Sergeant Danny Vasselian died in Afghanistan two days before Christmas and outside the Trufant Real Estate office on Route 123 in his hometown of Abington, Massachusetts, there is a sign that says, “Semper Fidelis Sgt. Danny Vasselian. A true hero”.
Danny died at the end of a war that is ending slowly, and as it does end, many of us have found ourselves asking: “How will we look back?”
Will our struggle be relegated to signs like Danny’s that adorn quiet country roads and hang, tattered, from highway overpasses; or, will we go on to forge a path like our grandmothers and grandfathers did after the last shreds of confetti fell on Times Square in 1945?
With the din surrounding the Ryan-Murray Budget, I fear that the first seeds of our post-war history have already been sown. The budget forged by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) includes a reduction to the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for pensions of retirees under age 62. After age 62, the retirees will gain back what they would have earned during their working careers in a sort of one time catch-up payment.
Veterans have coalesced in anger over the reductions, and in the shadow of the post-World War I bonus army have begun to fight for their own cause.
In many ways, we have a right to be angry. The giant immovable apparatus that is the United States government finally has agreed on something and it turns out that agreement is cutting military benefits. There’s a joke to be made there, but instead of a joke it has become a rallying cry that has turned our warfighters into daytime television pundits.
When I signed on the dotted line, I didn’t know what COLA stood for, and the GI Bill was a mystical piece of paper my grandfather built his farm with, not something I would later use to attend Georgetown University.
Call me ignorant, but I, like many of my brothers-in-arms, joined to go to war. We thrived in harsh environments, and when we came home we honed the hardship experienced in combat into a drive motivating us to get jobs and go to school. Combat became our varsity letter, a shroud of confidence we would use to get through days that might defeat those who hadn’t run towards the sound of the guns.
But, now we sit squabbling over the first budget passed since 2009. While we should stand up and represent ourselves when, as veterans, we have been slighted, we also know that our benefits are the best in the world. And, they will remain so despite any likely reforms that make their way to President Obama’s desk for his signature.
Today, our men and women in uniform are still dying in combat, and while our benefits are important, our rhetoric risks eclipsing the reason we have those benefits in the first place. If we want to look back at this generation of service members with the firm belief that we did everything we could for our brothers and sisters in arms, the onus now should not be on our wellbeing, but on the missions that remains and the continued well-being of those fifty thousand people that remain fighting a war that our public is desperately trying to forget.
The world is not getting any friendlier; and if history is a guide, we are likely embarking on “another bloody century.” Yet, the only way it will be another American century is if we, as the men and women who swore to protect this nation, continue to put our country before ourselves long after we’ve hung up the uniform.
As veterans we know, plans don’t last a minute under fire and that the motto “prepare for the worst; hope for the best” applies just as well to our lives after unformed service. This setback is one of the first, and it won’t be the last.
So how will we look back?
The answer is we don’t. Not yet. The war isn’t over and many more will return like Danny Vasselian, with scores more needing rehabilitation, not retirement benefits. There will be a time when we change far more than a cost of living adjustment and we step up to truly earn the moniker of “the next greatest generation”, but it doesn’t start with the Ryan-Murray budget. It starts with Sergeant Danny Vasselian.
Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a columnist at War on the Rocks. He served as an infantryman with 1st Battalion 6th Marines from 2007-2011 and participated in two deployments to Afghanistan. He is a student at Georgetown University and executive editor at The Hoya.
Image: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Dexter S. Saulisbury
Darrell Weatherford 
Joseph Gross 
Ian 
Condor 
David 
Charles 
Skypilot1992 
Colderwarrior 
Katie 
Lance B. 
Kyle 
Wonderfully rendered.
As a veteran- I will always put the needs of those current serving, and those who have sacrificed the most first— but you cannot honetly tell me that there is money that is not being ill spent elsewhere than that which will go to veterans and helping educate their children or put food on the table. Lets hold those elected accountable to find the right money to redirect.
This seems to be the most common response. I had to answer because I don’t think it is a good one. That we are wasting billions on crap is not a good reason not to find ways to save money. In fact we should use this sacrifice we are making as a rallying point to get those worthless politicians to save more money!
That a veteran would stand up and assert (essentially) that it is the responsibility of the rest of America to contribute to the cost of educating his children–irrespective of the financial condition of the recipient–is a sign of just how far gone we are.
Actually, it is the responsibility of taxpayers to educate the children of veterans irrespective of the financial condition of the recipient, and to educate all other children. We have compulsory public education in all 54 states and territories.
54 states? Last I checked it was 50.
Yes, that’s why he said “states AND territories.”
Well I guess what I am getting at is the way it was worded. To my simple mind, “50 states and associated territories (or protectorates)” sounds more fluid and less confusing.
And to further clarify my point above, the number “54” was a little confusing since there are more than 4 “territories” depending on how you define them.
Very clever, but then again, you already knew that you were that.
Except that’s not what I’m talking about. Compulsory public education is something the children of veterans receive along with the children of non-veterans. But again, you already knew that.
The benefit here is the ability to pass one’s GI bill benefits along to one’s children, so that they might attend private school, or college (public or private) at reduced cost.
One wonders whether this is now also part of the “promise” and if it is ever tinkered with by the Congress, would folks take to the ramparts to defend it?
Yes, the Post 911 GI Bill is part of the “promise,” made in writing, since it was enacted in 2008. The Post 911 GI Bill, including the ability to transfer benefits, was created to enhance the value of the Montgomery GI Bill as a means to enhance retention when the Army and Marine Corps had been expanded and there weren’t enough mid-grade NCOs and officers to fill the new authorizations. It was also a time when the force was stressed from back to back deployments, some lasting 15 months, a growing suicide rate, and very bloody fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it tough to keep top the performing, highly experienced service members needed to lead the next generation.
The Post 911 GI Bill was, and is, a powerful incentive to continue a tough and demanding career with the very real prospect of death and injury, even in peacetime (for example, General Patreus was shot and almost died in a night live fire accident in the US, not in combat). I know many officers who stayed on specifically to qualify for the Post 911 GI Bill and pass it on to their children. If you think that smacks of being mercenary, I ask you to consider why YOU did not serve a 20 or more year in the military. The families of these men and women had already paid a steep price for their parents’ service, with frequent, anxiety-filled absences, moving to a new school every 1-3 years, and often coping with the effects of PTSD, and other physical and emotional injuries.
So yes, I expect that veterans who earned the benefits explicitly offered to induce them to continue their service will “take to the ramparts” if the nation reneges on its written obligation after the veterans have already irrevocably fulfilled their obligations.
I commend Thomas Gibbons-Neff for his service to the nation. He is one of the approximately one percent of the US population that has answered the call to duty. Of that one percent, a much smaller fraction served long enough to retire. Military retirees stayed in while some peers moved on to more lucrative or less arduous opportunities, and others didn’t make the cut in the military’s up or out promotion system and were honorably discharged. While I have the utmost respect for those who served a tour and got out, I ask those veterans who voluntarily separated before retirement to recall the reasons for the decision not to reenlist or to resign a commission. I wager that in most cases, compensation was part of the equation, as was the toll military life takes on families, and a service member’s body and psyche.
The current rush to slash military budgets, including reneging on the delayed compensation owed to military retirees, puts those serving in combat today, and those who will fight the next war, at grave risk. Our military strength is plummeting potentially to pre WWI levels, the quality of recruits and retention of top performing NCOs and officers will suffer if pay and compensation drop too low, and training is already dangerously compromised, with only two deployable brigades in the Army and a third of the Air Force grounded. The Army designed to fight and win two simultaneous wars proved to be too small to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it took five years and a lot of financial incentives to grow the Army. In the late 1990’s military pay lagged behind the civilian sector and the military was hemorrhaging people. In the drawdown of the 1990’s, the leadership assured us, “No more Task Force Smiths,” no apparently there is no such concern now.
Saying that honoring America’s commitment to its longest serving warriors somehow detracts from providing today’s troops with what they need to fight and win is a red herring used by Congressman Ryan and others to deflect attention from the fact that they are selfishly avoiding more politically distasteful cuts. If they are as concerned about the gravity of the deficit as they say, why has Congress not reduced pay, pensions and staff on its self, especially in light of Congress’ miserable performance in the last few years. It is pathetic that we are supposed to celebrate the fact that this Congress has finally fulfilled its Constitutional responsibility and passed a budget. Five NFL coaches were fired yesterday for far less than that.
We are giving billions of dollars to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Egypt and what are we getting for this aid? There’s a great likelihood that our undermanned, underpaid, undertrained and under equipped Army will be back in Afghanistan within the next decade, being killed by weapons paid for with US aid money, and the retirees getting stiffed today will be recalled to the fight (don’t forget that retirees are still in the inactive reserve and are subject to involuntary recall). Doesn’t it seem like a much better investment in our national security to retain the services of highly trained, experienced and combat tested veterans and to give future recruits a sense of confidence that the US will keep its word?
“don’t forget that retirees are still in the inactive reserve and are subject to involuntary recall”.
This statement is partially true. You can only be recalled up to the point that you would have 30 years of service. After that you are no longer subject to involuntary recall.
Could we please have a show of hand of the Congress who will be affected by this deed.
Could we have a show of hands of those in Congress who will forfeit an equal amount of their retirement.
Could we have a show of hands of those who are rethinking a career in the military.
Could we have a show of hands who would like to see an amendment to the Constitution changing the name REPRESENTATIVE to SCOUNDREL.
Only the military will be the target of backward looking reductions. Civil service is unionized with explicit contracts. We don’t have contracts with specifics re health, cola or retirement. Didcha notice who got exempted from the ACA……..THE UNIONS.
The retirement benefits package exists as a part of a larger incentive program to recruit and retain people whom we expect to sign the unlimited liability clause that is at the heart of military service. I agree that there are current issues that are more immediately pressing than COLA, but the message that this current budget sends is that the U.S. government does not feel bound to honor the promises that were made to get people in the door and keep them passed their initial enlistments. It tells our soldiers, and our future soldiers, that their sacrifices (and potential sacrifices) aren’t valued. If we don’t want to keep the promises we make to our soldiers, then scrap the all- volunteer force and go back to the draft. It’s less morally demanding.
Thanks, Ian, for your well-worded response and understanding of this issue on behalf of our veterans.
It is so easy to write an article about a difficult topic when it doesn’t apply to or affect the writer. Not only did this not make much sense, but to insinuate that a military member disagreeing with the budget deal is in some way not putting his country before himself is offensive. The writer may not have known, four years before his discharge, what he was signing, but it’s a safe bet that those who are halfway to retirement know exactly what they were signing the last time they reenlisted. Additionally, the writer is either grossly misinformed or knowingly deceiving the readers here when he declares that retirees will “gain back what they would have earned during their working careers in a sort of one time catch-up payment”. This is a completely untrue statement. The correct statement here would be that retirees “COLA will readjust to the rate it would have been had the reduction in adjustments not been made upon reaching age 62”. Basically, if one retires making 50% at the age of 47, then by the time they reach 62 they will only be making 25%. On their birthday it will readjust back to 50%. But there is no back pay- it is NOT retroactive. Perhaps the writer here would benefit from reading the bill.
It’s so disappointing to see such a well written article with very little evidence of the writer having actually educated himself on a topic which has no affect on him.
I wish this article put this issue into perspective better for me, but it doesn’t. I don’t enjoy taking a “shut up and bear the weight Soldier,” from a guy who only served 4 years. Don’t get me wrong, I am not taking anything away from the time he served, but the COLA rate reduction will never apply to him because, due to reasons unknown by the readers he was discharged in 2011. Maybe it was honorable, maybe dishonorable… Who knows? I do agree that something needs to be done in our Country as this deficit will only continue to grow which will be much more of a burden for our children and grandchildren. Congress should also pass something on behalf of their retirement plan as well… After 20 years of “service” in the government, they receive a pension worth far more than a military pension for the rest of their lives. The sad part however, is they don’t even need to stay a 20 to receive the pension, though it is a reduced pension for less than 20 years. There are many other locations where they can cut funds other than military pensions. I cannot tell you how many times when we are close to the end of the fiscal that Commands start freaking out because they still have $250,000 that they haven’t spent. They solicit departments for “needs” and then they spend as fast as they can. The thought process is that the DOD will reduce their budget the next year if they don’t spend the entire amount. Why can’t the Budget Committee award the remainder with a bonus for saving money of $10,000? And the promise not to reduce the budget the next year? To fight the deficit, we need to learn to think outside the box for fixes rather than pointing the finger and cutting the benefits that were promised to our nation’s defenders.
Mr. Gibbons-Neff,
First, one correction. I urge you to take a second look at the Ryan-Murray budget. There is no catch-up payment at 62. There is a retroactive COLA adjustment, but it is go-forward. It does not repay the $72,000-$140,000 foregone by each soldier over the intervening years. I dare say not every retiree has the luxury of taking such a loss on the chin. Especially the ones that have carefully planned children’s’ educations, etc., based on promised income.
But the bigger issue for most of us fighting is not the dollar amount. My husband who is currently in Afgjanisatn would never agree to my fighting if it was “just money.” Rather, it is a litmus test. The President, House, Senate, and Pentagon all stated in writing over the past 24 months that compensation reform would not affect currently serving or current retirees. That they would be grandfathered. Then they passed a law that flagrantly disregarded these guarantees. If the government can disregard it’s own directives, then how can it be counted on to honor any promise?
And if the government will do this to those who serve, then who knows what’s next? If we do not fight, if we do not insist on good faith from our government, then who will?
I respectfully disagree. Perhaps fully informed decisions about pensions aren’t made at enlistment. But the decision to STAY in, the decision not to be able to purchase real estate, not to have a fully valued working spouse, and to incur innumerable transaction costs associated with moving every 2-3 years, those are all sacrifices made along the way based on a future pension promise.
Sure, reform the system going forward for new recruits. But don’t take away the promises made. Congress has identified the money elsewhere already. Cut illegal alien collection of social security checks first. Cut tax loopholes for offshore accounts first. There are plenty of other places to take than from our warriors’ already earned benefits.
Join our efforts to repeal. Congress is listening. #KeepYourPromise.
As an officer who started training in 2003 and commissioned in 2005, fully expecting and wanting to serve in combat, I now have eight years in the service and look forward to serving for as long as the Army will let me. I agree with the author of this article; even though I may very well be a recipient of a military retirement benefit, I don’t feel that it is my place as professional to decry the decisions made by our elected representatives. When people say, “Thanks for your service” it’s because we’re public servants. We all volunteered to serve our nation. Much of the respect that we currently serving have now with the population has been purchased with the blood, sacrifice, deployments, danger, etc. of the past ten years. Veterans who may or may not have endured much or any of these hardships but who are now being very vocal in the press about a relatively minor decrease to a very generous benefit are quickly eroding the public’s perception of our military. They do not speak for everyone in uniform; but their words and actions, I feel, are detrimental to our profession and the perception of those currently serving.
Kyle,
Two things. First, what you describe as a “minor change” in benefits translates into $80,000 to $140,000 per retiree. Do you really consider that insignificant?
Secondly, the principle of the matter is really the issue. The President, the House, the Senate, and the Pentagon all stated in writing that they would not cut benefits for currently serving and current retirees. They stated that, as has been true with every benefits change in military history, there would be a grandfather clause. And then they passed a law that flew in the face of those written promises. And they did so by sneaking a provision into a bill, bypassing the required review process. Is that really behavior we should agree is acceptable in our leaders? Should we really stand by and say nothing, rewarding dishonesty? And if this country’s protectors do not demand good faith from our government, then who will be victim to this kind of dishonesty next?
#KeepYourPromise
Remember, that 80,000 to 140,000 is the cumulative decrease over the span of at least 20+ years for your average retiree who gets out at 45. Additionally, given a life expectancy of 80 years, a pension is worth over 1.5 million in today’s dollars for your average officer and about 1.1 million for your average sr. NCO. Generous.
Also remember, this money comes from american taxpayers and american voters and a rapidly increasing national debt. If we erode our own public image by ranting about small (by my estimation only) benefit cuts, the level of concern American voters will have for the well being of American service members will continue to decrease.
I am a Viet Nam vet, with 2 tours in Nam and a follow up year in Thailand supporting the war. I served the 20 years and retired and likewise went to work in the civilian world after. Finding employment was not as easy as simply getting another job, because at that time we were considered war mongers and baby killers. It only took 5 years and a salary considerably lower that those of similar age who did not serve. In my 20 years of service I spent the last six years as a recruiter for the Air Force. As a recruiter we made promises of 20 year retirement, life time medical (of course congress now says we were not supposed to say that), they are full of crap because we were taught to say that. Since retiring the benefits made changed immensely. We now pay for medical, there has been several years of no cola, and the job I found after had numerous years with no pay increases. My advice to the young people today is go to college, get a good education and forget the military as a career or even the 4 years and out for the education benefits because they would likely change that before you can finish. I remember even for a while the army was paying retirees a bonus for recruiting young individuals. Good luck army and all the rest of the branches.