The Wrong Fight

It is of fundamental importance not to make the mistake
of assuming that because a group’s members
are in formation this means that they’re necessarily on course
--R.D. Laing

You have to keep in mind Republicans care more
about catching Democrats than catching terrorists
--Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.)
___________

Fred Kaplan wrote in last month's Slate on the "monetization of military service" and its implications.

"The U.S. Army is having such a hard time recruiting new soldiers that it is about to offer a truly breathtaking incentive to high-school graduates who sign up—a $40,000 signing bonus, to be applied to buying a home or starting a business after their service is complete."

"First, at a time when the Army is trying to expand its ranks for the long haul (Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has authorized the recruitment of 65,000 more troops in the next several years), this bonus is likely to attract—or, in any event, produce—short-timers. Since the cash is handed over only after the recruits finish their service, they will have an incentive not to re-enlist for a second term, much less to make a career of the military."

Kaplan's point on the short-timers is a valid one, and the Department of Defense will have to amend the stipulations for receipt of the bonus. Ranger predicts the conscription bonus probably will be paid after four years honorable service, even if the recruit stays in the Army. In for years, that $40,000 should buy at least a tank of gas for the lucky enlistee.

He notes the enlistment bonus "may work against another set of incentives to retain junior officers, who are leaving the service in droves. The Army recently offered a $30,000 bonus for captains who re-enlist." (Point of minutiae, but officers do not re-enlist -- they "extend their term of service.")

Even in the 1960's and 70's, enlisted men received VRB's --Variable Enlistment Bonuses -- which were serious dollars, and key MOS's received hefty bonuses. Officers didn't receive dick. Was this fair or equitable?

However, comparing the two incentives is like apples to oranges. In the short-term it appears to be inequitable, but when evaluated over a lifetime of educational and retirement benefits, the officers' benefits disproportionately outweigh those of the EM. One need only look at the base pay which is the yardstick by which retirement benefits are measured.

This should not be a battle between EM's and officers. This is as nefarious and divisive an issue as the Department of Veterans Affairs setting up categories of veterans who may actually receive the treatment to which they are entitled.

The fact is, we can never begin to fully compensate our soldiers for the duty they render this country. The duties performed by the average soldier in combat merit more compensation than that paid to NFL players, but that is not on the table anytime soon.

Kaplan has it right when he says, "The fundamental problem here is that the Army is in bad shape—and is going to stay in bad shape until we pull a lot of troops out of Iraq." American leadership needs more realism when planning and executing wars. As goes the country, so the Army. Lacking realistic goals and leadership, neither will heal and prosper.

A realistic solution is to end the frivolous wars, bringing the active and reserve components to a workable force level. Or, re-institute the draft, which will effect the same end.

A large standing Army is too tempting a toy for a president to play with, especially an imperial president.