Logic Times

Today's Rationing

Commentary by Aslan, 4/16/06, 11:52pm. Comments (5)

"Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices -- and showing a sense of duty stronger than all fear." President Bush, State of the Union 2006

"We owe our troops the opportunity to serve in the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they and their families will be taken care of if they sacrifice life, limb or the ability to sleep without war's nightmares." Senator John Kerry

"America is justifiably proud of the strength and commitment of our men and women in uniform, but the Iraq war has taken its toll and we owe it to those brave soldiers not to ignore the reality of their sacrifice or the challenges we face in keeping our military strong." Senator Dick Durbin

The words of both liberals and conservatives recognize the tremendous accomplishments of our military and the sacrifices they make. But while these words are appropriate and even essential from the mouths of our public leaders, most Americans today do not share in the sacrifice of our soldiers or even appreciate what this sacrifice truly means. {Editor’s Note: For a more personal view of this sacrifice, read this recent post.}

In World War II, the entire nation in a small way shared, in the form of rationing, the sacrifice of soldiers overseas. At the very least, rationing reminded American citizens each and every day of the greater burden being shouldered by the United States military in defending this country.

"With the onset of World War II, numerous challenges confronted the American people. The government found it necessary to ration food, gas, and even clothing during that time. Americans were asked to conserve on everything. With not a single person unaffected by the war, rationing meant sacrifices for all." (U.S. History.com)

The War on Terror is World War III. It may not feature millions of men in the field and great battles for control of continents and strategic islands, but it is a struggle for survival that has engulfed, in one way or another, all nations of the world. However, wealth, technology and the nature of the enemy have quarantined the War on Terror, isolating the sacrifice to the men and women in battle and their families back at home. The 99% of Americans who live their lives unaffected by the War on Terror (since 9/11 has faded from memory) have a moral obligation to embrace, like the greatest generation before them, the sacrifices of this World War. Our vast wealth makes such burdens light compared to the America of 1943, because it is not limited resources, but a limited attention span, that is the problem.

To understand the sacrifice needed in the War on Terror, we must first appreciate that today’s soldier is nothing like the brave men of World War II. Unlike the quickly trained and rudely equipped conscript landing on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, today’s volunteer is a professional, a model of sophisticated training and technological know-how. In fact, today’s professional soldier is the key to the winning the War on Terror against a 12th century opponent that must scavenge modern technology to compete.

We should begin our national sacrifice by recognizing the sophistication of today’s soldiers and compensating them accordingly. Just as doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs and CEOs all make more money because of their training, the risks they take and the magnitude of their work, so too it is time to recognize the impeccable training, frightening risk and unparalleled importance of the work of today’s military by dramatically increasing compensation and benefits. The sacrifice of this generation – today’s rationing, if you will – is for modern America to push away from the government pork buffet and finance the future of self-defense in a big way: a bare minimum of a 50% increase in all military pay, the automatic granting of $2,000,000 life insurance polices for every soldier, establishing full disability pay, and the provision of 100% free health care for any soldiers injured in combat at any hospital of his or her choosing (VAs, a two-tier system if there ever was one, should be eliminated).

What possible basis could there possibly be for opposing such a position? That soldiers are overpaid? These are citizen surrogates, our representatives risking life and limb to protect fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers and each and every child. We live in such a wealthy society that our very self-defense can be delegated to faceless others without requiring thought or effort. That these surrogates should shoulder that burden while receiving inferior wages, paltry benefits and enduring substandard healthcare is wholly immoral. The crime of our indifference is compounded by a fiscal stinginess that is as insulting as it is unjust and unnecessary.

The only objection with nominal merit is that the country cannot afford to compensate its soldiers fairly. Is this so? Compensation of military personnel is indeed a significant number: over $106 Billion (including housing) in 2005:

(in millions - data here)

To meet this requirement of a 50% increase in pay (and better housing), the federal government would need an extra $55 Billion in 2006, and this does not account for the life insurance benefit. Here is where today’s "rationing" meets the need. The War on Terror began in 2001, and 2001 represents an excellent starting point for holding the line on non-military, non-security government spending so that a small portion of this country's wealth can go to those who will win this new war. By freezing spending at 2001 levels (and this does not include the prescription drug benefit – which it should), 60 Billion is saved for proper constitutional use as described by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 23: "The principal purposes to be answered by union are these: the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks."

(in billions - data here)

The security of the United States in the 21st century will depend upon an increasingly skilled military capable of sophisticated and unconventional operations. These patriots need to be paid appropriately.

Comments

1: Carl W. Goss

April 17, 2006 11:02am EST

You may be right, but it's unlikely the Congress would appropriate more sums for military pay.

A slight increase in combat pay with some increase in family allowances might be possible.

{Aslan: No question it is not likely. But it is right. Congress, however, rarely seems to do what is principled anymore.}

2: Peter Bland

April 17, 2006 2:33pm EST

It gets worse if you factor in the inequity between the different branches of service. As usual, the Marines get the short end of the stick in most areas.

We had to pay for every stitch of our personal uniform issue. Boots, utilities, service dress - everything. This amounted to about $1300 that we never saw out of our boot camp paychecks. The rest of the uniform services get their uniforms issued to them. Then if our uniforms become unserviceable we pay for their replacement out of our own pockets. While the Marines does give out an annual uniform allowance intended to help with this, it hardly begins to make up the gap if you spend a lot of time training.

This helps explain why Marines wear 10-year-old service utilities with numerous sew-up holes and boots that look like they went through a woodchipper. Would you want to pay for a $100 pair of boots every three months out of your already depleted paycheck?

And the Housing allowance was another issue altogether. I married my wife in Japan. Since she did not have official order to come to Japan on what is known as an "accompanied tour," I received Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) type I, as opposed to type II. The difference was $1400 a month for type II and $350 per month for type I.

The end result of all this was trying to live on the Japanese economy on about $1600 a month. Not a happy state of affairs. Base housing? I wish. I did not qualify. "Unaccompanied orders," remember? I ended up spending about 75% of my monthly paycheck just trying to live, and had to make do with a 350 square foot apartment in Gushikawa.

Think anyone in the Army, Air Force or Navy had to put up with similar issues? Think again. Many sailors in Japan got to live off base when they were single, and often did so with a couple shipmates to pool resources and save some of the BAH type I they received for their trouble. The Air Force treats their people very well, and I never even heard of something like this. They were stunned when I told them of my troubles. The Army wasn't the greatest, but at least their soldiers did not have to wonder where food or rent was coming from.

Add onto the fun with "mandatory fun." The Marine Corps Ball is a good example of this. A long time ago Congress passed a law, unique among the services, that the Marines are not allowed to use base facilities for free to host the Marine Corps Ball. One way or another, it had to be paid for. Tickets cost $20-35 per head, and were "optional." Then the hat was passed for various reasons, and $5-10 was the usual amount. Just one big, happy, dysfunctional, broke family.

My solution was to get some credit. I am still paying it off. Better than being homeless for the great crime of marrying a Japanese lady.

Your idea is a good one, and I am all for it. But I think a better first step would be to eliminate BAH type I, make pay and benefits equal among all branches of service. This is a little known problem among civilians, but is well known in military circles. And it is a national scandal of Orwellian proportions.

"All servicemembers are equal, but some are more equal than others."

See why I am in the Army now instead of the Marines?

Without getting into the abuse and selected mass punishments, of course...

{Aslan: You are at a level of understanding way beyond mine. I speak from a theoretical commitment to our superb forces…you know exactly what reality is. Thank you for that education and thank you for your service. Of course, a marine – any serviceman – should not only NOT have to pay for a damn thing, let alone clothes, he or she should have the finest – and I mean the finest – Uncle Sam can afford. And if we start spending our tax dollars on constitutional activities, they will!}

3: Larry Horacek

April 18, 2006 12:34am EST

Interesting essay about rationing. Somewhere between WWII and the Korean War, America gained the industrial strength to make war without ordinary citizens feeling the impact. Vietnam, Panama, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Operation Iraqi Freedom have all been fought without any perceptible difference in the lives of Joe and Jane Sixpack. While that is good in some respects, it is a liability when it comes to keeping Americans focused on winning what is the great war of the 21st century. Fundamental Islam is a scourge and we must steel ourselves to fight it until it is dead, and that will take longer than all the wars of the 20th century put together. I really believe that Americans do not understand nor appreciate what the stakes are and what the prognosis is for achieving victory. We need more articles like this and from authors like Victor Davis Hansen and other dependable thinkers to help us blow back the smoke of political expediency and see our enemy for what it is. As long as we are comfortable and undisturbed by the "fight," we will be further anesthetized.

I appreciate the way you are writing about our military. I'm retired from the Army and proud that I served. Thanks for your support and leadership.

{Aslan: Thanks for your service, Larry. I hardly suggest a burdensome form of “rationing”; we could and should do so much more. But at the very least, let’s not have Marines buying their own clothes or living in meager housing.}

4: Andrew Marek

April 18, 2006 12:40am EST

Excellent article on rationing. As a Canadian, I can't help but feel that your ideas here apply even more so to my country where our military has been severely under-funded for decades. It has been only in the last few years that we've seen an improvement in their general funding, housing, and pay.

Still, it is not nearly enough. What excuse can such an affluent and rich nation as Canada offer for sending her men and women into battle with sub-standard equipment? How could, or indeed how did we allow our nation’s warriors to live in run down shacks for so long? Why is it that our military currently can't afford enough ammunition for training purposes or can only just scrape together enough modern equipment to arm our deployment in Afghanistan?

You are absolutely right that its time to take a serious look at offering more than yellow ribbons and memorials to our warriors. In this society, we offer our undivided attention to celebrities. Our desk jockey civil servants rake in obscene paychecks and perks. Our heroes are guys who have a knack for hitting a ball with a bat, and get paid millions to do so. At the same time, we can't even bring ourselves to modestly compensate those who risk life and limb to preserve it all.

Its interesting to note that, of all of the major combatants in WWII, America suffered the least rationing and hardship on the home front. Yet I fear that today modern society would be unwilling to suffer that same kind of hardship, or indeed ANY hardship, for the sake of the war. Certainly I hope that I am wrong on this point for it does not bode well for western civilization.

{Aslan: I fear you are correct as well…until another 9/11. This country – and yours, too – have it within them to rise to the occasion, only they need to know – really know – that this war is the occasion.}

5: thomaspaul

May 1, 2006 11:22pm EST

Every time we determine a new financial priority, be it support for the victims of 911, prescription drugs, the war on terror, or Katrina, we are somehow able to allocate the money needed, sometimes more than is needed. We must make taking good care of our soldiers a national priority, not only because this is a basic constitutional responsibility and that these men and women are putting their lives on the line for us, but also because we need to have the finest military for our future.

I was amazed to listen to Mr. Bland talk about his compensation problems in the Marines. Talk about shock and awe. Of all the branches of the military, this one instills more pride in Americans than any. Whenever I hear the marines are being sent into action somewhere, I have this cool feeling that the job is already done - the recipients on the other end just don't know it yet. They are the fighting machine of the future, and should be paid more than the rest. If the Army, Navy and Air Force get double their current pay, the Marines should get 25% - 50% more dollars than them.

If we think it's okay for boxers, running backs, point guards and steroid-shooting left fielders in this country to make $10 million a year while our top soldiers protecting our asses can't buy proper clothes, then the American "experiment" has entered its descent.

{Aslan: Amen, brother.}