Invisible Inequality: the Two Americas of Military Sacrifice

Invisible Inequality: The Two Americas of Military Sacrifice DOUGLAS L. KRINER* & FRANCIS X. SHEN** I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................546 II. THE INVISIBLE INEQUALITY OF MILITARY SACRIFICE ............548 A. Scholarship on Veterans Affairs .......................................549 B. What Does the American Public Know About Inequalities in Military Sacrifice? ...................................554 III. THE TWO AMERICAS OF MILITARY SACRIFICE ......................556 A. Poorer Areas of the Country Bear Greater War Sacrifice ...................................................................557 B. The Causes of the Casualty Gap ......................................564 IV. INEQUALITY AND THE VETERAN’S BRAIN .............................569 A. The Wounds of War ..........................................................569 B. Social Determinants of Veterans’ Brain Health ...............574 V. THE POLITICAL COSTS OF CASUALTY INEQUALITY ................578 A. Is Inequality in Military Sacrifice Different From Other Forms of Inequality? .............................................579 B. How Americans React to Information About Inequality .........................................................................580 C. The Invisible Politics of Non-Fatal Casualties ................583 D. Non-fatal Casualties and Public Support for the War in Afghanistan ....................................................587 * Associate Professor, Boston University Department of Political Sci- ence. ** McKnight Land-Grant Professor & Associate Professor of Law, Uni- versity of Minnesota; Director, Shen Neurolaw Lab; Executive Director of Edu- cation and Outreach, MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. *** We thank Ryan Pesch and Morgan Carlson for excellent research assistance, and we thank members of the University of Chicago Public Law Workshop for helpful feedback. Support for this research was provided by Bos- ton University and the University of Minnesota Law School. Shen notes that his work is Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. 545 546 The University of Memphis Law Review Vol. 46 VI. DISCUSSION ...........................................................................590 A. Why Don’t We Want To Talk About the Inequality of Military Service? ..............................................................591 B. Should We Care About Inequality in Military Sacrifice? .........................................................................596 C. Are Veterans Already Receiving the Care They Need?.......................................................................600 D. Are Courts Likely to Intervene? .......................................609 E. Fostering a National Debate on Inequality in Sacrifice ..611 VII. CONCLUSION .........................................................................612 Abstract: Through a series of empirical investigations— including analysis of over 500,000 American combat casualties from World War II through Iraq and Afghanistan—we show in this Article that there is growing socioeconomic inequality in military sacrifice and that the relative invisibility of this inequality has ma- jor political ramifications. Today, unlike in World War II, the Americans who die or are wounded in war are disproportionately coming from poorer parts of the country. We argue that these Two Americas of military sacrifice constitute invisible inequality be- cause the issue is routinely overlooked by scholars, policymakers, and the public. We then use seven original surveys of American public opinion to uncover a variety of social, legal, and political consequences of this inequality. With Congress unlikely to act, and courts unwilling to intervene, we argue that the best path for- ward is to generate a renewed public debate over inequality in military sacrifice. To this end, we show empirically that such a conversation could transform public opinion. Ignoring inequality in military sacrifice is both morally comforting and politically ben- eficial. But it is at odds with empirical reality, and, most im- portantly, with our American ideals of shared sacrifice. I. INTRODUCTION The central issues of the 2016 presidential campaign are coming into focus: addressing economic inequality at home, and defining America’s military strategy abroad amidst new terrorist threats. These issues will be debated thousands of times. Yet these many debates will overlook a connection between the two: America’s economic downturn means that increasingly it is not the governing class, but the working class that dispropor- 2016 Invisible Inequality 547 tionately sends soldiers to fight and bears the burden of physical and mental war wounds. For members of both parties it is politically convenient to overlook these Two Americas of military sacrifice. But in this Article, we show that ignoring this invisible inequality has not made it go away. Through a series of empirical investigations—including analysis of over 500,000 American combat casualties from World War II through Afghanistan, combined with seven unique surveys of American public opinion—we reveal that, even more than pre- vious wars, Iraq and Afghanistan have been working class wars. This inequality is normatively troubling, but it also has significant social and political consequences. Inequality in pre-service oppor- tunities can translate into inequality in post-service health out- comes. For example, soldiers returning home to fewer resources may be at greater risk of developing mental disorders. We also show how non-fatal casualties remain largely invisible in the political sphere. This invisibility has artificially inflated public support for wars and for the leaders who wage them. The emergence of these Two Americas and its consequences are cause for concern. Yet equally problematic is the failure of legislatures and courts to even acknowledge, let alone address, these disparities. With neither legislatures nor courts likely to act without prompting, we argue that the most viable response is a renewed public debate over inequality in military sacrifice. We present experimental data suggesting that such a conversation could have real policy consequences. The Article proceeds in five parts. We begin in Part II with a discussion of the legal literature on veterans’ affairs, finding that it typically makes little mention of inequality in sacrifice. We also report original survey data in which we find that the American public is not aware of the distribution of war sacrifice. The omissions by scholars, and the views of the American public, would both be warranted if no inequality exists. Thus, we turn in Part III to the empirical question: who is dying, and who is returning wounded, in America’s wars? The answer is stark: more than in any conflict since World War II, today’s human costs are being borne by America’s working class. In Part IV, we examine the social and political consequences of this invisible inequality. Focusing on mental health, we dis- cuss how soldiers returning home to weaker social support struc- 548 The University of Memphis Law Review Vol. 46 tures are at greater risk of developing mental disorders. Then, we turn to the political sphere in Part V. We show with new data that Americans view inequality in military sacrifice differently from other forms of inequality, and we also show that if knowledge of this inequality is communicated, it reduces public support for war. Yet, we also find that wounded in action casualties are less visible and politically salient than fatalities. Thus, even when American soldiers return home wounded in large numbers, it is not likely to slow American politicians from sending new recruits into the battle zone again. In light of these many empirical findings uncovered in the Article, we conclude in Part VI with a discussion of why this inequality remains invisible and what to do about it. We call for a national conversation on the human costs of war. The invisible inequality of military sacrifice should be invisible no more. II. THE INVISIBLE INEQUALITY OF MILITARY SACRIFICE American society is increasingly concerned with economic inequality as seen in the Occupy movement of 2011 and the rheto- ric and policy proposals of the 2016 presidential candidates. Legal scholarship is filled both with articles concerning inequality and redistribution1 and with commentaries on the need to aid military veterans.2 Given this attention to inequality on the one hand, and military veterans on the other, one would think that inequality in military sacrifice is a well-known and researched fact—that is not the case. As we will show in this Part, scholars do not routinely ad- 1. Gillian Lester, Can Joe the Plumber Support Redistribution? Law, Social Preferences, and Sustainable Policy Design, 64 TAX L. REV. 313, 315 (2011) (“[A] great deal of legal scholarship concerns itself with questions of inequality and redistribution . .”). 2. See, e.g., Benjamin Pomerance, Fighting on Too Many Fronts: Con- cerns Facing Elderly Veterans in Navigating the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Benefits System, 37 HAMLINE L. REV. 19, 22 (2014); Thomas J. Reed, Parallel Lines Never Meet: Why the Military Disability Retirement and Veterans Affairs Department Claim Adjudication Systems Are a Failure, 19 WIDENER L.J. 57, 59–60 (2009); Robert R. Gagan, Thank Veterans; Help Veter- ans, 88 WIS. LAW., Feb. 2015, at 7; Tara Shockley, Veterans Legal Initiative: Showing Appreciation for Service Through Legal

Load more