mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Poll: Vets Anxious about Return to Civilian Life

The Pentagon may soon be trimming its workforce. What if the private sector isn’t ready to receive the veterans who will soon be looking for work? A new poll shows vets are anxious about this very question. The Washington Post reports:

Among the most striking findings of the Veterans’ Employment Challenges study, released last week, is that 44 percent of veterans participating in the poll said they were not ready to make the transition to civilian life.

Veterans facing physical or mental-health issues were twice as likely as others to say they were not ready for the transition. In addition, close to half of those who said they were not ready said they needed more education or technical training. The poll was conducted by Prudential Financial in partnership with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Not all veterans are equally vulnerable. Military police, paralegals and helicopter mechanics have civilian counterparts, but some of the common (and dangerous) occupational specialties, such as combat infantry or artillery, struggle to find civilian work which relates to their particular skill set.

America needs to do a better job educating all of its young people for the modern workforce, and this is especially true for veterans, to whom the nation owes an enormous debt of gratitude.

We hope Via Meadia readers looking to hire will find ways to give vets a chance. They deserve it.

Features Icon
show comments
  • cacrucil

    Why is the military downsizing when our elected leaders make it seem like a war with Iran could be in the works?

  • Mrs. Davis

    We plan to surrender.

  • Jim.

    Affirmative action needs to be revamped so that it favors people with military service — people who have put their [lives] on the line for this country — instead of along racial or gender lines.

    Those who argue that public peace depends on programs like AA would do well to consider the consequences of alienating combat-trained Americans with genuine grievances.

    It doesn’t help that Democrats want to downsize the military dramatically, either.

  • f1b0nacc1


    Even if the US participated in airstrikes against Iran (this is likely to be an Israeli-only show), these strikes would be accomplished using existing forces, and would be over in a relatively short (several weeks, at the outside) time. The military is transitioning from a force designed to fight several large wars simultaneously to one designed to fight one large and several small (or sub-small) wars more or less at the same time. Whether or not this is a desirable policy is a different debate, but certainly the potential strikes on Iran are not incompatible with this projected force.

  • Kenny

    Let me see if I have this right.

    Guys in the military are afraid they won’t find jobs when they leave the service. Given the chronically high unemployment rate under Obama, this is a legitimate fear.

    Yet at the same time, Obama grants pseudo-amnesty and green employment cards to ten thousands of illegal aliens – all to the praise of the elite for this despicable move.

    Explain that disconnect to us, Mr. Mead.

    And if you try, don’t dare to say that illegal aliens create jobs — they don’t; they consume jobs and social benefits designed & reserved for citizens. Fact.

  • Jim.


    Air strikes… because they gave us such wonderful results in Libya!


    Jobs for illegals but not for vets… that should work for an attack line against Obama.

  • Luke Lea

    Quite a contrast to the GI’s coming home from WWII. Use and forget seems to be the way we treat them today.

  • Kris

    “some of the common (and dangerous) occupational specialties, such as combat infantry or artillery, struggle to find civilian work which relates to their particular skill set.”

    Fear not! In the imminent Services Economy, people will hire their own bodyguard/soldier. This will be very handy in instances such as office politics. 🙂

    Jim@5: Just the other day, I hit my finger with a hammer.

  • f1b0nacc1


    Actually, air strikes did give us excellent results in Libya….IF you define excellent results as “destroying the Great Loon’s military”. Now, if you are talking about the aftermath of that destruction…obviously those were not good results which is precisely why I opposed those airstrikes at the time. In the case of Iran, we are not talking about regime change, we are talking about knocking out their nuclear program (and air defenses, etc.) and nothing more. Air strikes are a fine tool for this LIMITED OBJECTIVE (I would strongly oppose any US ground troops in Iran…my foreign policy with countries like this is “Rubble don’t make trouble”), but if you misuse any tool, you won’t get good results.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service