A retired Canadian Armed Forces officer first warned on his personal blog that Washington could exploit indebted Americans to staff an invasion of Iran.
Ten days later, he recommended the same mechanism in The Jerusalem Post as an efficient way to produce the troops a ground war would require. AJ Jaff proposed canceling recruits’ student loans, credit card debt, auto loans and other personal debts after 24 or 36 months of military service.
Jaff presented the idea to his Substack readers on Aug. 20 as a warning about impending government exploitation. He said an unpopular war would leave Washington searching for Americans willing to fight and described debt forgiveness as a way to make financially desperate people believe war offered their only escape.
“The debt was the trap,” Jaff wrote. “The forgiveness is the bait.”
The Language Changed with the Audience
Jaff called the arrangement “the cruelty at the center” of the plan and compared it to conscription disguised as economic opportunity. Although he considered the mechanism effective, he seemed to condemn its use.
Jaff adopted a different voice in The Jerusalem Post on Aug. 30. Instead of warning readers to recognize the trap, he addressed Washington as a policy adviser.
He called debt forgiveness the “most efficient conversion mechanism” available to the Pentagon and presented it as one of three actions the United States should pursue against Iran, as the war recently exceeded the six-month mark.
The underlying facts had not changed. Jaff still believed Americans opposed the war, existing troop levels could not support an invasion and financial distress made military-age adults susceptible to the offer.
The Substack article described those conditions from the recruit’s perspective. The Jerusalem Post column evaluated them from the government’s perspective and recommended using them.
The column followed a reported email in which a senior U.S. Central Command intelligence officer asked military analysts for “creative and unconventional” ways to pressure Iran.
A Wider Attitude Toward American Military Power
Jaff’s proposal is consistent with a broader strain of Israeli commentary.
American troops and communities often appear in those columns as instruments for achieving regional objectives, while the consequences for the people serving and their families receive little to no attention.
Other English-language Israeli opinion columns have displayed a similar willingness to assign ambitious missions to American forces. One Jerusalem Post contributor, Rafael Castro, proposed organizing Iranian Americans into specialized U.S. Army units and inserting them into Tehran and Isfahan.
In a different article, Mark Lavie wrote that “[i]f the US is afraid of getting army boots dirty, or, more seriously, taking some casualties in a legitimate military operation, then its army is a waste of time and money.”
A third article by Shawn A. Weiss declared that “Israel’s war is America’s war,” demanded U.S. support “without condition or reservation,” and told Americans to “get a clue.”
Coverage of Gaza reveals the same difference in emphasis. CENTCOM describes the approximately 200 Americans working at a coordination center in Israel as supporting humanitarian assistance, logistics and ceasefire monitoring, with no U.S. deployment inside Gaza.
Israeli commentary from Yaakov Katz described the operation as American “Bibi-sitting” intended to supervise Israel.
In another column, Ilan Pomeranc urged Israel to reject permanent U.S. bases, writing, “[t]he United States might be our partner for now, but there is no…such thing as eternal allies.”
He warned that American facilities could “hamper or even prevent Israel from acting,” then recommended expanding U.S. facilities in Cyprus and Sinai instead.
Section 219 of the House-passed fiscal 2027 NDAA would deepen U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation, while Section 622 of the pending Senate intelligence authorization bill would expand intelligence sharing and restrict reductions.
Essentially, the United States would assume deeper military and defense commitments to Israel while some Israeli readers are advised to keep American forces outside the country, so concern for their safety cannot influence Israeli military decisions.
These opinion columns do not represent every Israeli journalist, citizen or government official. Several contributors are American, Canadian or European. Even with that qualification, Americans have reason to ask why outside commentators so readily design U.S. recruiting policies and missions while Americans would carry the resulting debts, deployments and casualties.
Debt Would Determine the Value of Service
Military service already provides substantial education and debt-related benefits.
Service members may receive tuition assistance while serving, and the GI Bill can cover education or training during or after military service.
The VA also operates Veteran Readiness and Employment for qualifying veterans with service-connected disabilities, while qualifying veterans with total and permanent disabilities may receive federal student loan discharges.
The services separately offer student loan repayment programs. None of those programs amounts to blanket cancellation of credit card balances, vehicle loans and personal debt in exchange for joining.
Jaff’s plan would compensate people differently for identical service. A recruit with $80,000 in eligible debt could receive far more than someone who worked through college, supported relatives, avoided borrowing, or lacked access to extensive credit.
Rent, childcare and family support would receive no comparable value. Responsible financial decisions would essentially be punished with lesser compensation.
Recruits would also continue owing their original creditors during the waiting period.
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act can lower interest on qualifying pre-service debt to 6%, but it does not cancel principal or excuse missed payments. Service members commonly acquire auto loans and revolving credit after joining, creating new debt that might fall outside the program.
How Debt Could Become Recruiting Leverage
Congress would have to authorize and fund Jaff’s proposal.
The Pentagon can offer bonuses under authority Congress has already granted, but Jaff’s plan would create a separate benefit that cancels private debts after a period of service.
Legislation would also need to establish which debts qualify, set any payment limit, and address early separation. If cancellation occurred only after the required 24 or 36 months, someone who separated early could lose the entire benefit.
If the government paid creditors earlier, lawmakers would have to decide whether the former service member owed the government for the unearned portion. Existing military benefit law generally requires repayment of unearned bonuses or similar benefits when service conditions are not completed, although exceptions may apply.
Tax treatment would require another decision. Federal law generally counts both compensation and canceled debt as taxable income unless an exclusion applies.
Congress would need to provide tax-free treatment if recruits were expected to receive the promised relief without replacing part of their former debt with an IRS bill.
Congress would have to authorize and fund Jaff’s plan because federal law prohibits enlistment bounties except for bonuses authorized by law.
Lawmakers would also have to define eligible debt, decide what happens after an early separation, and prevent canceled balances from becoming taxable income.
Read the full article here