June 24, 2012

Combat Pay

The Pathway to Hell is paved with good intentions. I don't know if this is a good idea or not. From

WASHINGTON -- A Pentagon review recommends ridding the combat pay system of inequities that have allowed officers thousands of miles from battle to get better benefits proportionally than troops on the front lines in Afghanistan.

The recommendations in a review released Thursday are likely to anger servicemembers. But the director of the review said they're aimed at paying more to troops who are in the gravest danger and giving the best tax benefits to those who are paid the least.
If it's from Obama's generals I tend to distrust it. Half the time I think they are more interested in protecting their own rice bowls rather than the lives of the people entrusted to their command.

Can this evolve into a "I'm Gay, More Pay" scenario because my straight platoon members threatened to kill me if I strut my stuff in the showers one more time?

Under the military's current system, there are two types of combat pay. One, called "hostile fire pay," gives troops $225 a month if they are in an area where they could be exposed to enemy fire.

The second, called "imminent danger pay," gives up to $225 per month to those who are in a combat zone, and it is pro-rated at $7.50 a day, based on how long they are there.
Since the Secretary of DHS views veterans and conservatives as the enemy, will liberal servemembers residing near VA hospitals or in predominantly Republican counties be eligible for eminent danger pay? How about Tea Party demonstrations?
The panel was struck by that disparity, Bush said, adding that a senior officer could get as much as a $15,000 tax benefit, while an Army private might get a $1,000 tax benefit.

And yet, the private serving at a combat outpost in Kandahar or Khost in Afghanistan has a much higher chance of getting killed or injured than a senior officer serving in a headquarters unit or in Bahrain.

Congress members have been loath to do anything that appears to cut combat pay and have often tried to increase pay raises for the military. Bush acknowledged that it's not clear how open they would be to the changes recommended by the report, but he said he hoped lawmakers would be open to making the system more equal
Ridiculous hypotheses aside, one of the reasons my daughter is looking forward to another deployment early next year is because of the combat pay. Even if this commission does its job properly, that doesn't mean it will automatically translate into policy that actually benefits those soldiers who march into Harm's Way. We'll see.


Gorges Smythe said...

Your suspicions are certainly warranted considering the track record of both congress and the military bureaucracy.

jay son said...

i like the idea IF it really does set up 2 tiers. combat pay, self defining, and in theater, which should be considerably less.

guys that are FOBBIT,s and REMF's should not get the same amount as the grunts out conducting ops.

i understand in iraq everyone went on patrol. ok, you get combat pay.

but why should the mail room and company clerk's get the same dollar amount monthly?

sig94 said...

Gorges - as they say .... hope springs eternal .... We'll see.

sig94 said...

jay son - my daughter was in COB's mostly and hated being in FOBs during her deployment. Fobbit was certainly a derogatory term she used. Like you, I just want to see that those who truly put it all on the line get rewarded for their sacrifice.

jay son said...

yeah i remember the pic you posted with her in the turret covering down a ma deuce. as she was manning one of those big bastards....combat pay.

the finance officer, sucking up ice cream at the big logistical theater pay.

sig94 said...

jay son - yeah, that was an awesome pic, no?