THE FELLOWSHIP OF FRONTLINE CIVILIANS

THE FELLOWSHIP OF FRONTLINE CIVILIANS

By Tom Ordeman, Jr.

INTRODUCTION

If online comment sections frequented by America's veterans are any indication, a widening "civil-military divide" - the alleged cultural segregation of America's military/veteran and civilian communities - requires attention from all parties. Simultaneously, fraternal organizations dedicated to serving America's veterans face dwindling membership. Both of these challenges could be mitigated if the fraternal organizations took the radical step of offering limited membership to former frontline civilians.

WHO WAGES AMERICA’S MODERN WARS?

In late 2011, with the cultural backdrop of the Occupy movement and its contrast of the "wealthiest 1%" with the "other 99%", former U.S. Army officer and entrepreneur Nick Palmisciano penned an essay entitled "You are the 0.45%". Variously attributed to Generals David Petraeus and Norman Schwarzkopf, Palmisciano's essay compared the rates of military service in the Second World War (11.5% of the American populace), Vietnam (4.3%), and the Global War on Terror (0.45%). Since its publication, many veterans have seized upon this figure as evidence of the disproportionate sacrifice that America's warfighters provide to their seemingly indifferent countrymen.

While relevant, Palmisciano's figure tells only part of the story - one omitted detail being that if one hundred percent of eligible recruits attempted to enlist, and despite the Pentagon’s present recruiting challenges, most volunteers would be turned away from America's recruiting stations due to a lack of available billets. America's vision of war is heavily influenced by the collective memory of the wars of the Twentieth Century, and primarily World War II, in which uniformed soldiers performed virtually every military function. However, recent operations deviate from that model by substituting civil servants and contractors in many non-combat functions. According to DoD estimates, while the contractor-to-military ratio in the Second World War was approximately 1:7, that ratio was approximately 1:1 for the Iraq War and 1.42:1 for the Afghan War. These figures omit the DoD civilian personnel who have deployed in support of recent operations. These personnel - contractors and civil servants - are known as "frontline civilians.”

The military's controversial employment of frontline civilians evokes cynical remarks about "war profiteering" or the "military industrial complex.” Uniformed personnel commonly lament frontline civilians' comparatively high salaries. While it is not the purpose of this essay to pass favorable or unfavorable judgement on the DoD's policy of employing frontline civilians in lieu of uniformed personnel, the following factors are worth considering:

• When the Global War on Terrorism commenced in 2001, military funding and staffing were at low levels following the post-Cold War "Peace Dividend" drawdown. In the initial weeks, months, and years after 9/11, frontline civilians were in a position to provide surge personnel, many of whom were themselves veterans, to support operations pending the operational readiness of new recruits.
• The Army and Marine Corps struggled to meet their recruiting targets at several points during the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. The process of recruiting and deploying frontline civilians offered greater agility and flexibility than equivalent processes for military recruits. Commanders also enjoyed more flexibility from a human resources standpoint when dealing with frontline civilians than they do with uniformed personnel.
• The average age of a uniformed member is nineteen years, and military service is typically the first full-time job that individual holds upon completion of secondary or higher education. By contrast, frontline civilians typically boast additional experience and training.
• Because the military does not provide benefits such as medical care, disability services, pensions, or education programs to contractors, the lifetime cost of employing many frontline civilians is arguably lower than that of an equivalent uniformed member.
• International laws such as the Geneva Conventions afford frontline civilians different protections than uniformed personnel, giving commanders additional operational flexibility.
• Both military commanders and enemy leaders acknowledge that one of western forces' critical vulnerabilities is risk aversion with respect to military casualties. While military casualties are scrutinized by the press, frontline civilian casualties rarely receive widespread media attention.
• While the military is an all-volunteer force, deployed service by frontline civilians is, for all intents and purposes, more voluntary. This provides commanders with additional flexibility, as uniformed personnel can be publicly withdrawn from active theaters while frontline civilian manpower can remain static or surge without significant public scrutiny. Contractors often remain in theater beyond the withdrawal benchmarks required of military and civil service personnel, which helps to sustain corporate knowledge for operations of long duration.

Owing to these and other factors, America's recent wars have been fought by roughly one half of one percent of the American populace, but sustained by a corresponding shadow army of frontline civilians.

VETERANS AND FRONTLINE CIVILIANS

While Americans rightly laud the invaluable contributions of military personnel, this new paradigm of employing civilians in traditionally military roles blurs the line distinguishing the two communities. Uniformed military personnel no longer hold a monopoly on the responsibilities and sacrifices associated with modern warfare.

Frontline civilians' ranks are as diverse as those of their uniformed colleagues. Some are veterans themselves. Others are entry level separators, or were disqualified from enlistment due to any number of unmet eligibility factors, but sought other ways to serve. Still others are seasoned professionals with no prior background in national security. Their motives for seeking opportunities supporting America's overseas campaigns are similarly varied. They serve in virtually every role short of active combat, up to and including armed security functions. And, as the RAND Corporation's S. Rebecca Zimmerman, who deployed to Afghanistan six times as a frontline civilian, notes:

"Most Americans don't understand what frontline civilians do. People tend to assume we're safely typing memos inside an organization's headquarters, especially if we're government workers, their contractors or grantees. That's not true for those of us in the field. Daily life built around war often involves waking up on a remote base and working side by side with soldiers and civilians in hazardous places."

U.S. Army officer Matt Zeller adds:

"As the discussion closed, the moderator asked all in the audience who were military veterans to stand and be recognized for their service. And as I rose up, I wondered, why is it that we only ever thank military veterans in this way? I know plenty of American civilians who shared every hardship, danger, and in some cases, even injuries that I did as a soldier. Why does America's gratitude stop at a uniform? [...] [W]e need to ensure that we don't continue to deify the military veteran at the expense of her civilian brother. In the Army we have a saying: 'One team, one fight.' I served with plenty of Frontline Civilians who I consider to be veterans, regardless of the clothes they wore while performing their duty on behalf of all of us. We were all part of the same team. We all fought in the same fight. They deserve our thanks. I'm no longer standing until they're asked to as well."

As Zimmerman further observes:

"Frontline civilians often don't get the care and support that they need, whether in an area of crisis and instability, or when they return home. A 2013 RAND study of more than 600 frontline military contractors found that 25 percent had symptoms of PTSD, a rate higher than that experienced by military service members, which ranges from 8 to 20 percent. There's no system in place to provide care for frontline civilians who have separated from service."

What if there was a way to strengthen the existing veteran community while providing recognition and support for frontline civilians?

THE LEGION AND THE VFW

The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) are perhaps the most prominent American veterans' organizations. The VFW and Legion were founded in 1899 and 1919 by Spanish-American War and First World War veterans, respectively. Both organizations boast hard-earned reputations for serving similar but distinct roles, including providing services directly to veterans and those currently serving, lobbying on their behalf, and operating posts throughout America where veterans can meet as communities of interest. Both organizations engage in a variety of support and outreach programs in locales across the country, such as VFW scholarship programs and the American Legion Baseball program, making them long-standing pillars of American society.

However, despite the surge in overseas deployments since 2001, membership numbers for both organizations continue to decline. A 2014 Washington Times article cited several Global War on Terror veterans who opined that other organizations, notably Team Rubicon and Team Red, White, and Blue, provided not only a more appealing atmosphere, but also preferable opportunities to continue serving their communities. In addition, the article cited several veterans as saying that the Legion and VFW "deepen the divide between civilian and military worlds because only veterans are allowed to join." According to a 2015 article in Philanthropy Roundtable:

"Membership peaked for these organizations right after World War II, when Legion enrollments doubled from 1.7 million to 3.3 million. After the Korean War, Legionnaires numbered 2.5 million. As baby boomers joined, membership floated up to 3.1 million in 1992. Since then, it's been a steady drop. In 2013, the Legion reported 2.3 million members and the VFW numbered 1.4 million. Even as 2.4 million veterans have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, the groups have been losing tens of thousands of participants every single year. And the numbers on the rolls don't reflect actual involvement. [Legionnaire Wookie Leong] estimates that only 10 percent of his post's members are active."

Several VFW posts in particular have tried innovative solutions to address this challenge. In 2014, the Washington Post reported on Post 350 in Takoma Park, Maryland, which has opened some events and programs to non-members in their progressive, "tie-dyed" neighborhood. The following year, both the Military Times and the New York Times reported on Denver's Post 1, which has substantially altered its program offerings in order to attract younger veterans. Discussing the inclusion of Post 350's neighbors in Takoma Park, Rich Fales notes:

"We've got to remember what the VFW is for... It's for veterans to come in and associate with veterans. I'm happy to see all the interest, but we have to be careful how we do this."

What if America's two most prominent veterans' organizations amended their national bylaws to allow frontline civilians to join in a provisional or associate capacity?

It may be helpful to review both organizations' membership requirements. With the death of the Legion's last Great War veteran in 2011, Legion eligibility is currently contingent upon honorable discharge or current service in any branch of the military with at least one day on active duty in World War II; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; the 1980's operations in Lebanon, Grenada, or Panama; and the Persian Gulf War and Global War on Terrorism. VFW membership is contingent upon having received a campaign medal for overseas service, served thirty consecutive or sixty non-consecutive days in Korea, or received hostile fire or imminent danger pay.

Consider five examples: an Air Force ballistic missile maintainer, an Army officer whose sole deployment involved thirty days in Kuwait, a Navy ballistic missile submariner with one deterrent patrol, a Marine Corps infantryman with two tours in Anbar Province, and a frontline civilian with one year in Kandahar. Under the Legion's current requirements, all of the aforementioned individuals are eligible for membership except for the frontline civilian. Under the VFW's current requirements, the airman and the frontline civilian are excluded, but the submariner and the Army officer with a brief deployment to Kuwait are eligible. It's worth asking the question: who is better able to relate to the experiences of that Marine infantryman? These comparisons are in no way meant to denigrate the service of ballistic missile maintainers, submariners, or Army officers (though Army "slick sleeves" have sometimes been subject to criticism from their peers). Even so, and by nearly every measure, who is best described as a "veteran of a foreign war"? A submariner who never set foot on foreign soil? A ballistic missile mechanic who spent four years in rural Wyoming? An Army officer who spent one month at a rear echelon post? Or a frontline civilian who spent as much time in Afghanistan as the Marine spent in Iraq?

CONCLUSION

Of course, distinctions between troops and frontline civilians still exist, and so they should. One could very well contrast Zeller's personal definition of the word "veteran" with C.S. Lewis' classic passage lamenting the colloquial dilution of the word "gentleman". Similarities aside, returned frontline civilians are not veterans, and observations that the Legion and VFW must continue to focus on veterans are entirely correct. Frontline civilians' potential involvement should probably fall short of full membership, and those organizations' service and lobbying efforts should not be diverted from their singular focus on supporting veterans.

However, if America is to be concerned with the "civil-military divide", the atrophy of national institutions like the Legion and the VFW, and the acknowledgement of frontline civilians' service to the Republic - and that concern is warranted in all three cases - then inviting frontline civilians into some manner of formal fellowship with America's veterans could be a big step in the right direction.

Tom Ordeman, Jr. is an Oregon-based information security professional, freelance military historian, and former federal contractor. A graduate with Distinction from the University of Aberdeen’s MSc program in Strategic Studies, he holds multiple DoD and industry security certifications. Between 2006 and 2017, he supported training and enterprise risk management requirements for multiple DoD and federal civilian agencies. His research interests include the modern history of the Sultanate of Oman, and the exploits of the Gordon Highlanders during the First World War. His opinions are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any entity with which he is associated.