« Comey: More | Main | John Yoo Made Simple »

May 17, 2007

Comments

Naturally, all the people who lecture us about how saying things like "we're losing this conflict and can't win it" are bad for the troops will arrive to explain how inadequate pay, along with inadequate medical care and all the rest, are good for the troops. *sigh*

As someone who irregularly meditates, I am beginning to think that "What does 'support the troops' really mean?" would make a splendid koan.

"Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises."

AAAACCCCCK!

The reason you might want greater pay raises is that the nature of the service has changed. In the 1990s you would join the military and you MIGHT fight. Now you WILL. To pretend that those two situations are the same is idiotic!

Seb: the idea that -- leaving aside the fact that people who risk their lives do deserve better pay -- we don't now have an army in need of more incentives kind of made my head explode too.

and of course this all comes down during the week that Bush and Cheney's personal financial asset information, showing each to be serious multi-millionaires, was released.

The thought experiment wherein we imagine the demagoguery that would ensue from the Democrats opposing pay increases for the troops is rather trite at this point, so I'm loath to suggest it.

But why, indeed, don't the Democrats ever get hot and bothered over this sort of thing? Remember Zell Miller's keynote address, in which he memorably lambasted John Kerry for supporting the defunding of weapons programs that Secretary of Defense Cheney had recommended (to be fair, Miller omitted the latter detail)? Why don't the Democrats ever start pounding the table about how Republicans demand our troops stay in battle forever, but balk at giving them an extra 0.5 percent raise? Is this not the way that winning politicians do it?

Apart from the rhetoric, the bad guys are probably right this time.

We're going to be out of iraq in a year, before the extra pay gets well-started it won't be such an issue.

And the troops have been re-enlisting quite well. No matter how burned out they get they do re-enlist. It's been only a few thousand that quit and then got forced into coming back and joining understrength units and working with strangers, not like they'd be afraid of that if they quit.

A peacetime army wouldn't need that big a payraise, and the existing army can limp along fine until we pull out.

But I don't understand why they'd fight it. Is there not enough loot to go around that they'd balk at giving a little bit to the troops? Does it all have to go to their croneys?

*reads thread title*

*swoons*

Marry me :D

Why the high re-enlistment rates? The troops are faced with a choice: re-enlist and collect a bonus, or refuse to re-enlist, miss out on the bonus - and be forced to stay on anyway under "stop-loss" orders. I'm surprised I have to mention this.

Also, isn't it interesting how President Bush thinks that "supporting the troops" means sending them off to get shot at and subjected to IED attacks while denying them the ability to support themselves or their families. I never knew the word "support" was a synonym of "screw."

Anarch: Don't be hasty. I came up with this when I realized I had already used 'Supporting the troops: Take N, for N Large.' I expect that sometime or other I will end up with Take Aleph Sub Aleph, and what will you do then if we're already married? ;PPPP

Hey, it is an insult to insinuate that the soldiers are in it for the money. The main motivations are of course patriotism, glory and the chance to convert interesting people to evangelical Kristianity(TM) before killing them. [/snark]

“Troops don’t need bigger pay raises”
“strongly opposes”
“unnecessary”
“also drew complaints”

Just when I thought I couldn’t get more disgusted by these guys.


A Sergeant (E5) midway through their 2nd term of enlistment makes $27,885.60 per year in base pay (pdf). The White house is worried about giving him/her another $139.43 per year or $11.62 per paycheck. I’m so glad to finally see Republicans getting concerned about spending.

Nit: if there's a point to be made regarding soldier pay, here, Army Times fails to make it. How can one compare soldier salaries to private sector if there aren't any soldiers in the private sector?

One could certainly make the point that soldier pay hasn't risen as fast as aggregate private sector pay, but one didn't. It'd be interesting to see that data.

By the way, hilzoy, was the title of this post inspired in any way by Isaac Asimov?

That's where I first heard heard that reference.

Repub/Anon, I've run into blog commenters who at least pose as soldiers who say the stop-loss thing is a non-issue. There have only been a few thousand of them and only for critically-needed specialties.

I did a quick web search and it looked superficially plausible. There's a limit to how long they can stop-loss somebody and a limit to how many. (The how-many doesn't help anybody until more than that fail to re-up, of course.) I couldn't tell what was true at that time from a quick google search, and what I saw was liberal websites telling stories about it and these guys who claimed they were actual military who said it was nothing, and the real data didn't show me. I haven't discussed it privately with any soldiers.

Do you have a definitive link I could show the next set of claimed-military blog commenters?

I can't prove anything, but I know one soldier and one sailor who have each gotten out recently. So they aren't stop-lossing everybody all the time. (Not a strong statement I know).

Slarti: no, just number theory. Not a subject I know a lot about, but I got that far, since it touches on logic, which in turn is part of philosophy (among other disciplines.)

"How can one compare soldier salaries to private sector if there aren't any soldiers in the private sector?"

Ever heard of Executive Outcomes? Or more recently, Blackwater?

Ever heard of Executive Outcomes? Or more recently, Blackwater?

In that case the gap is one heck of a lot more than 3.9%. Try 500%.

"Try 500%."

Sure. I was just raising an eyebrow at the notion that there was no private soldiering. (Yes, one can write a tautological definition that says otherwise, but that really isn't playing fair; mercenaries have an ancient history, and "private contractors" have less history, but still a rather conspicuous role today.)

Fine. Given that there is private soldiering, does the comparison hold? No?

Ok, then. Once again, Army Times hasn't really made a point that I could even describe to a sketch artist. Not saying there isn't a point, just that I have no idea what they meant by what they said.

Probably a nit, though. I completely buy the idea that soldiers are underpaid, but when it comes to talking percent pay raises and all, what would bring them up on par with what they're worth? Or at least, bring soldier pay up to some historical norm, adjusted for inflation?

What's frightening is that this isn't the worst example of the administration telling the soldiers to sit on it, that I saw recently. A few months ago, some DoD official was quoted as saying that disability payments were eating up so much of the defense budget that it was harming military readiness.

Now *that* is a guy whose name I should have noted, because he'll go far in the GOP.

Speaking of private contractors:

[...] Casualties among private contractors in Iraq have soared to record levels this year, setting a pace that seems certain to turn 2007 into the bloodiest year yet for the civilians who work alongside the American military in the war zone, according to new government numbers.

At least 146 contract workers were killed in Iraq in the first three months of the year, by far the highest number for any quarter since the war began in March 2003, according to the Labor Department, which processes death and injury claims for those working as United States government contractors in Iraq.

That brings the total number of contractors killed in Iraq to at least 917, along with more than 12,000 wounded in battle or injured on the job, according to government figures and dozens of interviews.

[...]

The contractor deaths earlier this year, for example, came closer to the number of American military deaths during the same period — 244 — than during any other quarter since the war began, according to official figures.

[...]

The Labor Department records show that in addition to the 146 dead in the first three months this year, another 3,430 contractors filed claims for wounds or injuries suffered in Iraq, also a quarterly record. The number of casualties, though, may be much higher because the government’s statistical database is not complete.

There's a bunch more.

In mathematics, Aleph Null, a/k/a Aleph Sub Nought (aleph subscript zero), is the lowest level of an infinite level of the infinities. There was a popular book about the various Alephs (infinities) out a few years ago.

I'm not sure I understand the what the title of the post has to do with the substance of the post. But the post is interesting, at least for the reason that it further illustrates the hypocrisy of the Bush malAdministration.

On the subject matter of re-enlistment, bonuses and such, it strikes me that all one need do on being mustered out is to go to work for Blackwater or one of the other "contracting" operations and make several times the re-enlistment bonus in a short period of time as a mercenary. Reports suggest that there are almost as many mercenaries in Iraq as official US soldiers (approx 100K vs. 150K). These private mercenary armies are becoming quite frightening.

Sebastian: I can't prove anything, but I know one soldier and one sailor who have each gotten out recently. So they aren't stop-lossing everybody all the time.

Jason Knight, for example.

Isn't this just the successful Hillary Clinton's brilliant strategy of instead of opposing the war outright, extend contrarian to the positive side of the spectrum. 'Not enough troops'. If the administration would have recommended 3.5%, the ASC would have recommended 4% and so on. Then this whole thread would have existed regardless with different numbers.

raj: I think I had earlier threads called 'Supporting the troops', Supporting the troops Take 2', 'Supporting the Troops Take 3', and at a certain point I got tired of checking back to see which iteration it was.

As someone who irregularly meditates, I am beginning to think that "What does 'support the troops' really mean?" would make a splendid koan.

JebK: Nah, too easy. The answer's obvious. It really means "Support the war."

JakeB, rather. Wow, don't know how I got JebK from that, other than maybe random dyslexia.

The comments to this entry are closed.