- Military Matters -
While visiting my folks, I got talking to my sister about the sentiments of the military toward the current administration. She lives near a military base, and since her husband is ex-military, she has a number of friends in military families. She tells me that the enlisted men in particular have become very hostile toward the current administration, and that many are willing to be rather public about their dissatisfaction. She also says that the divorce rate in both the officer and enlisted ranks has just skyrocketed.
Not exactaly sure what to make of reports that re-enlistments are up significantly compared to the significant shortfalls in recruitment. Certainly, the article is pollyannish. But it does contain this little gem:
Army officials attribute the strong re-enlistment rates to unprecedented cash bonuses and a renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism. Some of the record bonuses are tax-free if soldiers re-enlist while in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Re-enlistment bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $150,000, depending on the type of job and length of re-enlistment. The $150,000 bonuses are offered only to senior special operations commandos who agree to stay in the military for up to six more years. The average bonus is $10,000, said Col. Debbra Head, who monitors Army retention at the Pentagon.
That's real bucks. If I had to hazard a guess about what is going on, I imagine that many figure they may as well take the cash bonus for re-enlistment rather than being caught in a stop-loss order where they have to serve and don't get the cash.
\*/ Posted: 10:11 AM | Permalink
10 comments \*/
10 Comments:
Yes--my sig. oth. teaches at one of the service academies, and it's true of the students as well. While the student population certainly skews conservative (though not as completely as some might think), they're extremely cynical about the administration and its motives.
I read this article today that suggests recruitment goals aren't being met in the Army--but whether that's right or wrong it's an interesting look at the larger, long-term problems facing a volunteer army.
You ain't kiddin about the incentives. When I got out, the going rate for reenlistment bonus was something like 15k for army and 40k+ for navy, doing basically the same job. It was a 'boom, this will bein your bank accounk by end of business tomorrow' kind of thing. For all the kids already up to their neck in debt, or with little ones to care for and no guarantee of a job in the real world, that's a huge amount. And this was in 2000, long before out current fan + shit combo.
If you are subject ot stop-loss though, you will separate formteh military 90 days after redeployment (returning home).
There is no bonus for less than a 2 year re-enlistment. So you decide, 2 years from re-enlisting, or 90 days after getting home?
rto trainer, I'm not clear what you are saying. I take it that 90 days after you return home you can leave the service. But when do you get sent home if you are on stop-loss? Can the miltary keep you on a combat assignment indefinitely? If so, then the bet is that you will be redeployed in less than a two years, right? If not, then I don't understand why the military would even issue a stop-loss order. Can you explain.
\*/
If you read through the terms of the enlistment contract (incidentally, there is no "fine print" on an enlistment contract and every enlistee has to sign off on every paragraph of the contract)one of the provisions is that in time of war or presidentially declared national emergency, the military can involuntarilly retain any member in service for the duration of the war/emergency + 6 months.
While you are in service, you serve where you are told to serve. It that's in a combat zone, so be it. So the answer to your question is, yes, a military memebr can be retained nigh indefinitely and kept in combat (my unit, in WWII, was in 858 days of continuous combat--there were many Thunderbirds who experienced every minute of that time).
Nowe as to when one actually redeoply when a unit is on stop-loss, it all depends. Every member of a unit has orders cut for him at the time of deployment and those orders state a specific period of time for the deployment. This only represents the best guess of someone with many stars on his collar as to what will be needed. Generals (and Admirals) are professional guessers and you'd be surprised how good they are at it, but it just doesn't always work.
Extension of deployment, is not part of stop-loss though the two ideas did get confabulated in the media. Extension does push back the start of the 90 day period, though as that does not start until the unit actually redeploys. The real-world example is the 1st Infantry Division. They deployed on 12 month orders. It was extended to 15 months. If one of them was supposed ot have separated, say 2 months after arriving in-country, then they did effectivley serve 14 months beyond the normal conditions of the contract.
But it is also explained to every recruit that in these matters the needs of the service will always be considered first. It is harsh, but it isn't what it could be. Anyone signing up thinking that it won't be occassionaly isn't paying attention and hasn't considered what they are doing.
rto trainer, thanks so much for the explanation and perspective. It's much appreciated and it helps me understand this a lot better. As you note, the media has really made a hash of the whole thing.
But I guess I'm still wondering if from the solider's perspective re-enlistment remains a bet against extension and stop-loss. If you re-enlist, you serve on the terms of your re-enlistment contract rather than extension and stop-loss, correct? That is, if you think you are likely to be extended indefinitely (say close to two years), it makes sense to re-enlist for two years and take the bonus instead, correct?
What I really want to know is how to interpret the uptick in re-enlistment. Are the soldiers doing it because they figure they may as well take the money if they will have to serve indefinitely anyway? Or would soldiers only re-enlist if they really wanted to stay in the military? (I'm talking in general terms here. I understand that individual soldiers make these decisions for all sorts of reasons.)
\*/
No one is serving indefinitely. The longest deployment so far has been 1st ID (15 mos.). Most are 12 or 9 months. Plans are in place to reduce it to 6.
That said, re-enlistment means that you have chosen to continue your service for 2 or more years (up to 6). If what you want is out, and you can do that 90 days after getting home, why re-enlist? That guarantess staying in longer.
I will re-enlist for a full 6 when i go back to Afghanistan. I've intended to stay in until age 60 when I can't stay any longer because I view my service as the second best thing I've ever done with my life (the first being marrying my wife). Timing is my only concern as it'll make my bonus tax-free.
RTO Trainer, thanks so much for clarifying this for me! I sincerely hope your timing comes through so you can get your bonus tax free.
I hope you are right about being able to reduce the time of deployment as well. I've really felt for those soldiers who have thought they were coming back at one time but then learned they would be deployed longer. It's gotta be hard on the families.
\*/
You bet it's hard. But there's a couple of things some folks tend to forget.
When we join the phrase "needs of the service come first" is said over and over. No one goes into this blind to that.
For myself, I know that my grandfather was in Europe during World War II for almost four years. I figure I don't have a right to complain until I'm asked to do more.
Anyhow, I'm happy I could help.
I've placed a lengthy rebuttal of rto trainer's comments on stop loss over on Swerve Left (http://swerveleft.blogspot.com).
Post a Comment
<< Home