Pentagon biggest obstacle to Democrats' GI bill

[HARDCORE]

It’s Just Not Right!

With the Pentagon apparently against the G.I. Bill (see below), and the furor about the cremations still in mind, and the piece a while back about the problems about some troopers having difficulty getting back Stateside after their tour of duty was completed, one has to be concerned! Is one political party or the other attempting to turn this into a political football?

Our troops, their honor, their blood sacrifices, and their mental state, “ARE NOT” political footballs, and woe be to he in politics, Republican and Democrat alike, who thinks otherwise! “Politicians Beware - lest ye run afoul of the American People!!!”

“Nothing is lower than he (or she) who would use another’s blood to advance an agenda, or their political power!!”

“THIS IS NOT 1984!!”

VERITAS (Truth)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pentagon biggest obstacle to Democrats' GI bill
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Tue May 13, 3:18 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_go_co/gi_bill

Veterans groups say it's time to expand college aid for GIs, and Democrats want to use an election year to do it. Their biggest obstacle? The Pentagon.

The Defense Department is lobbying against legislation proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would guarantee a full-ride scholarship for service members to any in-state public university. According to defense officials, the plan would hurt its ability to retain service members because the new GI education bill would require only three years before the full benefit kicks in. The Defense Department wants the commitment to be extended to at least six years.

"We have no issue with the fact that Sen. Webb wishes to provide a more generous education benefit to troops," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. "But we are certainly concerned that this would be eligible to them" so soon.

The Pentagon's opposition to Webb's bill underscores the difficulty the military has had in recruiting and retaining an all-volunteer force at a time when it is engaged in a war that is deeply unpopular with the American public.

Adding to the military's dilemma is the larger number of soldiers and Marines needed to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, the Pentagon recommended that the Army be increased by about 65,000 soldiers to a total of 547,000, and the Marines be increased by 27,000 to 202,000.

The difficulty in finding young people also can be attributed in part to low unemployment numbers in recent years. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, unemployment dropped from 6 percent in 2003 to 4.6 percent in 2007.

In recent months, the military has had to take creative steps to reach its desired troop numbers. A year ago, when Army recruiters didn't meet their goal, the service announced new $20,000 bonuses for recruits and up to $40,000 if an enlistee signed up for at least four years.

The Army also has granted special exceptions to recruits with prior criminal records, medical problems or low-aptitude scores that would have otherwise disqualified them from service. Senior military officials defended the change in policy as justified because they say current restrictions were so stringent that many members in Congress would have been denied entrance to the ranks because of indiscretions from their youth.

Retention rates have been less troublesome in the military, with the Army and Marine Corps exceeding their goals by large margins in 2006 and staying strong in 2007. Studies have found that combat deployments can prompt service members to re-enlist, usually because of a sense of accomplishment.

Still, the Defense Department is worried that its retention numbers could fall as service members are asked to return repeatedly to Iraq and Afghanistan and they are given too much of an incentive to leave. One particular problem facing the military is its ability to hang on to seasoned combat veterans, including those in the elite forces, who are being lured to higher-paying jobs in the private sector.

Webb, a Vietnam veteran and critic of the Iraq war, counters that his legislation would be more effective in attracting new recruits and would offset any drop in the military's ranks.

"I can't think of a better way to broaden (the) propensity to serve than to offer a truly meaningful educational benefit, rather than simply taking that smaller demographic" of those already enlisted "and pound on it" with repeated combat tours, he said.

[Packo]

has a point. There are not against the bill itself, but want it to kick in after 6 years. With all the techno magic many of the troops have to learn, it takes years to get them trained. Then if they leave after 3 it's been a waste. I am all for this new GI Bill which will pay for everything, but to get it, a 6 year commitment would be more realistic. My niece, Air Force, has been in language school for 65 weeks. Then on to Krypto school, then flight school for Air Crew, not pilot. It will be almost 3 years....if not 3, by the time she finishes all her schools. If she would leave after 3 years....what would have been the point. I say support the bill but make it a 6 year committment to get it.

Pack

[reconeil]

You and neice both make The Point quite well.

The closest I had to be at proficiency in: "Techno magic" for 3 years of service,...
was being better than most at nightime cross country map reading in unknown territory.
At my job, a llitle common sense & some savy or smarts didn't hurt either.

Neil

[DeadlyDaring]

In Australia we used to have 9 years navy, 6 years Air Force and 6 years Army then it got reduced. Now everyone who joins up is on a contract and you never have to re-enlist. So if the Current Government thinks there are far too many in the forces, they give you notice and then your out. On the other hand, if one joins up and does all the training then you have to give them at least twelve months notice (I think) before you can leave.

The old way was far much better for all because now they can’t get enough service men to stay in the services... once they have their credentials, they leave for better pay in civvy street and I think that is the same everywhere. I read somewhere in Australia that the Government is now thinking about once you have the high skills that you have been trained for and you decide to leave, you have to pay the Government back for all the training expenditures because you are going to benefit from the high skill training.

In civvy street you can get a higher education funded by the Government and you don’t have to pay it back until you start working, as they add it to your taxes you have to pay each year until it has all been paid back.

So, I think if it is good enough for civvy street, then it’s good enough for the military services to do the same