It is the absolute definition of irony. Or hypocrisy, depending on the level of your outrage.

As I read through a recent article lamenting “absurdly generous benefits” paid to disabled veterans, a certain three word phrase common among miligary members crossed my lips. It was a call to action. It extolled a new administration to look to the “enormous rise in disability payments” as a target for debt-reduction efforts. “Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise.”

Responses to the Opinions on Veterans Disability Benefits

Patrick Murray, the national legislative service director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars and disabled veteran, issued a rebuttal to the article. He referred to it as a “turd sundae” and “loosely compiled puddle of garbage juice,” while sandblasting Stanford University economist Mark Duggan for comments in the article. He said that they reveal someone blissfully unaware that the nation has been at war for most of the previous two decades. He shared, “I’d gladly give back the money I’ve received so I can get up out of bed without the assistance of a wheelchair or prosthetic.”

As I reflected on the rage-bait article, I was struck by something else entirely. This was the same media outlet that had so vociferously advocated for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That war served as a distraction from the war in Afghanistan. It also contributed significantly to extending our involvement in both conflicts for the next two decades. Now, more than 20 years after hawking the Global War on Terror (GWOT), The Economist schemes for ways to avoid the costs of the long wars.

Irony or hypocrisy. It’s still wrong.

How We Got Here: The High Cost of the Global War on Terror

Prosecuting the GWOT came at a significant cost. According to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, those costs totaled $5.8 trillion between 2001 and 2022, with an additional $2.2 trillion projected in veteran care obligations over the next 30 years. Fighting a long war is like buying a used car. The sticker price doesn’t include the long-term costs of keeping that car on the road. And we owe it to our veterans to keep that car running.

While that $2.2 trillion might seem like a lucrative target for spending cuts, there is a reason why our nation chose this path. A month before the end of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed a law to establish a national care facility for veterans. It was the first government institution created specifically to provide for disabled soldiers. In 1917, as American forces prepared to fight in WWI, Congress established a benefit system for returning veterans that included life insurance, disability compensation, hospitalization, and rehabilitation. We have traditionally asked much of our armed forces. The Veterans Administration exists to ensure that we fulfill our moral obligation to care for those who answer the call of duty.

The Historical Commitment to Veterans: From Lincoln to Today

Long after the dust settles on a conflict, our veterans continue to bear the scars of war, both visible and invisible. Disability compensation – the source of the shock and awe exhibited by The Economist – is intended provide financial support to help offset the costs associated with those scars. But it’s also to “ensure a better quality of life for veterans who have sacrificed their health and well-being in service to their country.” And while it might appear to be free chicken, there aren’t too many veterans who wouldn’t happily give up their disability compensation for a better quality of life.

Understanding Disability Compensation: A Moral Obligation to Veterans

But as outrageous as the Economist article might have been, there was a kernel of truth to it. Or at least something worth further discussion.

1. Public awareness and understanding of the long-term costs of war.

First, the article reflects a lack of public awareness and understanding of the long-term costs of war. While that knowledge gap can often be seen as a lack of empathy, it’s often born out of ignorance. This is captured in Duggan’s writing, which utterly fails to comprehend the changes that drove escalating disability compensation. It’s not just the fact that combat medicine has improved exponentially – meaning more troops survive their injuries than in the past – or that diagnostic capabilities – identifying everything from post-traumatic stress to traumatic brain injuries – are far better than they ever have been in the past. The VA has done remarkable work in improving access to services and has committed to an aggressive outreach campaign to ensure veterans receive the care to which they are entitled, and other veterans and veteran service organizations have committed themselves to assisting those in need. That translates to more veterans receiving disability compensation while underscoring the fact for years the nation avoided paying the full cost of past wars.

2. Generous benefits.

Second, there are veterans within our own ranks who have earned and deserve the “increasingly generous benefits” offered by the VA, but do not receive them. Reasons vary, but we all know a veteran who suffers from some form of service-connected disability and receives no compensation. Maybe the application process seemed too daunting. Maybe pride or ego stood between them and VA. Or maybe they simply didn’t know. That needs to change. And that change will add to those costs.

3. Abuse in the system.

Third, there is a segment of the veteran population that is potentially abusing the disability system. Anecdotally, most of us can name someone who has revealed a scheme to claim a disability where none exists, eyeing the compensation as a means to cash in. While I can’t speak for everyone, my own experience with the VA was especially thorough and my health was confirmed through a lengthy – 26 x-rays in one day – medical examination process. I’m well aware that not everyone endures that thorough a medical vetting and some veterans slip through the cracks. But, without hard data – something no one has been able to produce – I’m not convinced that the numbers are as high as some conspiracy-theorists seem to believe.

4. Long-term effects of war.

Finally, while there are some who openly question war’s harmful long-term effects on well-being.They even suggest that they don’t believe that there is a causal link between wartime service and suicide, depression, or anxiety,. The library of contradictory evidence is overwhelming. For this reason, Murray offered his personal assistance in not only educating the public about “the actual effects of service-connected injuries and illness,” but assisting others with “removing your head from your ass…free of charge.”

The bottom line? We have a lot of work to do.

Related News

Steve Leonard is a former senior military strategist and the creative force behind the defense microblog, Doctrine Man!!. A career writer and speaker with a passion for developing and mentoring the next generation of thought leaders, he is a co-founder and emeritus board member of the Military Writers Guild; the co-founder of the national security blog, Divergent Options; a member of the editorial review board of the Arthur D. Simons Center’s Interagency Journal; a member of the editorial advisory panel of Military Strategy Magazine; and an emeritus senior fellow at the Modern War Institute at West Point. He is the author, co-author, or editor of several books and is a prolific military cartoonist.