U.S. Warriors — Overpaid?

[Lemur]

I think I'm finding this (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/) offensive.


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.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

If it were economically feasible, I'd love to see our fighting men and women paid as well as the best in the private sector. Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

But the war widows, man, what a greedy bunch of chiselers. Stick it to 'em (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=391)!


Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund.

[Ice]

I think I'm finding this (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/) offensive.


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.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

If it were economically feasible, I'd love to see our fighting men and women paid as well as the best in the private sector. Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

But the war widows, man, what a greedy bunch of chiselers. Stick it to 'em (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=391)!


Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund.

This is one thing I wouldn't mind increased spending on. Our soldiers deserve better pay.

[Tribesman]

Our soldiers deserve better pay.

Your soldiers deserve a better commander in chief

[Papewaio]

Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

Wouldn't those on extended rotation have better rank/specialisation/experience and hence meriting more pay through normal means?

Or should there be a loading based on combat tours served factored in while on a combat tour. Say a 1% increase in pay per combat tour served, so 4 combat tours, serving the 5th get a 4% pay increase while on a combat tour.

[Ice]

Your soldiers deserve a better commander in chief

...well yeah, but that they also deserve better pay.

[spmetla]

...well yeah, but that they also deserve better pay.

I agree, better CinC and better pay.

[Lorenzo_H]

I think I'm finding this (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/) offensive.


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.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

If it were economically feasible, I'd love to see our fighting men and women paid as well as the best in the private sector. Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

But the war widows, man, what a greedy bunch of chiselers. Stick it to 'em (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=391)!


Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund.
The US army pay, when compared to that of our soldiers here in Britain, is very little. Right now the UK Army are paid, when you convert the currency to dollars, almost double.

On the counter balance, the US army invest a lot of money in technology and giving their troops the best availible. They invest trillions in research and so on. Here in Britain they spend jack nothing on technology. They either beg it from the US, or do what they normally do and go without. Look at our Navy. The once mighty Royal Navy which was able to secure trade routes over sea to a quarter of the planet is now looking more like a rusting WWII coast guard. Another example is the Tornado Fighter Jet. They were all supposed to be replaced by the much better (and pretty sweet looking) Eurofighter Typhoon, but the government doesn't have enough money. Same with the Challenger 2 tank - we only have about 200 of them.

By contrast, the US army does nothing in half measures; they give their troops the best there is availible, no expense spared. The US army also offers a few more side benefits to joining, like pensions and stuff after you leave.

[Tribesman]

...well yeah, but that they also deserve better pay.

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

[Redleg]

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

What in the world are you talking about? You should just stick with your orginial comment that a better commander in chief is required.

Better pay for the military has been an ongoing issue since before I joined the service in the late 1980's, and will be an continuing issue for many years.

You know the same military that has had success and failures under different Commander in Chief's over the past several decades.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

I'm guessing the "contract" reference is to the political terms of the leadership and not the contracts of our military enlistees. My guess is you're trying for a dash of humor here, but the pitch was "just a little bit outside..."


1. I have no problem paying our soldiers (see Ice comment above).

2. Soldiers already receive a combat "bonus" -- no income tax if serving in a combat zone. That's up to 28% depending on bracket.

3. Yes, other things being equal, those deployed earn more "points" toward promotion than those who do not.

4. The federal budget is so boondoggled with "entitlements" and earmarked pork that cutting the military budget -- or slowing its growth -- is one of the few ways an administration can keep budget numbers in line without goring too many political oxen. :shame:

[Tribesman]

What in the world are you talking about?
simple , if the soldiers cannot do the job they are alloted then why should they get a pay rise . sack 'em .


I'm guessing the "contract" reference is to the political terms of the leadership and not the contracts of our military enlistees.
Nope , the numbers are what the military was supposed to be able to deliver , it hasn't delivered....typical government workers eh .

[KukriKhan]

What in the world are you talking about?

Not to put words in his mouth, I think our 'resident riddler' is trying to make 2 points:

1) comparing the job requirements of an infantryman (for example) and any civilian occupation is silly; therefore the "comparability" cited in the article as a goal is fruitless.

2) if, however, for argument's sake you try to compare civilian compensation schemes to military pay, you should go all the way, and make that pay contingent on mission (job) completion, with monetary penalties for failing to achieve 'x' job, on-time, on-budget, etc., as in the civilian contracting world.

So, if the US military were a stand-alone company/corporation, working for a contractor (US gov't) the managers would likely be 'sacked' (and pay witheld) for failing to deliver their promised product on-time and on- or under-budget.

[Odin]

Not to put words in his mouth, I think our 'resident riddler' is trying to make 2 points:

1) comparing the job requirements of an infantryman (for example) and any civilian occupation is silly; therefore the "comparability" cited in the article as a goal is fruitless.

2) if, however, for argument's sake you try to compare civilian compensation schemes to military pay, you should go all the way, and make that pay contingent on mission (job) completion, with monetary penalties for failing to achieve 'x' job, on-time, on-budget, etc., as in the civilian contracting world.

So, if the US military were a stand-alone company/corporation, working for a contractor (US gov't) the managers would likely be 'sacked' (and pay witheld) for failing to deliver their promised product on-time and on- or under-budget.

thats how I read tribesmen as well and its a fair point (in context to the article). That said all things arent equal in this equation due to valuation of the service.

The compensation scheme does not take into consideration the considerable taxation put on the family due to deployment. The link discussion as I read it was an attempt to link compensation to the valuation of raises given in the private sector. While a fun excersise its hard to compare the two, without delving into bodily risk factors the private sector employee has the option to quit at any moment.

the enlisted personnel does not, and the spouse at home carries the load 24-7 until the deployment ends, the civilian at least comes home to support the family unit and relieve the pressure. I think its a fun excersise but it hardly is a fruitful excersise because it leads to the question of valuation's of non participants roles and thats the grey area the article only briefly touched on.

[doc_bean]

Did the wages of congressmen and/or administration members increase in the last few years ?

[Don Corleone]

Did the wages of congressmen and/or administration members increase in the last few years ?

Does a bear :daisy: in the woods?

[HoreTore]

I'll go grumble about my army pay of 126 NOK(less than 10 pounds) per day....

[Grey_Fox]

Israeli conscripts get the equivalent of $3.30 US a day :yes:

You're rich by comparison :yes:

[Watchman]

It is a civic duty there, after all (here too incidentally). Far as I can figure the service-folks get their coffee money primarily because it's an easy way to keep them reasonably happy.

[HoreTore]

I earned two boxes of snus and a coke per day.... Considering the enormous amount of snus consumed in the army, I feel I have every right to complain.

:furious3:

[Pannonian]

I earned two boxes of snus and a coke per day.... Considering the enormous amount of snus consumed in the army, I feel I have every right to complain.

:furious3:
Be careful where you spend that snu-money though - Finnish service stations are out of bounds.

[Grey_Fox]

Israeli parents send money to their children in order to keep them alive in their army.

[HoreTore]

Haha! We were actually close to causing an invasion of Finland... We were driving from our garrison in Troms to an exercise in Finmark, and somehow got waaaay into Finland...

[KukriKhan]

Since were getting comparative, here are some numbers for nations performing similar combat duties:

Canadian NCO of 5 years service: $Cdn50K (=$US46K)

UK NCO ditto: 32KBP (=$US62K)

Aus NCO same: $Aus51K (=$US42K)

US NCO w/5: $US24K

Those are just base-pay amounts.

Money is a whole different issue with a conscript army.

note: I got the info from the countries' military pay scales available online, so they're not 100% firm - and I used an online currency converter to switch to US dollars; they warn their estimates are +/- 2%.

[Ice]

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

I understand your point of view, and normally I'd agree, if we are talking about a civilian job/firm. I really don't think our soldiers, overall, are shirking their efforts and furthermore, I doubt this would send a message to anyone. It would most likely just piss off a lot of people.

[Tribesman]

Hold on nowq, ossible moderatorintervention .....apost I put between #13 and #14 isn't there .
Anyway sAck em all , even if you add Haiti to the equation theyhae stil failed to deliv4er ...damngovernment employees that expect a free ride wihout deliering the goods ...delivewr the hgoods or buger off with thew complaints about pay and conditions

[Tribesman]

It would most likely just piss off a lot of people.
__________________

An interesting tke on ot I hadn;t tought of that

[KukriKhan]

Never touched the thread, mate. So dunno about a lost post.

Maybe click "preview post" before hitting "submit"?

On-topic: I admit getting sacked as a consequence of non-performance is attractive, but I'm not sure that paradigm could be easily translated to military service.

Now, the elected leadership is a different story, and I guess we get that opportunity every 4 years or so.

[Tribesman]

Maybe it wasdue to downlading 1.2 at thge time ,In neveruse preview post ,wha tI write is what comes out .


On-topic: I admit getting sacked as a consequence of non-performance is attractive, but I'm not sure that paradigm could be easily translated to military service.

They are just civil sevants aren't they~;)


Now, the elected leadership is a different story, and I guess we get that opportunity every 4 years or so.
4 years is a long time when body bags and lots of money are involved

[Grey_Fox]

You drunk already?

[Tribesman]

wind and rain Fox :shrug: , plus an early house next to the job(Athenry mart:2thumbsup: , I think it was weanlings this morning , but who cares as long as the bar is full of farmers tht you can rip the ***** out of) I was slightly drunk when I made my ealy posts oday. now I is well and truly bolloxed

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They are just civil sevants aren't they~;)

JUST civil servants? :shocked2: Over here civil servants are virtually sacrosanct. You could catch a non-appointee civil servant "dallying" with both Bush twins in the office during the work day while losing thousands of dollars playing internet poker using their government credit card and it would STILL take 6 months, 2 arbitrations, 4 judgements, an act of Congress, and some form of papal intercession to get them fired.

Make yourself a hot whiskey and clear your poor head. :devilish:

[Watchman]

I take it you have some shortcomings in the bureaucratic self-regulation departement ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All to the glory of creating a "fair" system in which no one could be fired for arbitrary or capricious reasons. Needless to say, its gotten a bit out of hand.

[Watchman]

In essence you have a nomenklatura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura), as the Soviets called it, and we at least still do ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In essence you have a nomenklatura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura), as the Soviets called it, and we at least still do ?

I wouldn't go quite that far -- nothing so rigidly definable -- but the normal inertia and red tape associated with all organizations of any size is VERY well entrenched over here. It's possible it could end up that way, or at least with some variant thereof -- though Lord I hope not.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I've moved on from the "I like Bush but not his policies" crowd. This is disgusting.

[rotorgun]

As always, due to my work schedule with the military, I am wading in a bit late into the muddy waters of this thread. While I find it somewhat distasteful to discuss this subject of pay, I will say this. I find our military pay system to be fair, in that when a service member is on active duty, he or she recieve some pretty good benifits to supplemet thier slightly lower than normal salary. Free housing for those who live on post, sustenance alllowances and housing allowances for those who live off-base, free dental and medical services (not completely free mind you, but fairly cheap), and tax breaks on goods and services such as the PX and Commisary sells. There is even a financial investment group, called One Source that helps service-members and their families invest for the future.

As others have already mentioned, there are combat pay bonuses and tax free income benefits for those serving on deployments in hostile zones. All in all, it is not too shabby, and I can't find much to complain about it. While I am only a reservist, who works as a dread "civil servant", as Seamus is loath to edure, I still make good pay for my monthly weekend training sessions.

What most people fail to see, is that unlike a civil sector employee, soldiers cannot just walk off the job when they don't like it anymore, such as when they are being shot at, or doing some dangerous training. For this reason it is more than just a civil service job. Are we overpaid? Not hardly, but neither are we being driven to the war as conscripts either. :whip:

John the Baptist once told a soldier who was asking how he could repent and achieve salvation; his answer intruiges me to this day.
" Exthort no-one, live honestly, and don't complain about your pay "

[Hosakawa Tito]

Don't forget that there is a very large contingent of Reservists and National Guard doing much the same work as regular military personnel at a much lower pay scale. Several friends of mine from work are serving their country at an airbase on the Kuwait & Iraq border, loading planes (can't leave the base). The 914th Airlift Wing out of Niagara Falls, NY. To "thank them" for their service, not only does New York State take them off the payroll at the Corrections Department during their deployment, when they get to their original 25 year retirement date in Corrections, they will have to work longer to make up the time they were deployed. I love NY.

[Boyar Son]

Don't forget that there is a very large contingent of Reservists and National Guard doing much the same work as regular military personnel at a much lower pay scale. Several friends of mine from work are serving their country at an airbase on the Kuwait & Iraq border, loading planes (can't leave the base). The 914th Airlift Wing out of Niagara Falls, NY. To "thank them" for their service, not only does New York State take them off the payroll at the Corrections Department during their deployment, when they get to their original 25 year retirement date in Corrections, they will have to work longer to make up the time they were deployed. I love NY.

Um, whats wrong?

They did something bad?:dizzy2: :dizzy2:

[rotorgun]

Don't forget that there is a very large contingent of Reservists and National Guard doing much the same work as regular military personnel at a much lower pay scale.
Indeed, many National Guard and reserve personnel are taking substatial pay cuts when called to active duty from their civilian jobs-something many don't think about. :uhoh:

Several friends of mine from work are serving their country at an airbase on the Kuwait & Iraq border, loading planes (can't leave the base). The 914th Airlift Wing out of Niagara Falls, NY.
I honor them and shall pray for these freinds. :helmet: :thumbsup:

To "thank them" for their service, not only does New York State take them off the payroll at the Corrections Department during their deployment, when they get to their original 25 year retirement date in Corrections, they will have to work longer to make up the time they were deployed. I love NY.
Shameful! :shame:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Shameful! :shame:

Concur.

Many (most jobs) count deployed time towards retirement at no penalty. Others offer relatively inexpensive "buy-back" options so that the time can be made up. Not doing either is reprehensible.

...and Rotor, I do not loathe Civil Servants. My father was one and it is not impossible that my wife will end up as one before her career is finished. My real beef is with the system itself -- a bureacracy that minimizes personal responsibility, makes terminations exceedingly difficult, and all too often protects employees who should move on.

I suspect that you are not the type to simply sit at your "GGJ" with minimal effort and an eye on the clock til close of business. I loathe the system that allows the ones who do take such an attitude to continue "stealing" my money.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

. $1100 a month or so can go a long way when damned near everything else is free.

:yes:

Free? I hate that word when it is applied to economics.

You're earning those benes my friend -- I do not begrudge paying for them at all.

[Zaknafien]

I've only been in the Army six months or so now, but that's long enough to make a judgement on pay. Quite frankly, I have to agree with rotorgun. The Army takes care of you, and the actual monetary pay is only the tip of the iceberg.

How many other countries offer the level of benefits? The highest safety standard, period? The best training, period? The best technology, too.

Oh, and did I mention the benefits? If you live off-post, the Army helps pay. Medical junk is mostly free. Shopping at any Army and Airforce Exchange Services outlet is extremely cheap, hell the Army will even pay for your child support.

Personally, I live in the Barracks. I'm a lowly Private (E-1, about to make E-2). I eat at the Chow Hall two or three times a day--for free. I have Cable TV, for free. I have a computer, an X-Box 360, a decent stereo system, and an endless supply of cheap cigarettes thanks to how cheap stuff is around here. Gas is cheaper than off-post, for those with vehicles.

Actual money, though? I get about $450 every two weeks, after taxes. The only bill I have to pay is my cell phone bill. Life is pretty damned good. :2thumbsup:

So really, we're not particularly overpaid or underpaid. It all fits together pretty damned well. For a seemingly small amount of money, a smart soldier can get away with a pretty nice array of expensive crap--I've seen fellow privates with Mustang GTOs and huge fancy SUVs, or real expensive computers, or an Xbox 360 and a PS3, with a huge collection of games. $1100 a month or so can go a long way when damned near everything else is free.

:yes:


the Army takes care of you? come on man, military pay is perpetual poverty, even as an o-3 with 5 years its MUCH less than Id make on the outside doing the same job for a private military intelligence contractor. Not to mention, that even if youre doing the easiest job in the army, say, infantryman, you're risking your life for pennies per day. granted, if you get your legs blown off, you get some free medical care, but it is sub-standard at best (walter reed, need i say more?) not to mention the fact that the war profiteers are making money off your misfortune so they can pay their employees 5-10 times what you are making yourself.

if you're a single, childless private whos just been out of high school the money seems alright to you at the time. i was there at one point too. but if you have a family and kids and a house and cars, youre not making jack. your bennies are only there 'just in case' for the most part, and the majority of CONUS army posts have sub-standard housing, schools, and services.

[Redleg]

the Army takes care of you? come on man, military pay is perpetual poverty, even as an o-3 with 5 years its MUCH less than Id make on the outside doing the same job for a private military intelligence contractor. Not to mention, that even if youre doing the easiest job in the army, say, infantryman, you're risking your life for pennies per day. granted, if you get your legs blown off, you get some free medical care, but it is sub-standard at best (walter reed, need i say more?) not to mention the fact that the war profiteers are making money off your misfortune so they can pay their employees 5-10 times what you are making yourself.

if you're a single, childless private whos just been out of high school the money seems alright to you at the time. i was there at one point too. but if you have a family and kids and a house and cars, youre not making jack. your bennies are only there 'just in case' for the most part, and the majority of CONUS army posts have sub-standard housing, schools, and services.

Actually it all depends on your MOS and your own skills. A captian with 5 year often makes real close to what his counterpart would in the civilian sector. About 5-10% lower depending upon the sector and the MOS skill of that officer. Now doctors in the military make less then doctors in the civilian sector, but they also don't have the insurance issues that civilians have. Computer specialists are defenitily underpaid in the military compared to the civilian sector, same for some types of engineers.

Now I know some military intelligence officers that when they got out of the military were making less then they did in the military. So I am hestiant to believe that every MI officer once they depart the military will make more then they would in the military.

[Zaknafien]

If I went to work for a CIA contractor company I'd be pulling in a pretty high six figure salary. let alone if I went to work for mercenaries like Blackwater.

[Redleg]

If I went to work for a CIA contractor company I'd be pulling in a pretty high six figure salary. let alone if I went to work for mercenaries like Blackwater.

That is the big If; it only applies if you apply for the job and if they hire you. Prior military intelligence experience is not a sure thing in getting the job, especially when others will also be applying.

[KukriKhan]

...Not to mention, that even if youre doing the easiest job in the army, say, infantryman...

I don't know which army you're in, mate, but you're gonna be hard-pressed to show anyone, anywhere that infantry = easy.

[Zaknafien]

I don't know which army you're in, mate, but you're gonna be hard-pressed to show anyone, anywhere that infantry = easy.

uh, im in the US army, and have served in 4 infantry battalions in the 10th mountain division and 82nd airborne division over the past few years. infantryman is an easy job. high school kid joins up, learns a few battle drills, carries a ruck around for awhile, and otherwise sits around at the company all day when not at a range or on a detail.

now, infantrymen risk their lives in combat and im taking nothing away from them. fact of the matter is its an easy job, even your senior squad leaders and platoon sergeants have a minimal amount of management they must do and only need to memorize a couple of FMs to do their job.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't know which army you're in, mate, but you're gonna be hard-pressed to show anyone, anywhere that infantry = easy.

:yes:

Rather took me aback too. We don't call them the PBI for nothing. :grin:

I always thought we gunners had the easiest life (apart from those garage mechanics in the RAF :wink:). Sat in a nice warm self-propelled gun with a cup of tea and a newspaper lobbing shells at a map reference that might or might not have been important. Occasionally distracted by the radio squawking unintelligibly about "not us" and using such ungentlemanly language I would switch it off or tune it back to the cricket.

Well, that was until I got promoted to captain and sent up to a cold, windswept observation post. :beadyeyes2:

Artillery for teh comfort win. Or Intelligence, of course. :wink3:

[Redleg]

uh, im in the US army, and have served in 4 infantry battalions in the 10th mountain division and 82nd airborne division over the past few years. infantryman is an easy job. high school kid joins up, learns a few battle drills, carries a ruck around for awhile, and otherwise sits around at the company all day when not at a range or on a detail.

Your equating easy under the wrong conditions. Physical strain is never easy. Carrying a ruck that often weighs as much as you do if not more. Try being a Foward Observer in a light infantry division some time.



now, infantrymen risk their lives in combat and im taking nothing away from them. fact of the matter is its an easy job, even your senior squad leaders and platoon sergeants have a minimal amount of management they must do and only need to memorize a couple of FMs to do their job.

You have now demonstrated that you do not know what your talking about. Getting men to do something dangerous is not a minimal amount of management it takes some leadership skills do do so.

You might want to look at getting out of the military if you have such a dim view of the infantryman. Especially given that your advowed job is to provide that same individual with the information that he needs to accomplish his mission.

From my experience in the miltary the Infantry have one of the hardest tasks in the miltary.

[Grey_Fox]

He's 10th Mountain, or at least was and came back from Afghanistan a few months ago.

'Easy' in terms of brainpower perhaps.

[Zaknafien]

excuse me, i know exactly what im talking about. ive done week long patrols with our squads in afghanistan and iraq. Ive been to both Ranger school and SFAS, air assault, airborne, all the 'hooah' :daisy: boyscout courses we love to think of in the military. partaking in combat is not difficult. its very easy to shoot and kill your enemy and the glorification of such in our culture is ridiculous

and there is no more physical strain than your typical labour job. carrying a 100 lb rucksack and a SAW isnt hard bud. now, those guys carrying the baseplate, that kinda sucks :)

[Redleg]

excuse me, i know exactly what im talking about. ive done week long patrols with our squads in afghanistan and iraq. Ive been to both Ranger school and SFAS, air assault, airborne, all the 'hooah' :daisy: boyscout courses we love to think of in the military. partaking in combat is not difficult. its very easy to shoot and kill your enemy and the glorification of such in our culture is ridiculous

And again I would clearly state you don't when you equate leadership of men to minimual management. Having lead men in combat I found that it was not a minimual management task at all. Telling people to do a task that exposes them to death is never a minimual decision making process.

SO you are just going to have to agree to disagree.



and there is no more physical strain than your typical labour job. carrying a 100 lb rucksack and a SAW isnt hard bud. now, those guys carrying the baseplate, that kinda sucks :)

How many typical labor jobs have you held? 100 pounds or more is normally considered a two man lift or mechanical assisted required in the civilian world.

Try carrying your personal gear and a G/V laser.

[Zaknafien]

And again I would clearly state you don't when you equate leadership of men to minimual management. Having lead men in combat I found that it was not a minimual management task at all. Telling people to do a task that exposes them to death is never a minimual decision making process.

SO you are just going to have to agree to disagree.



How many typical labor jobs have you held? 100 pounds or more is normally considered a two man lift or mechanical assisted required in the civilian world.

Try carrying your personal gear and a G/V laser.

well that last part might be true but then again your average person isnt in very good shape, thats more a sad testament to our nation as a whole than anything else. if you're in the military in the first place its reasonable to assume youre a healthy in shape person who can easily lift things like that. come on, 100 lbs a two man lift? lets be serious here.. :inquisitive:

and about the leadership thing, the leadership of most squad leaders consists of 'hey alpha team, go over there and lay down a support position'. 'ok, flank left'. its not rocket science. soldiers are trained to obey, easy as that. i would say that the most difficult leadership challenges come from garrison life, not combat. dealing with a soldier's emotional and financial problems are much harder than getting him to enter and clear a room.

[Redleg]

well that last part might be true but then again your average person isnt in very good shape, thats more a sad testament to our nation as a whole than anything else. if you're in the military in the first place its reasonable to assume youre a healthy in shape person who can easily lift things like that. come on, 100 lbs a two man lift? lets be serious here.. :inquisitive:

Oh I am being serious - I served 10 years in the artillery, working with many Infantry and Armor Officers in planning and executing battle plans in both training and war - no easy task being an Infantryman at any level.



and about the leadership thing, the leadership of most squad leaders consists of 'hey alpha team, go over there and lay down a support position'. 'ok, flank left'. its not rocket science. soldiers are trained to obey, easy as that. i would say that the most difficult leadership challenges come from garrison life, not combat. dealing with a soldier's emotional and financial problems are much harder than getting him to enter and clear a room.

Then you acknowledge that the minimual management comment was not well thought out?

[Watchman]

Granted, resource allocation considerations alone should result in a good portion of the "smart" personnel being funneled to the more technically demanding arms of service, while the infantry then gets the rest. While it's not exactly counter-productive for a grunt to be clever, I'm under a very strong impression the paradigm is that this should not be counted on - which is why the NCOs and officers are there to do it instead.

[Zaknafien]

Oh I am being serious - I served 10 years in the artillery, working with many Infantry and Armor Officers in planning and executing battle plans in both training and war - no easy task being an Infantryman at any level.



Then you acknowledge that the minimual management comment was not well thought out?

I dont acknowledge that at all. Company level infantry NCOs do a minimal amount of management, plain and simple. I have many friends that are platoon sergeants even today. First Seregants have a little more to deal with, true, but they would be a middle level manager in any civilian job.

The army today isnt what it once was. Most planning has been simplified these days, with rarely a full MDMP being done even for brigade level operations. The infantry hardly ruck anywhere anymore, and I'd estimate about 90% of our missions are done without rucks at all. mortars dont even deploy at the platoon level these days, where most are consolidated at certain forward bases in a stationary position--hell, most of the units ive worked with have used their mortar platoon as prisoner guards if anything.

[Redleg]

I dont acknowledge that at all. Company level infantry NCOs do a minimal amount of management, plain and simple. I have many friends that are platoon sergeants even today. First Seregants have a little more to deal with, true, but they would be a middle level manager in any civilian job. Again NCo's are not managers they are leaders. Statements such as this indiciate that you have limited knowledge on what you speak of. Have you been an leader? Do you know what a 1SG does, for instance I have worked in middle management in the civilian sector and a 1SG does far more then I ever did in the civilian Sector as a middle manager. I was also a Battery Commander and my 1SG did far more then a middle manager would ever do - the 1SG leads men.

Edit: I will give you a futher hint - middle managers in the civilian world don't do half of the tasks that are expected of 1SG's or Platoon Sergeants for that manner. And none of them come close to what is expected of Company Commanders.



The army today isnt what it once was. Most planning has been simplified these days, with rarely a full MDMP being done even for brigade level operations. The infantry hardly ruck anywhere anymore, and I'd estimate about 90% of our missions are done without rucks at all. mortars dont even deploy at the platoon level these days, where most are consolidated at certain forward bases in a stationary position--hell, most of the units ive worked with have used their mortar platoon as prisoner guards if anything.

Well it seems my brother would disagree with you about the planning part, but would agree with you on that the army is softer then when I was in. To many careerists and rear echelon types wanting to get over on the system. He happens have been a first sergant in an Infantry battalion, and will be a doing his second assignment as an Armor 1SG. When operations are done from a base of operations rucks are often not used except for basic items.

If units are not doing a full MDMP prior to conducting an operation they are probably either utilizing parts of another or have gotten lazy in the planning process. However that does not equate to your earlier statement.

[Boyar Son]

But we can all agree the Infantry job is difficult, maybe the most life threatening too

[Zaknafien]

I'd say to you its not difficult. you'd be suprised how easy it is to kill people and walk or drive around. once you get the hang of it, its almost second nature.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'd say to you its not difficult. you'd be suprised how easy it is to kill people and walk or drive around. once you get the hang of it, its almost second nature.

I shall be as restrained as I can be in response to this, but I am seriously beginning to doubt your claimed credentials.

Apart from a very few disturbed individuals, I have not met a soldier who treats taking life with quite that cavalier an attitude.

Quite a lot of video game players, but very rarely a real soldier.

:no:

[ShadeHonestus]

What's the current ratio of support to infantry in the field? There are no pay grades, at least in the USMC that notes technical specifications outside promotions to warrant officer which are something altogether different. An E-3 rifleman earns the same as an E-3 technician (the MoS school which I attended took 11 months of training non stop), my cousin the navy spook earned the same at E-3 as a translator after being schooled in languages. While its true that the technical fields earn the reward of training, they transfer poorly tto college credits that you still have to pay for, which of course you can usue your GI Bill/MCCF towards. Despite proficiency the training alone is not a huge reward in civilian life without civilian instutional pedigrees to back them up. However, for like work in the civilian sector the pay is much higher.

[Boyar Son]

@BG- maybe it was getting shot at and not shooting the shooter?

I doubt anyone would be scared to waste the enemy before he wastes you.

@Zak- so taking down enemy combatants are that easy? can you give me an example? (no opposition or citicism intended)

[Zaknafien]

I shall be as restrained as I can be in response to this, but I am seriously beginning to doubt your claimed credentials.

Apart from a very few disturbed individuals, I have not met a soldier who treats taking life with quite that cavalier an attitude.

Quite a lot of video game players, but very rarely a real soldier.

:no:

a cavalier attitude? my friend I abhor all taking of life. its the ease with which most of our soldiers do it that shocks me. I am only recently reformed from the mindless patriotism that plagues our military myself. I just came back from a second tour in Afghanistan in january of this year, and am slated for a deployment to Iraq in november of this year. i am simply stating that the mechanical action of killing "the enemy" is remarkably simple, be it with an M-4 or by making a decision at the battalion main and sending artillery in to destroy a group of people.

[ShadeHonestus]

I shall be as restrained as I can be in response to this, but I am seriously beginning to doubt your claimed credentials.

Apart from a very few disturbed individuals, I have not met a soldier who treats taking life with quite that cavalier an attitude.

Quite a lot of video game players, but very rarely a real soldier.


Took the words out of my mouth and in the USMC such a cavalier attitude about taking life and their service would have been investigated as defect of character. Force Recon wasn't didn't even embrace this attitude and they are some of the most Gung-Ho warriors you will find.




a cavalier attitude? my friend I abhor all taking of life. its the ease with which most of our soldiers do it that shocks me. I am only recently reformed from the mindless patriotism that plagues our military myself. I just came back from a second tour in Afghanistan in january of this year, and am slated for a deployment to Iraq in november of this year. i am simply stating that the mechanical action of killing "the enemy" is remarkably simple, be it with an M-4 or by making a decision at the battalion main and sending artillery in to destroy a group of people.

Then why didn't you state as such, it would have gone further to establishing your cred. You do understand that "mechanics" aside the "abhoring" of taking a life while mechanically being able to so do with simplicity is part of the cost and toll of service which one pays for a number of years. You no doubt know this so I don't see how you can argue being underpaid for the taking of human life while belonging to a belief structure that values life.

[Zaknafien]

Then you must have no experience with our soldiers these days, as this is the attitude of an overwhelming majority of lower enlisted soldiers aged 17--20 in every infantry battalion i have been a part of.

[Banquo's Ghost]

a cavalier attitude? my friend I abhor all taking of life. its the ease with which most of our soldiers do it that shocks me. I am only recently reformed from the mindless patriotism that plagues our military myself. I just came back from a second tour in Afghanistan in january of this year, and am slated for a deployment to Iraq in november of this year. i am simply stating that the mechanical action of killing "the enemy" is remarkably simple, be it with an M-4 or by making a decision at the battalion main and sending artillery in to destroy a group of people.


OK, thank you for clarifying.

:bow:

[Lorenzo_H]

The army raises their soldiers pay periodically anyway, I forgot to mention that.

[ajaxfetish]

I am only recently reformed from the mindless patriotism that plagues our military myself.
Try not to let that be replaced by a mindless anti-patriotism. A reasoned and balanced appraisal of both sides of an issue will get you the closest to the truth.

Ajax