|
WORD
COUNT
668
JUNE 4, 2008
THE
TROOPS NEED A NEW GI BILL – by Melissa Epstein Mills
Our country has not
served its warflghters as faithfully as they have served us. Extended
deployments,
multiple combat tours, and high-profile outrages like the Walter Reed
scandal and the failure to provide adequate armor have caused many
Americans to believe that we are not giving service members and veterans
the support they deserve. The new GI Bill proposed by Senator Jim Webb
offers a fresh opportunity to honor our service members and veterans,
while also making a sound investment in our country’s future
The bill
promises robust
educational benefits to those who have served in the military since
September 11, 2001. The original GI Bill, signed by President Franklin
Roosevelt near the end of World War 11, provided similarly generous
assistance; sending 8 million veterans to college, in recent years,
benefits have not kept pace with rapidly rising educational costs.
Senator Webb’s bill would provide veterans with up to four years of
in-state tuition at a public university, as well as a living stipend
tied to local housing costs. These benefits are comparable to the
original GI Bill. The new bill would also meet private schools halfway
in covering tuition above public-school levels — good news for talented
veterans striving to attend the country’s most prestigious private
colleges.
Not
surprisingly, Senator
Webb’s bill has broad bipartisan support. One might even expect
unanimous backing for a measure that would open up solid educational
benefits to over a million and a half young veterans of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. But Senator John McCain, in lockstep with the Bush
Administration, has actively opposed this bill on the flimsy,
patronizing, and ultimately unsubstantiated theory that it might entice
too many service members to abandon the military in order to seek a
college degree.
Senator McCain and
the President are wrong.
There is no evidence
that strengthening the GI Bill’s benefits would hasten a mass exodus
among military service members who have chosen, for many reasons, to
continue to serve even in the face of significant hardships. Indeed,
rather than threatening troop levels, the Webb bill would significantly
improve sagging recruitment efforts by providing a powerful incentive
for talented, ambitious, high—aptitude men and women to join the
military. Surely a measure calculated to attract promising young people
— many of whom might not otherwise consider military service is a wiser
recruitment strategy than a desperate campaign of lowering enlistment
standards, sanctioning “moral waivers” and doling out cash bonuses.
The new GI Bill
represents a powerful investment not only in those veterans who have
served and sacrificed, but in our country’s future. The promise of
educational benefits is the military’s single most effective recruitment
incentive. Strengthening those benefits would boost recruiting efforts,
broaden the appeal of military service, and foster a class of educated
veterans -- tomorrow’s civilian leaders — -- who have familiarity with
and respect for the military. These returns would serve both civilian
society and the military in the short and long term. And an influx of
college-educated veterans into the workforce would have positive and
far-reaching effects on our economy
The annual
cost of the new GI
Bill is estimated at between $2.5 billion and $4 billion. While hardly
an insignificant sum, this is less money than we are spending per week
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator Webb’s bill calls for a sound
investment in our veterans, our military, and our country’s future.
Apart from its
strategic and economic benefits, Senator Webb’s bill answers
our moral duty to support service members and veterans. “Supporting the
Troops” should be more than a slogan or a sound bite. True support
requires positive action and tangible effects — and in this case, it
requires money. As President Roosevelt said of the original GI Bill’s
beneficiaries, today’s veterans have made “greater economic sacrifice
and every other kind of sacrifice than the rest of us, and are entitled
to definite action.” After more than five years of one-sided sacrifice,
our refusal to bear this burden would be a disservice to those who have
served so well.
--
Melissa Epstein
Mills, a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project,
served in the United States Marine Corps from 2002 to 2006.
# # # #
#
|
