A tale as old as civilization itself: In Ancient Rome, soldiers were often recruited with the promise of land in exchange for honorable service. Yet, time and again, they were denied this hard-earned reward. The elites, unwilling to break up their vast estates—acquired through the very victories these soldiers secured—resisted any meaningful redistribution. When land was granted, it was often barren or far removed from urban centers, effectively reneging on the promises made to them. And now, history repeats itself in America. The editors, writers, and readers of publications like The Economist seem untroubled by sending the sons and daughters of the poor and middle class to fight and die in endless wars. Yet, when it comes to sharing the spoils of these conflicts—or even taking responsibility for the costs—they suddenly lose interest. Here’s an idea: if you’re not willing to shoulder the burden of caring for those you send to war, perhaps stop enabling the continuation of pointless, protracted conflicts.
Corey Lamb
4w
Well said, J. Holden Gibbons.
Education and Career Specialist, USMC, MCB Camp Pendleton CA
1moHaving worked for the USMC for 21 years, and with active duty and veterans, and their families, to improve their education and careers, and seen their selfless sacrifice for their country, I have also seen that military benefits, for whichever branch, have frequently fallen short, and failed to adequately financially recompense those who have not only come back from war seemingly whole, but have also come back disabled, in varying medical and physical degrees. And yes, those who have the authority to determine those benefits, have often denied full benefits for honorably discharging personnel, for one inane and bureaucratic reason or another. They'd rather spend that money elsewhere on endless, bureaucratic and nepotistic practices and policies, as well as continuing endless conflicts. These actions are not progress, they are regress, and only benefit the military- industrial complex.