Re: Retention Deficit

[Steven James Forsberg]

B
: positions, and fewer still in the media, know anybody in the enlisted
: ranks. It's also an easily supportable case, since all enlistees sign
: a contract that provides the government with the option of extending
: enlistment indefinitely. Objections from soldiers or airmen whose
: retirements are delayed can easily (and to some degree, accurately)
: be dismissed as the timeless griping of the enlisted. (Stop-loss also
: applies to officers.) The idea that such treatment has so far created

Of course, there is an even greater danger that lurks in the very
important 'contract' that military members sign. The US government can,
at any time and without prior notification, alter pay and benefits to include
eliminating them. The current military paradigm is centered on the idea that
the *worst* possible things is temporary pause in the increase of benefits.
If, however, the US runs short of money -- particularly in the context of a
weak economy that may bring more potential recruits -- there might be a
need/want to *reduce* military compensation levels.
The 'all volunteer' military means different things to different
people. To many, it means a military that operates on "market principles"
that include wages and benefits sometime going down in accord with supply
and demand, not always up. Others, however, take a more "union" approach
that military members "deserve" a certain level of pay and benefits, and
that market principles should not be applied.
One of the key ongoing struggles wrt the Navy is the 'deployment
pay' issue/fiasco. Congress passed the law, and the people stuck on long
deployments sure as heck want the money, but the executive branch doesn't
want to spend the money and the program is still not implemented (maybe
in a few years, say those resisting). This is a case over disagreement on
the raising of compensation -- you could imagine the screams if the government
ever tried to lower levels of compensation. As unlikely as such a track might
seem, it is something to seriously think about.

regards,
----------------------------------------------------------------

[Larry]

> The most recent indignity comes with increasing public awareness of
> the military's "stop-loss" program, in which service members can be
> forced to stay in the service even after their contractual retirement
> dates.
Gee, Mr. Bush (you F#CKING dumb****) see the result of your leadership?
(choke- he calls it leadership, actually it's NOT EVEN CLOSE).

After you've SCREWED the Vets and SCREWED the Military- I wonder why
retention and recruitment are at ALL-TIME LOWS? DUH!!!!!!!


Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
Disabled Combat Veteran
USN 'Retired'
Can't call it 'retired' when the Feds steal my 'retirement' check through
the Disabled Veterans Tax (how cute- they call it 'offset'. It's really just
theft!)

'Honorable service to my country now prevents me from feeding my family'

Thank you Bush! (Ooops- I meant **** YOU BUSH!)





"Anonymous" > wrote in message
news:8DWQ13NG38002.7937268519@anonymous...
> Stop-loss in a Volunteer State Tim Cavanaugh
>
> A recruiter's lot is not a happy one. You spend all day hounding
> teenagers to produce their misplaced divorce papers and juvenile
> criminal records, scrounging up suitable jobs for mediocre ASVAB
> scorers, hustling to get waivers for nearsighted volunteers. The
> paperwork and lily-gilding would faze even the most meretricious real
> estate agent, but you have no prospect of a big commission. Your
> deskbound bosses and their media cheerleaders cook up far-flung
> deployments that discourage all but the most foolhardy volunteers,
> then expect you to answer for it when enlistments drop.
>
> The most recent indignity comes with increasing public awareness of
> the military's "stop-loss" program, in which service members can be
> forced to stay in the service even after their contractual retirement
> dates. If you serve in or know anybody who serves in the reserves or
> regular military, you've undoubtedly heard a few stop-loss horror
> tales. The current level of scrutiny of this practice, however, seems
> to have been sparked by a few stories in the Washington Post
> detailing how stop-loss orders are affecting American soldiers in
> Iraq and elsewhere. (Maybe the Graham family is trying to prop up the
> illusion of an intense Time/Newsweek rivalry by hitting back at
> Time's selection of "The American Soldier" as its Person of the Year.)
>
> Other media have followed. Stop-loss angles now color the
> announcement that the U.S. Army is offering $10,000 re-enlistment
> bonuses to soldiers in Iraq. Proponents of the overstretched military
> argument, opponents of the Iraq war, and even mass conscription
> advocates can all find some fuel in the military's involuntary
> service requirements. "U.S. Army gives new meaning to 'slavery,'" is
> how the indispensable Free-Market.net is characterizing the story
> today.
>
> But the real advantage of having stop-loss become a news story isn't
> merely that it provides ample grandstanding opportunities (though it
> does that). Rather, this is welcome news because it complicates one
> of the sleazier pieties of foreign policy dialogue: that the armed
> services are staffed entirely by willing volunteers.
>
> Iraq war supporters who a few years back would have been justly
> appalled at Madeleine Albright's comment about there being no point
> in maintaining a splendid military if you don't use it are now quick
> to stifle any dovish concerns for the welfare of America's fighting
> forces. It's an easy case to make, since few in policy-making
> positions, and fewer still in the media, know anybody in the enlisted
> ranks. It's also an easily supportable case, since all enlistees sign
> a contract that provides the government with the option of extending
> enlistment indefinitely. Objections from soldiers or airmen whose
> retirements are delayed can easily (and to some degree, accurately)
> be dismissed as the timeless griping of the enlisted. (Stop-loss also
> applies to officers.) The idea that such treatment has so far created
> vast morale problems is a stretch.
>
> But fairness demands we recognize another truth: If enlistment is a
> voluntary process, it's also one of the zanier sales efforts in
> contemporary American life. Enlistees are routinely kept in the dark
> about a vast range of issues. These may not include the question of
> whether you'll be killed (a possibility every volunteer is aware of),
> but money and personal matters that (since, statistically speaking,
> your chances of being killed or crippled are fairly low even in
> Iraq), are in many ways more important: How much of your tiny pay
> will be extracted to pay for the mandatory and nebulous life
> insurance policy? If you have dependents, how much housing allowance
> will you get? Could you lose that allowance if you're activated and
> thus deemed no longer in need of it (a Catch-22 too complicated to
> explain here)? How and under what circumstances can you be subjected
> to a stop-loss order? And why do they keep telling you you'll learn
> the answers to these questions once you get to Basic?
>
> None of this excuses an enlistee's responsibility to know the rules
> going in. But the government doesn't operate with the kind of
> scrupulousness you'd find in, say, a used car salesman. For all the
> public encomia to our troops and Veteran's Day platitudes about how
> freedom isn't free, American service people get screwed hard, fast,
> and often.
>
> The neoliberal solution to this problem is simple and predictable:
> Don't just screw a few people; screw everybody. In its Person of the
> Year issue, Time revisits the debate over reviving the draft. The
> discussion is worth reading. For the most part, opponents of mass
> conscription (including frequent Reason contributor Doug Bandow)
> argue that a draft would be wasteful and counterproductive.
> Supporters are far more fanciful: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK),
> allegedly a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
> distinguishes himself by not putting forward a single argument based
> on military necessity. (It's worth it, Inhofe believes, to instill
> discipline in "today's youth.") Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), on the
> other hand, is smart enough to have a machiavellian secret plan: He
> wants to hamstring the Bush Administration by ensuring that even the
> sons and daughters of the wealthy are called up in a draft that is
> implemented "fairly" (that is, in a way no draft has ever been
> implemented in the history of the world).
>
> The odds of mass conscription returning still seem pretty slim, and
> it's likely that military arguments will continue to be framed in the
> context of an all-volunteer military. Except that, in a way, they're
> not really all volunteers, or at least not eager volunteers. One of
> the arguments against maintaining a large standing military is that
> this creates an incentive to put the military to use. But lack of a
> standing army didn't prevent the United States from a disastrous
> folly like the War of 1812 or an imperial misdeed like the Spanish-
> American War. In the former case, at least, the government was under
> extraordinary pressure to keep up its war effort without burdening
> the citizens. The problem today is that the priorities are reversed:
> When a free nation can't maintain its foreign adventures with willing
> volunteers, the rational solution should be to cut down on the
> adventures, not to fudge the definition of "willing." Stop-loss may
> not be the worst thing the government is doing to America's troops,
> but anybody who is seriously trying to estimate the costs of the war
> in Iraq should be paying close attention to it.
>
>
> Tim Cavanaugh is Reason's Web editor.
> ==
>
> Ar-Nold is a pigeon for the jooz.
>
> -=-
> This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
>

[Christopher Horner]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:16:04 -0800, Larry >
wrote:

>> The most recent indignity comes with increasing public awareness of
>> the military's "stop-loss" program, in which service members can be
>> forced to stay in the service even after their contractual retirement
>> dates.
> Gee, Mr. Bush (you F#CKING dumb****) see the result of your leadership?
> (choke- he calls it leadership, actually it's NOT EVEN CLOSE).
>
> After you've SCREWED the Vets and SCREWED the Military- I wonder why
> retention and recruitment are at ALL-TIME LOWS? DUH!!!!!!!

Hmm...first term retention is at 64%. Quoting CNP, "...the highest
reenlistment rates in the history of the U.S. Navy. In fact, in the
history of any service.” So sorry, Senior, try again next time

>
>
> Larry
> AECS (AW/SW/MTS)

</nit>
Master Training Specialist isn't a warfare designator; it doesn't belong
in your signature.
</nit>

> Disabled Combat Veteran
> USN 'Retired'
> Can't call it 'retired' when the Feds steal my 'retirement' check through
> the Disabled Veterans Tax (how cute- they call it 'offset'. It's really
> just
> theft!)
>
> 'Honorable service to my country now prevents me from feeding my family'
>
> Thank you Bush! (Ooops- I meant **** YOU BUSH!)
>
>
>
>
>
> "Anonymous" > wrote in message
> news:8DWQ13NG38002.7937268519@anonymous...
>> Stop-loss in a Volunteer State Tim Cavanaugh
>>
>> A recruiter's lot is not a happy one. You spend all day hounding
>> teenagers to produce their misplaced divorce papers and juvenile
>> criminal records, scrounging up suitable jobs for mediocre ASVAB
>> scorers, hustling to get waivers for nearsighted volunteers. The
>> paperwork and lily-gilding would faze even the most meretricious real
>> estate agent, but you have no prospect of a big commission. Your
>> deskbound bosses and their media cheerleaders cook up far-flung
>> deployments that discourage all but the most foolhardy volunteers,
>> then expect you to answer for it when enlistments drop.
>>
>> The most recent indignity comes with increasing public awareness of
>> the military's "stop-loss" program, in which service members can be
>> forced to stay in the service even after their contractual retirement
>> dates. If you serve in or know anybody who serves in the reserves or
>> regular military, you've undoubtedly heard a few stop-loss horror
>> tales. The current level of scrutiny of this practice, however, seems
>> to have been sparked by a few stories in the Washington Post
>> detailing how stop-loss orders are affecting American soldiers in
>> Iraq and elsewhere. (Maybe the Graham family is trying to prop up the
>> illusion of an intense Time/Newsweek rivalry by hitting back at
>> Time's selection of "The American Soldier" as its Person of the Year.)
>>
>> Other media have followed. Stop-loss angles now color the
>> announcement that the U.S. Army is offering $10,000 re-enlistment
>> bonuses to soldiers in Iraq. Proponents of the overstretched military
>> argument, opponents of the Iraq war, and even mass conscription
>> advocates can all find some fuel in the military's involuntary
>> service requirements. "U.S. Army gives new meaning to 'slavery,'" is
>> how the indispensable Free-Market.net is characterizing the story
>> today.
>>
>> But the real advantage of having stop-loss become a news story isn't
>> merely that it provides ample grandstanding opportunities (though it
>> does that). Rather, this is welcome news because it complicates one
>> of the sleazier pieties of foreign policy dialogue: that the armed
>> services are staffed entirely by willing volunteers.
>>
>> Iraq war supporters who a few years back would have been justly
>> appalled at Madeleine Albright's comment about there being no point
>> in maintaining a splendid military if you don't use it are now quick
>> to stifle any dovish concerns for the welfare of America's fighting
>> forces. It's an easy case to make, since few in policy-making
>> positions, and fewer still in the media, know anybody in the enlisted
>> ranks. It's also an easily supportable case, since all enlistees sign
>> a contract that provides the government with the option of extending
>> enlistment indefinitely. Objections from soldiers or airmen whose
>> retirements are delayed can easily (and to some degree, accurately)
>> be dismissed as the timeless griping of the enlisted. (Stop-loss also
>> applies to officers.) The idea that such treatment has so far created
>> vast morale problems is a stretch.
>>
>> But fairness demands we recognize another truth: If enlistment is a
>> voluntary process, it's also one of the zanier sales efforts in
>> contemporary American life. Enlistees are routinely kept in the dark
>> about a vast range of issues. These may not include the question of
>> whether you'll be killed (a possibility every volunteer is aware of),
>> but money and personal matters that (since, statistically speaking,
>> your chances of being killed or crippled are fairly low even in
>> Iraq), are in many ways more important: How much of your tiny pay
>> will be extracted to pay for the mandatory and nebulous life
>> insurance policy? If you have dependents, how much housing allowance
>> will you get? Could you lose that allowance if you're activated and
>> thus deemed no longer in need of it (a Catch-22 too complicated to
>> explain here)? How and under what circumstances can you be subjected
>> to a stop-loss order? And why do they keep telling you you'll learn
>> the answers to these questions once you get to Basic?
>>
>> None of this excuses an enlistee's responsibility to know the rules
>> going in. But the government doesn't operate with the kind of
>> scrupulousness you'd find in, say, a used car salesman. For all the
>> public encomia to our troops and Veteran's Day platitudes about how
>> freedom isn't free, American service people get screwed hard, fast,
>> and often.
>>
>> The neoliberal solution to this problem is simple and predictable:
>> Don't just screw a few people; screw everybody. In its Person of the
>> Year issue, Time revisits the debate over reviving the draft. The
>> discussion is worth reading. For the most part, opponents of mass
>> conscription (including frequent Reason contributor Doug Bandow)
>> argue that a draft would be wasteful and counterproductive.
>> Supporters are far more fanciful: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK),
>> allegedly a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
>> distinguishes himself by not putting forward a single argument based
>> on military necessity. (It's worth it, Inhofe believes, to instill
>> discipline in "today's youth.") Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), on the
>> other hand, is smart enough to have a machiavellian secret plan: He
>> wants to hamstring the Bush Administration by ensuring that even the
>> sons and daughters of the wealthy are called up in a draft that is
>> implemented "fairly" (that is, in a way no draft has ever been
>> implemented in the history of the world).
>>
>> The odds of mass conscription returning still seem pretty slim, and
>> it's likely that military arguments will continue to be framed in the
>> context of an all-volunteer military. Except that, in a way, they're
>> not really all volunteers, or at least not eager volunteers. One of
>> the arguments against maintaining a large standing military is that
>> this creates an incentive to put the military to use. But lack of a
>> standing army didn't prevent the United States from a disastrous
>> folly like the War of 1812 or an imperial misdeed like the Spanish-
>> American War. In the former case, at least, the government was under
>> extraordinary pressure to keep up its war effort without burdening
>> the citizens. The problem today is that the priorities are reversed:
>> When a free nation can't maintain its foreign adventures with willing
>> volunteers, the rational solution should be to cut down on the
>> adventures, not to fudge the definition of "willing." Stop-loss may
>> not be the worst thing the government is doing to America's troops,
>> but anybody who is seriously trying to estimate the costs of the war
>> in Iraq should be paying close attention to it.
>>
>>
>> Tim Cavanaugh is Reason's Web editor.
>> ==
>>
>> Ar-Nold is a pigeon for the jooz.
>>
>> -=-
>> This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
>>
>
>



--
Christopher Horner

[BUFDRVR]

>After you've SCREWED the Vets and SCREWED the Military

Uhh, I think you meant to type Clinton when you typed Bush. Bush has done an
admirable job trying to get Vets some of their health benefits back that
*Clinton* took away. As far as the current military goes, we're much happier
under this president (even in a more demanding time) than the last one.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"