Esquire magazine has just posted a much-discussed article about “the Shooter” who is said to have killed Osama bin Laden. This is not a simple tale of heroism, a la “No Easy Day,” the best-selling book written by another member of SEAL Team Six who was on the raid. This article has a strong point of view, as is made clear by the headline: “The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden… Is Screwed.”
Journalist Phil Bronstein, who interviewed “the Shooter,” laments “that a man with hundreds of successful war missions, one of the most decorated combat veterans of our age, who capped his career by terminating bin Laden, has no landing pad in civilian life.” He explains that “the Shooter will discover soon enough that when he leaves after sixteen years in the Navy, his body filled with scar tissue, arthritis, tendonitis, eye damage, and blown disks, here is what he gets from his employer and a grateful nation: Nothing. No pension, no healthcare for his wife and kids, no protection for himself or his family.”
Numerous veterans have pointed out that this is an exaggeration and in fact Esquire has already posted a correction and changed the language above which had previously suggested that there is no healthcare for him, not just for his (separated) wife and his kids. The magazine notes: “A previous version of this story misstated the extent of the five-year health care benefits offered to cover veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs offers comprehensive health care to eligible veterans during that period, though not to their families.” There are also numerous other benefits such as the GI Bill which would enable “the Shooter” to go to college.
Nevertheless the article does have a serious point to make—the nation is not doing right by the small number of infantrymen and special operators, a tiny percentage of the overall armed forces, who are at the pointy tip of the spear. The problem is two-fold.
First, the military’s retirement system is designed to provide generous benefits to those who retire after 20 years but far less to those who get out sooner, as “the Shooter” has decided to do. This is counter-productive because it leads the military to lose many who could make an important contribution even after 20 years of service, while not providing adequate recompense for those who serve for a slightly shorter period.
The second problem is that there is little if any difference in combat pay between those like “the Shooter” who routinely go on extremely dangerous raids or patrols and clerks who spend their entire deployment in Afghanistan or Iraq sitting behind a computer on a comparatively safe Forward Operating Base. We should offer more generous financial rewards to those who are in the thick of combat given the risk they take and the psychological trauma they will have to live with.
Finally “the Shooter” faces an issue unique to his case: He will be a marked man for the rest of his life. Many people already know his name and it is a safe bet that Al Qaeda will be gunning for him. Under those circumstances the Navy owes him more than a handshake: It should offer him a new life and a new identity in a version of the “Witness Protection” program.
Even if Bronstein’s indictment is overstated, he has a valid point that we as a nation need to do a better job of caring for our heroes.
Maybe Boot should find out something about the military retirement system. Everyone knows very clearly that once he or she remains past 10 years, one must remain another 10 years to receive a fairly generous retirement package. If not, one receives nothing and therefore it is an exceedingly rare occurrence that someone leaves voluntarily after having served just 16 years. Everyone in the military talks about the 20-year requirement day in and day out; it is no secret. If one leaves beforehand for medical reasons then one receives a different package of benefits. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. So Boot like his many other ill-informed journalist colleagues in the MSM needs to ask a very simple question: Why did the shooter make the highly unusual, reckless and eyebrow-raising decision to leave the army prior to completing 20 years?
Bad line of thinking, Max. As a veteran of an Army infantry combat unit in Vietnam, I'd like to point out that how much shooting you do or how much you are shot at often depends on the enemy, whatever job you have. In the Afghan and Iraq wars, US casualties have been disproportionately caused by IEDs, indirect fire and suicide bombers in such a way as to expose all sorts of soldiers to serious risks. I don't doubt that SOF troops assume more risks than many or most others but I cannot imagine a sensible and fair way to gear compensation to presumed risk. Is a Navy Lieutenant, JG in the SeALs to be paid more than an officer of the same rank who flies a carrier-based aircraft on the grounds that the Taliban have no way to bring down our jets? n nBesides, while we want to compensate our military personnel decently, we certainly do not want to start down the path of making service about economic rewards instead of patriotism, honor and pride. n nThis is what is troublesome about the way liberals — including the author of the Esquire piece — view the military: they are quick to regard serving and former soldiers as victims and love to be able to spotlight supposed unmet needs. Nowhere in the Esquire piece do we find out why the Shooter retired from the Navy a few years shy of his pension. And we are supposed to assume that he cannot find any job anywhere that would provide his children with family health insurance. We do learn that the Shooter is not interested in security jobs where his experience and training could bring him a good living. That's understandable — but how is that the Navy's or our fault? The man volunteered for the Navy and had to work and compete hard to get SeAL duty. He chose to spend 16 years of his life in this way.
I'm a bit confused here. Surely if this heroic SEAL has voluntarily decided to leave the Navy after sixteen rather than twenty years of service, he knows the deal. While we can all agree with Mr. Boot that the military retirement system should be adjusted to take account of the arduous services rendered by our special forces troops, let's not yield to the temptation of looking upon them as victims. Very obviously, that was Phil Bronstein's intention and I'm glad he was called on it.
That's right. Twenty-year pensions are a very generous benefit, the Shooter could not possibly have not known he was giving it up by retiring at 16, and Bronstein does not enlighten us about why he did it. n nWhat's more, Boot suggests there is something wrong with the 20-year deal — but why? This policy aims explicitly to retain trained, experienced officers and NCOs long enough to get the most value from the investment in them but not so long as to be stuck with too many 40-something passed-over majors. After all, there is only so much room in for colonels and sargeant majors. n nThe victim thing is especially galling and all veterans should spurn it. Liberal journalists and pols regard veterans as victimized by not having better job alternatives when the join the service; by not having guaranteed jobs when they leave; by supposedly inadequate health care; by hidden dangers like "Agent Orange;" by family problems ( as if civilians all had happy marriages); by being driven to suicide or crime; etc., etc. This is appallingly disrespectful.