|
From the article:
"Other proposals are based in pragmatism. Mr. Rumsfeld told Congress he wanted to transfer to civilians or contract workers an estimated 300,000 administrative jobs now performed by people in uniform.
While some on Capitol Hill reject that total as high, one senior Pentagon official said that if even one-sixth of those jobs were converted, then the equivalent of more than two Army divisions could enter the fighting force without any increase in the number of paid military personnel."
Even given this actually happens, you cannot convert cooks to infantry overnight. So we save two division's worth of manpower by 'civilianizing' some jobs....
...great.
Still takes years to modify force structure, create more combat units, recruit, train, equip, and staff them. Also, what is the cost in special pays to civilians deployed to combat zones?
The tooth-to-tail ratio is a fundamentally unalterable aspect of military operations. Yes, you can civilianize certain jobs, but the fact remains, there are people doing that specific job, in or out of uniform, and some (most) of them have to serve close to the troops....
As well, this comment concerns me:
(italics mine)
..."will include everything from wartime mobilization and peacekeeping commitments, to reservist training and incentives for extended duty.
Does this mean we will offer reservists financial or other compensation and benefits above and beyond what active troops receive? If so, then the military may find itself in the awkward position of paying reservists more than they pay active-duty soldiers....a position hardly likely to encourage active duty enlistment and reenlistment.
Granted, reservists (at least anecdotally, and in many cases, in reality) suffer economic hardship if activated for extended periods, as military pay does not match certain individuals' civilian pay....however, I believe (although I admit I cannot prove), this case mostly exists for those who are very highly skilled in the civilian sector - doctors, attorneys, and similar high-paid professionals who serve in areas outside their civilian specialty when activated.
To argue that activated reservists deserve compensation over and above that received by active duty soldiers serving in similar (in many cases identical) positions is to diminish both the contribution and the value of serving active duty soldiers.
To give a specific example:
If an active duty soldier, infantry, earns X dollars a year, and his reservist counterpart, who chooses to serve in a reserve status, but in civilian life is an attorney, receives compensation (X + Y dollars where Y dollars is the difference between nominal civilian earnings and military pay) to offset the loss of 'professional civilian dollars' while serving as a line soldier, then the service of the active duty soldier is devalued.
To illustrate on a more personal level:
I am an active duty officer with 19 years service. I currently advise a National Guard unit, of whose officers many are highly skilled professionals earning more than I in their civilian professions.
Are we now to suggest that, if they are activated, they, who have a part-time commitment, are to earn more than I, who has made a lifetime commitment, simply because activation has imposed economic hardship?
Before some attack me as being being peevish, consider that reserve pay already grants them two days of active duty pay for each day served....one "day" being a "drill", and one "drill" being a four-hour block of time spent performing military tasks in uniform, so, for each eight-hour drill each Guardsman (of equivalent rank to I), earns what I earn in two 24-hour periods.
Finally, I am sick to death of of Guardsmen crying about "one weekend a month and two weeks a year my ass"...the contract is quite specific. Guardsmen, reservists, are subject to activation and call up. Deal with it. If you don't like it, forego the significant considerations given by most states and the federal governement for reserve service, and go back to your (highly paid) civilian job.
To me, Rumsfeld's allusion to granting deployed reservists' financial incentives for performing the identical job their active duty counterparts perform is granting them their cake and the eating of it as well.
In the event, and despite my tirade, none of the suggestions mentioned in the article will solve the fundamental problem of a military overtasked and undermanned, overdeployed and underpaid.
Funny.
And I thought republicans were all about reducing the burden on the U.S. military. After all, Clinton was pilloried over and over, in the "liberal media" for overtasking the military.
Sheesh.
I gotta stop. This is a tirade without end...
sorry
EOR, Saintgermane
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
