OPINION:
Veterans know the price of service. Veterans experienced the battlefield, the sacrifices, and the brotherhood that comes with wearing the uniform.
When it comes to voting for our nation’s commander-in-chief, we must approach it with the same level of discernment. We should not vote for our next president based on personality or rhetoric alone, but rather for policies that will directly affect us and our fellow servicemembers, both active and retired.
Subscribe to have The Washington Times’ Higher Ground delivered to your inbox every Sunday.
Historically, different administrations have shaped military and veteran policies in drastically different ways. The U.S. presidential election presents distinct military and veteran policy scenarios. Without endorsing a specific candidate for president, we can examine the contrasting approaches of the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations to see how their policies have impacted our military readiness, veteran care, and overall national security.
It is concerning for many Americans to hear that votes will be cast directly in opposition to a persona and their personality instead of the candidates’ policies proposed for the future or implemented in the past. From a surface level, let’s attempt to look through the lens of both the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations.
Military spending and modernization
SEE ALSO: Trump, Harris disagree about U.S. role in overseas affairs
Both the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations increased military spending, but the focus of those investments differed. Under Mr. Trump, the military saw an emphasis on physical assets, such as hypersonic missiles and the establishment of the Space Force. His approach bolstered numbers and enhanced military strength through cutting-edge technologies designed to protect national security.
The Biden-Harris administration has continued to increase military spending. Their administration has placed a greater emphasis on areas like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and climate-related defense measures. While this broadens the scope of what is considered national defense, we must ask ourselves whether these investments are truly equipping our armed forces for the modern battlefield.
Veterans should look closely at how these spending decisions impact readiness and mission effectiveness.
Foreign policy and global alliances
Mr. Trump’s “America First” policy sought to reduce U.S. involvement overseas, pushing allies to increase their defense budgets. This approach aimed at making America more self-reliant, but it also risked weakening trust with key alliances like NATO.
The Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy has focused more on restoring diplomatic relationships, particularly with NATO, which has become essential in addressing global threats from Russia and China. However, Mr. Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan demoralized our military and left many veterans questioning the wisdom of his approach to ending conflicts. As some initiatives were productive, the withdrawal from Afghanistan was overwhelmingly demoralizing. Today, the warriors that served during the Global War on Terror are asking themselves if their sacrifice was worth it.
For veterans, the question should be: Do we want a more isolationist approach that may reduce immediate conflict but strain alliances? Or do we prefer a diplomatic approach that could prevent wars but potentially weaken America’s military autonomy?
Military policy
The Trump and Biden/Harris administrations have taken notably different approaches to military policy, especially in areas like reform and inclusion. Mr/ Trump’s tenure focused more on military operations and external threats rather than internal reforms, though he took steps to address the scourge of sexual assault in the armed forces. Mr/ Trump’s decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military sparked significant controversy, as it was viewed by many as a step backward for “inclusivity.”
In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration has pushed more aggressively for comprehensive military reforms, particularly in addressing sexual assault and overhauling the justice system to improve accountability. One of his key moves was reversing Mr. Trump’s transgender ban.
Veterans should consider whether Mr. Trump’s prioritization of operational and external threats is wiser than the Biden-Harris administration’s emphasis on reforming internal military structures and policies. Another serious consideration is whether the transgender issue supports the mission statement of the military. Does it make our military more capable of fighting wars? Most active duty members will say that it doesn’t and the focus on this initiative has weakened the force.
Veteran health programs and reducing suicide
Both administrations have introduced significant policies aimed at improving veteran care. The Department of Veterans Affairs announced that Veteran trust in VA outpatient care has increased to 91.8% — up from 85.4% in 2017 (the first year since the VA began conducting the survey). Veteran trust has increased during each of the past seven years.
Under Mr. Trump, the VA MISSION Act expanded access to private healthcare facilities for veterans, especially benefiting those in rural areas. The Biden-Harris administration has built on these efforts with the PACT Act, which expanded access to VA healthcare for veterans exposed to toxins and hazardous materials during their service. Mr. Biden’s Access Sprint initiative has made it easier for veterans to secure timely healthcare appointments, with reduced wait times and increased accessibility.
Both administrations have indicated the importance of directing resources to reduce military and veteran suicide. Mr. Trump’s PREVENTS initiative aimed to raise awareness about mental health, connect veterans and others at risk of suicide to federal and local resources, and facilitate focused and coordinated research into suicide. “Ending the tragedy of veteran suicide demands bold action at every level of society,” said Mr. Trump.
In the introduction to a Reducing Military and Veteran strategy document, President Biden wrote, “I’ve often said that we have only one truly sacred obligation as Americans — to prepare and properly equip our women and men in uniform when we send them into harm’s way, and to care for them and their families when they return. Yet for too many who are serving or have served, we are falling short.”
Who will support the veterans of tomorrow?
While Biden-Harris administration policies have continued and expanded much of the trajectory that began under Mr. Trump, the hope for continued modernization, increased pay for soldiers and an expansion of care for veterans is less likely under Kamala Harris.
Mr. Biden’s deep personal connection to military service — through the tragedy of his son Beau’s death — has motivated his policies for veterans. Ms. Harris lacks the personal military connection that drives Mr. Biden, raising concerns about the long-term trajectory of veteran-focused policies. As polarizing as former President Trump is, he has garnered the overall support of active duty and veterans across the nation due to his support and impact on the military community.
As veterans, we must remain vigilant about what policies will shape our futures. We must vote for leaders who will continue to invest in our military, support veterans, and ensure that America remains secure, both at home and abroad. Ultimately, we must look beyond individuals and personalities and instead focus on the policies that will impact our lives and the future of those who serve.
In this election, vote for policies — not people. The future of our military and our nation depends on it.
–
Dr. Damon Friedman, a decorated veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel in special operations. He is the recipient of the Spirit of Hope Award from the Secretary of Defense, chairman of the Veterans Service Alliance and founder of SOF Missions, which works with veterans with PTSD.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.