Most of the public don't feel that being a "veteran" warrants being provided for for life. What type of "veteran" should be provided for anyway? Someone who was an air force refrigerator technician for three years and never deployed? An army clerk who deployed but never left his/her air conditioned office (let alone anywhere near combat or danger) while on deployment? What I' getting at is, what threshold would a "veteran" have to satisfy before being entitled to being taken care of for life?

Now, let's take an infantryman who's served on the front lines in a war, experienced combat and been put at serious risk. I'm sure wherever you draw the line, he'd probably qualify, yes? Is that something you think should entitle someone to never have to work for the rest of their lives? I don't even know many soldiers who'd agree with this. I actually fit squarely into that category (I'm an 18 year vet of the infantry and a combat veteran), and I couldn't possibly accept a fully paid for retirement following my combat deployment in my early thirties. I know I'd be ripping the taxpayers off. My contribution to society was significant (more than most people will ever contribute), but it wasn't that significant. I don't think I deserve to be able to put my feet up for the rest of my life as payment.

You also have to consider what it does to the military when you dismiss veterans to an early retirement just because they're "veterans". A battalion would rotate home from overseas, and everyone would retire. Then you'd have to staff the whole battalion from scratch using soldiers and officers straight off the street, and the battalion becomes useless for a decade while you start to re-build all the corporate knowledge, experience, leadership and skill that walked out the door when everyone retired. There's good reason to want to keep veterans serving in the military.