posted on August 14, 2003 07:23:12 AM new
Yep, so much for loyalty, and i kept saying that this present administration is and always will be traitors to a once great nation's soldiers and will use them just for cannon fodder, just so a few will get rich, talk about gangsterism
Published on Thursday, August 14, 2003 by the San Francisco Chronicle
Troops in Iraq Face Pay Cut
Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster
by Edward Epstein
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.
It's all part of the lie of the Bush administration, that they say they support our troops.
Susan Schuman of Shelburne Falls, Mass whose son is with the US Army in Iraq
Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."
The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.
Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation.
Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250.
Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months.
WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE
A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report.
Military families have started hearing about the looming pay reductions, and many aren't happy.
They say duty in Iraq is dangerous -- 60 Americans have died in combat- related incidents since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1. Another 69 have been killed by disease, the heat or in accidents.
"Every person they see is a threat. They have no idea who is an enemy or who is a friend," said Larry Syverson, 54, of Richmond, Va., whose two sons, Brandon, 31, and Bryce, 25, are serving in Iraq. Syverson appeared with other military families at a Washington, D.C., news conference to publicize efforts to bring the troops home.
"You can get shot in the head when you go to buy a Coke," added Syverson, referring to an incident at a Baghdad University cafeteria on July 6 when an Army sergeant was shot and killed after buying a soda.
AFRAID FOR HER SON
Susan Schuman of Shelburne Falls, Mass., said her son, Army National Guard Sgt. Justin Schuman, had told her "it's really scary" serving in Samarra, a town about 20 miles from Saddam Hussein's ancestral hometown of Tikrit.
Schuman, who like Syverson has become active in a group of military families that want service personnel pulled out of Iraq, said the pay cut possibility didn't surprise her.
"It's all part of the lie of the Bush administration, that they say they support our troops," she said.
It's rare for the independent Army Times, which is distributed widely among Army personnel, to blast the Pentagon, the White House and the Congress. But in this instance, the paper has said in recent editorials that Congress was wrong to make the pay raises temporary, and the Pentagon is wrong to call for a rollback.
"The bottom line: If the Bush administration felt in April that conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan warranted increases in danger pay and family separation allowances, it cannot plausibly argue that the higher rates are not still warranted today," the paper said in an editorial in its current edition.
On Capitol Hill, members say the issue will be taken up quickly after the summer recess when a conference committee meets to negotiate conflicting versions of the $369 billion defense appropriations bill.
"You can't put a price tag on their service and sacrifice, but one of the priorities of this bill has got to be ensuring our servicemen and women in imminent danger are compensated for it," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
"Since President Bush declared 'mission accomplished' on May 1, 126 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and we are losing more every day," Tauscher said. "If that's not imminent danger, I don't know what is."
The Senate bill calls for making permanent the increases in combat pay -- the first in more than a decade -- for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House wants to pay more for service in those two countries than for such duties as peacekeeping in the Balkans. With the money saved, the House wants to increase the size of the active military by 6,200 troops.
What won't be clear until Congress returns is whether the Pentagon will lobby against keeping the increase.
The Pentagon reiterated Wednesday that its goal was for service personnel to rotate out of Iraq after a maximum of a year in that country. Units of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which played a major role in last March's invasion, have already come home.
By the numbers
U.S. troops in Iraq: 148,000
U.S. troops in Afghanistan: 9,000
Imminent danger pay: $225 per month, but is scheduled to drop to $150 a month
Family separation allowances: $250 per month, but scheduled to drop to $100 per month
posted on August 14, 2003 07:34:01 AM new
Why Does the Bush Administration Hate Our Troops?
by Nathan Newman
Why are our troops suffering in such filth and discomfort over in Iraq?
That's been an odd puzzle, since where killing of troops by guerillas may be somewhat beyond the control of the military, you would think that delivering decent facilities for daily living wouldn't be such a challenge for this high-tech army.
The problem is that it's not the high-tech army taking care of those living conditions, but private industry on contract. For over a decade, the military has been shifting its supply and support personnel into combat jobs and hiring defense contractors to do the rest. And the process has accelerated under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
And despite the alleged wonders of private enterprise, those companies have left soldiers in filth, heat, and garbage.
Why Private Contractors Fail Soldiers:
While soldiers can be ordered into combat zones, civilians cannot. So U.S. troops in Iraq have had to suffer through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because contractors hired by the Army for logistics support plain failed to show up. Even mail delivery – turned over to management by civilian contractors -- fell weeks behind.
"We thought we could depend on industry to perform these kinds of functions," Lt. Gen. Charles S. Mahan, the Army's logistics chief, said in one interview.
Woops.
Soldiers have progressed from living in mud, then the summer heat and dust. One group of mothers organized a drive to buy and ship air conditioners to their sons. An Army captain ended up turning to a reporter to have him send a box of nails and screws to repair his living quarters and latrines.
For almost a decade, the military has been shifting support jobs over to the private sector. And the result in Iraq has been a disaster for the troops. Not surprisingly, when the going gets tough, the civilian business folks take a hike.
Enron Accounting on Contracts:
And apparently, the chaos of cost-plus contracts with overlapping deals is a big reason the White House has no idea how much the Iraq Occupation is costing American taxpayers: Thanks to all these overlapping contracts with multiple contracting offices, the Pentagon can’t keep track of which contractors are responsible for which jobs -- or how much it all costs. That's one reason the Bush administration can only estimate that it is spending about $4 billion a month on troops in Iraq.
Rumsfeld has already proposed handing 300,000 additional military logistics jobs over to private contractors, further endangering our troops in any future conflicts. But heck, at least Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton are making lots of money. So who cares if the soldiers have to suffer for it? Or that the budget numbers on the war resemble an Enron accounting sheet?
Grunt Soldiers Take a Budget Hit:
And the indifference to front-line soldiers’ needs isn’t restricted to hiring substandard contractors in Iraq. Soldiers and their families have been targeted for nasty budget cuts to help pay for all the goodies handed to Halliburton et. al. These budget cuts effecting military families back home just adds to the general low morale of troops in the Iraqi deployment.
Army Times, has been scathing in its criticism of the cuts and budgeting enacted by the GOP-controlled Congress.
These include:
Canceling a "modest proposal" to increase the benefit from $6,000 to $12,000 to families of soldiers who die on active duty;
Rolling back recent increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 down to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 down to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones;
Refusing to consider military tax relief to help military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training, or parents deployed to combat zones;
Passing pay raises for some higher ranks, but capping raises for the lowest ranks at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent;
Enacting a $1.5 billion cut in the military construction request for 2004
As Army Times wrote: "Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale – especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease."
All of this makes for the most deadly combination for a solider: an administration that loves war and hates the troops.
posted on August 14, 2003 07:38:09 AM new
Published on Thursday, July 31, 2003 by the Newhouse News Service
Some of Army's Civilian Contractors Are No-Shows in Iraq
by David Wood
WASHINGTON -- U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up, Army officers said.
Months after American combat troops settled into occupation duty, they were camped out in primitive, dust-blown shelters without windows or air conditioning. The Army has invested heavily in modular barracks, showers, bathroom facilities and field kitchens, but troops in Iraq were using ramshackle plywood latrines and living without fresh food or regular access to showers and telephones.
Even mail delivery -- also managed by civilian contractors -- fell weeks behind.
Though conditions have improved, the problems raise new concerns about the Pentagon's growing global reliance on defense contractors for everything from laundry service to combat training and aircraft maintenance. Civilians help operate Navy Aegis cruisers and Global Hawk, the high-tech robot spy plane.
Civilian contractors may work well enough in peacetime, critics say. But what about in a crisis?
"We thought we could depend on industry to perform these kinds of functions," Lt. Gen. Charles S. Mahan, the Army's logistics chief, said in an interview.
One thing became clear in Iraq. "You cannot order civilians into a war zone," said Linda K. Theis, an official at the Army's Field Support Command, which oversees some civilian logistics contracts. "People can sign up to that -- but they can also back out."
As a result, soldiers lived in the mud, then the heat and dust. Back home, a group of mothers organized a drive to buy and ship air conditioners to their sons. One Army captain asked a reporter to send a box of nails and screws to repair his living quarters and latrines.
For almost a decade, the military has been shifting its supply and support personnel into combat jobs and hiring defense contractors to do the rest. This shift has accelerated under relentless pressure from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to make the force lighter and more agile.
"It's a profound change in the way the military operates," said Peter W. Singer, author of a new book, "Corporate Warriors," a detailed study of civilian contractors. He estimates that over the past decade, there has been a ten-fold increase in the number of contract civilians performing work the military used to do itself.
"When you turn these services over to the private market, you lose a measure of control over them," said Singer, a foreign policy researcher at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington.
Replacing 1,100 Marine cooks with civilians, as the Corps did two years ago, might make short-term economic sense.
But cooks might be needed as riflemen -- as they were during the desperate Battle of the Bulge in December 1944. And untrained civilians "can walk off the job any time they want, and the only thing the military can do is sue them later on," Singer said.
Thanks to overlapping contracts and multiple contracting offices, nobody in the Pentagon seems to know precisely how many contractors are responsible for which jobs -- or how much it all costs.
That's one reason the Bush administration can only estimate that it is spending about $4 billion a month on troops in Iraq. White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten said this week he could not even estimate the cost of keeping troops in Iraq in fiscal 2004, which begins Oct. 1.
Last fall the Army hired Kellogg Brown & Root, a Houston-based contractor, to draw up a plan for supporting U.S. troops in Iraq, covering everything from handling the dead to managing airports. KBR, as it's known, eventually received contracts to perform some of the jobs, and it and other contractors began assembling in Kuwait for the war.
But as the conflict approached, insurance rates for civilians skyrocketed -- to 300 percent to 400 percent above normal, according to Mike Klein, president of MMG Agency Inc., a New York insurance firm. Soldiers are insured through the military and rates don't rise in wartime.
It got "harder and harder to get (civilian contractors) to go in harm's way," said Mahan, the Army logistics chief.
The Army had $8 million in contracts for troop housing in Iraq sitting idle, Mahan said. "Our ability to move (away) from living in the mud is based on an expectation that we would have been able to go to more contractor logistical support early on," Mahan said.
Logistics support for troops in Iraq is handled by dozens of companies, each hired by different commands and military agencies with little apparent coordination or oversight.
Patrice Mingo, a spokesman for KBR, declined comment. Don Trautner, an Army official who manages a major logistics contract with KBR for troop support in Iraq, said he knew of "no hesitation or lateness" by KBR civilian contractors. "There were no delays I know of," he said, making clear that he did not speak for other contractors.
posted on August 14, 2003 09:20:52 AM new
No shame.
There is a certain dignity you owe warriors.
This is a slide towards just treating them like slaves.
Even mercenaries expect a certain level of support.
When they start drafting them again there will be even less incentive to treat them well since it won't effect recruitment.
posted on August 14, 2003 09:43:16 AM new
Bush will be in San Diego speaking to family members of servicemen overseas and marines before heading off to a $2000 a plate lunch today. Wonder if anyone will bring up this issue.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on August 14, 2003 10:56:49 AM new
Boy, the Bushies seem awful silent on this one..... Where is their sheep-like lockstep agreement with this Bush plan?
posted on August 14, 2003 11:21:12 AM new
for Twelvepole
actually twelve you don't know sh*t, you yap a lot, and what comes from your trap is hot foul air, that smells so bad, and people have to stand back, shake their heads, and take a breath of fresh air away from you and wonder what makes you stink so much
posted on August 14, 2003 11:21:49 AM new
What proportion of enlisted have family that it will be no loss? And are they the ones with more time in service and more skills to retain?
And if it is a very small percentage then why is it so expensive to pay it?
posted on August 14, 2003 11:34:32 AM new
Here is the Army Times...and a [b]long[/i] list of benefits that will be decided upon in the Senate and the House.
Here are just a couple he has referenced:
# Deployment pay
[i]What: A Pentagon proposal to overhaul the unused deployment-pay program is included in both bills. Under the new plan, those deployed more than 400 days in a two-year period could get up to $1,000 a month in extra pay. The Pentagon would set the exact rate of "high-tempo allowance."
Also eligible are those deployed more than 190 consecutive days and reservists who serve at least 30 days on active duty and are called up for a second time for the same contingency operation[/i].
Under terms of the bills, the Pentagon could decide some jobs don't count toward eligibility for the allowance. The bills don't specify how exemptions would be determined and instead give wide discretion to senior defense officials to make those calls.
The proposal also requires any deployment of more than 400 days to be approved by an officer in the grade of O-6 or above.
Who: Current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan make it difficult to estimate who might be eligible.
When: Effective when the bill is signed, but when or if payment would begin is unclear.
Prediction: A sure thing.
---------
# Family-separation allowance
[i]What: Congress temporarily boosted family-separation allowance for the war with Iraq, but the increase expires Sept. 30. The House and Senate bills differ in their approaches to extending the higher rate of $250 a month.
Under the House bill, anyone deployed in the Persian Gulf or Central Asia combat zones would continue to get $250 a month in separation allowance. For those serving elsewhere, the monthly payment drops to the previous rate of $100 a month Oct. 1.
The Senate bill would make the $250 rate permanent for everyone, regardless of whether they're in or out of combat zones[/i].
Who: About 400,000 people draw the payments, including 150,000 in Iraq and 9,000 in Afghanistan.
[i]When: Oct. 1.
Prediction: The Senate plan, which doesn't discriminate based on assignment, is more likely to be approved[/i].
# and ###
Imminent-danger pay
What: In a situation similar to the family-separation allowance, Congress approved a wartime increase in monthly imminent-danger pay from the previous $150 to a new payment of $225, but the increase expires Sept. 30.
The House bill continues the $225 monthly payment only for people deployed in the combat zone in Iraq and Afghanistan, while allowing the rate for others to revert Oct. 1 to $150 a month. The Senate bill makes the $225 payment permanent for all.
The House includes a second provision on danger pay that would make troops responding to terrorist attacks in the United States eligible. The pay currently is available only for those outside the United States.
Who: About 350,000 people draw danger pay, including 150,000 in Iraq and 9,000 in Afghanistan.
Prediction: The Senate should prevail on rates. The House plan to allow stateside payments has a 50-50 chance.
posted on August 14, 2003 12:39:50 PM new
gravid - When they start drafting them again there will be even less incentive to treat them well since it won't effect recruitment.
Might interest you to know that one of the cuts being suggested is for recruitment funds. The basis for that is they are more than meeting their requirements of recuits, even with the Iraq war going on.
posted on August 16, 2003 11:20:59 AM new
EVERY YEAR AT THIS TIME OF YEAR when congress is about to systemically approve a payraise, there is the worry about the troops not getting the pay raise. So far, they have received it every year. This hysteria has been going on for decades! and everyone gets all worked up.
It's like when Clinton was in office, the anti-Clinton people were using the fact the troops were getting welfare help. Yeah? So? The troops were getting welfare help through all the administrations for several decades.
No one in the anti-Clinton camp wanted to hear that when I would bring that up in a "real" (non-internet) conversation
WASHINGTON -- Veterans are condemning House Republicans' failure to deliver a $3.2 billion boost for the Veterans Affairs Department that would have shrunk the agency's waiting list for medical care.
"A shameless betrayal" is how AMVETS sums it up.
"A moral outrage," the American Legion said.
"Abominable" is the word from the Non Commissioned Officers Association.
"Veterans have been pushed to the limits," said Joe Violante, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans. "They're being lied to, and they're not tolerating it."
The broken promise -- the second time in a year Congress has reneged on a pledge to veterans -- has veterans vowing to remember at the ballot box.
"They're saying there has got to be a change made because if there isn't, we're never going to get what we're due," said Richard DeLong, a Vietnam veteran in Lafayette, La.
During April budget debates, the GOP-led House -- under criticism for not putting enough money into VA medical care -- approved a nonbinding budget that promised to increase VA medical spending by $1.8 billion more than the additional $1.4 billion President Bush had requested.
The money would have helped more than 132,000 veterans who wait six months or longer for their first VA doctor's appointment. Although the VA's medical budget has increased $8.3 billion in the past seven years, the agency's spending on each patient has decreased $624.
Last month, House Republican leadership, bowing to Bush administration pressure to curb spending and their own desire for hometown projects, cut the promised $1.8 billion.
Despite failed efforts to add the money back, the bill passed 316-109 with 59 Republicans and 50 Democrats opposing. Of the House Veterans Affairs Committee's 31 members, 20 voted against the bill, including committee Chairman Chris Smith, R-N.J., and top Democrat Lane Evans of Illinois.
The bill's next step is Senate consideration this fall.
"We got fooled, and we got whupped," said Richard F. Weidman, director of government relations for Vietnam Veterans of America. "We are not going to let individual members of this Congress forget this vote."
American Legion national commander Ronald F. Conley said the discouraging part is that the House GOP leadership warned Republicans that pet projects in the bill would be in jeopardy if they didn't vote yes.
"We have the money to pay for a statue of the Roman god Vulcan in Birmingham, Ala. We have money to pay for a bike trail in North Dakota. We have money to fund a Nevada helicopter company that performs Elvis impersonator weddings," Conley said. "And yet we have neither the heart nor the will to ensure that all United States veterans receive the medical care they earned and we owe them."
President Bush may hear more on the issue Tuesday when he is to speak to 13,000 delegates at the American Legion's national convention in St. Louis.
Congress' actions have many veterans talking about political consequences.
"Veterans more and more are beginning to sense a loss of faith and confidence in the administration," said Richard C. Schneider, director of veteran and state affairs for the Non Commissioned Officers Association. "They're no longer willing to be the quiet, accepting veterans that they have been in the past. I think they're actually going to hold some people accountable."
Veterans are talking about increasing turnout at the polls next year, veterans groups say.
posted on August 20, 2003 08:01:16 AM new
LindaK - Thanks. It just floors me. I can't imagine why anyone would be an enlisted person given the risks and rewards. I can understand a career as an officer - but to me being a grunt would only be attractive if I was desperate to simply survive.
