Third Party & Independents: Archives

They’re having a hard enough time keeping them from jumping ship as it is… now they’re gonna force people to stay in the service longer?

Pity they can’t do something positive, like raise their pay or something.

I remember a few years ago that many troops were planning on leaving the military because they just cannot support themselves and their family with that kind of pay and benefits. By all means, it appears nothing was done to stop that exodus.

Recently, as many of us know, the administration offered $10,000 dollars to troops if they stayed in Iraq and nearly 50% scoffed at it. So now the administration had decided to enfore the stop laws instead of improving benefits to those in the service.

Then there is the issue of Pakistan.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/…nationworld-hed

So where does it stop or when does the military gain more benefits from the party that is supposedly “pro-military”?

ceejayoz, I just read somewhere night before last about 1700 desserters in Iraq to date, and a British Columbian underground railroad being constructed to give them safe haven in Canada. It was a Canadian press article. It would kill advertising revenue for an American publication to cover that story. I will see if I can find the link, again.

Note to Adam:

As a recently retired US Navy vet I can assure you that 10K bonus being offered is not new for the Iraq conflict. It has been a standard policy in all branches of the Services for 2 decades.

That $10K looks like a lot doesn’t it? It would make one believe that turning it down is statement on discontent on being in Iraq?
This is the reality of the bonuses.

It is meant to keep service members in the service rather than leaving to higher paid jobs “on the outside.”

Example: Pilots get 30,000. The field I was in paid 20,000, to re-sign for 5 years.

As you see there is a mandatory length of time to enlist to get the full amount. So a pilot who gets $30,000 “re-ups” for 6 years to get that amount, or $5,000 per year. Subtract taxes unless in a war zone like Iraq or Afganistan at the moment, and a pilot based in the States would get a net of about $3,5 to $3,800 per year for 6 years. further break that down to a little over $300 dollars a month to sign up for 6 years and it is very little incentive.

The question is would you accept $300 dollars a month to spend 4-6 months a year, every year away from your wife and kids? And because of Iraq that time away is extended to 1 year.
Would you accept $300 dollars a month to work 10-16 hours a day? If in the Navy would you spend every 3rd day on smaller ships, or every 4th day
on larger ships restricted to the ship for 24 hours for “duty” again away from your own bed and family even when stateside and again for the same $300 a month?

I thought so? All is not as it seems!

Thank you for the background and figures but it leaves me with one question: So are you agreeing with me or not because I really cannot tell.

The real deal here is that Bush kept saying we don’t need anymore troops, holding out for more international replacements. His failed diplomacy, or should I say lack of diplomacy leading up to invasion, now fails him. Hence, the troops he held out for will have to be our own.

He didn’t learn a thing about being commander in chief from his father, who, I believe handled the Iraq invasion with the proper steps of preparation. And his father was not willing to break with international law once Iraqi’s were pushed back from Kuwait into Iraq. Thus his father preserved America’s international respect and leadership role in diplomacy.

This apple appears to have been windblown far from the tree.

Funny but I thought we’d outlawed involunary servitude some years ago. Imagine the irony of being a volunteer for the military who has completed 3,4,6 or more years of arduous service who looks forward to resuming a non-military life only to learn that a man who disappeared (ie; read went AWOL) has just signed an order that keeps you in the service for another year or more.

Pay them more, there will be more of them.

BTW, do you think increasing the size of the military is a good idea? Surely that is the important question raised.

The philosophy that says war is good for the econonmy is the important underlying question. Is that true? We should be looking at synergy with other nations. I don’t believe our economy can afford this size military for any sustained period of time - 5 to 7 years or more.

The opportunity cost regarding domestic and infrastructure is becoming too high, real fast.

Comment deleted for Critiquing the Messenger instead of the Message. - WatchBlog Manager.

JCC

Nothing like a running “righter” to come rushing to the conversation. Jeez, you have your neck in the sand? Well, they say even Hitler had his backers so don’t feel too bad.

TJT