These perpetually smoldering burn pits were so bad that flightline operations had to be rerouted. I kept one of the base’s five-day weather forecast. It accurately predicted “smoke/haze” for the entire week. People were already getting sick from the exposures we now know will continue to cast a long shadow in terms of the illnesses they cause — many chronic and many fatal.

That same year that I leaked the story to Kelly Kennedy with Military Times before writing about it for the New York Times “Home Fires” series, our current Veterans Affairs Secretary, Doug Collins, deployed as a chaplain to Balad. There, he served the spiritual needs of those who worked and were treated at the Air Force Theater Hospital. He counseled countless men and women who’d been sent into harm’s way and were wounded. He prayed over those who had made the ultimate sacrifice. And, like everyone else on that base, he was exposed to hundreds of tons of burning waste that America’s military and civilian leaders knew could have chronic and enduring consequences to their health.

Fortunately, for myself, Collins and hundreds of thousands of other veterans who’d been exposed, the PACT Act was signed into law in 2022. The hard-fought legislation helped to expedite justice by presuming veterans’ service connection for certain illnesses linked to toxic exposures.

In less than three years since its passage, more than 2.1 million claims for benefits due to toxic exposures have been adjudicated and more than 436,000 additional veterans are currently enrolled in VA health care. Although it took almost two decades for the federal government to acknowledge that veterans exposed to burn pits had been harmed — which is less than the average of 34 years it has historically taken to establish a presumptive condition for an exposure — we’re getting closer than in past generations to keeping promises to the men and women who answer the call to serve.

In spite of increases in demand for care and benefits, the Trump administration has used executive orders to cut the number of VA employees. Then a leak exposed plans for a reduction in force back to 2019 VA staffing levels, which was before the PACT Act provided millions of toxic-exposed veterans with earned benefits. Although the “how” of these cuts remains a guarded mystery about which veterans have been left in the dark, we know Secretary Collins’ goal is to cut around 72,000 staff members, which is 15% of the department’s workforce. Among those at risk of losing their jobs are around 20,000 veterans who bring key insights into our health and benefits system.

Unlike previous administrations who sought and welcomed feedback from veteran stakeholders — the same organizations who (along with Jon Stewart) ultimately carried the PACT Act and other key policy victories for veterans across the finish line — the administration has offered no opportunity for public comment and scant details on its plans for transformation.

Instead, we are being promised a more efficient VA and being told repeatedly that care and benefits will not be impacted.

The secretary, who spoke of sleeping next to a burn pit in his confirmation hearing, has asked his fellow veterans to trust him. Cutting tens of thousands of positions while maintaining or even improving services for veterans in need sounds like a godsend to veterans and taxpayers alike. But we’re talking about cuts at a time when the need is on the rise. And care is already being affected, with interruptions in research impacting veterans participating in cancer trials. Ultimately, we’re being asked to blindly trust the same government that’s poisoned us over the course of generations.

Many veterans are worried. Some have already been fired from the VA or other agencies and others are service-disabled veterans with small businesses that have been devastated by cuts to government contracts. They’re contacting organizations like DAV to vent their frustration and anxiety. But more is likely to come. And we’re not sure what to tell them.

President Reagan’s repeated mantra in nuclear negotiations was to “trust, but verify.” The veterans community is coming out of the secretary’s first 100 days with no way to verify his veracity. In the coming months, we will likely witness a sea change at the VA. But the details on how those changes will impact veterans are hazy, not unlike the downwind side of a burn pit — and, paired with the lack of transparency we’re experiencing at the VA, similarly concerning for the potential long-term impact to the veterans community.

Dan Clare is the chief communications & outreach officer for DAV (Disabled American Veterans). He is a former Marine and Air National Guardsman who served with the 332nd Air Wing at Balad Air Base during the Iraq War. Veterans and spouses can participate in DAV’s survey by visiting dav.org/protect.

Unfortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs is about to put thousands of veterans at risk of losing their homes, depriving them of the American Dream that they fought to protect.

The VA has long sought to step in as a backstop when financially strained vets fall behind on their mortgage payments. It is a sad reality, but there is a demand for such services.

To support veterans and their families during the pandemic, the VA rolled out a partial claims program that offered relief to struggling vets, allowing them to move missed mortgage payments to the backend of their loan. Last year, the VA replaced that program with a new one called the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) program, which more than 17,000 veterans currently depend on.

Earlier this month, the VA confirmed it would end the VASP program with no off-ramp to service the 17,000 veterans who will now be put at risk of foreclosure. The VA said it will shut the program to new enrollees as soon as May 1. Apparently, recognition for selflessness and sacrifice of service to the nation does not apply to veterans.

VASP is a “last resort” option to help families experiencing economic hardship. As part of VASP, loan servicers working with the VA modify loans to a 2.5% rate, and then sell the loan to the VA. This has allowed veterans and their families to remain in their homes with an affordable monthly mortgage payment.

With VASP winding down, the back-owed amount on veterans’ mortgages could be wrapped into a 30- or 40-year mortgage at current rates. Not surprisingly, this is spiking due to tariff uncertainty. That means vets would miss out on the VA program’s discount and instead be saddled with historically high rates.

Some have argued the VASP program introduced financial risk at the VA by keeping distressed mortgages on the department’s books. VASP is not perfect. But ending the program without a replacement for the military families who need it is reckless. This places the risk exclusively in the hands of the veteran, not the department responsible for identifying and mitigating risk.

There has been only scant discussion on how to responsibly replace this safety net for veterans and service members. The accelerating speed and recklessness of this policy change will inevitably harm veterans.

The VA and its partners in Congress owe it to veterans to come up with a solution that keeps veterans in their homes. Lawmakers and officials could do this by allowing mortgage servicing companies to bundle missed payments into a noninterest lien that gets put on the house and becomes due once the mortgage is paid or the home is sold. That way, the VA isn’t taking added risk on its books and veterans get to keep their homes.

Service members and veterans vote, and 65% of veterans who voted in the 2024 presidential election said they cast their ballot for Trump, according to Election Day exit polls. They are a core part of his coalition. You’d think our president and VA Secretary Doug Collins, who clearly are not apolitical, would embrace their duty to take care of our veterans. The nation’s veterans deserve gratitude and support from the government. They expect as much, especially from this administration.

When the VA abruptly discontinued the pandemic-era Partial Claim Program in 2022, thousands of veterans were forced to refinance their mortgages at a time when interest rates had doubled. The financial stress on these veterans was not only unnecessary and predictable but also disappointing in terms of the promise the country has made to repay their sacrifices.

One can hope that the abrupt flip on VASP is simply a case of Department of Government-inspired cost-cutting gone too far. After all, Elon Musk prefaced the work of DOGE by asserting that although they will inevitably make mistakes, they’ll “fix them very quickly.” Cutting VASP without an alternative in place — even for the few months that it could take new legislation to be implemented — is a mistake.

The VA and members of Congress have little time to offer a solution that will allow veterans to stay in their homes. It is, however, their sacred duty to find one.

James “Spider” Marks, a retired U.S. Army major general, was the senior intelligence officer for the 2003 liberation of Iraq and the former commanding general of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center. He currently serves as the director of geo-political intelligence for Academy Securities, a New York-based veteran-owned bank.

This clash marked one of the opening salvos of the Revolutionary War and was sparked by escalating grievances. Alerted by Paul Revere’s midnight ride, approximately 400 militiamen from farming towns converged at the timber-and-plank trestle, their resolve accompanied by the bright pitch of a fife and the steady cadence of a drum. When the “shot heard ‘round the world” rang out, it marked the birth of a nation and the warfighter legacy that lives on in today’s National Guard.

Among those minutemen was Capt. Isaac Davis, a farmer and blacksmith from Acton, Massachusetts, who epitomized the courage of that day. His company of mostly farmers assembled in his front yard, sharpening their bayonets and checking their powder. Faced with a monumental decision, his patriotism and duty propelled him forward. As smoke rose from Concord, signaling the town was under attack, Davis was asked to lead the advance across the bridge.

“I haven’t a man who is afraid to go,” he declared.

Moments later, Davis suffered fatal injuries from a British volley, his sacrifice cementing a pivotal moment in American history. These were not professional soldiers — they were farmers, shopkeepers and laborers who answered the call to service when liberty hung in the balance. They embody the enduring spirit of our National Guard today.

“People are relying on us” — National Guard evolves to fight wars, secure homefront

Putnam County, Ohio, was named in honor of Maj. Gen. Israel Putnam, a Massachusetts-born militiaman who rallied troops at Bunker Hill. I feel a deep personal connection to this history, given my hometown was in Putnam County. Just two months after the battle at North Bridge, Putnam’s leadership at Bunker Hill proved citizen volunteers could fight with deadly effect. Though the British eventually took the hill, their heavy losses shattered any doubt about the resolve of colonial forces. From Concord to Bunker, the minutemen refused to yield. Their legacy forged an unbroken line of service and sacrifice, stretching across time to our National Guard today.

The Battle of North Bridge was more than a fight; it was a declaration of the National Guard’s dual mission that has defined the Guard since its first muster in 1636. This mission — serving both local communities and the nation — has carried the Guard through centuries of conflict and crisis. In the War of 1812, militia units shielded our fledgling republic. During the Civil War, they fought to mend a broken Union and redefine who we were destined to be as a nation.

The 20th century saw Guardsmen enduring the muddy trenches of World War I, storming Normandy’s beaches, flying through fiery skies over Europe and trudging through the frozen Ardennes. They braved Korea’s bitter winters, persevered in Vietnam’s steamy jungles and stood steadfast in the deserts of Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, whether battling hurricanes and wildfires at home or serving overseas on global battlefields, the Guard remains “always ready, always there.”

This 250th anniversary of the American Revolution compels us to see North Bridge not as a simple story, but as an enduring promise. The National Guard has remained a cornerstone of our defense — a lethal, community-based and globally engaged force uniquely equipped to serve both state and nation.

At home, Guardsmen are often called upon to serve as first responders, combating natural disasters and cyberattacks with the same resolve as those original minutemen. Abroad, they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with active-duty forces, embodying the courage of those who put down their plows and picked up their muskets in 1775. The National Guard’s strength lies in our roots: We are farmers, teachers and entrepreneurs drilling on weekends, firefighters swapping civilian uniforms for military ones, parents serving their families by serving their community, state and nation. This is what keeps the National Guard grounded, accountable and true to our warrior ethos.

The Guard’s adaptability is as vital today as it was in 1775. As threats evolve and become more complex, the National Guard continues to innovate, mastering new technologies and domains while holding fast to our core values. This flexibility extends beyond our borders through initiatives like the State Partnership Program, fostering international cooperation and readiness with our partners around the globe. Yet, at its heart, the National Guard remains a community-based force, standing ready, protecting life and property in collaboration with state and local partners. This balance between our local roots and our global reach makes the Guard indispensable to America’s security and defense.

The minutemen of North Bridge are not distant figures but another link in a chain connecting to every Guard member today. Their legacy is alive in our teachers who train, our nurses who deploy, our neighbors who serve. It’s alive in our families who sacrifice alongside their soldiers and airmen and in our veterans who have carried the torch of service through generations. The National Guard is not just a military institution; it’s a living embodiment of the liberty experiment that began back on that muddy bridge — a testament to the awesome power of ordinary citizens united for a greater cause.

As we commemorate this historic day, we must recommit to the minutemen’s promise. Their stand was not just for their time but for all time — a call to protect this nation, its history, its people and its ideals. Like Capt. Davis and his men who marched shoulder-to-shoulder toward an uncertain fate, we face today’s challenges with the same resolve. We honor them by ensuring their sacrifice endures in a nation that remains free, resilient and united.

Much has changed since 1775, but the National Guard’s mission remains constant. We will answer when the nation calls, we will defend the cause of liberty, and we will aggressively pursue peace and prosperity through overwhelming strength. Let us lead boldly through uncertainty, through inspiration from our original minutemen who swapped plows for muskets and turned the tide of history. Let us pledge to be stronger together, building a stronger tomorrow.

The minutemen’s rallying cry still echoes — through every Guard member, every community, every heartbeat of this nation. May we carry it forward for generations to come, ensuring that the spirit of North Bridge remains alive in the courage, duty and unity of our National Guard.

Always ready, always there!

Gen. Steve Nordhaus serves as the 30th chief of the National Guard Bureau and as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Since the launch, families across the country have experienced a catastrophic disruption in care. Enrollment errors have left beneficiaries uninsured. Surgical procedures have been canceled when hospitals couldn’t verify prior authorization. Chronically ill patients have struggled to find providers to maintain life-sustaining treatment. For many military children with disabilities, years of hard-fought progress are at risk of being erased because therapy appointments were abruptly stopped.

The source of these failures lies not only with the regional contractors — Humana Military (East) and TriWest Healthcare Alliance (West) — but with the Defense Health Agency (DHA), which bears full responsibility for contract oversight and system accountability.

It is clear DHA either ignored the lessons of the past or failed to learn from them. In 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned that the previous Tricare transition in 2017 was marred by weaknesses in transition guidance and oversight. GAO’s recommendations were either poorly implemented or ignored — and now military families are paying the price.

Despite having years to prepare for the 2025 transition, similar pitfalls have emerged — only this time, the consequences appear to be broader and deeper.

Many providers across the country have gone unpaid for months, despite submitting claims through systems that should have been validated prior to the start of health care delivery. Claims are being denied or delayed with little to no explanation. Providers — many of them military spouses or veterans — have been forced to dip into personal savings or shut down operations completely. Some have left the Tricare network for good, citing the unreliability and financial harm caused by this transition.

In a recent survey conducted by Mission Alpha Advocacy, families report spending hours on hold with Tricare contractors — only to be disconnected or told to “call back later.” In one case, a retiree reported their surgery had been postponed because Tricare incorrectly claimed they had other health insurance. Another family shared their child’s applied behavior analysis services have stopped due to lack of provider payment since Jan. 1 leaving this parent to worry about loss of progress.” In addition, a beneficiary could not schedule a surgery follow-up because the referral was not processed and the provider refused to accept the DHA referral waiver because of unpaid claims. These stories are not isolated reports; they are the new norm.

The inefficiencies have now compounded into what can be described as a drain on federal and beneficiary resources. Every unpaid claim, every misdirected call and every lost provider equates to a waste of taxpayer dollars. Families report paying more than expected for services that should be covered and are concerned about their financial stability if not reimbursed.

And what has been lost in the chaos is trust. Trust between families and their health care system. Trust between providers and the military medical infrastructure they have long supported. And perhaps most critically, trust between the force and the leaders responsible for ensuring military readiness.

Readiness is not just about aircraft and ammunition. It is about getting troops back to the fight after experiencing an injury — but that can’t happen without access to health care. It is also about families being able to function at home so the service member can focus on the mission. When a child loses critical therapy, when a spouse can’t get prenatal care or when a service member can’t seek timely care to make them deployable — that readiness is compromised.

Resilience — the ability of military families to withstand constant relocations, deployments and separation — relies on predictable support systems. When families move to a new duty station and discover their Tricare benefits are inaccessible, resilience becomes even more difficult.

And retention? It evaporates when military families feel neglected. No incentive pay or patriotic appeal can convince a family to stay if the health care system that serves them is broken beyond repair.

This isn’t just a failed transition. It is a dereliction of duty by those tasked with managing one of the most critical benefits of military life. The military health care system has always been a promise — a pledge to take care of those who serve and their loved ones. That promise has been broken and people’s lives have been negatively impacted.

Unless there is a reckoning in how the Department of Defense and DHA manage and oversee Tricare, this crisis will continue to unravel our health care benefits. And with it, the confidence of the very people who keep our nation safe.

Dr. Kristi Cabiao is the CEO and president of Mission Alpha Advocacy, an organization that collaborates with legislators, military leaders and other organizations to create legislation to improve the quality of life for families within the Exceptional Family Member Program. She is a retired Air Force spouse, mother of a child with autism and disability advocate.

“When appropriate, these cadets and midshipmen should graduate and commission with their classes, then defer their service obligation until their professional sports-playing careers are complete,” Tuberville said in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week.

Tuberville, a former football coach, claims it would enhance recruitment and raise the academies’ national profile. As of this writing, Tuberville has not released a formal proposal. Nevertheless, on the surface, such a proposal may appear to be a creative recruiting tool. In reality, it represents a fundamental erosion of the principles upon which our service academies were built: duty, honor and service to the country. Tuberville’s proposal doesn’t strengthen the academies; it undermines their very reason for existence.

A taxpayer-funded academy education comes at a steep cost — over $400,000 per graduate for the U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Air Force Academy in 2015, according to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report. But the real investment isn’t just financial. It’s the four or more years spent cultivating officers through education and training. That investment is made with a singular expectation: service. When that commitment is broken, it’s not just money lost — it’s leadership, readiness and the very purpose of the academies.

Tuberville’s proposal also sends a troubling message that a sworn obligation can be postponed, not for hardship or higher service, but for personal gain and public attention. This opens the door to a dangerous precedent, not just for athletes but for any cadet with a lucrative offer in hand.

Would we allow a tech prodigy to break their commitment to join Google or Apple? Would we let an aspiring actor, model or influencer delay their service to chase those pursuits? If not, then why carve out special treatment for athletes? The cadet who studies day and night to become a brilliant engineer or cyber expert doesn’t get to leave early for Silicon Valley. Why should a quarterback or power forward get a pass?

Supporters often point to exceptions made for Rhodes Scholars or Olympic athletes, but these scenarios are fundamentally different. Olympians compete on behalf of their country, while Rhodes Scholars study to better serve it. In both cases, the mission remains aligned with national service. Professional athletes, on the other hand, are entertainers. They don’t wear a uniform to represent the nation, they wear a jersey to represent a brand.

Still, some argue that allowing academy athletes to go pro could boost recruiting and raise the military’s public profile. But that claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. We’ve seen similar promises before with NASCAR sponsorships, drag racing teams, esports and soldiers participating on the television program “America’s Got Talent.” These flashy efforts consistently lack clear measures of effectiveness, often turning into expensive gimmicks rather than genuine recruiting tools. Many of these programs have been criticized for poor oversight and unclear results.

Even if these athletes were placed in the reserves to “serve,” what would that service look like? Will they be missing games to attend monthly drills or two-week annual training? Would games and brand appearances count as recruiting duty? That’s not military service. The notion that high-paid athletes can fulfill a military obligation by simply being visible is an insult to those who actually wear the uniform.

And let’s be honest: What credibility would they have as recruiters? Is a second lieutenant or ensign who deferred their active duty service the right voice to inspire prospective recruits? Imagine the message: “You should totally sign up. The military is great — just not great enough for me to follow through on my commitment.” Contrast that with someone like David Robinson, a Naval Academy graduate who completed his active duty service before going pro, or Alejandro Villanueva, an ROTC graduate who deployed to Afghanistan before joining the NFL. Both men served with distinction before stepping into the spotlight. Their credibility as public figures and potential recruiters was earned through experience, not handed to them through legislative exceptions.

If we want athletes who serve, then let them serve. Let them commission, lead troops and earn credibility through experience — not exceptions. That credibility is exactly what made Robinson and Villanueva effective ambassadors for military service. They honored their commitments — and that’s the model we should champion: service first, without shortcuts or exemptions.

The integrity of our commissioning process, the example we set for future leaders and the core value of service before self are all at stake. This isn’t about punishing athletes. It’s about protecting the institution, the investment and the promise every cadet makes when they raise their right hand. These commitments are not placeholders — they are sacred, and they must be honored.

Ken Segelhorst is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and former assistant professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he directed MX400: Officership, the superintendent’s capstone course. He is also a fellow at the Simons Center for Ethical Leadership and Interagency Cooperation.

I was in southern Afghanistan in May 2014 when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated near me while covering a routine patrol as a public affairs specialist.

It was something I had a dozen times before, but in a flash I was on my back, ears ringing, lungs full of dust.

I don’t remember the sound — just the silence that came after. That was the first time I learned what silence was — that unique brand that only occurs when your brain is trying to reboot and you’re unsure what may or may not be broken.

The blast knocked me out cold. When I came to, nothing was where it had been. The explosion left me with a traumatic brain injury and partial deafness in my right ear, with tinnitus that still rings to this day. I deal with memory loss, light sensitivity and sudden moments of confusion or panic that attack without warning.

I am fortunate to be alive. Not everyone who has gone through the same experience can say the same. That fact followed me home and into civilian life. It followed me into comedy.

After I was medically retired from the Army, I felt unmoored. I didn’t want to be thanked for my service. I wanted to feel something again — other than adrenaline and dread. I wanted to laugh. I wanted to make other people laugh.

So, I started writing, chasing the rhythm of a good joke like I used to chase good light for a photo while convincing people I was more than just a POG. (Writing that last sentence and saying it out loud, I realize that’s probably the best joke I will ever tell.)

My civilian work eventually took me to Chicago, where I enrolled at The Second City, a comedy institution where the entire curriculum is built around turning pain into timing, a place where you’re not only encouraged but expected to fail. But even with all that structure and guidance, and despite learning from the best and being repeatedly told I was capable and that my story mattered, it still wasn’t enough.

I was scared — terrified, actually. Not of the stage, but of being exposed, of being seen, of letting people in on what the war had done to me.

So, I took a break — a long one at that. I told myself I needed time to write, reset and work on new material. But the truth was more simple: I didn’t know who I was without the uniform, and I wasn’t sure if people would laugh at what was left.

For a long time, I convinced myself I hadn’t earned the right to be on stage. Like telling jokes meant I wasn’t honoring the people who didn’t come home. Or that getting a laugh somehow cheapened what had happened.

But here’s what I’ve learned as months went by: if I survived, I’m still allowed to speak. I’m allowed to create. I’m allowed to be more than what happened to me.

Two years ago, I got back on stage. There wasn’t some profound moment that caused me to do so. I just went out and did it, embracing the fear that had gripped me for so long. With the encouragement from friends and a refresher with the Armed Services Arts Partnership, I slowly started to find my comedic voice again.

Strangely enough, performing again reminded me of being on a mission. You rehearse. You plan. You step into a high-stakes environment where nothing is guaranteed. And then you execute.

The audience, like a patrol route, is unpredictable. You adjust. You move. You adapt. You get through it or you don’t — but you’re changed by it either way.

When I bomb now, I don’t panic, because — without sounding too cliche — I know what actual bombing is. I’ve felt the pressure change before an explosion. I’ve seen the color drain from the world. So, when a joke doesn’t land, I breathe. I wait. I reset. I’ll write something better next time.

What that VBIED taught me — besides basic blast physics — is that timing matters and silence isn’t always failure. Sometimes it’s the space before the punchline.

It also taught me people are always watching how you carry yourself when everything goes wrong. In combat, it’s about bearing. In comedy, it’s about confidence. My pace on stage is a reflection of that. It’s slower, calculated and rehearsed. You don’t have to pretend you’re invincible, but you do have to show the crowd you’re still in control — even when the wheels are coming off.

I used to think comedy and combat were opposites. The two could never co-exist. One is chaos, the other is craft. One is pain, the other is relief. But now I see them as siblings. Both rely on rhythm. Both require you to say the unspeakable out loud. And each demands you be fully present in moments where the stakes are high and the outcome is unknown.

This May will mark 11 years since I was blown up. And while the scars remain, so does the voice. The one that says, “You’re still here. Say something useful.”

Some nights that voice tells a joke about memory loss or PTSD. Other times it gets on stage and tries not to flinch at the light. And then during others it wonders how many people in the audience have their own hidden war stories.

But every night, that voice remembers that laughter is proof of life. And that after everything, I’m still standing.

Still up. Still writing. Still here.

In 1957, Hollywood released “The Deadly Mantis,” a B-grade monster movie starring a praying mantis of nightmare proportions. Its premise: Melting Arctic ice has released a very hungry, million-year-old megabug, and scientists and the U.S. military will have to stop it.

The rampaging insect menaces America’s Arctic military outposts, part of a critical line of national defense, before heading south and meeting its end in New York City.

Yes, it’s over-the-top fiction, but the movie holds some truth about the U.S. military’s concerns then and now about the Arctic’s stability and its role in national security.

US Coast Guard Academy censors ‘climate change’ from its curriculum

In the late 1940s, Arctic temperatures were warming and the Cold War was heating up. The U.S. military had grown increasingly nervous about a Soviet invasion across the Arctic. It built bases and a line of radar stations. The movie used actual military footage of these polar outposts.

But officials wondered: What if sodden snow and vanishing ice stalled American men and machines and weakened these northern defenses?

In response to those concerns, the military created the Snow, Ice and Permafrost Research Establishment, a research center dedicated to the science and engineering of all things frozen: glacier runways, the behavior of ice, the physics of snow and the climates of the past.

It was the beginning of the military’s understanding that climate change couldn’t be ignored.

As I was writing “When the Ice is Gone,” my recent book about Greenland, climate science and the U.S. military, I read government documents from the 1950s and 1960s showing how the Pentagon poured support into climate and cold-region research to boost the national defense.

Initially, military planners recognized threats to their own ability to protect the nation. Over time, the U.S. military would come to see climate change as both a threat in itself and a threat multiplier for national security.

Ice roads, ice cores and bases inside the ice sheet

The military’s snow and ice engineering in the 1950s made it possible for convoys of tracked vehicles to routinely cross Greenland’s ice sheet, while planes landed and took off from ice and snow runways.

In 1953, the Army even built a pair of secret surveillance sites inside the ice sheet, both equipped with Air Force radar units looking 24/7 for Soviet missiles and aircraft, but also with weather stations to understand the Arctic climate system.

The Army drilled the world’s first deep ice core from a base it built within the Greenland ice sheet, Camp Century. Its goal: to understand how climate had changed in the past so they would know how it might change in the future.

The military wasn’t shy about its climate change research successes. The Army’s chief ice scientist, Dr. Henri Bader, spoke on the Voice of America. He promoted ice coring as a way to investigate climates of the past, provide a new understanding of weather, and understand past climatic patterns to gauge and predict the one we are living in today — all strategically important.

In the 1970s, painstaking laboratory work on the Camp Century ice core extracted minuscule amounts of ancient air trapped in tiny bubbles in the ice. Analyses of that gas revealed that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were lower for tens of thousands of years before the industrial revolution. After 1850, carbon dioxide levels crept up slowly at first and then rapidly accelerated. It was direct evidence that people’s actions, including burning coal and oil, were changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Since 1850, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have spiked and global temperatures have warmed by more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit. The past 10 years have been the hottest since recordkeeping began, with 2024 now holding the record. Climate change is now affecting the entire Earth — but most especially the Arctic, which is warming several times faster than the rest of the planet.

Seeing climate change as a threat multiplier

For decades, military leaders have been discussing climate change as a threat and a threat multiplier that could worsen instability and mass migration in already fragile regions of the world.

Climate change can fuel storms, wildfires and rising seas that threaten important military bases. It puts personnel at risk in rising heat and melts sea ice, creating new national security concerns in the Arctic. Climate change can also contribute to instability and conflict when water and food shortages trigger increasing competition for resources, internal and cross-border tensions, or mass migrations.

The military understands that these threats can’t be ignored. As Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro told a conference in September 2024: “Climate resilience is force resilience.”

Consider Naval Station Norfolk. It’s the largest military port facility in the world and sits just above sea level on Virginia’s Atlantic coast. Sea level there rose more than 1.5 feet in the last century, and it’s on track to rise that much again by 2050 as glaciers around the world melt and warming ocean water expands.

High tides already cause delays in repair work, and major storms and their storm surges have damaged expensive equipment. The Navy has built sea walls and worked to restore coastal dunes and marshlands to protect its Virginia properties, but the risks continue to increase.

Planning for the future, the Navy incorporates scientists’ projections of sea level rise and increasing hurricane strength to design more resilient facilities. By adapting to climate change, the U.S. Navy will avoid the fate of another famous marine power: the Norse, forced to abandon their flooded Greenland settlements when sea level there rose about 600 years ago.

Climate change is costly to ignore

As the impacts of climate change grow in both frequency and magnitude, the costs of inaction are increasing. Most economists agree that it’s cheaper to act now than deal with the consequences. Yet, in the past 20 years, the political discourse around addressing the cause and effects of climate change has become increasingly politicized and partisan, stymieing effective action.

In my view, the military’s approach to problem-solving and threat reduction has provided a model for civil society to address climate change in two ways: reducing carbon emissions and adapting to inevitable climate change impacts.

The U.S. military emits more planet warming carbon than Sweden and spent more than $2 billion on energy in 2021. It accounts for more than 70% of energy used by the federal government.

In that context, its embrace of alternative energy, including solar generation, microgrids and wind power, has made economic and environmental sense. The U.S. military has been moving away from fossil fuels, not because of any political agenda, but because of the cost-savings, reliability and energy independence alternatives provide.

As sea ice melts and temperatures rise, the polar region has again become a strategic priority. Russia and China are expanding Arctic shipping routes and eyeing critical mineral deposits as they become accessible. The military knows climate change affects national security, which is why it needs to continue to address the threats a changing climate presents, despite the rhetoric out of Washington.

Yet the U.S. Army — three field armies, six corps and 21 divisions — fought 24 campaigns in the Indo-Pacific in World War II. That’s more campaigns than the Army fought in all other theaters combined in that existential global conflict, and far more than the Marine Corps.

It’s easy to dismiss the Army as irrelevant today in the Indo-Pacific. Yet history tells us otherwise.

Indeed, if America is to effectively deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific, we must be seen by adversaries to pack a serious punch, and that means a significant role for the U.S. Army, because if war comes, America will have to give it all we’ve got.

The Army fights as an integral part of the entire joint force, and it fights as part of the combined force with our allies and partners. We can’t have one of the major elements of the joint force — the Army — mostly sitting on the bench.

That’s why the Army has been investing heavily in the past several years in modernization, not only so it has the right capabilities for any contingency anywhere in the world, but also so it can effectively counter aggression from a peer adversary in the Indo-Pacific.

No feature of Army modernization is more important and relevant to this effort than the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) — a tiltrotor aircraft that can take off, hover and land like a helicopter, yet fly horizontally like an airplane.

Flying conventional helicopters, the U.S. can’t leverage the bench strength that the Army can bring to bear, especially in the vastness of the Indo-Pacific theater. The truncated range and speed of the UH-60 Black Hawk, for example, simply does not provide sufficient capability to give the Army the reach it needs.

With the FLRAA advanced tiltrotor, the Army becomes meaningfully additive to the joint force in the Indo-Pacific.

Just look at what happened to the Marine Corps when they replaced the conventional CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter with the Osprey — the tiltrotor fundamentally transformed the Corps’ concepts of operation.

The Corps went from being able to carry eight Marines 60 miles in a single aircraft, to being able to transport an entire platoon hundreds of miles. Marines suddenly could base farther from shore and strike deeper inland.

The increase in speed and range, combined with runway independence, also opened up new mission sets. Marines could self-deploy over long distances. They could operate in austere, unimproved environments, whether desert or jungle.

Distributed operations became a reality, where Marines could be dispersed over wide areas, making targeting more difficult for the enemy and increasing survivability. This distributed operational posture also gave Marines more flexibility in maneuver, creating more dilemmas for the enemy.

The Army currently lacks these capabilities and thus, these advantages. The Army pioneered the concept of air assault, forged in the crucible of Vietnam, that gave our fighting forces the ability to overcome the tyranny of terrain and take the fight directly to the enemy.

It’s time to give today’s soldiers that same advantage over our future, sophisticated enemies.

The Army is a maneuver force. That means it embodies both movement and fires. If you engage only at range with fires, you stall out in attrition warfare. To finish the fight, you need to move assault forces at distances consistent with long-range precision and joint fires in order to achieve decisive results. FLRAA gives the Army a 21st-century capability for conducting such maneuver warfare.

Whether seizing terrain or conducting raids and ambushes, the FLRAA tiltrotor’s speed, range, survivability and payload will be critical, especially in the vast distances of the Indo-Pacific. Consider what this tiltrotor technology will mean to medical evacuation, maritime interdiction, combat search and rescue, humanitarian relief, tactical resupply and armed escort. It changes the fundamental concepts for how our Army will fight.

The Army is developing new concepts of operation to achieve “large-scale, long-range air assault,” or L2A2. This is intended to “deliver one brigade combat team in one period of darkness, over 500 miles, arriving behind enemy lines, and able to conduct sustained combat operations,” said Maj. Gen. Brett Sylvia, who leads the 101st Airborne Division. Today’s force, equipped with Black Hawks, requires multiple periods of darkness and large numbers of soldiers, equipment and fuel to achieve the same result.

If we fail to modernize the Army’s air assault and adopt new doctrines around advanced tiltrotor capability, we will be leaving significant forces off the field. Imagine a war in the Pacific where the Army, our largest service in terms of personnel, is forced to sit on the sidelines for lack of relevant capability.

That’s why Congress and the Army need to stop spending precious funds on modernizing legacy Black Hawks. Modernizing the Black Hawk provides only incremental improvements; it does not give the Army the meaningful quantum leap in capability that we need in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere.

We are in a zero-sum budgeting environment, and every dollar spent on Black Hawk modernization is a dollar not spent on a game-changing transformation of the Army. Very simply, that program does not provide enough bang for the buck.

The decisions our policymakers in Washington make today will decide whether America can bring to bear all of our potential military end strength, or just some of it, to resist aggression in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere for the foreseeable future.

Let’s not sideline some of our best players — we need to go all-in for the win in the Indo-Pacific. That means full-throttle support for the FLRAA tiltrotor program so we can bring the Army to the fight.

Maj. Gen. Rudolph “Rudy” Ostovich (ret.) is the former chief of branch and commanding general of U.S. Army Aviation Center. He also served as the Army’s director of doctrine, J5 Commander in Chief, Pacific Command (today’s U.S. Indo-Pacific Command) and vice director of the Joint Staff with over 30 years of active duty as both an infantry and aviation officer.

Hegseth obfuscated to such an extent that the inescapable conclusion was that he rejects the laws and treaties requiring U.S. forces to abide by these long-established principles — among them, not torturing POWs, not harming civilians and not wantonly destroying homes or schools.

Then, shortly after taking the oath of office, Hegseth fired the top lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. He did so reportedly without having spoken to any of them.

Hegseth has often asserted that the Pentagon’s lawyers have unduly restricted U.S. warfighters on the battlefield. But he’s mistaken: It’s not the lawyers who hold American service members to such high standards, but the law itself. His decision represents a blatant disregard for that law.

Hegseth: Top military lawyers fired because they weren’t ‘well-suited’

The U.S. military is the best fighting force in the world, not only because it is equipped with the most sophisticated technology and lethal weapons but because it trains to win a war of principles.

U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are taught that the job of a warfighter is not just to kill the enemy and win the battle, but to win the war by upholding the values, legitimacy and honor of our country and the reputation of the U.S. military. That means training to operate as a disciplined force, but also abiding by the Geneva Conventions, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and federal criminal law on war crimes.

The laws of war are neither a new creation nor some foreign imposition. They are, in part, an American innovation. Amid the bloodiest war in American history, President Lincoln codified fundamental aspects of the laws of armed conflict in the Lieber Code, which formed the foundation for the Geneva Conventions.

The fundamental principles underlying the Geneva Conventions might seem obvious today — that war should not cause unnecessary suffering; that noncombatants deserve protection; that medical personnel must be allowed to perform their humanitarian work; that certain methods of warfare are simply too inhumane to be permitted; and that even in war, there must be rules that preserve human dignity.

There are 196 state parties to the Geneva Conventions. These principles guide a baseline of behavior in armed conflict that has been nearly universally accepted. They protect not only civilians but also combatants, ensuring care for our own injured soldiers and POWs that fall under the control of foreign forces.

The same is true of our Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is derived from the principles enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. They are not simply aspirations that service members are free to ignore or interpret as they please. They are the law — the basis of the integrity and discipline that make the U.S. military the most respected in the world — and every U.S. service member is bound and trained to follow them.

Consider the alternative. U.S. troops intentionally or recklessly shoot a defenseless civilian or torture a prisoner. Of course, this is behavior that the American people firmly reject. Both are war crimes, and neither helps the U.S. win wars. But Hegseth is on record defending this type of criminal misconduct. Now, he is terminating the career lawyers whose job was to provide warfighters with the guidance necessary to comply with the law.

The unmistakable message is that Hegseth doesn’t trust America’s service members. And, the message that will be heard by young recruits is that the ends justify the means, no matter how egregious or inhumane the misconduct.

These actions make civilians and service members alike less safe. In Afghanistan and Iraq, like Vietnam decades earlier, we saw how civilian deaths, for which U.S. forces were rarely punished, turned the local population against U.S. forces and into the arms of the enemy.

We also learned that respecting the laws of war helps protect our own troops from losing faith in the mission and suffering moral injury. They will have to live the rest of their lives with the memories of those they killed, and it is difficult to overstate the importance of knowing they acted in a manner that was lawful and honorable. When our military leaders abandon the institutional mechanisms to uphold the law and protect civilians, they betray the trust of the warfighters who risk their lives for our country.

Some frustrated veterans, like Hegseth, argue, in essence, that if U.S. forces had been allowed to act with unchecked brutality and impunity, we would have been victorious in those wars.

But that is not the lesson our decorated military experts at the National War College or West Point have learned. Decades of military studies and tactical reviews have concluded that when U.S. forces used excessive force or killed civilians with impunity, our mission suffered.

Despite an enduring ability to unleash immense firepower against our enemies, we have faced setbacks every time the U.S. mistakenly bombed an innocent family or empowered a corrupt and abusive warlord.

From the U.S. Constitution to the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, our democracy is built on the rule of law. Our nation’s lawyers in uniform are responsible for ensuring that our armed forces live up to and protect the values and principles our nation stands for. Firing them, and dismissing their value, is a grave error.

As the oldest democracy with the most powerful military, it’s in our national interest to uphold the laws of war. And perhaps most importantly, it distinguishes us from adversaries who do not share the American people’s appreciation of the incalculable value of innocent life.

Patrick Leahy is a former U.S. senator, Senate president pro tempore and attorney who represented Vermont in the U.S. Senate from 1975 to 2023.

Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (Ret.), is a graduate of West Point who served in the Korean and Vietnam wars and as president of the National Defense University.

Do you know what data drove the Air Force pilot height requirements until 2020?

It was a 1967 anthropometric study that analyzed data from only men.

While it’s understandable why a male-only sample might have been the norm at the time, most agree its relevance has long passed. Despite this, the 1967 study continued to shape aircraft development and pilot selection — meaning it informed how to design cockpits and the height required to most effectively fit in those cockpits — for over five decades. This led to 96.3% of male candidates meeting the height requirements, while only 66% of women — and even fewer Black, Hispanic and Asian women (26%, 28%, and 39%, respectively) — proved eligible. These effects went unaddressed for years, despite a 20-year shortage of over 2,000 pilots undermining military readiness.

I’m not saying that leaders ignored the pilot shortage and intentionally disqualified women (and to a greater degree, minority women) from serving as pilots in 1967, since then or today. But I am saying that 1967 biases and restrictions shaped Air Force policy that went unchecked for decades, resulting in unnecessarily discriminatory accessions requirements until 2020.

And even though 2020 represents a big step forward in maximizing pilot talent and addressing the pilot shortage, the discriminatory damage is not done. This is because pilots, who are disproportionately selected for high-level Air Force leadership roles, become the policymakers and enforcers later in their careers. Thus, an antiquated height requirement that unintentionally limited the diversity of those who could become pilots will continue to undermine diversity in our highest ranks decades from now.

Lack of diverse leadership perspectives is precisely what enabled the 1967 all-male-data-driven requirements to persist for decades. And if a woman directly affected by the policy hadn’t researched the policy’s history, and used her voice to educate leaders on its discriminatory impacts, the Air Force pilot height requirements likely would not have changed.

Thankfully, that woman’s voice was amplified by an Air Force Barrier Analysis Working Group, or BAWG. These working groups evaluate how available data, practices and policies may undermine military readiness (like the pilot shortage) or create barriers to military service. They use data and desired readiness outcomes to offer solutions for maximizing talent across demographics.

Unfortunately, these working groups were dismantled following President Donald Trump’s executive order on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, known as DEIA, which claimed that diversity initiatives were divisive. By blanketly canceling these programs, leaders failed to account for their impact on national security. Beyond concerns of fairness versus divisiveness, many abolished programs enabled preparedness for future conflicts to ensure our unchallenged global presence.

Those who argue that barriers to women’s and minority members’ service don’t affect national security should consider two points: 1) who is willing and able to serve, and 2) how the military engages in modern conflict.

In 2020, only 23% of young Americans met the military’s medical and behavioral standards, and women qualified at higher rates than men. Additionally, studies show future conflicts will rely more on intelligence, medical support and technological expertise than brute strength. And women make up the majority of many of those professions. For example, over 85% of U.S. nurses and 76% of health care professionals are women.

As the risk of war with major powers grows, the military will need diverse talent more than ever. Historically, the military has expanded to include women during wartime but contracted their roles afterward. This cycle appears to continue today, creating risk for those serving.

One concrete example of these risks is gear development. Despite women being eligible for all combat roles since 2013, efforts to ensure fitting body armor have been slow. A 2023 Army report revealed that 44% of women in Army Special Operations faced issues with ill-fitting equipment.

Without intentional research to understand these issues, the problem would have remained unaddressed.

Now that the problem is known, it needs to be corrected, along with other health and readiness gaps that BAWGs were addressing, such as developing urinary devices for women to use on extended flights, enabling women’s access to reproductive care and improving shaving waiver processes that disproportionately affect Black men. But executive mandates to stand down anything that may be construed as “DEIA,” alongside pressures to disregard race and gender, creates a new gap. Who will take on these readiness imperatives now?

Reducing diversity efforts during our current state of peace might not feel risky to some. But if we enter war with a capable, competitive nation, our lack of readiness to utilize diverse talent will be undeniable. And it will be too late.

Steps taken today to end diversity efforts will return us to outdated data, hinder our ability to recruit diverse talent necessary for the all-volunteer force and increase health and safety risks for minority service members. These actions will ultimately undermine our military’s modernization, readiness and effectiveness far into the future.

His suggestion to deploy U.S. Special Forces to dismantle cartels has met with speculation. In fact, U.S. Special Forces and federal law enforcement agents have cooperated successfully against international DTOs in the past — and their sacrifices are unfortunately being forgotten.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks brought attention to something overlooked for many years — the connection between terrorist activities and international drug trafficking. As the Global War on Terror developed, it became clear that Afghanistan-based drug traffickers were supporting the Islamic terrorist organizations through the opium and hashish trade.

With Afghanistan producing more than 80% of the world’s illicit opium, Islamic terrorists relied on drug trafficking to fund weapons, supplies and recruit fighters. The strong connection between drugs and terror prompted a 2010 report from the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control to state that “the Taliban operates as a drug cartel and … the drug trade in Afghanistan must be addressed with the same level of resolve as the insurgency.”

A partnership between DOD and law enforcement

The U.S. military faced a truly complex problem. Transnational criminal DTOs are well-armed, well-funded and often receive support from state actors, and operate with organization and command structures that can mirror military forces.

Some drug lords, such as Burma’s Khun Sa, have wielded private militia groups. However, the criminal nature of DTOs makes them different from military forces. Dismantling them successfully requires not only military-level strength but law enforcement expertise. This became evident in Afghanistan as military forces encountered clandestine drug processing labs throughout the country.

This led to a close and successful partnership between the Pentagon and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Although newer and smaller than other three-letter agencies, the DEA is second to none in the expertise it commands in detecting and dismantling drug cartels and thwarting complex illegal drug-related operations.

As a single mission agency, the DEA’s core focus is to identify and eliminate the most nefarious criminal networks. The level of criminal violence and deceit that that DEA agents tackle regularly would appall members of the public, yet many of their successes will forever be unknown.

In the wake of 9/11, the U.S. government invited all federal agencies to participate in the Global War on Terror by allocating resources and developing a strategy to assist with eradicating global threats. This resulted in the creation of DEA’s Kabul Country Office, which at its height consisted of 50 special agents and intelligence analysts who set out to identify and target the most notorious drug traffickers in the region.

Those efforts revealed that most of these traffickers were connected to the same terrorist groups that the Defense Department was anxiously targeting.

In 2004, the U.S. military and the DEA expanded their cooperation with the successful creation of the DEA’s Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Team, or FAST. This saw elite SOCOM units paired with a highly trained and select group of top-notch criminal investigators from DEA with superb tactical acumen.

Successful missions

This joint venture was aimed at dismantling narco-terrorist groups in remote areas where deeply rooted criminal activity and related extreme violence existed — including not only in Afghanistan but in other regions such as Central and South America.

SOCOM units including the U.S. Army Green Berets, the U.S. Navy SEALs, the U.S. Marine Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC), the 160th Special Operations Aviation Unit (SOAR) — better known as the Night Stalkers — and international coalition forces worked closely and successfully with FAST agents to thwart transnational criminal groups.

While SOCOM units focused on accomplishing military objectives and took on violent narco-terrorists, law enforcement agents trained and mentored local counterparts on evidence collection, processing of evidence, informant handling, arrests and interpreting intelligence to uncover additional criminal activity.

This mutual support accomplished much. In Afghanistan in 2008, U.S. Special Forces and FAST agents seized over 262 metric tons of hashish in Operation Albatross from a Taliban “superlab.”

From May to June 2011, Special Forces units and FAST agents coordinated Operation Khafa Kardan, a 30-day mission in which 90 law enforcement operations took place alongside U.S. military missions, resulting in the seizure of 12,766 kilograms of opium, 127 kilograms of heroin, 25,666 kilograms of precursor chemicals in addition to an estimated 50 pounds of homemade explosives plus IEDs and weapons. These examples barely scratch the surface of what was achieved.

Fallen heroes

Great sacrifices were made to accomplish these missions. On Oct. 26, 2009, seven U.S. military service members were killed alongside three DEA agents in a helicopter crash in western Afghanistan. Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland of SOCOM designated the incident as a combat-related loss.

The U.S. soldiers included Chief Warrant Officer Michael P. Montgomery, Chief Warrant Officer Niall Lyons, Staff Sgt. Shawn McNabb, Sgt. Josue Hernandez-Chavez and Sgt. Nikolas Mueller of SOAR, and Staff Sgt. Keith R. Bishop and Sgt. 1st Class David E. Metzger of the 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne).

The three DEA agents who lost their lives were Special Agents Chad Michael, Forrest Leamon and Michael Weston. SA Michael had previously worked with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, while SA Weston and SA Leamon were U.S. military veterans. SA Weston had served in both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps, and SA Leamon had served in the U.S. Navy.

Relics of the fallen DEA agents’ personal effects, including a charred uniform patch and melted firearm fragments, were recovered from the smoldering 2009 helicopter crash at great personal risk. These hallowed items were mounted in a shadowbox at FAST headquarters to honor the memory of the fallen.

The names of all 10 men who lost their lives together in devotion to a common cause are inscribed on a single gravestone at Arlington National Cemetery.

Not to be forgotten

Despite its far-reaching successes, the FAST program was disbanded in March 2017 under the tenure of DEA’s Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2015.

The shadowbox containing the Afghanistan crash relics from the fallen—displayed reverently in FAST headquarters as a memorial—was unceremoniously removed from display and warehoused by DEA after the program ended with brutal disregard.

The sacrifices made by US Special Forces and law enforcement agents in combating narco-terrorists are undimmed in what they achieved together and in the memory they left in the hearts of their comrades, who still recall them vividly and honor them.

Although its achievements have faded from view in recent years, the FAST program created a successful blueprint for how the US military can successfully tackle violent threats posed by transnational criminal organizations alongside federal law enforcement—a blueprint that is highly relevant today.

Renewable energy is a politically volatile topic, but U.S. military leaders should not categorically dismiss the benefits. Investing in energy resilience measures today, including in renewable energy, could make a large difference in future military preparedness. One solution that could reduce reliance on the civilian grid and on fossil fuels is continuing research and development into wind, solar, and hydro-powered microgrids. Microgrids are localized energy systems that can power a military installation in conjunction with the civilian electric grid but be disconnected when necessary.

Developing independent power infrastructure for the military is important because our civilian power distribution networks are vulnerable to natural disasters and malicious actors. Some experts estimate that, with the rise of smart appliances, there are over 24,000 weak-points in the U.S. electric grid that are vulnerable to either physical or cyber attack. It is too expensive for the DoD to fortify the entire electric grid; it is far easier to ensure energy resilience on bases instead. The Air Force, Army and Navy highlighted infrastructure resilience as a priority in recent basing and facilities strategies.

Logistics networks, such as those needed for fueling a combustion plant or a diesel generator, are also vulnerable. In Afghanistan, for example, experts estimate that one out of every 24 fuel convoys faced attacks resulting in at least one casualty. The same risks would only be higher in a conflict with a near-peer adversary. Conflict might not merely disrupt fuel flows but could halt fuel deliveries altogether. While we do not often think of our domestic bases (outside of Hawaii and Guam) as particularly vulnerable, if an adversary can hack the White House Office of Personnel Management or the Treasury Department, they can likely affect power generation for at least some U.S. bases.

Indeed, though general systems, like refrigeration and lighting, are very important, other critical systems rely on constant power generation as well. Most command-and-control systems would be hurt by energy outages, as would runway lighting, radar equipment, and weather warning systems. Buildings that store highly classified information rely on intrusion systems to prevent unauthorized access of information. Those systems are useless without power, leaving those areas to be watched by individual service members, which, in turn, removes them from other valuable tasks

Thus, the military requires more power and more reliable power than most civilian installations of similar purpose. Military analysts have discussed how using renewable-powered microgrids can enhance resilience and produce more power at the installation during times of peak need. Today, however, the most common power back-up is a diesel generator. These generators still rely on fuel and fuel logistics, which means they are only as resilient as the fossil fuel supply chain itself. Microgrids powered by renewables could be especially valuable, therefore, in more austere locations far removed from traditional supply corridors.

To anticipate and circumvent energy vulnerabilities, DoD can employ microgrids on bases, focusing on forms of energy generation that don’t need extensive logistics. In California, bases have already begun deploying microgrids using solar power. Solar power, if used in the right locations, could run bases for weeks on end. Wind is another alternative. In Ukraine, leaders learned quickly that wind energy is much less vulnerable to physical attack than traditional energy sources. Rather than shooting at one power plant, for example, an adversary seeking to disable a wind farm would have to score hits on multiple individual windmills. Even the transformer or substation at a wind farm can be repaired relatively quickly, enabling the site to recover.

Investing in wind, solar, or hydro-powered microgrids domestically would provide an opportunity for the U.S. military to learn how to create non-fuel reliant power. Learning how to build and use microgrids on domestic bases in peacetime would provide necessary training and expertise; the lessons we can learn on bases at home could then be translated to bases abroad. Microgrids that do not rely on fossil fuel supply chains would be hugely beneficial in powering installations across the Indo-Pacific in the event of a conflict with China.

The U.S. military should test and refine innovative alternatives to civilian energy generation on domestic bases to protect from power disruptions – whether from natural disasters or an adversary. Microgrids powered by non-fuel-reliant energy sources offer a promising solution to enhance domestic base resilience. By investing in and implementing these innovative energy solutions, the U.S. military can simultaneously strengthen installations now and better prepare for the operational challenges of tomorrow.

Nevada Joan Lee is a research associate, and Christopher Preble is a senior fellow and director, in the Stimson Center’s Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program.

Having one individual responsible and accountable for both USCYBERCOM and the NSA has been the United States’ most critical advantage in cyberspace. Although this setup predates the 2010 creation of USCYBERCOM by six years, the military command’s formal establishment spurred debates over separating organizational leadership. Many talking points against a dual hat have not changed, and the Trump administration seems set on moving forward with an outdated view.

Operating in cyberspace is far more complex than it once was. Fighting today’s digital threats requires the fluid setting and resetting of network security through continuous cyber operations to sustain long-term initiative. In this environment of persistent engagement, the technical and operational requirements for military and intelligence efforts have largely converged. With similar lines of code used for network access and exploiting vulnerabilities, intelligence collection has become nearly indistinguishable from planting disruptive malware. Adversaries have long recognized this by blending military and intelligence activities in cyberspace.

Increased alignment between USCYBERCOM and the NSA also marks a significant change, and the dual hat has evolved to manage the resulting synergy. When USCYBERCOM initially gained footing, the arrangement managed the military’s reliance on the NSA and capability borrowing (i.e., vulnerabilities, exploits, and personnel) across organizations to meet separate operating pictures. That relationship looks very different today. The dual hat now balances overlapping resource requirements and the intermingling of military disruption with secretive intelligence collection. As USCYBERCOM and the NSA have become more symbiotic, the dual hat has adapted to leverage operational integration and enhance the organizations’ independent and joint effectiveness.

In grappling with these changes, dual-hatted leadership has created inter-organizational processes to increase effectiveness in cyberspace. For example, the Integrated Cyber Center and Joint Operations Center (ICC/JOC) launched in 2018 literally broke down walls. Previously, NSA and USCYBERCOM had operations centers in different classified rooms physically separated by a secure door. The ICC/JOC introduced a common operations floor with dedicated spaces for USCYBERCOM and NSA personnel. By eliminating barriers, the ICC/JOC created more communication at the operator level to achieve greater awareness, speed and impact.

Operational success has followed organizational change. Leveraging enhanced coordination from unified leadership, the joint USCYBERCOM-NSA Election Security Group task force has effectively combatted foreign interference in U.S. elections. Formed in 2020, it grew directly out of the dual hat’s Russia Small Group that disrupted Russian cyber meddling during the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Pooling resources for greater impact, while advocating for and protecting the distinct contributions of USCYBERCOM and the NSA, would be far more difficult under split leadership.

Separate leaders risk prioritizing their own organizational outcomes at the expense of operational speed and combined effectiveness. It is true that the dual hat does not eliminate all interagency competition over cyber operations. For instance, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) delayed USCYBERCOM’s 2016 offensive against the Islamic State with objections over the military’s interagency reporting and update requirements. The CIA and USCYBERCOM had already agreed on communication measures, so the delay was really about preserving bureaucratic influence. But it is equally true that, because the preponderance of cyber operations originates from Fort Meade, centralized authority preserves speed by preventing turf disputes and operational delays between independent USCYBERCOM and NSA heads.

Without the dual hat, USCYBERCOM-NSA coordination and dispute resolution become more cumbersome and subject to an unpredictable working relationship between chiefs with differing ranks. A four-star officer must lead USCYBERCOM; the NSA only requires a three-star chief. Currently, one four-star commander reports to both the defense secretary (as USCYBERCOM commander) and to the national intelligence director (as NSA director). With both military and intelligence roles, the dual hat efficiently balances tradeoffs in cyber operations while subjecting NSA activities to the law of armed conflict. With two different leaders, disputes would escalate to the White House for resolution, and the NSA faces greater risks of politicization in the process. A return to laborious interagency reviews would also negate the legacy of the first Trump administration, which reduced decision times for cyber operations.

The cost of splitting USCYBERCOM-NSA leadership would also create a nightmare for the Trump White House. Cyber Command lacks sufficient resources to operate fully independently from the NSA. Dividing authority will require duplicated efforts for USCYBERCOM to secure its own cyber resources in an already resource-scarce environment. Duplication would be particularly costly given declining budgets and spending power that demand better use of existing resources. It would also be a significant misstep for an administration focused on greater government efficiency.

Unwinding America’s military-intelligence leadership for cyber operations would be a gift to hackers in Beijing, Moscow, Tehran and Pyongyang. These adversaries will not wait for the U.S. to devise a new bureaucratic architecture. Instead, the new administration should build on the success of the dual hat. It has aligned USCYBERCOM and NSA effectiveness for combined impact with a unity of effort crucial for achieving the operational speed and scale needed to secure U.S. interests in cyberspace. The dual hat has been a defining feature of U.S. cyber operations, not a bug. The Trump administration should be wary of throwing away another 20 years of USCYBERCOM-NSA success.

Jason Blessing, Ph.D., is a research analyst at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. His research expertise focuses on cybersecurity as well as international partnerships. All views are his own and do not represent the views of the Institute. Follow him on LinkedIn and on X/Twitter @JasonABlessing.

I am a survivor of sexual harassment in the Coast Guard and I support Fagan’s firing.

For the past 18 months, sexual harassment and sexual assault survivors repeatedly asked Fagan when Coast Guard leaders who failed to prosecute known sexual assaults at the Coast Guard Academy and in the service would be prosecuted. We asked when Adm. Karl Schultz, former Coast Guard commandant, would be held accountable for failing to share the Operations Fouled Anchor (OFA) report with Congress with the Coast Guard community.

No response. No accountability.

Shame on those who failed to take Coast Guard sexual assault seriously

My first attempt at transparency was at the November 2023 “healing” event. The event, held five months after CNN reported on OFA, intended to provide survivors with a venue to talk about sexual assault in the Coast Guard. Fagan, who was briefing sexual harassment and sexual assault survivors, shared that she was committed to not creating new survivors. It was a laudable goal, but what about current survivors?

I politely stood up in a room full of women carrying decades of pain and asked, what about us? When will Coast Guard leaders be held accountable? Fagan declined to answer the question.

Later that day, Steve Poulin, a former Judge Advocate General colleague of mine and then Coast Guard vice commandant, thanked me for advocating for Coast Guard sexual assault and sexual harassment survivors. Empty words. I’m a former agency leader, having served as chief counsel for the Maritime Administration between 2009-2012. He was the vice commandant, the No. 2 in command in the Coast Guard. Why wasn’t he doing more in 2023? He was the Coast Guard chief counsel when OFA began in 2014. Why didn’t he hold former Coast Guard leaders accountable for failing to prosecute crimes?

I asked again in December 2024. I stood up at a Navy League breakfast and asked Fagan about accountability. Fagan was at the event to share information about the service with Navy League members. I wanted to know what was happening with OFA. Fagan thanked me for my “courage” in asking the question.

There is nothing courageous about asking about crimes. I’m simply a Coast Guard veteran and former JAG, who is appalled by the Coast Guard admiral’s club who refuses to hold each other accountable.

Thad Allen, former Coast Guard commandant and Fagan’s boss, describes Fagan as a “leader of character and integrity whom he looked to for counseling and support and would do so again without hesitation. … She has faced the most difficult challenges in a responsible, forthright and forward-looking manner … always acting in the best interest of the service.”

I agree with Allen’s assessment. Fagan always looked out for the best interest of the service and Coast Guard sexual harassment and sexual assault survivors suffered as a result.

Fagan knew about OFA before she became commandant, according to her testimony before Congress in June 2024. Fagan “formally” learned about OFA in 2018 when she joined the Coast Guard Leadership Council in her role as Pacific Area Commander (2018-2021). The decision not to share the OFA report with Congress occurred in 2020, the period in which Fagan was on the Leadership Council.

Fagan was nominated to be Vice Commandant in 2021. She did not share information regarding OFA with Congress as part of her nomination process. Fagan was nominated to be commandant in 2022. Again, she did not share OFA info.

It wasn’t until CNN reported on OFA in June 2023 that Fagan publicly admitted to knowing the most damaging secret in the service — crimes were committed but not prosecuted and the report summarizing these crimes and the lack of accountability was not shared with Congress.

Coast Guard sexual harassment and sexual assault survivors weren’t the only ones calling for accountability. Five Congressional committees were also pressing the service for information and all they got were blacked-out pages. Hours were spent lining out thousands of pages of documents, an effort that appeared to limit Congress’ oversight.

The criticism of Fagan’s firing by former Coast Guard leaders has led many in the Coast Guard sexual harassment and sexual assault to shake their heads. Yet again, admirals are looking after themselves while survivors, male and female, struggle to live with the unaddressed pain.

Sexual assault is a crime. It’s a crime that should be prosecuted and for the first time in history a service chief was fired for not doing her job to address this crime. It was the first time in 18 months since OFA was uncovered that an admiral was held accountable and that’s a good thing.

K. Denise Rucker Krepp is a Coast Guard veteran and former Maritime Administration chief counsel.

At any point in time, many of the 1.3 million active-duty U.S. service members stationed across the world are taking enormous risks in service to our nation. They may be flying a training mission over Texas. They may be flying a combat mission against ISIS. They may be standing watch on the border with North Korea. For each of them, there is a spouse, a kid, parents, brothers and sisters who pray for their safety.

Everyone who has worn the flag on their uniform knows the risks and sacrifices made by our troops and their loved ones. It’s a system that depends on discipline, training and trust. Trust in the people beside you in the cockpit. Trust in your commanding officer. And trust all the way up the organizational chart, including in the secretary of defense.

The defense secretary is one of the biggest jobs in the world: an indispensable civilian check at the top of our military apparatus. This week, the Senate Armed Services Committee on which we serve will hold a confirmation hearing for President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the position, Pete Hegseth.

Our responsibility is to make sure that the person who gets this job has the experience and judgment required to walk into a room of anyone from cadets to foreign military leaders and earn their respect and trust. It has to be someone who can manage the bureaucracy — not have it manage them. It must be someone who not only has real ideas about how to use our resources to best counter threats we face around the world, but who can also work quickly and effectively to put those ideas into practice. It must be someone capable of managing any kind of budget, let alone one of more than $800 billion; who can plan and execute the kind of complex multidomain missions that keep our country safe; and who has proven themselves both able and worthy of leading our service members who ask for so little in exchange for risking so much.

From everything we know, it’s extremely unclear if Mr. Hegseth is that person.

One quick glance at his resume and concerns over his lack of experience and qualifications become obvious.

Mr. Hegseth likes to talk about how the U.S. military is the ultimate meritocracy. We agree. So let’s talk about his merits for this job: While we respect his service in the Army Reserve and National Guard, he did not rise to a command position where he would learn the management, joint forces operations, logistics and other skills relevant to the role he’s up for now. He never commanded a task force or a detachment — nothing near the scale or scope of the 3 million people who make up the DOD.

These military experiences aren’t requirements for the job, but his civilian leadership experience is not just limited, it is also fraught with evidence that he is not an effective or trusted leader. He financially mismanaged two veterans political organizations, with his staff alleging that he misused funds, was frequently drunk in front of them and fostered an environment where sexual harassment was an issue. He spent the last seven years as a Fox News host, where his alcohol consumption was also a concern among his co-workers. We would not tolerate this kind of reckless behavior from recruits — there is absolutely zero reason we should tolerate it from the man who is supposed to be their leader.

Mr. Hegseth will have the chance to answer for all of this at his confirmation hearing, along with the opportunity to share what, if any, views he has on the critical programs and decisions that will be awaiting the next person to have this job. As of right now, the only defense policies he has made clear are his beliefs that our military’s diversity is a weakness, not a strength, and that women should not serve in combat. These positions aren’t just wrong, they’re dangerous, and they leave us doubting whether Mr. Hegseth understands what makes our military the most lethal fighting force in the world. It would simply not be possible to go to war without the 225,000 female service members in our ranks. And frankly, Mr. Hegseth, these women have proven themselves capable of handling the jobs they’ve earned, while you still have much work to do.

The reality is that the world is too dangerous of a place, and our service members’ lives too precious, to lower the bar. Those in uniform today deserve a strategic, experienced, well-qualified leader who they know will have their backs — and who has what it takes to prepare and equip them to win whatever fight they face.

This week, Mr. Hegseth has an opportunity to show us and the American people if he meets that basic standard.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., is a retired U.S. Navy captain who served in Operation Desert Storm. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., is a retired U.S. Army National Guard lieutenant colonel who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I served with Doug for six years in the House and was privileged to get a front-row seat to witness his character, servant leadership, and care for the betterment of all Americans, from all walks of life.

During the 118th Congress, my committee uncovered numerous, preventable, and frankly unacceptable scandals and missteps by the Biden-Harris administration. From lies coming from the White House that veterans’ benefits were at risk of being cut, to issues of sexual harassment and a lack of accountability for those at VA who allowed it, to the Biden-Harris administration shelling out thousands of dollars in bonuses to D.C. office staff instead of the frontline VA workers they were meant for — all of these actions go against the very intent of VA as a government agency.

The VA was created for the veteran, not government bureaucracy. But time and time again, over the course of my 10 years on the House VA Committee, first as a committee member, and then as chairman, I have seen people come in who lose sight of that core principle.

President Lincoln was right when he said America shall “care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.”

Red tape and political posturing should not precede that mission. I know my friend Doug Collins understands this without a second thought. Particularly due to his service in the Navy, then as an Air Force reservist who deployed to Iraq, and later an accomplished attorney and representative of his community on Capitol Hill. Doug understands how high the stakes are for our nation’s veterans and their families, because his family is one of them.

He understands that red tape should not stand in the way of veterans across the country being able to receive the health care choice they are eligible for, or the benefits they are entitled to. He understands that bad VA employees who aren’t upholding VA’s core mission should not just be shuffled around to another facility, they should be asked to find a new paycheck. He understands that a government bureaucrat shouldn’t decide whether or not a veteran gets due process before they lose a constitutional right, a judge should. He understands that woke policies have crippled the quick delivery of care and benefits to veterans nationwide.

My friend from Georgia understands common sense, which is why he will fight tooth and nail at the second-largest government agency to put the people it serves – not the status quo – back at the core of its mission.

Together, we will immediately move to implement these changes at VA to restore veterans’ faith in the agency, deliver on the mandate the American people have given their elected officials, and ultimately ensure that veterans and their families have the opportunities to realize the American Dream. Veterans and their families have earned nothing less.

I look forward to Doug’s swift confirmation by my colleagues in the Senate to serve as the twelfth Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I am ready to work with him on day one to implement President Trump’s veteran-first agenda. Let’s get to work.

Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., is a Marine Corps veteran and serves as the Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

This duality underscores a uniquely American commitment to the freedom of religious expression enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is a reminder of the delicate balance between our secular status as a nation-state and the religious freedom that typifies our legal and cultural framework.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects both the free exercise of religion and guards against government establishment of religion. These twin protections ensure that citizens can freely express their beliefs — or choose not to — without fear of coercion or marginalization.

This commitment is not merely theoretical; it is the foundation of the Department of Defense’s approach to religious accommodation within the armed forces.

In 1st, Sikh man graduates from Marine boot camp with turban, beard

A key aspect of this protection is that the government, including the Department of Defense, does not, will not and cannot define “religion.”

To do so would be to infringe upon the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Any governmental attempt to define religion risks excluding belief systems or practices that may not fit a predefined framework.

Such an action would inherently limit the full breadth of religious expression and potentially marginalize minority or nontraditional beliefs. Instead, the U.S. government operates from a position of neutrality, allowing individuals to define their own religious practices and convictions.

This neutrality is particularly important in the armed forces, where individuals from diverse religious backgrounds serve together in pursuit of a common mission to protect the security of our nation.

Religious accommodation is an essential aspect of military policy, reflecting the importance of respecting and protecting the beliefs of all service members. Whether it involves granting time for prayer, providing dietary accommodations or ensuring the ability to wear religious symbols, the Defense Department’s policies are guided by the principle that no service member should have to choose between their faith and their duty.

Religious accommodation in the military also serves a practical purpose. By honoring the diverse beliefs of service members, the Defense Department fosters a more inclusive and cohesive force.

This inclusivity strengthens the military’s readiness, as service members who feel respected and valued are better able to thrive. Moreover, this commitment to religious freedom reflects the values that service members are sworn to defend — values that set the United States apart as a beacon of liberty.

The interplay between secularity and religious expression is what makes holiday greetings like “Merry Christmas” possible.

It’s an expression that acknowledges a specific religious tradition, whereas “Happy Holidays,” on the other hand, encompasses a broader spectrum of beliefs and practices that flourish in a society committed to freedom of conscience.

Both greetings play an important role in our society. And for service members, this balance is more than symbolic; it is a lived reality that underscores the strength of the Constitution we have pledged to uphold. In fact, religious holiday greetings offered with genuine sincerity ought to be recognized as symbols of the unique religious freedom we are afforded in the U.S.

Thus, as we celebrate another holiday season, let us remember the profound importance of the First Amendment as we exchange season’s greetings with one another.

It is the foundation that ensures the Defense Department, and the nation it serves, remains a place where all beliefs are respected. This reality is a testament to the strength and resilience of a truly pluralistic society — a society where freedom of religion is not just a legal principle but a shared commitment to honor the dignity of every individual.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Chaplain (Maj.) Jordan Henricks is an active duty Army Chaplain currently serving as the world religions instructor at the U.S. Institute for Religious Leadership.

The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the United States Army or the Army Chaplain Corps.

Instead, the article was another key salvo in an ongoing attack to portray veterans as pariahs leeching off the American taxpayer. We heard similar ham-handed criticism in recent years from The Washington Post, former VA secretaries and so-called veteran leaders who seem content to abandon their ill and injured comrades once the uniform comes off.

When my generation came home from Vietnam to an ungrateful nation, we committed that never again would America forget those who were willing to lay it all down in defense of our liberties.

After Vietnam, we abandoned the draft in favor of relying on brave Americans who willingly forfeit the comforts of civilian life to join our military and protect us. Since 9/11, America has relied on an all-volunteer force to fight our wars and deter our enemies — a dangerous mission that continues today.

After 20-plus years of repeatedly deploying the same volunteers into the same toxic meat grinder, can any American truly be surprised that those who serve in our all-volunteer force need more benefits and care?

While the benefits we afford our all-volunteer force may seem generous to those who never raised their right hand, these benefits are simply the warranty of the all-volunteer service contract each of us signed before we put on the uniform. In addition to the service member’s obligations, each contract explicitly entitles the service member to certain benefits as a result of honorable service. This is why the VFW calls on our nation to honor the contract.

This is how the basic enlistment contract, DD Form 4, reads today:

“My enlistment/reenlistment agreement is more than an employment agreement. It effects a change in status from civilian to military member of the Armed Forces. As a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, I will be:

• “Required to obey all lawful orders and perform all duties assigned.
• “Subject to separation during or at the end of my enlistment. If my behavior fails to meet acceptable military standards, I may be discharged and given a certificate for less than honorable service, which may hurt my future job opportunities and my claim for veterans’ benefits.
• “Subject to the military justice system, which means, among other things, that I may be tried by military court martial
• “Required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations.
• “Entitled to receive pay, allowances, and other benefits as provided by law and regulation.”

This isn’t charity. This is a contract. Everyone who served honorably, like every member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, has honored our end of the contract. We call on our leaders to do the same.

While Congress can always change laws and cut benefits under the contract, some are naive to think it cannot happen. But it has happened before. In 1932, big business interests and prominent ex-military officers formed the National Economy League to identify wasteful government spending, with their sights squarely on veterans’ benefits. The National Economy League then colluded with Congress and the White House to slash earned veterans’ benefits by 60% through the Economy Act. The Economy Act broke the contract and the consequences were predictable. Veterans plunged deeper into economic crisis, hopelessness and even suicide.

In the 1930s, the VFW distinguished itself as an organization by veterans, for veterans who would stand against this dereliction of duty, ultimately repealing some of the Economy Act’s most abominable cuts. The VFW also pushed for early payment of the World War I bonus, which stimulated the economy and empowered veterans.

But the damage was done. Veterans died. How could any politician of the day feel good about the human toll of their short-sightedness? God help us if we make the same mistakes today.

The VFW understands the fiscal needs of our nation. Our bureaucracies can always use a “belt-tightening.” But, as we learned in the 1930s, a nation can never achieve prosperity when it hurts the people who protect it.

You cannot easily find details about this dark chapter in our history online. Thankfully, the VFW has it in our archives, which we will share over the coming weeks so Americans can truly understand the stakes of abandoning its protectors.

Unlike my generation, more veterans today survive battlefield injuries, and they are better informed about the benefits earned by honoring their service contract. Americans should celebrate this. Instead, it seems that some people may be jealous that we take care of those who serve. To you, I would only say America is facing a recruiting shortfall as we speak. Please feel free to sign up, serve your country and honor a contract of your own. Then you, too, will be eligible for these same benefits. Otherwise, we must have the real conversation about bringing back the draft, which would be a sad day for our nation.

Whether it’s proposals to cut disability payments, restrict access to education or home loan benefits, scale back health care access or means test veterans as a condition of eligibility, join the VFW in fighting this scourge and ensuring America’s leaders honor the contract.

Alfred “Al” Lipphardt has served as the commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. since his election to the office on Aug. 1. He is a U.S. Army veteran with two tours of combat during the Vietnam War. In recognition of his service, he received the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, Bronze Star Medal with “V” device and Purple Heart Medal, among others. Al and his wife, Carol, reside in Stone Mountain, Georgia.

In last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the court struck down affirmative action policies used at the two schools, but confirmed that they may lawfully “consider … an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” The court also explicitly carved out military academies from the decision “in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.” Soon after, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed new lawsuits attacking racial diversity in the military academy admissions at the U.S. Naval Academy and West Point.

Last Friday, a federal judge ruled in favor of maintaining the U.S. Naval Academy’s affirmative action policies, allowing the continued consideration of race in its admissions process. This decision reinforces the importance of diversity in shaping a leadership corps equipped to tackle the complex global challenges of our time. It also unequivocally rejects the SFFA’s effort to extend the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling banning affirmative action at colleges to military academies.

Applying to a military academy is more like applying for entry to a job than a traditional college. If the students admitted to military academies are not racially diverse, it can impact the pool of potential officers. Decades of evidence show that Black people are overrepresented in the enlisted ranks of the military, but they still face incredible obstacles to reach the officer ranks, especially at the highest levels of military command. For example, in the Navy, Black sailors make up almost 20% of enlisted service members but less than half of that — just 9% — of the officer ranks. In fact, only 10 admirals of the 268 in the Navy were Black as of 2020. Military academies have an oversized impact in filling the most senior officer positions. For instance, 90% of the Navy’s chiefs of operations are graduates of the Naval Academy.

The impact of the lack of diversity in the Navy’s officer corps was hotly contested during the trial. The government argued that a racially diverse officer corps was a “national security imperative,” presenting evidence and testimony about its practical and strategic benefits. For example, racial diversity in the officer corps improves retention and recruitment.

In an ACLU amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Black Military Women (NABMW) and others, the NABMW described disparities in the promotion of service members of color, noting that they had fewer role models for professional development, lacked social capital and were underexposed to career-broadening opportunities. Officers of color provided mentorship and were more attuned to addressing discrimination within the military.

Additionally, the government identified strategic benefits of a racially diverse officer corps, including unit cohesion, which makes missions more effective and strengthens legitimacy in our country and abroad. Captain Jason Burch, a former Navy SEAL, testified that his presence as a Black officer made Black service members more comfortable reporting harassment and enhanced the Navy’s legitimacy in China and Bangladesh.

SFFA attempted to rewrite the past and present realities of discrimination in the military. In support of their misrepresentations, SFFA relied on testimony from retired Brig. Gen. Christopher Walker that he never experienced racism in the military in his over 40 years of service and that racism in the military ended after the Vietnam War. However, Walker’s opinions were contradicted at every turn. For decades, defense secretaries and military leaders across presidential administrations from both parties have sought to increase racial diversity, describing it as a “unique strength of the military” and a “strategic imperative critical to mission readiness, accomplishment, and a leadership requirement.” Further, an independent racial disparity review conducted by the Air Force confirmed that racism in the military is not dead. Fifty percent of Black airmen reported that they experienced racial discrimination from other airmen. Walker’s conclusions simply weren’t credible in light of the evidence.

Last week’s ruling reaffirmed that the military’s strength lies in its diversity and that a diverse leadership corps is essential to fostering an environment where all service members can thrive. Black armed forces veterans and their allies have carried the flag in this fight for opportunity and access to military academies.

Now, with this victory, we must remain vigilant in protecting diversity in military institutions. However, just days later, a new lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Air Force Academy, challenging its race-conscious admission policies. While last week’s ruling was a crucial victory, it is clear we must remain vigilant in protecting diversity in both military and civilian institutions. Together, we can ensure that America’s strength continues to rest in the diversity that drives innovation, resilience and justice.

Leah Watson is a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program.

The Post 9/11-GI Bill is the cornerstone of veterans benefits, providing financial support for education to those who have served on active duty for 90 days or more since Sept. 11, 2001. Full eligibility requires 36 months of active duty service. Passed by President George W. Bush in 2008, the benefit has been a lifeline for countless veterans leaving the military, offering them the opportunity to further their education and successfully transition to civilian life.

However, the current administrative structure within the Defense Department unfairly often excludes members of the National Guard from this benefit. This disparity undermines the very unity of all service members and betrays the notion that all service is equal.

This issue isn’t just bureaucratic. As the founder of the Special Operations Association of America, and a proud Green Beret, it’s deeply personal because I’ve lived it.

After years of dedicated service with the National Guard, including multiple deployments with combat in Afghanistan, I planned on using the GI Bill for graduate school. I paid my way through college, working and taking one class at a time. I successfully balanced team training, deployments and years away from family.

Shortly after earning my degree, I began the process of selecting a graduate school, knowing I had completed the required 36 months of active duty military service as a member of the National Guard. I even received a certification letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs stating I was eligible to use 100% of the benefit.

I was ecstatic when I was accepted to grad school, knowing that my 100% eligibility would cover the majority of tuition. I enrolled in classes, moved my family from our home in Washington, D.C., and prepared to start school. However, my excitement turned to horror when I received notice that my eligibility had been miscalculated and that I was no longer qualified for the full benefit.

The reason? My time spent earning the Green Beret in the same class alongside active duty soldiers did not count towards GI Bill eligibility because of a technicality. We were equals in every way that mattered — except when it came to our benefits.

Apparently, the two years I spent earning my Green Beret did not qualify as eligible time because my orders were coded as National Guard on active duty and not as active duty. It was an administrative oversight, one that would cost me $30,000 in tuition benefits to me and my family. It forced me to take on significant debt to attend college.

Unfortunately, my story is not an isolated incident. Nearly every member of the National Guard faces some form of this unjust disparity. It’s time that the next administration directs the DOD to fix this double standard and ensure that every day in uniform counts equally.

The solution is clear and straightforward: DOD must update its bureaucratic process to ensure all service members receive equal benefits regardless of whether they are wearing the uniform as a member of the National Guard or on active duty through a process called duty status reform.

The changes would not require legislation and can be entirely executed by the DOD. But that work has been delayed by Pentagon leaders for over a decade.

Delaying duty status reform any longer sends the message that leaders in the DOD consider service in the National Guard to be subpar. Some opponents of duty status reform within the DOD claim there is a need for a legislative fix. Other detractors highlight the need for Congress to weigh in due to the exorbitant cost associated with providing benefits to the thousands of members of the National Guard who would receive eligibility.

Regardless of the reason, members of the National Guard have endured the same rigors of training, faced the same enemy fire and bled for the same cause. It’s time to honor their service by providing them with the benefits they have rightfully earned.

Let’s fix this disparity and ensure that every day in uniform counts equally.

Daniel Elkins is the founder and president of the Special Operations Association of America. A former Green Beret and Special Operations combat veteran, he is also an Atlantic Council Counter-Terrorism Project member and a nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the positions of the United States government or the Department of Defense.

This week, the Department of Defense released their 2023 suicide data, showing that active-duty suicides rose from 331 in 2022 to 363 in 2023. In a Military Times article about the increase, a Pentagon spokesperson sought to downplay the report and stated that the increase is not “statistically significant.”

It is difficult to find words to describe how outrageous, disgusting and inappropriate such a response is — particularly in the face of a suicide epidemic that has grown across the U.S. military over the past decade.

This epidemic continues despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars on prevention programs, awareness initiatives and various other efforts. And it’s happening within an institution that prides itself on leadership, discipline, strength and resolve.

The simple truth is this: What the Defense Department is doing to prevent suicide is not working. If we want to truly address the problem of military suicide, a comprehensive rethinking is required.

Military suicides rose in 2023, continuing a troubling trend

Implementing emotional intelligence training in the military can significantly support suicide prevention by fostering a culture of awareness and empathy. The first step is to integrate emotional intelligence into the existing training and leadership continuum, beginning in basic training.

Recruits should be taught to recognize and manage their emotions, which can help reduce impulsive behavior and stress during crises. Additionally, leaders at all levels must be trained to identify emotional distress in their subordinates, engage in active listening and offer support and resources.

Cultivating an environment where emotional intelligence is valued can foster trust and teach soldiers to seek help before reaching a crisis point. This means creating training modules that teach service members how to recognize their own emotional struggles, how to identify signs of burnout and how to access mental health resources before issues escalate.

Rather than solely focusing on “toughening up,” military training should incorporate emotional intelligence and strategies for managing stress, anger, depression, anxiety and grief.

While mental health and public health experts bring valuable knowledge to suicide prevention, it’s essential to reconsider their dominant role in leadership positions. These experts focus on clinical or policy-driven approaches, which overlook the lived experiences and social contexts that contribute to suicidal ideation.

Effective suicide prevention requires a broader, more holistic approach that incorporates diverse perspectives, including those from individuals with lived experience, community leaders and those affected by systemic issues like poverty, discrimination and isolation.

Individuals who understand the complexities of suicide prevention beyond clinical frameworks can create more effective, empathetic and comprehensive solutions that resonate with at-risk populations.

We must stop comparing the public to the military regarding suicide because the experiences, pressures and environments of military personnel are fundamentally different than those of their civilian counterparts.

Military service members face unique stressors, such as combat exposure, deployments and a highly structured, high-risk environment, which can have profound psychological effects.

The stigma surrounding mental health in the military, combined with intense demands, often leads to delayed help-seeking behaviors and increased suicide risk.

In contrast, while civilians face their own challenges, their daily lives generally lack the extreme pressures, trauma and consequences of military service.

Comparing the two groups oversimplifies the issue and ignores the specific needs and circumstances of military personnel. Suicide prevention efforts must be tailored to the distinct realities of military life.

I am also convinced that our language around suicide prevention is a key factor in our inability to reach our military recruiting goals.

The term “resilience” has, unfortunately, become a four-letter word in the military lexicon, with the focus on resiliency more of a buzzword than an actionable strategy.

Most people don’t even know what the word means. At its core, resilience means “to bounce back.” Unfortunately, the military has expanded this definition to mean resistance to trauma. This is just not true.

Replacing resiliency with something akin to “mental toughness” or “navigating adversity” should be a priority. After all, service members are expected to operate under extreme conditions. They are asked to endure physical and emotional hardships in service to their country, and the military prides itself on producing men and women who can navigate adversity.

But when the concept of resilience becomes a blanket expectation rather than a practical support system, it risks doing more harm than good.

Ultimately, fixing the military suicide epidemic requires a new approach — one that redefines leadership, revamps training and fosters an environment of openness and mutual support.

Only then will we begin to reverse the devastating trend of military suicides and create a system that truly supports the men and women who serve our country.

The military is known for its leadership, discipline and strength. I hope our next defense secretary will realize that our current approach is not working. The time to act is now, before more lives are lost.

Ken Falke is founder and chairman of Boulder Crest Foundation, and is the author of “Struggle Well, Thriving in the Aftermath of Trauma.”

Recognizing this individuality, we as elected officials try to smooth out the highs and lows that impact veterans and service members and assess the potential unintended consequences of our legislative initiatives.

It’s these “unintended consequences” that have become a recurring theme of the Veterans and Military Advisory Council, or VMAC, that I established to help inform me on the issues facing veterans, military service members and their families. The VMAC is an ad hoc and evolving group of elected officials, veterans, concerned citizens and veteran advocates from Northern Virginia (Fairfax, Loudoun, Fauquier, and Prince William Counties) that meets quarterly to discuss state and federal issues affecting veterans and determine how we can affect positive change.

At our most recent meeting, we turned our attention to an inconsistency between the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, and Tricare’s treatment of dependent children.

What military families need to know about Tricare open season

Nationally, the ACA prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher rates based on preexisting conditions. In Virginia, Medicaid expansion, finally enacted in 2019, has provided health care access to approximately 500,000 Virginians who previously did not have coverage. The ACA also made a significant step forward in ensuring that young adults have access to health insurance during their transition from teenagers to adult independence.

One of the most widely recognized provisions of the ACA is the requirement that health care plans allow dependent children to remain on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26. This provision has provided millions of young Americans with a safety net, including my two daughters, allowing them to focus on their education or early professional careers without the additional burden of securing their own, and potentially expensive, health insurance.

Surprisingly, this protection is not extended equally to all American families, particularly those who serve in our military.

Under current regulations, military service members who rely on Tricare for their health care face a different reality. Once a dependent child turns 21, they are no longer eligible for coverage under Tricare Prime unless they are enrolled in a university, in which case coverage can be extended, but only until age 23.

After this, the only option available to them is Tricare Young Adult, which requires premiums and has a deductible. This option is not only more expensive, but it is also more administratively burdensome. The result is a situation where the children of those who have dedicated their lives to serving and protecting our country are left with higher costs compared to their civilian counterparts.

For many military families, the additional premiums and deductibles required under Tricare Young Adult are not just a financial inconvenience — they are a significant burden. This is especially true when compared to the no-cost or low-cost coverage their dependents enjoyed under Tricare Prime.

The disparity is glaring: While civilian children can stay on their parents’ health insurance until age 26 without additional costs, military families — who often endure frequent relocations, deployments and other unique stressors — must face a higher financial burden for their children’s health care during this critical, transitional time in their lives.

The solution to this problem is both simple and just: We must encourage our congressional delegations across the nation to extend the same protections to military families that we afford to civilian families under the ACA. Specifically, dependent children of military service members should be allowed to remain on their parents’ Tricare plan until they turn 26, without the need to transition to a more costly health care plan like Tricare Young Adult.

This simple reform would not only alleviate the financial burden on military families but also ensure that the children of service members have the same opportunities for stability and success as other young Americans. It is a matter of fairness, of ensuring that those who serve our nation are not disadvantaged simply because of their service. From a legislative perspective, this should be considered “low hanging fruit” to correct an unintended consequence.

Del. David Reid has represented the 28th District in the Virginia House of Delegates since 2017. He has served for five years as co-chair of the General Assembly’s Military and Veterans Caucus (GAMVC) and is the vice chair of the House Transportation Committee. He served 23 years in the U.S. Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer, where he was awarded the prestigious Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal on three occasions, and retired as a commander.

Today, we continue to honor the heroes of World War II. However, we are losing hundreds of WWII veterans every day across the country. The youngest WWII veterans, who joined at 18, are now at least 97 years old, while the oldest are over 100. An estimated 100,000 WWII veterans were still alive in 2023, according to data.va.gov. Just one year later, the National WWII Museum estimates only 66,000 remain. Their numbers are in steep decline: Within a decade, only a few will remain across the world, let alone in the U.S.

D-Day anniversary marked by dwindling number of veterans

Nov. 11 not only marks the end of World War I but also the creation of Veterans Day, formerly known as Armistice Day. Originally, it celebrated the end of “The Great War.” However, in 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower renamed it Veterans Day, transforming it into a day to honor all who have served.

WWII veterans, now in their final years, are given special recognition, but honoring them should not be limited to just one day each year. As they continue to pass on, preserving their stories becomes crucial before they are lost to history.

Since I was 15, I’ve been interviewing veterans and historical witnesses for my YouTube channel, Filmperia. I’ve always been interested in military and political history, as well as filmmaking. Growing up around veterans in upstate New York, I felt inspired to document their experiences. I originally started with WWII veterans, then expanded to interview veterans from all wars.

Each veteran has a unique story, and many had never shared theirs until I met them. Listening to the sacrifices these heroes made for our country gave me a new perspective on military history. As a patriot, I wanted to continue to spread awareness and show what everyday people endured that allowed us to enjoy the freedoms our country has to this day.

Now, as a 19-year-old college student in North Carolina, I have conducted over 80 interviews and produced two mini-documentaries, still with the primary focus on gathering stories from WWII veterans. I even skipped my high school graduation in June to attend the 80th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, France. This is likely to be the last major anniversary of that historic battle with WWII veterans in attendance, as fewer are able to attend each year. I expected to see a larger presence of WWII veterans, but only a few were able to make the journey. I was lucky enough to meet a few WWII veterans on the flight to France, including Irving Locker, a D-Day and Battle of the Bulge veteran.

But there was one encounter that stood out the most. When visiting Sainte-Mère-Église, I met a French veteran who fought in North Africa under Gen. Charles De Gaulle. I simply thanked him for his service and shook his hand. That alone made him tear up. Despite the language barrier, he understood what I said. It seemed this was the first time someone of my generation appreciated his service. It’s vital that our allies also receive respect, recognition and honor.

Throughout my life, I knew dozens of people who served during the war. Now, only five of them are still alive. The oldest is my friend Russell Freeburg, a 101-year-old U.S. Army veteran who participated in the European theater of the war.

Still, there are some opportunities for people to meet WWII veterans. Visiting local Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion posts is one way to connect with a WWII veteran. If you have the opportunity to meet one, take the time to talk to them. Even taking a picture with one of them and posting it on social media is a way to spread awareness and allow their legacy to live on.

As time passes, our opportunities to learn from these first-hand witnesses grow more limited. Preserving their voices is essential for future generations, as their experiences cannot be fully captured in movies or television. It is crucial to continue to recognize, honor and celebrate the “Greatest Generation,” who forever changed the course of history.

Luke Basso is a student at Cape Fear Community College in Wilmington, North Carolina, working toward an Associate of Arts degree. He is also the creator of the YouTube channel Filmperia, which focuses on interviewing veterans and historical witnesses from WWII to the present day.

In 2022, the Camp Lejeune Justice Act became law as part of the PACT Act, a hugely important step for those affected.

But because of some technical issues with the law’s language, just a handful of the 500,000-plus claims have been settled. Victims have waited years, aggrieved by the deaths of loved ones that have been linked to the contaminated water.

Those affected cannot wait any longer.

Congress can now pass the Camp Lejeune Technical Corrections (HR 8535) and Senate companion the Ensuring Justice for Camp Lejeune Victims Act (S. 5257) bills, to clarify some of the law’s ambiguities and cap attorneys’ fees. It is time to pass this law now.

Lawmakers seek to speed up claims for Camp Lejeune toxic water victims

There are a few problems that the new law will address.

First, it would ensure a jury trial for those sickened at Camp Lejeune. Recent court rulings have eliminated jury trials for these claims – but jury trials are something that all Americans deserve and taking it off the table for those who served our country is an injustice. The new law would unequivocally reinsert the right to a jury trial.

Second, the new law would ensure faster trials; clearing a backlog that has delayed these cases for years and giving veterans their long awaited day in court.

The new law would also cap litigation fees fairly, allowing access to strong legal representation and fair compensation for veterans and their families.

Few veterans would freely choose to navigate this complex legal process by themselves – but after volunteering to defend our country, they also deserve the right to hire the lawyers they want, and the lawyers who can win.

The medical and psychological impacts of the toxic water at Camp Lejeune are severe and enduring.

Veterans and their families are facing significant health challenges, and the delays in compensation add insult to injury.

As executive director of the Special Operations Association of America, I know firsthand what our Marines do.

Camp Lejeune is home to Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), the product of Marine Force Reconnaissance units who conducted amazing feats of bravery in Vietnam only to come home to poisoned water in their own houses. These service members laid the groundwork for modern Marine special operators and deserve better.

We are unconventional, and we stand up for situations that require a different approach. We have seen what Camp Lejeune’s veterans have been through, and we are here to engage.

We have answered the call to serve our nation before, and service doesn’t end when you take the uniform off. I was never a good soldier – always late in the wrong uniform and needing a haircut, but one thing stuck with me as a non-commissioned officer: the definition of responsibility is being accountable for everything you do and, most importantly, everything you do not do.

To stay silent on this issue is to fail those service members who gave so much for our freedom and choice – they deserve the same.

Organizations like ours that work to support our veterans are here for that reason – we do and say things our government cannot or will not.

Right now -- this year, not later -- Congress has an opportunity to give back to the veterans of Camp Lejeune, who are already owed so much. We stand with our veterans and urge the support of this crucial law to ensure they can finally, swiftly, get the justice they deserve.

David Cook is the Executive Director of the Special Operations Association of America (SOAA), and is a U.S. Army special operations veteran.

As a component of the review, the Pentagon is considering adjusting the way Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay is allocated across the armed forces.

This review raises the more fundamental issue of whether military personnel are being adequately compensated for the fatality risk they assume in combat zones. If not, how should the Pentagon adjust compensation to more accurately reflect these risks?

The current policy provides a uniform danger pay premium of $225 per month to military personnel deployed into areas designated as a combat zone. This rate has been the same since 2003 because it is not indexed to inflation.

In addition to danger pay, soldiers are entitled to a special tax benefit known as the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion, or CZTE. This benefit exempts military personnel from paying income tax on any income earned while in a combat zone.

Notably, previous research has shown the CZTE costs the U.S. government approximately 4.5 times more than regular danger pay. Because the current danger pay system is tied more to the person’s income than the level of risk exposure, the major beneficiaries of the current system are high-ranking officers, who reap the preponderance of the tax benefits.

But high-ranking officers do not bear a disproportionate share of risk. The data indicates enlisted personnel have higher fatality rates in comparison to officers.

For reference, throughout the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001 to 2021, enlisted personnel, who represent 82% of the total active duty force, accounted for 90% of all fatalities.

And the distribution of fatalities becomes even more skewed at the lower ranks. For example, the ranks of E-5 — equivalent to sergeant — and below account for 72% of the fatalities while representing 59% of the total force.

The main takeaway from the data is that fatality risks are much higher for junior personnel compared to high-ranking officers, who secure the lion’s share of financial benefits under current compensation policy.

This is in direct contrast to guidance provided in the economics literature and government practices, which indicate that valuations should be based on the level of the risk, not the person’s income.

There are also widespread differences in fatality risks across job types. Previous research has shown the average fatality rate for all military personnel increases by 45 per 100,000 when they are deployed into combat zones in comparison to stateside personnel. For reference, the yearly fatality rate for typical workers in the U.S. is around 3 per 100,000.

This number increases dramatically, however, for certain high-risk jobs, such as infantry and special forces operators — commonly grouped together and known as “combat” job specialties. Compared to stateside troops, military personnel in combat jobs increase their fatality rate by 181 per 100,000 when deployed into combat zones.

Most troops, therefore, see an increase in a probability of death, though there are major differences depending upon military occupational specialties.

These distinctly different outcomes should prompt us to compensate military personnel accordingly. Calculating the appropriate compensation levels can be addressed by utilizing estimates from the value of a statistical life, or VSL, literature.

The basic concept of the VSL is grounded in the idea that individuals often make every day tradeoffs between wealth or income and fatality risks. For example, people are generally willing to pay more for safer vehicles or higher quality medical care. Likewise, workers often demand higher salaries in riskier professions, ceteris paribus.

The most up-to-date estimates indicate an average American is willing to pay roughly $130 for every 1 per 100,000 reductions in fatality risk. Dividing the willingness-to-pay estimate by the reduction in fatality risk leads to an approximate value of $13 million per statistical life. This is the value that economists use in benefit-cost analyses for government programs intended to save lives or compensate fatality risk levels.

In the case of military personnel, analysts can combine the increased fatality risk levels for deployment into combat zones with standard VSL estimates to more precisely set appropriate danger pay rates.

Using this method, the most recent estimates suggest the average military danger pay should be $1,056 per month (in 2024 dollars). For combat job types with higher fatality risk, this amount balloons to $4,245 per month.

We have several policy recommendations for more accurately adjusting the current danger pay system. First, we should eliminate the CZTE and reallocate those cost savings to alternative pay methods. The primary reason is that the CZTE is not directly related to fatality risk, but rather correlates with higher ranks or income for military personnel.

Next, we recommend reallocating CZTE funds to increase the current danger pay of $225 per month to $1,056 per month for all military personnel. This amount should be tax exempt and indexed to inflation.

Finally, we recommend providing a new “extreme” danger pay category to military personnel who serve in high-risk occupations. The extreme danger pay category should be allocated primarily to infantry soldiers and special forces operators and set at $4,245 per month.

We realize these recommendations and adjustments to danger pay do not come without tradeoffs. The reallocation of funds would mean high-ranking officers in lower risk job types would essentially be taking a pay cut when compared to the current compensation system.

In contrast, low-ranking enlisted personnel in high-risk job types would receive a pay increase. We believe this adjustment is justified based upon the fatality risks seen in the most recent conflicts and the types of personnel taking on those risks.

Given new pay directives in the QRMC are set to be released early next year, the time to act is now.

The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense, the U.S. government or any other institution with which the authors are affiliated.

Thomas J. Kniesner received a PhD degree in economics from The Ohio State University. He is a research fellow at IZA and Krisher Professor of Economics Emeritus at Syracuse University, where he served as chair of the Department of Economics. In 2013 Kniesner joined the faculty of Claremont Graduate University, where he has been university professor, senior research fellow, and chair of the Department of Economic Sciences.

Ryan Sullivan received a PhD in Economics from Syracuse University. He is an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, where he has taught a variety of topics related to cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis, marginal reasoning, budgeting, finance, and labor economics. He served as a soldier in the U.S. Army National Guard from 1998 to 2006.

W. Kip Viscusi is Vanderbilt’s first university distinguished professor, with tenured appointments in the Department of Economics, the Owen Graduate School of Management and the Law School. Viscusi was previously the Cogan Professor of Law and Economics and director of the Program on Empirical Studies at Harvard Law School. He has also been the Allen Professor of Economics at Duke University and professor of economics at Northwestern University.