Download PDF of this full issue: v41n2.pdf (26.6 MB)

Stop Ignoring Veteran's Issues

By Dave Amerson

The 2012 Presidential Election cycle is in full swing and if the Republican debates are any indication, the political discourse over the next 12 months should prove to be a low point in American history. The field of nominees, ranging from a neo-McCarthyist, evangelical, adopted mother of 20; to a jocular, dim-witted Texas governor (sound familiar?), are currently participating in a race to see who can make the largest mockery of our electoral system by focusing on the issue that is, according to their base, most plaguing our nation: a black man is president.

Dave Amerson at Central Illinois IVAW's Speak Out Against the Afghanistan War on the University of Illinois campus.

Republicans have an abysmal record when it comes to veteran's issues, yet they have a monopoly in the American consciousness as the "support our troops" party. Why is this?

One central reason is that the American public insists on only thinking about "the troops" in the abstract, as something to be admired from afar. The great bulk of American families do not have any immediate family members in the military. This is disproportionately true, of course, in well-to do families. Few people know any veteran's, and even fewer can explain the contours of the problems facing the veteran community. When veteran-activists speak out for veteran's benefits or against the war, the public becomes confused and even angered. Americans need to believe that we are doing right by our service-members. They want to believe that our foreign wars are just. They want to be told a neat, tidy story about the merits of military service, and will often vote for those that can weave them such tales. There is simply too little political will in parts of the American public to confront these issues.

It is easier for politicians to beef up their "pro-troop" bona fides by going on a PR tour to the green zone in Iraq, or attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new memorial statue, or railing against the next great foreign menace to America. This is simpler, and more politically effective, than designing comprehensive veteran's benefits legislation. There is no political necessity to support veterans like there is to support war.

What if, as veterans, we directed our efforts toward this problem? What if we confront these anti-veteran lawmakers and hold them accountable, taking the "support our troops" arrow out of their quiver? What if we demand that these issues be discussed, especially as the nation decides who will be the next Commander-in-Chief? What if we made it politically necessary to support veterans in order to get re/elected?

If groups such as VVAW and IVAW focused on local, grass roots actions directed at these lawmakers, then those groups could dramatically influence the discourse of local politics. For instance, say a US Representative voted against mortgage relief for veterans, military families and gold-star mothers (H.R. 836). Veterans from this Congressman's home district could sit outside his district office with signs saying "Rep. ____ votes against Vets!" or "Rep. ____ puts veterans out of their homes!"

With appropriate press management this could, at the very at least, ensure that these legislators are put on notice for the inconsistency between "supporting our troops" and not providing basic benefits to our veterans. This could also cause other community members to re-examine their own conception of "support our troops," both in their hearts and in the voting booth.

In this important political time, we have the unique opportunity to alter the discourse about war and veterans, and we can do it in a local, inexpensive, and effective way. We should not let the opportunity pass.

David Amerson is a third year law student at the University of Illinois College of Law, studying labor law and poverty law. He is a five-year veteran of the United States Marine Corps (2000-2005) and he currently resides in Champaign, Illinois.