Opinion: Few cultural touchstones in the US are as complicated as our attitude toward those who serve in our military. For example, at virtually every professional sporting event, there is at some point a tribute to the military, when everyone stands and applauds a designated veteran or active-duty member, presumably symbolising our support for the entire military industrial complex.
I am always uncomfortable during these moments for several reasons: 1. I’m old enough to remember when Vietnam veterans came home from that uniquely unpopular war and were spat on and called “baby killers”. My guess is they find it rather tough to take the current race among politicians and others to see who can pledge the most fealty to those who serve. 2. I don’t see the point of bringing displays of militaristic patriotism into sporting events. 3. It reminds me of how much lip service we pay to caring for our military and how little we care for them when it comes to opening our wallets.
The starting annual pay for someone who enlists in the armed services this year is US$24,206.40 (NZ$39,392). If this enlistee has a spouse who doesn’t work and one child, that puts them below the federal poverty level. This is perhaps why, in 2022, in response to rising inflation, the US Army advised troops who qualified to apply for SNAP – otherwise known as food stamps, a federal programme that provides food-purchasing assistance to low-income households.
In another indication of how we talk a big game about caring for military veterans but our actions are woefully inadequate, veterans make up 7% of the US population, but comprise 13% of our homeless population.
It should go without saying that soldiers shouldn’t need food stamps to feed their families and no veterans should be homeless, but apparently it doesn’t.
And now we’re getting a reprise of the ugliest, most cynical expression of the “who loves the military the most” contest that happens each political season. In 2004, John Kerry challenged incumbent George W Bush for the presidency. Kerry volunteered for duty in Vietnam, despite having family connections that could have kept him out of combat. He was a Swift Boat captain, among the more dangerous duties in the war, and earned a Silver Star for valour.
Bush, thanks to his family’s deep political connections, spent his compulsory service in the Texas Air National Guard, hopping over a long waiting list of those hoping to avoid a trip to Vietnam.
Somehow, through TV attack ads written on behalf of a pop-up political action committee called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Kerry’s service was turned into a negative, and may well have cost him the presidency.
One of the men who wrote those ads, Chris LaCivita, is now co-manager of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and is going after the service record of Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz.
Walz spent 24 years in the Army National Guard, then decided to run for a House of Representatives seat. He retired from the Guard about six months before his unit was sent to the war zone in Iraq.
There’s no evidence to suggest Walz retired to avoid combat duty, but that hasn’t deterred LaCivita and the rest of Trump’s lying guys. Marine veteran and Republican VP candidate JD Vance has led the attack on Walz’s military record, likely because the guy at the top of the ticket avoided serving during Vietnam, thanks to five deferments: four for being a college student and one for having bone spurs in his heels.
Even in our current era of unprecedented political hypocrisy, these attacks stand out. Trump the draft dodger blathers his love for the military in every speech, yet he cut programmes that benefited veterans in favour of tax cuts for rich folk, and privately called soldiers killed in World War II suckers and losers. Hopefully the US electorate won’t be suckered again by this particular loser.
Jonathan Kronstadt is a freelance writer working in Washington, DC.
