Ted Beal
In my last essay I reviewed the reasons for lack of public awareness of the enduring war problem. The soldier with whom I spoke asserted the general civilian public does not pay for the war either with blood or money. His answer got my attention and I decided to look further. How did it become possible that Americans could conduct war with little skin in the game? Let us look at what the Constitution provided for and what has ensued.
The Constitution states the founding fathers thought the common defense of the country meant we are all in this together. The common defense meant that Congress would declare war, the President would direct it, and the people as a part of the well-regulated militia (second amendment) would bring their own guns and fight. Not only were there checks and balances on branches of government in the Constitution, but there would be checks and balances by citizens in the conduct of war. The citizens bear the cost of war in blood and taxes and therefore will vote accordingly.
Our early American experience taught us that checks and balances on war were critical. Their absence had been the genesis of the Boston Tea party. The Stamp Act, a tax, imposed by the King of England requiring the American colonies to pay for the French and Indian Wars, was objectionable. It was taxation without representation. Paying for someone else’s war, absent accountability, became a cornerstone of the American Revolution. For too long Kings had declared war which the people with no voice were required to fight. The Founding Fathers made checks and balances part of the Constitution as well as the idea that the power to declare and conduct war was constrained by electoral accountability..
Over the next two centuries Americans supported with blood and money the definitive wars: American Civil War, and WWI and WWII. When the goals of the war were well articulated and when the cost of not fighting was also clear and palpable, Americans gave their bodies and paid their taxes in the service of their country.
The financial and blood cost of the American Civil War was 20% of the war’s cost in taxes paid and over 700,000 in soldiers killed. Anticipating entry into WWI, President Wilson raised taxes before, during, and after US involvement in WW I. The cost of WWII was almost 500,000 American lives and by the end of the war—compared to the beginning— a ten-fold increase in the number of citizens paying taxes to support the war.
Far more frequently, however, our country engages in less clearly defined wars. Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam are just modern examples of a long tradition of poorly defined wars including the Mexican War of 1848 and the Spanish American War of 1898. When the goals are less clear and the war taxation more burdensome, Americans are less likely to support war. Politicians and presidents have walked a tight rope of accountability between declaring and conducting war at one end and garnering financial support and participation of citizens at the other.
This “tightrope of accountability” reached a breaking point in the 1960s. President Kennedy had argued that Americans “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship... oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” However, he was not ready to publically commit large numbers of troops to Vietnam. The purpose of the war was difficult to define and he was worried about being held accountable.
Following Kennedy’s assassination President Johnson was faced with an unsolvable dilemma, the famous “guns and
butter” conundrum. How to implement the Great Society programs he advocated so well and deal with the creeping incrementalism established by Kennedy and Eisenhower of the Vietnam War. Could the country do both: conduct war with blood and taxes and simultaneously pay for increased social welfare programs?
Johnson was an extraordinarily skilled politician in the area of social programs. He was much less experienced in foreign affairs. Johnson avoided a public debate about this dilemma (could we do both) and therefore any immediate public feedback. He probably knew a public debate about the war would preclude his Great Society agenda and vice versa. The public mood was more supportive of entitlement programs of the Great Society rather than a war in remote SE Asia. The President never asked the public to choose. He knew it might be too taxing to pay for public welfare and the war.
Lacking widespread public approval President Johnson and his administration disguised the troop build ups and the cost without the public at first realizing what was happening, The net result was significant cost in blood and money: more than 57,000 deaths and $738 billion dollars. The Vietnam War was the fourth most costly war as a percent of GDP. The public was dissatisfied with the incremental war effort, and the generals believed they were never given sufficient troops to prosecute the war. Dissatisfaction was widespread. Public accountability, nevertheless, surfaced only later as Johnson, aware of his unpopularity, decided not to run for reelection. Future presidents would take notice.
President Nixon, aware of the wide spread unpopularity of the war and the mistrust of government was elected on the promise to end the war. He further outmaneuvered the popular protest by ingeniously ending the draft. H i s m e s s a g e : If you do not want your children to go to war, they will not have to do so. The stage was set for subsequent presidents. Wars could be fought in the future without asking the public to make a personal sacrifice. An all- volunteer Army avoided the generalized personal sacrifice.
Military service became a “family business” performed by fewer than 1% of American families. Soldiers from the same families, one generation after another, volunteer to serve. Our no draft policy made the decision about whose blood would be spilled.
How has the financial sacrifice of making war been avoided? The fiscal cost was another matter. President H. W. Bush financed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq with borrowed money. President Obama tried otherwise but soon reverted back to relying on borrowed money. Are Americans aware by borrowing the funds to finance the war that all our grandchildren, not just the children of the 1% serving will pay for the fiscal costs of the war? Funding wars with borrowed money became the wave of the future. Pass the cost of war to future generations, those who have no voice in the current decision. We are paying for the war with the credit cards of our grandchildren. Was that not one of the reasons the colonists fought the American Revolution: taxation without representation? In other words, wars fought with no electoral accountability.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have continued the trend of decreased public sacrifice: declining personal involvement of the public and no increased taxation. The next step in this trifecta—characterized by less blood, no fiscal responsibility, and no new taxes—is the drone strike. It is the strike that involves killing from a distance with less risk to our soldiers, that 1% of the population. Fewer body bags return home but an enhanced fiscal cost prevails through technological sophistication that is paid for by credit. The war cost in human life occurring from Iraq and
Afghanistan has decreased to about 1/10 of the Vietnam War but about two times the financial cost. The United States has demonstrated an enhanced ability to kill the enemy with marvelous technological sophistication, thereby decreasing our blood cost while asking our grandchildren to pay the fiscal cost. Should we be doing it just because we can do it?
What would the founding fathers say about our collective ability to manipulate the Constitution and democracy so as to avoid any personal responsibility for continuous war?
Edward W. Beal, MD, Psychiatrist, Dept. of the Army, Dept. of Tele-Health, U. S. Army
Medical Department Activity,
Fort Meade
March 2019
