose dual mission is a military withdrawal from the Middle East, and the enforcement of constitutional provisions on war powers at home. Based in Idaho, it proudly holds up its foreign policy as continuing the conservative legacy of William Borah, Robert Taft, and other members of the “Old Right.”

One year ago they held their first conference in Washington D.C., where over a hundred conservative veterans-turned-activists heard speakers and lobbied their representatives to restore a foreign policy befitting a limited-government republic.

And last month, on the 19th anniversary of U.S. troops hitting the ground in Afghanistan, Bring Our Troops Home held an event in West Chester, Pennsylvania, to deplore the continuation of the forever war in Central Asia. The location was selected in honor of Marine Major General Smedley Butler, a West Chester native who after more than 30 years of warfighting became a popular peace activist. His 1935 book “War is a Racket” — an early critique of the not-yet-named military-industrial complex — maintains its notoriety.

In attendance in West Chester was Scott Spaulding, a Marine who served two tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. “I would love to see a lot of things change,” he said regarding U.S. foreign policy. “Most immediately, I think we certainly need to draw down tension with the major powers that have been escalated by both parties over the last few years. But then also the wars need to be drawn to a close that we’re actively involved in.”

Instead of “thank you for your service” and other niceties, this Veterans Day civilians left and right should start listening to men and women like Spaulding and Gabbard who represent the growing majority of people who’ve worn the uniform and are looking for change in our U.S. foreign policy. We can’t let our veterans continue to fight alone. 


A veteran marches in the Twin Cities Heroes Parade on July 28, 2012, in Minneapolis. The parade honors post-9/11 veterans and active military. (Miker/Shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.