Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | Global Crises
Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking wit… | Flickr

Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten

Media


Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

QiOSK

The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.

Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).

keep readingShow less
Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Committee chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), left, looks on as co-chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed budget request for the Department of Defense on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Military Industrial Complex

Now that both political parties have seemingly settled upon their respective candidates for the 2024 presidential election, we have an opportune moment to ask a rather fundamental question about our nation’s defense spending: how much is enough?

Back in May, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, penned an op-ed in the New York Times insisting the answer was not enough at all. Wicker claimed that the nation wasn’t prepared for war — or peace, for that matter — that our ships and fighter-jet fleets were “dangerously small” and our military infrastructure “outdated.” So weak our defense establishment and so dangerous the world right now, Wicker pressed, the nation ought to “spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year.”

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest

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.