Follow us on social

2022-07-28t000000z_1548835886_mt1nurpho000o20cdn_rtrmadp_3_nurphoto-scaled

GOP hand powerful pro-veteran burn pit issue over to Democrats

Now is not the time to suddenly grow a backbone over big government spending and oversight.

Analysis | North America

Republicans really stepped in it this time. Whether or not they find a way to work with Democrats to pass the super-popular PACT Act, which would provide unprecedented assistance to veterans suffering from toxic exposures, they have all but ceded pro-veteran issues to the Democrats.

This week, Republicans helped to kill a procedural bill that would have pushed ahead the PACT Act, which provides $250 billion to veterans and opens new opportunities for vets suffering from myriad illnesses they believe are connected to the burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. Veteran organizations have been fighting for recognition for their maladies — which include everything from irreversible respiratory conditions to cancer — for some 15 years. The PACT Act overwhelmingly passed the Senate in June but the House voted on a slightly modified version, sending it back to the Senate this week.

But Republicans like Sen. Pat Toomey who had voted for the initial bill, say the current  legislation would create a slush fund of billions of dollars for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with little Congressional oversight. They say the bill would mandate not only would the $250 billion for PACT (which would avoid the regular appropriations process each year) but also an additional $400 billion of previous VA spending. (They also vociferously deny that the “nay” vote came after the the Democrats were able to finally push through the Build Back Better bill without their votes.)

While the fiscal conservatives may be making a strong argument about oversight, they seemed to have picked the wrong time to stiffen their backbones on an issue of fiduciary responsibility. This is, of course, a Congress that up until recently had no qualms about pouring billions into a slush fund (called Overseas Contingency Operations) when there were caps placed on the Pentagon budget. They have found ways to fund pork projects using fuzzy math after so-called earmarks were banned, and they continue to raise the Pentagon budget into the stratosphere year after year. 

In the wake of Republicans killing the bill, Democrats and veterans advocates exploded in condemnation. As I write this, veterans were engaging in a sit-in outside of Republican offices. Jon Stewart’s visage was blasted across the media — conservative outlets, too — to rebuke the GOP for letting veterans down.

“So ain’t this a bitch?” Stewart said Thursday at a news conference on Capitol Hill. “America’s heroes, who fought our wars, outside sweating their asses off, with oxygen battling all kinds of ailments, while these motherf**kers sit in the air conditioning walled off from any of it? They don’t have to hear it. They don’t have to see it. They don’t have to understand that these are human beings. Did you get it yet?”

It was clear from when I started covering this issue in 2009 that this was a grassroots effort, built by sick veterans and their families, their doctors, veterans organizations like Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), American Legion and Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and, finally, members of Congress who have been advocating over the long haul. But at its core, the movement could not have progressed without its own fierce determination because the Pentagon and VA have been loath to take responsibility for toxic exposures, fearing the liability would break the bank. It was a fight all the way.

Well, Washington chose to send millions of men and women to their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — just like they did in the Persian Gulf a generation before and Vietnam a generation before that. (Those veterans, by the way, are also helped in the PACT Act because their illnesses — due to Agent Orange and exposures in the Gulf — have not all been recognized either). 

Republicans are getting politically slapped around today, and it is hard to defend them under the present circumstances. The movement hasn’t come this far to let politics get in the way now.


Veterans advocate Jon Stewart delivers remarks condemning Republican Senators for voting against the Honoring Our PACT Act. July, 20, 2022. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto)
Analysis | North America
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

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.