What should military members be willing to sacrifice first?

Navy Pride said:

If you cut benefits for our military it will affect enlistment...........People would not enlist........You would have to have a draft.........Do you people that want to cut want to be drafted?

Click to expand...

Depends, if politicians kids can be drafted than that may force them to make slightly more considered and intelligent decisions in our interventionist plans.

MarineTpartier said:

We earned some of them......and like you said, we also volunteered for the hardships. I'm not saying military guys don't deserve some benefits. From the head trauma, back/knee, and shoulder issues I have developed, I plan on compensation for it. But I also think we should be willing to give up some things. Namely retirement age IMO. The gov't could save massive amounts of money if the military retired at 55 vice immediately upon retirement. If we picked up a bigger chunk of the co-pay from injuries/sickness not related to military service it would help a lot.

Click to expand...

Military members are forced to retire somewhere between 20 to 30 years of service depending on their rank, they do not have a choice to stay longer to a real retirement age, so it seems right to give them a modest retirement check that they receive right away. They have to start all over with a second career whether they like it or not, while civilians can stay doing what they do, until a real retirement age.

MarineTpartier said:

The gov't could save massive amounts of money if the military retired at 55 vice immediately upon retirement.

Click to expand...

Or let the 20-30 year warhorses work for various defense contractors until he reached retirement age. Contractors receive a boatload of 'can do' and the warhorses get a good if not cushy job to work until he can retire at whatever age.

UtahBill said:

We shouldn't be fighting AQ directly, we should be helping ME countris fight AQ...

Click to expand...

ah. and how do you propose we do this? and what do you propose we do when they demure to take on an asymetrical force that may be popular with their populace? and how do you expect us to deal with the threat of narco-cartels on the border?

you don't get to pick your enemies. the dream of fighting only linear nation states is gone. even the linear nation states are well aware of our preference to avoid civilian casualties and seek to deploy their military in such a way as to take advantage of that (see: Iraq).

I never saw much good in lifers in my time. Do your service for your country then get a job. It should be like jury duty, do it then get on with your life unless you have aspirations of being a general, then by all means devote your life to the military but if you are sitting on a ship or in some cushy Euro base doing your time for the early retirement and vet benefits I have nothing good to say about you.

cpwill said:

ah. and how do you propose we do this? and what do you propose we do when they demure to take on an asymetrical force that may be popular with their populace? and how do you expect us to deal with the threat of narco-cartels on the border?

you don't get to pick your enemies. the dream of fighting only linear nation states is gone. even the linear nation states are well aware of our preference to avoid civilian casualties and seek to deploy their military in such a way as to take advantage of that (see: Iraq).

Click to expand...

It's a fight that can be won. The 'problem' is we want to fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while the enemies of this nation know how to hamstring us by them. I heard it said at the beginning of the ME wars that we could never win. I scoffed, knowing darn well the sort of force and brute power we could bring to bear. The huge technological advantage our boys on the ground had and had a pretty good idea regarding just how sharp the tip of the tactical spear had become. But they were right, because we were fighting an ideology not so much a people.

The last armies prepared to deal with this conflict were Roman. They would march in, enslave the younger women and adolescent boys and either crucify or put the rest to the sword. Town after town after town. At the height of it's power, one defied Rome or Alexander or Genghis Khan at their own risk and that risk was mortal. Today we respond to suicide bombers with rules that a female interrogator cannot even lie about her menstrual cycle to a detainee. To massive Taliban prison break outs, obviously an inside job, with rules that you cannot desecrate a fake copy of the Koran. I can likely drone on for hours but the secret to cracking terrorist cells, is information it's that simple. Our enemy never even wore 'gloves' and we never bothered to take 'ours' off.

If we're going to fight we need to keep our mission and objectives clear and we fight to win or we should just stay home.

Porchev said:

Military members are forced to retire somewhere between 20 to 30 years of service depending on their rank, they do not have a choice to stay longer to a real retirement age, so it seems right to give them a modest retirement check that they receive right away. They have to start all over with a second career whether they like it or not, while civilians can stay doing what they do, until a real retirement age.

Click to expand...

Thats a good point. However, with all of the other entitlements given to service members (GI Bill, hiring preference, great job searching resources), I think the retirement age could be pushed.

cpwill said:

ah. and how do you propose we do this? and what do you propose we do when they demure to take on an asymetrical force that may be popular with their populace? and how do you expect us to deal with the threat of narco-cartels on the border?

you don't get to pick your enemies. the dream of fighting only linear nation states is gone. even the linear nation states are well aware of our preference to avoid civilian casualties and seek to deploy their military in such a way as to take advantage of that (see: Iraq).

Click to expand...

no, we don't pick our enemies, but we reward our TRUE friends and ignore our enemies....if they attack us anywhere, we retaliatie in kind. After 9/11, we SHOULD have presented a bill to Saudi Arabia, and if they don't pay up, we send them military hardware on the wing, bomb the crap out of their military forces, then present them with an adjusted bill, to pay for the bombs.

cpwill;1060662580[B said:

]ah. and how do you propose we do this? and what do you propose we do when they demure to take on an asymetrical force that may be popular with their populace[/B]? and how do you expect us to deal with the threat of narco-cartels on the border?

you don't get to pick your enemies. the dream of fighting only linear nation states is gone. even the linear nation states are well aware of our preference to avoid civilian casualties and seek to deploy their military in such a way as to take advantage of that (see: Iraq).

Click to expand...

you defeated your own question.

read general petraeus's coin strategy,basically the strategy that would have won vietnam but wasnt discovered until late iraq.the idea is that the enemy fights us through propoganda,every civilian we kill that we cant prove as absolutely necessary the taliban uses for propoganda through the media to turn people against us.but winning the hearts and minds of the people(something bush said but never practiced until gen petraeus said to)by not killing them needlessly and provingwe are better protection than alquaeda,causes the people to fight al quaeda.

the afghani army just needs to be taught this strategy,and they will win control,as aq and the taliban's only strategy is to use propoganda to make us think the war is unwinnable,then when we leave take over.if the afghani army can be taught the same strategy,they could effectively combat them.

MarineTpartier said:

Thats a good point. However, with all of the other entitlements given to service members (GI Bill, hiring preference, great job searching resources), I think the retirement age could be pushed.

Click to expand...

I'm sincerely curious as to why you think military benefits are entitlements? No one gives these to you, you earn them.

cpwill said:

you don't get to pick your enemies. the dream of fighting only linear nation states is gone. even the linear nation states are well aware of our preference to avoid civilian casualties and seek to deploy their military in such a way as to take advantage of that (see: Iraq).

Click to expand...

I agree with this, and have thought it for quite some time. Unfortunately, I'm not sure our military leadership has quite grasp it yet. Or, if they have at least grasped the idea, they don't know how to respond and plan accordingly.

Whatever might be chosen as a cutback, I would suggest that it only be effective for new people. I am not a fan of changing the rules on people retroactively. This would minimize any current savings, I am aware.

Airborne375 said:

I'm sincerely curious as to why you think military benefits are entitlements? No one gives these to you, you earn them.

Click to expand...

Hence the old joke that everything is an entitlement except to the person who receives it.

whysoserious said:

Hence the old joke that everything is an entitlement except to the person who receives it.

Click to expand...

Something tells me it's a joke that wasn't made up by someone who worked 6-7 days a week for $500 and change a month and kissed away his legal protections at the same time. Oh I got $100 for jump pay, was that an entitlement too? Assuming your fortunate enough to have a job, is your salary an entitlement?

There has to be a line or definition somewhere, I was curious where it lie around these parts.

Airborne375 said:

Something tells me it's a joke that wasn't made up by someone who worked 6-7 days a week for $500 and change a month and kissed away his legal protections at the same time. Oh I got $100 for jump pay, was that an entitlement too? Assuming your fortunate enough to have a job, is your salary an entitlement?

There has to be a line or definition somewhere, I was curious where it lie around these parts.

Click to expand...

Military members receive benefits after retiring from the military. I agree with those benefits, but it is by definition an entitlement. "Well I did *this* so I deserve *that*".

Airborne375 said:

I'm sincerely curious as to why you think military benefits are entitlements? No one gives these to you, you earn them.

Click to expand...

I guess I view them that way because of the way groups like the VFW lobby like union leaders for them. I hate the attitude of most union workers and I see that attitude permeating into our military. I hate when guys act like they "rate" something. IMO, we are given a paycheck/allowances (housing, etc) and medical/dental. Everything after that is an entitlement. I believe we are, as a whole, very unappreciative of them

whysoserious said:

Military members receive benefits after retiring from the military. I agree with those benefits, but it is by definition an entitlement. "Well I did *this* so I deserve *that*".

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but I think most people define "entitlements" as expecting something for having done nothing.

radcen said:

I don't disagree with you, but I think most people define "entitlements" as expecting something for having done nothing.

Click to expand...

Well certainly that is not the case of those in the military (something for nothing). Though I do think they can be classified as entitlements, I would be hesitant to use that word to describe benefits to the military because of the negative connotation. ****, I wish we had a budget surplus so we could give them more.

whysoserious said:

Military members receive benefits after retiring from the military. I agree with those benefits, but it is by definition an entitlement. "Well I did *this* so I deserve *that*".

Click to expand...

I was under the impression, perhaps falsely, that an entitlement was something people expected for doing nothing. Maybe it's the way the word is used, it's a positive word. We are all entitled to the protections given to us by the constitution. And we are, but would anyone say the protections given under the constitution are entitlements? I always thought the word was used sarcastically. To me something someone physically earns with their sweat and tears is not an entitlement it's a err.. earning. People say Social Security is an entitlement, I'll name it that when someone returns to me my money.

Airborne375 said:

I was under the impression, perhaps falsely, that an entitlement was something people expected for doing nothing. Maybe it's the way the word is used, it's a positive word. We are all entitled to the protections given to us by the constitution. And we are, but would anyone say the protections given under the constitution are entitlements? I always thought the word was used sarcastically. To me something someone physically earns with their sweat and tears is not an entitlement it's a err.. earning. People say Social Security is an entitlement, I'll name it that when someone returns to me my money.

Click to expand...

Yes, understood. I think technically any benefit can really be described an entitlement since they are not salary related, but yeah, the word has a terrible connotation to it. We are here on a debate forum so I think its ok to discuss it, but day to day I would not go around telling military people that their benefits are entitlements because in my opinion they've earned anything they receive and more.

that was what a built fob in afghanistan was like,except floods like that only happened twice a year.most people wouldnt tolerate 20+ per tent or having your food a mile away with no vehicle to get their and showers that worked 25% of the time and left you dirtier than when you went in.that was my fob mid deployment,after much was built,when i first got their that entire area in the film was an emtpy field except the towers and the turtle ditch.we landed boots on groundin a german camp and had to build the american side up,if you could see what it looks like now from what it was when we got their,you wouldt believe it was the same camp.

my experience was easy compared to other soldiers who had to sleep in trenches,perform guard duty in towers made from sand bags they filled for days straight,live off mre's for every meal because it was too dangerous to ship real food to a tiny outpost,and face constant attacks.also to mention many tiny outposts dont have running water or latrines,rather they shower on the rare occasion they get extra water and use rags to wipe themselves down to conserve it,and have to build latrines out of dug up holes and 55 gallon drums with a hole cut into it,they also had to burn it when it was full by pouring diesel/jp8 into the hole lighting it and stirring it to dissenfect it before buring it.

soldiers do earn what they get,anyone who thinks otherwise has probably never seen what the military does or has never deployed like the large amount of military have.

MarineTpartier said:

I guess I view them that way because of the way groups like the VFW lobby like union leaders for them. I hate the attitude of most union workers and I see that attitude permeating into our military. I hate when guys act like they "rate" something. IMO, we are given a paycheck/allowances (housing, etc) and medical/dental. Everything after that is an entitlement. I believe we are, as a whole, very unappreciative of them

Click to expand...

I dislike those large veterans organizations as well. They are pandering the service of everyone and not just their own. I'm yet to hear a VFW or American Legion speech mention.. For the members of our organization we ask you to.. It's always in the name of the nation's veterans we ask you.. That tends to irk me. I promised myself I would not knock other service members for the duration of the Wars. But there are people who earn those things you were/are speaking about and those who are just playing the game.

whysoserious said:

Yes, understood. I think technically any benefit can really be described an entitlement since they are not salary related, but yeah, the word has a terrible connotation to it. We are here on a debate forum so I think its ok to discuss it, but day to day I would not go around telling military people that their benefits are entitlements because in my opinion they've earned anything they receive and more.

Click to expand...

An excellent Point.

MarineTpartier said:

I guess I view them that way because of the way groups like the VFW lobby like union leaders for them. I hate the attitude of most union workers and I see that attitude permeating into our military. I hate when guys act like they "rate" something. IMO, we are given a paycheck/allowances (housing, etc) and medical/dental. Everything after that is an entitlement. I believe we are, as a whole, very unappreciative of them

Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. In times of plenty, sure, I love the fact that I have the option to "retire" at 44. In times where we are staring at a stark budget? How can I ask my friends and family to work hard from age 44 to age 67 to send me a check twice a month for doing nothing? But you bring this up and folks act like you are asking them to murder children. No, man, I'm breaking the myth that you are so uber-special. You got the GI Bill to help you out post-military, a million other side benefits from the States, the VA, etc; and we don't have the money to get the Cadillac deals anymore.

MarineTpartier said:

We earned some of them......and like you said, we also volunteered for the hardships. I'm not saying military guys don't deserve some benefits. From the head trauma, back/knee, and shoulder issues I have developed, I plan on compensation for it. But I also think we should be willing to give up some things. Namely retirement age IMO. The gov't could save massive amounts of money if the military retired at 55 vice immediately upon retirement. If we picked up a bigger chunk of the co-pay from injuries/sickness not related to military service it would help a lot.
If we would just stop being so wasteful it would help. I'm talking down at the enlisted level. Everday, run of the mill servicemembers waste a lot of materials just because they don't personally pay for it. Leaders should be graded on how fiscally responsible they are just as much as how tactically proficient they are. You can't go to war without the bullets, beans, and bandages, no matter how tactically proficient a unit is. If you pit a great tactical General against a great logistical General, I bet you the logistical General wins 8 times out of 10.

Click to expand...

And what of those who have done nothing for this country?

What fo they sacrifice?

You already sacrificed. Its honorable to stand up and say you will again.

But until everyone else does, you should not have to.