Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
What We Owe A Professional Army
I temporarily lose my ability to speak and write freely in about two weeks, so I am using what time I have left to stir up as much controversy as possible. Over Twitter two days ago and in my World Politics Review column yesterday, I broached a subject that might anger some of my fellow veterans.
When we talk about what we owe veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we immediately begin to talk about entitlements. The intellectual space devoted to veterans issues, in fact, is almost entirely filled by advocates. (Our research program at CNAS, I am happy to note, is exceptional in this regard.) But as much as I respect organizations like Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Veterans of Foreign Wars -- I am a member, in fact, of both -- we rarely take a step back and ask the hard philosophical questions about service and entitlements.
The fact is that the military that has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a military of conscripts like the ones that fought in our nation's previous wars. Each man and woman who has served in Iraq has volunteered and signed a labor contract to provide a service in exchange for compensation. Compensation is not the only thing that motivates servicemen, of course -- far from it -- but the terms of the initial contract are clear.
We Americans, I argue, need to decide whether or not military service is truly a service or whether, in the era of the all-volunteer force, it is a profession like many others in the federal government. Our decades-long inability to decide between these two poles has lead to an ambiguous situation in which we have lifted up our professional military onto a ridiculous praetorian pedestal. The example I always use is that of the uniformed military serviceman in peak physical condition being allowed to board an airplane before a mother with two small children. Every veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan that I meet thinks this is ridiculous. But those kinds of no-cost perks are delivered along with a lot of very real and costly veterans benefits -- such as the new G.I. Bill -- given at a time when the rest of the country is making tremendous sacrifices. I write:
If the military is a service, then we can and should expect those who serve to do so humbly and for little reward, in exchange for the grateful thanks of their nation. We might provide compensatory benefits on the back end for the families of those killed and for those wounded or injured while serving. If the military is a profession, by contrast, then we should expect those who choose this profession to provide a contractually obligated service in exchange for pay and benefits.
Either way, the policy implications are the same. If veterans of a professional all-volunteer force have simply provided services to the public in exchange for compensation, then we veterans deserve the same benefits provided to other public servants -- no more, no less. If the military, by contrast, is a truly selfless service, than veterans should be among the first in these times of austerity to lead by example and accept fewer public benefits. At the very least, we should be helping that mother with kids onto the airplane ahead of us.
Anyway, read the whole thing. What I don't want to see is my fellow veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan become like the baby boomers -- spoiled and entitled, unwilling to either give up benefits or accept new taxes, and putting our own selfish desires over those of the greater good. That's not what I want my military service to be about.
Speaking of World Politics Review, subscribe here. My column ends next week, but if you've enjoyed my column, you'll likely be really excited to see who my replacement is.
P.S. Steve Walt wrote a post on Tuesday asking why no one was talking about Afghanistan. It's a question worth asking, and absent any real guidance from the campaign, I spent last week's WPR column trying to imagine what a Romney Administration's Afghanistan policy would look like.
The rest of the country is
The rest of the country is making extraordinary sacrifices? Over a decade of war, while servicemen fought and died, US domestic spending went up and taxes went down. Now harsh cuts and tax rises are frequently opposed, but little has actually happened. The reason the military has been put on a pedestal is because they're the only ones sacrificing on behalf of a society which has lost all understanding of the notion of collective responsibility.
If veterans of a professional
Ok, let's take that to it's logical conclusion. If we're going to turn military service into just another federal workforce then I suppose we need to allow military "workers" to unionize like their civilian counterparts, allow them to quit when they want, etc. Can the military do its job if we implement a full "professionalization" of the force?
I simply don't see how it's possible to eliminate the "service" portion of military service because there is no equivalent of the UCMJ for civilians. So, painting it as an either-or choice is the wrong way to look at it. And it's not like we don't have history to guide us and there are more options available than the simple dichotomy you provide here. Just as one example, we could distinguish between types of service and reserve special benefits for combat veterans. When could also adjust military compensation to recruiting needs. If people are beating down doors to recruiting offices, then that's a sign military personnel are over-compensated. When (it's not a question of "if" IMO), we reduce the end-strength then compensation could go down. There are many options to nationalizing this problem.
Im not sure how much
Im not sure how much sacrifice the rest of the country is doing. While 7 servicemen were killed in a chopper crash today, Americans do not feel the impact of war, why should they? Most dont even know where A-stan is on a map.
So personally, I am not bothered by our servicemen boarding planes before others, or getting a little extra of benefits and education. These arent 'entitlements', these are debts that we as ignorant, uncontributing civilians owe to our fellow citizens for picking up a gun and serving on front lines. I think we have a healthy respect for the military and those who serve.
If military service is a
If military service is a service or professional the end of service should be the same. Even working for the government (non military) and one gets injured or killed (job related) there are certain obligations of the company (government in this case) has. That end of service obligations are not being fully fulfilled.
Americans in general are not
Americans in general are not "making great sacrifices"as your article states and to compare the hardships and sacrifices of American service members to the average man on the street is bewildering to say the least. I too am a veteran and I agree that entitlements for military members need to be discussed and quite possibly need to be reconfigured in order o be more equitable and in-line with the spirit of what public service is meant to be. I am all for either reducing or eliminating the GI Bill if in return service members, who sign a contract and are considered professionals, earn professional wages. I topped out at just around $2,000/month as Corporal in the USMC, which is far below what I considered to be professional earnings for my rank and time in service. When the govt decides to pay military members a competitive and fair wage for military service, then we can talk about entitlement reform.
Exum, you must be on a
Exum, you must be on a fishing trip cause you opened a can of worms.
Not all boomers are on a entitlement binge, most that I know haven't taken a drop of help from Uncle Sam. Most of the people I know pay their taxes and pay them well. Only about a third of the nation pays the taxes for the rest of the population. Comes down to a matter of trust. When the government stops wasting money, then I think that people would be happier to pay in. As far as Medicare and SS go, the boomers paid for it why shouldn't they get what they paid for? Just wait until ObamaCare spins up, you haven't seen the tip of the entitlement contest. There is no cost control in ObamaCare!!!! That scares the heck out of me.
Vets??? (BTW, lot of boomers are Vets too). Think you can roll in Government benefits in the discussion. Lot has changed for the middle class in the past 20 odd years due to off shoring of jobs. Private sector folks are not making what they use to. Lot of people lost their manufacturing jobs and took employment with a loss of benefits, the rest are paying out a lot more for the benefits they still have as "shared costs" (like higher shared medical employee contributions). Part of this discussion is about the bimodal society we live in. Not talking the rich .vs. poor. Talking about industry (manufacturing) that has off shored and that which never will (government and medical). Use to be (in the 60's, 70's, 80's) that government workers use to get paid less and the benefits package made the difference. As the government employees wages were made more competitive (1980's in to the 90's), that allowed the government to compete for employees that would have otherwise gone to the public sector. Problem is the government employee benefit packages did not change when their pay package increased. We got government employees pulling six-figure salaries that will get that for life with their benefit pay out too. Lot are government employees retired and are double dipping getting two government salaries. To change those government pay packages it takes an act of Congress or Presidential Executive Order. Now look at the private sector, they can change their pay packages by going bankrupt or getting purchased by private equity over night. Yes there are some wicked pay packages for management in the private sector, the rank and file have not done as well. I really feel for the workers that got pensions with benefits only to have them erased in bankruptcy court. We have half of America living in the 1950's and the others fast tracked in the globalized world. The rub is the private sector employees that have have been globalized have to keep paying for the great benefits packages of government workers while seeing their SS and Medicare on the chopping block. The cost of those government pay packages just keep rising with the double digit increases in the cost of medical costs and the government keeps asking for more taxes from the people that globalized!!!!!
The world is way bitched up. Vets are in the middle of it.
The best thing that we can do for the Vets is to make sure we only get into wars when it is absolutely needed. Think we are a little to quick to jump into wars and the costs are not tallied before we leap. Sun Tzu got it right.
Ex, Good post, makes you
Ex,
Good post, makes you think about the way policy makers look at the AFV. I've been out for a while, where are you going in two weeks?
Maybe I'm missing something -
Maybe I'm missing something - are military people expecting to get something more than what they were told they would get? I know a lot of active duty soldiers and Marines, very young ones at that, and not a single one ever told me he joined for the great benefits. Everyone thinks they should be paid more or have better benefits - everyone. That's not unusual. Yet even the wounded warriors I've met don't want anything more than what they were told they would get. Nobody in America has borne a greater burden over the past 11 years than the military - specifically Army & Marine infantry. Less than 2% of the American population has fought in the wars - and the vast majority of the country doesn't even know anyone who has fought. Never before in American history have so few fought for so long for so many. And we're supposed to say it's just another government job? I don't think so. In fact, I don't even consider the modern military part of the government because they actually accomplish something and earn their pay and benefits rather than stealing it like most in government do through union extortion, slush funds and gross unaccountability.
Veterans and Military
Veterans and Military benefits are probably the last entitlement to touch morally and prudentially. Honora milites nihil aliud putat. Of course they're the first to get the axe. And will be unless and until we really are Praetorian.*
That the people give us extra courtesy comes from their Hearts, we didn't ask and they certainly aren't being told. I think most of the people not only understand our sacrifice but perhaps sense that since 9/11 however awkwardly at times we have stood between them and many tears.
Name the group in society that is trusted or can be trusted as the Military. It's hardly our fault that every other elite and governing body in society from Finance, to Government, to Universities, to the very Catholic Hierarchy itself is shot through with selfishness, greed, corruption, incompetence. We have elites that more than ever in our History exist only for themselves, and cannot be trusted with any trust at all . Why blame us or the people's common sense for recognizing it?
However none our age and indeed most of the Baby Boomers will collect all the entitlements, worry not. We'll be facing a quite different set of challenges, no need to worry we'll be spoiled.
* Right now even the opportunity would apply only to the Presidents USMC guards. Semper Gumby.
Veterani sunt sua circuli on
Veterani sunt sua circuli on August 16, 2012 - 10:15pm
However none our age and indeed most of the Baby Boomers will collect all the entitlements, worry not.
Seems the Boomers are the bad guys here. Boomers paid in one heck of a lot of FICA for a smaller group of retirees. The current retirees themselves paid in a huge some of money since the 30's when FICA was started. Government has been raiding the fund for general spending for years.
There needs to be an accounting on how the FICA money has been used. Christ, any dead head investment broker could have turned a fortune investing in America from the 1950's on-out to today, stock market busts included.
Bring back the goddamn draft
Bring back the goddamn draft and spend a few billion on educating the American peasant.
Enough with moralizing mercs. The wars you chose to fight, you should've refused.
If the enlistees knew anything they'd have told the CIA to get their money back from Hekmatyar on their own and told Cheney to stuff it.
I'd have more respect for you if you knew what you were supposed to be defending.
We did it to ourselves,
We did it to ourselves, together. We are only going to get out of it together. Buy American.
I remember the days when jobs would come rolling back after a recession cause manufacturing was mostly in the USA. Now all those jobs and those that supported the factory are overseas, no quick recovery after a recession from the recovering demand of the worlds number one economy. Trickle down is now trickle out (of the USA). Wages, EPA, and a host of other overhead issues pushed manufacturing offshore when the Internet enabled the communication to have marketing in the USA and the factory in the Asian Rim.
FICA payments went too along with the other tax revenue. Why spend more for an education if there is no future???
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/us/unemployment-depths-seen-in-califor...
They were once advertising executives, engineers, social workers, teachers and purchasing managers. Now they come week after week, dressed for the office, carrying binders full of résumés and leads for potential jobs. They refine what they call their “60-second commercial” — a way to pitch themselves to nearly anyone they meet. When the three-hour meetings end, they mosey over, some reluctantly, to a table packed with day-old bread donated by a supermarket.
.
With a state unemployment rate of 10.7 percent, California officials struggle to find ways to get people back to work. In the sprawling suburbs east of Los Angeles that make up the Inland Empire, the job market seems more upbeat than it has been for months, but unemployment remains at 12.6 percent.
Now we sing the blues about Social Security. It goes way beyond SS. State pension fund managers are still using 6-8% future returns on investment to project current funding payment from public employees. Federal Social security is just as poorly managed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-rules-expose-bigger-f...
The latest rules come on line from the bond-rating firm Moody’s at the end of this month. They are projected to triple the gap between what states and municipalities report they have in their funds and what they have promised to pay out to retirees. That hole would stand at $2.2 trillion.
All those people that use to have jobs paid the taxes that supported your USAID and VET benefits Exum.
What brand of car do you drive? Where are your appliances made? Computer?etc, etc, etc.
All this talk of veterans and
All this talk of veterans and morality. When did you fight, 1942? That was the last justifiable war. Now you're all "Imperial Grunts"
The median net worth of a boomer is $175 thousand. That includes real estate: everything.
That's not much for a lifetime of work. If you want to talk economics and downward mobility look up Dean Baker. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/
And again, bring back the amateur military that freed this country from someone else's empire.
My family's still proud they fought in that one.
To all who post here
To all who post here regarding "American Imperialism" stop with the lies, insults and propaganda. You may not agree with the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan but American intervention into those two countries has only benefited their respective regions. The Iraqis were freed of Sadam which, if you can put aside your blatant bias and remember some historical facts, the Iraqi people were rejoicing in the streets when American troops entered Baghdad, celebrating the fall of the regime. America did not come to Iraq to take it over, colonize it, or whatever ridiculous and bankrupt theories you choose to "explain" what has taken place over the past 9 years. In fact, we are in a worse position politically and strategically than we were before the war now that Iraq has a Shia government in charge and appears to be courting Iranian interests. So, if you want to say the war was a bad move fine; that's a valid argument, but it has nothing to "imperialism." It has to do with the loss of American lives first, and the cost of the second and determining if our action was the worth the cost in the end, period.
We were talking about weird
We were talking about weird things in the Social Security Administration.
Something is not right about this....
http://www.infowars.com/social-security-administration-to-purchase-174-t...
First it was the Department of Homeland Security, then it was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and now the Social Security Administration is set to purchase 174,000 rounds of hollow point bullets that will be delivered to 41 locations across the country.
With layers of government agencies with policing capabilities why in the heck does the Social Security Administration need to waste money on a police force??????? Crap that is reoccurring salaries, benefits, equipment, office space, training, heating, electricity, and water for redundancy.
Why do we staff the FBI?
Andrew: In the context of
Andrew:
In the context of veterans' benefits, there's some serious risk in painting the Baby Boomer generation with the unflattering brush of selfishness and entitlement--however correct it might be--because the vast majority of American casualties during the Viet Nam War were also Baby Boomers.
In fact, I think that underlying a lot of the benefits bills and "no-cost perks" is an unspoken desire to right the wrongs of that dark period in civil-military relations; American companies, American people, local governments and national politicians (even ones, like Barack Obama, who were mere children at the peak of that war) are collectively haunted by the dreadful legacy of how poorly Viet Nam vets were treated upon their return. In the span of three decades, you'll admit, we can point to progress as a society if we've gone from turning our back on hundreds of thousands of veterans (many if not most of them drafted), to a society which bends over backwards to help them out.
You may have a point that we've over-corrected. But I'd be very wary of comparing the OIF and OEF generation of vets with the entitled Baby Boomer generation, because that's not the comparison we should make in setting policy. The comparison ought to be the treatment and compensation of current cohorts versus that of previous ones, like Viet Nam vets.
Brian, the outcome in Iraq
Brian, the outcome in Iraq was predictable, and was in fact predicted.
Please, don't start lying to yourself, or to us, that the US action was altruistic.
The invasion was launched based on the cold self-interested logic of arrogant and unintelligent people.
if you served them blindly as so many did, it's something you have to face.
The destruction, the death, the millions displaced, is on your conscience, not mine.
@Mars My comments have
@Mars
My comments have nothing to do "with my conscience" as you described it. Your blatant political bias and ignorance of historical events vividly colors the poorly written sentences you construct. I never suggested that our mission in Iraq was at all altruistic, but it certainly wasn't conducted out of malice either, which is the point you are making by carelessly throwing out such buzzwords as "imperialism" within the context of the Iraq war. Despite the reason(s) at the heart of the decision to go into Iraq, only someone so blinded their own bias and sheer ignorance will not concede the fact that the Iraqi people have benefited from our actions there, supporting our ousting of the Saddam regime. If you disagree with the war fine, but stop with the nonsense.
Bias? Who doesn't have bias?
Bias? Who doesn't have bias? And what's yours based on?
Imperial Grunts is the title of a book by Robert Kaplan.
the Iraqis have survived our meddling, that's all. And now Small Wars Journal is promting a US Sunni war against the Shia. Brilliant. Back the Saudis, the Gulf Monarchies and Israel against all comers.
Don't even begin to think you know enough to opine on this. You're warrior first, aou have a side to defend. I defend the rule of law. But you're more of an idealist than I am. Between the Saudis and Iran I choose Iran, though I approve of neither. You want another book? Americas Kingdom. Mythmaking on the Saudi Oil Frontier. How about Patriot of Persia by Christopher de Bellaigue?
you're a hammer looking for a nail, and for permission. Look elsewhere
@Mars It is true that
@Mars
It is true that everyone has a bias but, you sir, are suffering from a political and personal bias so profound that it has you making statements regarding a reality that doesn't even exist. Furthermore, if you claim to "defend the rule of law" then how could you possibly say such things as "..Between the Saudis and Iran I choose Iran, though I approve of neither"? That statement is completely unsound, logically, and the idea that you would consider the support of the current Iranian regime, in any capacity, is bewildering to say the least and renders your statement about defending the "rule of law" meaningless. Instead of trying to invent things to rail against, consider being a little more open-minded, honest and less assuming in your thinking than you have demonstrated on this forum.
Between Salafists ans
Between Salafists ans Hezbollah I'll choose Hezbollah. Even Abu Tejas understands this. Paintball with Al Qaeda? The only reason he got conned, which I think he did, is because he knows the difference.
Israel is backing Saudi against Iran and therefore Al Qaeda against Hezbollah. Avraham Stern is smiling in his grave.
@Mars Not having read
@Mars
Not having read Imperial Grunts, I decided to do some research on the book. According the reviews I have read, I find it hard to believe, in some respects, that you have ever read the book.
"In the Horn of Africa, the reader meets Maj. Trip Narrow who's just returned from a trip through eastern Ethiopia. "'Everywhere we went," he tells the author, "people wanted a bigger American presence .
Despite his own background as a journalist, Kaplan is no friend of the elite media. He warns that today's media is hypercritical, hypocritical (demanding zero defects in others but refusing to acknowledge any of their own), and unaccountable.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,091205_Imperial_Grunts,00.html
"The trip takes him to seaside Yemen, nomad Mongolia, tropical and paranoid Colombia, Africa and the Philippines, moonscape Afghanistan and cafe-and-minaret Iraq..And the book goes to pieces immediately." NY Times review bashes the book because it's pro-troop, apparently pro-war (?) anti-media stance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/books/review/27lipsky.html?pagewanted=all
Interesting how a pro-military website (military.com) gives the book a great review and the NY Times liberal biased media outlet mocks and rips the book to shreds. It appears that you pulled that book out of your backside because the title included the word "imperial" without having either read or comprehended the book.
Did I say I liked Kaplan? I
Did I say I liked Kaplan? I said he wrote a book titled Imperial Grunts. You accused me of playing fast and loose with charges of imperialism. Take it up with him.
Soldiers should be citizens first. Bring back the draft, with no college deferment.
Demob the special services. They make us all less safe.
Just saw a friend at my
Just saw a friend at my local. The moment I saw him I knew.
Eid Mubarak!
The world is changing. Get used to it.
This certainly is a very
This certainly is a very controversial topic. Let us keep in mind that we are not in a national state of emergency regarding war or defense. The veterans of Afghanistan and iraq served more like a task force whose mission was to hunt down and end terrorist activity. We are not at war with a country, we are at war with a gang of thugs. The reason for the legnth of our engagment is our inability to do what is necessary in order to obtain the information needed to locate these thugs. For example, we know some terrorists reside in Pakistan and yet we fail to engage them. It is eventually going to be necessary to pursue them into Pakistan. We said that we would not distinguish between governments or countries that are harboring terrorists, and that's exactly what we are doing with Pakistan, probably because they have nuclear capabilites and an actual military. Back to the subject, do I think that people who leave their families and loved ones for the purpose serving their country deserve certain benefits and compensation? Yes. Do I think they should get a $20,000 elistment bonus and rediculous amounts of re-enlistment bonuses on top of their benefits and base pay? No. If you were drafted, I could understand the increased bonuses. But if you volunteered, you did so with the understanding that you might get shot at and you might have to shoot someone. And by the way, the people I've experienced did join the military for the wrong reason. Doesn't mean they weren't good at their job, or that they weren't effective soldiers. It is true that most anyone can follow basic instructions and in turn be successful and considered a good soldier. Regardless of what I've experienced, I still agree that military members should receive certain benefits that others shouldn't. I think their medical care should be provided and their education should be paid for. Especially if they've been drafted. And believe me when I say this, I'm doing my best not to be biased. Most of my experiences with fellow military members would go against my outlook of providing those benefits. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I have just met so very few that understood what it's really about. I've dealt with too many who only cared about what they get in return and would just rather nuke these countries, not joking either. When I spoke with these individuals, I often referred to my brother, who is my idol, and explained that they don't have it as bad as some people. And people back home do care about us and why we're here, more than they know. To each their own on this one, good topic though. And if we do ever experience a national emergency then, yes, reinstate the draft. Either that or we could start speaking another language.
I've got to agree with AM
I've got to agree with AM that benefits are in great need of reform. See, military benefits are currently old-style social contract type benefits -- you serve, you retire after a fixed amount of time with 50% pay plus you get medical benefits, etc.
Obviously, this system can be exploited by swinish people who would swindle service members by changing the contact after service members have embarked on their career or after they have finished it.
The military needs to switch entirely to a cash-and-carry system where money is deposited to an IRA with each pay check. Rather than a VA system, a medical IRA would be used. Large lump sum payments would be made by the goverment whenever a service-related disability is incurred based on the estimated cost of treatment over the estimated remaining life of the service member upon exiting the service.
What's that, you say? It might cost the taxpayer more because all those people who only serve 1 or 2 enlistments would actually get some retirement benefits? C'est la vie.
Thanks, Andrew, for stating
Thanks, Andrew, for stating the uncomfortable truth. For a book-length treatment of the issues you raise here, see "A More Perfect Military: How the Constitution Can Make Our Military Stronger" (Oxford University Press).
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/...
An excerpt:
"There is an escalating arms race between hero worship for those who serve and resentment for those who do not. There seems to be no limit to the level of open, even ostentatious, adoration of people serving our nation in uniform. Any program or event related to military service inevitably features the word 'hero' in a prominent place; anyone who enlists in the military immediately joins the ranks of heroes, well before any opportunity to act heroically. The pressure to maintain artificially high levels of esteem and admiration for the troops is enormous, and the slightest slip from uncritical reverence brings a harsh backlash of resentment both from servicemembers and civilians. Even in a time of the highest respect for all things military, the size of the resentment waiting to be unleashed grows greater. It is a truly bizarre dynamic in which greater and greater resentment can be triggered by lesser and lesser slights."
This is what happens, as Andrew notes, when we can't decide whether military service is an obligation of citizenship or not. It's one or the other, but not both. We can't sever the connection between citizenship and service, as we did at the end of the Vietnam War, and then denigrate those who do not volunteer for failing to fulfill a duty.
We have settled into an unspoken arrangement in which civilians agree to maintain a worshipful distance and not ask questions. We do great damage to civilian control, however, when we suggest that civilians have not earned the right to be a part of civilian control unless they have served themselves.
A former Air Force officer and current law professor
First of all, Brian stop
First of all, Brian stop feeding the troll...it is a worthless effort.
Secondly, there are some significant issues that are not addressed in this thought piece. The very least of which is how exactly would this "private contract" work if you were to treat service members like contractors. Because you do understand that we already contract out significant portions of the military. And having worked with service members, DoD civilians, and contractors, I can tell you that this is not the military you want. Contractors are good people, I have nothing against them. But they are bound/protected by their contracts. And yes, you can write a contract that sends them to combat areas or to perform certain duties but contracts are, by and large, limiting as to what the employee will do.
Despite the constant assertion that the purpose of the US military is "to fight and win the nation's wars" this is not even remotely accurate. The purpose of the military is execute the lawful orders of those appointed over it. And throughout our very long history, the US military has spent far more time in civil, humanitarian assistance, development, and similiar activities than actually engaged in combat. Yes, the Guard and Reserve tend to be first on scene for domestic disasters but the active duty tends to follow quickly behind for the real big stuff. And then couple that foreign efforts, the military performs jobs well outside the assumed mandate.
Similarly, on an individual level, I cannot count the number of times I have sent a "shoe clerk" down range to ride security for a convoy down an insurgent targeted road, or performed force protection duties at some forward operating location, or deployed without clue one what they were going to be doing until they got there. Sure, sometimes they got additional training for these activities but in other cases they did not. "Just in time" training is very often "not soon enough."
Now, you want to make them contractors...so who is going to write that contract? And who is going to negotiate it? That's a fairly signficant missing piece regarding the military. We cannot negotiate for raises, better benefits, promotions etc. And we certainly don't have a union that can represent us. So when my lowly "shoe clerk" who was trained to do finance or hand out basketballs at the base gym gets tapped to do this job they are not qualified to do, who is going to make sure that they are properly compensated for it? Or for the overtime they inevitably work? Or the holidays they have to suck up?
Don't get me wrong, I understand that compred to the "work for every hour of vacation time you get" we have it pretty easy. And sure we in theory get every federal holiday off (and a few additional days for "training" or "pay days") but that is a minor exchange for all of the holidays that we do lose to exercises and deployments.
This isn't whining. I agree that the benefits should be modified. I'm not a fan of the handing of my Post-911 GI Bill to my family...unless I die in the service. And I don't need to board the plane first (though the airlines *might* be using that as some form of counter-terrorims/pseudo-reassurance tactic). But I can't go on strike, and nor should I ever be allowed to do so, and I can be tasked to do damn near anything. People are concerned of the militarization of the our foreign policy but guess what, we're all you've got. NGOs don't want to be standing beside ACUs on the flight line when supplies are being rushed in? Too bad, we're all you've got.
Explain to me how you write a contract that captures all of this and I'll start to see an equitable way forward on how to properly manage the benefits. Until then, you cane expect the military to serve, in whatever capacity necessary, and you can repay us with a few benefits that in a peacetime, garrison environment might seem a little over inflated.
I do believe Ex has never
I do believe Ex has never reviewed the DoD Budget line-by-line, which means his thesis is reliant upon the analysis of...well who knows, the NYTimes, WaPo, and maybe even some random blog posting from ... others who have never reviewed the DoD budget line-by-line. As an example, who would you choose to perform surgery on YOU! A surgeon who completed residency or a surgeon who skipped that part and instead watched it on tv or simply continued to read about surgery?
The latter describes 99.9% of the individuals within the think tank community. They speak as "experts" but, in reality, only comprehend the watered down version of most topics. They lack the skills to provide actionable analysis that is worthy of putting $$$ on.
To further illustrate this point, when was the last time Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or Boeing made business investments based upon the "analysis" (I use this term very, very loosely) of a think tank? Never. They simply don't.
So, instead of arguing with someone who most likely cannot identify all of the funding for the SSBN(X), [it's not all identified in the DoD's Weapons Book, or Congressional Idiot Proof Book] we should treat this uneducated and uninformed opinion as such and avoid giving the thesis a platform with legs.
I'll agree with you, Andrew.
I'll agree with you, Andrew. We're a country that takes as an article of faith that its military servicemembers fight insurgencies on the other side of the planet to provide the homeland with nothing less than freedom of speech.
Since 9/11, the military worship has gone way beyond uncalled for into flat-out dangerous territory. We as a nation are nearly incapable of making decisions about our military based on anything other than hero myth. And many in the military, including plenty in this comments section, are happy to feed the fantasy while talking out of the other side of their mouth about military virtues of knowledge, unselfishness, integrity, etc..
Add your comment