May 30th, 2008

Last Monday was the seventh Memorial Day since the attacks of September 11, 2001; the seventh Memorial Day since American servicemen and servicewomen bravely undertook unbelievably dangerous missions in Afghanistan and Iraq; the seventh pointed reminder of the immeasurable sacrifice made by our troops in theaters of war halfway around the world.

To mark the occasion, Senator Kerry wrote to his mailing list to express his hope that “since Vietnam we really have learned a lesson of how to separate the war from the warrior.” It’s a theme the Senator has avowed for decades: that American citizens have the right, indeed bear the obligation, to disagree with a wrongheaded course of action, and to freely speak the truth, that fundamental value that Senator Kerry once called “the American bottom line.”

There is great wisdom in separating the war from the warrior when discussing strategy and evaluating policy. A critique of battlefield tactics is not a criticism of the soldiers carrying them out. Dissent is not un-American or supportive of our enemies. As citizens, we should not hesitate to openly weigh our options for war and peace, to debate new ideas in the public sphere. This year, we are seeing a presidential election serve as the catalyst for a great national discussion on what to do next in Iraq, prompting each of us to consider the war separately from the warriors.

But the aphorism runs both ways: we also have to consider the warriors separately from the war. Regardless of our individual feelings on the war in Iraq, we cannot fail to recognize that veterans are the segment of society to which we owe the most. We have repeatedly witnessed evidence of an incapable V.A. Department grasping at straws to provide care: confounded vets mired in paperwork, the hushed-up cluelessness of officials trying to deal with an epidemic of suicide attempts, the decay and neglect at Walter Reed.

Even for those who are able to resume civilian life, the hurdles of veteran status linger. The economy is weaker than when they left for Iraq, and demands a more competitive and better-educated workforce. For soldiers sent on three or four tours of duty, there’s a lot to catch up on here at home. Yet the skyrocketing costs of education keep a successful readjustment out of reach for many.

Just four days before Memorial Day, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed to include the text of Senator Jim Webb’s Post-9/11 G.I. Bill in the Iraq war spending bill. Senator Webb’s initiative is a masterstroke that embraces the philosophy of the World War II G.I. Bill—that every member of the Armed Services (including reserves and the National Guard) pursuing an education deserves the government’s generous help. The legislation will free up millions of dollars for financial aid, which veterans can use to pay for tuition, housing, and supplies.

Under Senator Webb’s plan, returning servicemen and servicewomen aiming to attend college in Massachusetts will be eligible for federal tuition assistance equivalent to the cost of attending the most expensive public university in the state. Such a large infusion of aid will be a boon both for the veterans and for the colleges and communities of the Commonwealth. And that’s not the only economic benefit we’re likely to see: a Congressional study in 1988 showed that funding the G.I. Bill of the 1940s generated a sevenfold return on the investment.

The White House’s response to Senator Webb’s new G.I. Bill has been a breathtaking affront to America’s veterans. President Bush and the G.O.P. establishment have rejected it outright, calling it “too generous” to our fighting men and women. How could anything be too generous to veterans? It’s an appalling assertion to hear from the Commander-in-Chief who has directed the military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past seven years. It’s also painfully emblematic of the haphazard, shortsighted way in which the Bush White House has conducted those wars.

The twenty-five Republican senators who bucked the threats of the Bush Administration and voted to pass Senator Webb’s bill deserve praise for their conviction. They understand that returning veterans have to be just as much a priority as victory in combat. President Bush, Senator John McCain, and the others who oppose the new G.I. Bill want to preserve weaker educational assistance, which means fewer options for servicemen when they return home from war. Bush and McCain worry that encouraging veterans to enroll in college will deplete the military, and in doing so, they aren’t separating the warrior from the war.

—Michael DeRamo