Bonus flap tip of iceberg

Outrage regarding the California National Guard, bonus payments, and efforts to recoup those payments is understandable. But the questions should go well beyond the specific issue and trigger a close look at military compensation and the commitment this nation has to its defense.

During the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars during the last decade, bonuses of $15,000 or more were offered in an effort to attract or retain troops. The payments were designed for specialists in high demand, but the California National Guard mistakenly extended the payments to just about anybody who was willing to sign up. Now, an estimated 10,000 members have been asked to reimburse the government for payments they were not qualified to receive — through no fault of their own.

When the Los Angeles Times broke the story two weeks ago, it detailed that many veterans have had to sell cars and other possessions or take out a second mortgage to repay the bonuses. The federal government rightly took notice, and last week Defense Secretary Ash Carter ordered a halt to aggressive collection of the reimbursements. Congress or the Pentagon should go further by forgiving the debts and returning payments that already have been made. If the nation is serious about honoring veterans or those in active service, this would be an admirable place to make good on that pledge.

Meanwhile, the situation calls for a national discussion about several related issues. First is the egregiously irresponsible attempt by the Bush administration to engage in a pair of wars without inflicting any pain upon the general population. By sending troops to war while simultaneously enacting across-the-board tax cuts, President George W. Bush sent a message that war can be undertaken as something that is neither a national priority nor a national duty. In truth, if war is necessary, it requires sacrifice on the part of all Americans. This notion that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could remain “over there” diminished their prominence in the public psyche.

Second, the idea that any branch of the military should pay bonuses for inexperienced soldiers is simply bad business. If bonuses are used to retain skilled soldiers or attract those with expertise in valuable areas — such as fluency in Arabic or Chinese, or training in technology or engineering — that is a reasonable expenditure. But today’s recruits are eligible for up to $40,000 in bonuses regardless of skills, experience, or ability to do the job.

Third, all military expenditures should be subject to scrutiny. This goes beyond the well-worn tropes about $640 toilet seats or $435 hammers, which have garnered headlines in recent years. It goes to the fact that the United States spends about $600 billion a year on defense — equivalent to the world’s next eight countries combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Donald Trump has called for an increase in military spending, saying it could be paid for by eliminating waste and adding, “We want to deter, avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military dominance.” As usual, Trump has seized upon a thin talking point without acknowledging reality — the United States already has unquestioned military dominance.

But we digress. The basic point is that the Pentagon was wrong to negate the promises it made to members of the California National Guard. But the broader points are ones of government taking a responsible approach to supporting the military, building public trust, and engaging in logical spending.

— The Vancouver, Wash. Columbian