Veterans' Benefits

More Iraq combat veterans who don't understand the stakes:

As John McCain well knows, if we pass the Webb-Hagel bill and enhance veterans benefits, then this might encourage some combat veterans to actually leave the service at some point instead of signing up for the fourth and fifth and sixth tours of duty that make a policy of open-ended occupation viable. Under the circumstances, stinginess toward the troops is the only responsible alternative to dhimmitude.

Comments

I am a vet who had to drop out last semester because my gi bill was not enough.. I am only complaining about vet Ed benefits .. I can only imagine what the vets that are applying for medical benefits are going through.. BTW, my husband and I would both qualify for Sen. Webbs GIBILL..

Posted by Ann | May 20, 2008 2:06 PM

As the cost of soldiers rises, the Pentagon will cut troop levels and rely more on mercenaries (cough, I mean, contractors). You can have a small, well paid military or you can have a big military filled with cheap draftees. You can't afford to have a big, well paid military armed with the latest equipment and lavishly supplied.

You got guys coming into the service at 18, retiring at 20 years, then drawing a pension for the rest of their lives. That's god awful expensive.

Posted by Anonymous | May 20, 2008 2:08 PM

You got guys coming into the service at 18, retiring at 20 years, then drawing a pension for the rest of their lives. That's god awful expensive.

God, it's so true. The troops really haven't earned this. Two years of combat in a civil war, and they want to go to college?

That's the real problem with the military - chock full of lazy freeloaders!

Posted by DivGuy | May 20, 2008 2:11 PM

"That's the real problem with the military - chock full of lazy freeloaders!"

Didn't say that. Never said anything about the value of members of the military. Just added a dose of financial reality. If you want to advocate for higher taxes to add to military spending, then do so. Or be willing to tell farmers, the poor, and all the rest of the interest groups that you can't give them money because troops need better benefits.

If you want to limit the benefits to only those soldiers with a combat badge, then that would cut the cost. But the military benefits system doesn't tend to work like that.

Posted by Anonymous | May 20, 2008 2:25 PM

Anonymous (if that is your real name),

If you lower benefits, you risk having fewer volunteers. You have to work harder to get good people to join. You end up hiring more contractors and so on.

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | May 20, 2008 2:45 PM

"If you lower benefits, you risk having fewer volunteers."

We're not talking about lowering benefits here, but rather increasing them. If you keep increasing long term benefits to get more recruits, the long term costs rises and the fewer recruits you can afford to enlist for the same outlay. That's why the pentagon turns to contractors. They essentially lease rather than "buy" soldiers and military services to avoid the long-term costs of long-term commitments to service members needed to staff a large volunteer military. With Congress talking about increasing the end strength of the army and Marine Corps the problem only grows without an increase in military spending that neither side of the aisle wants to make.

Posted by Anonymous | May 20, 2008 3:12 PM

Following up a little on Ronnie - the OMB (I believe) studied the Webb / Hagel bill and concluded that any guys we lose who drop out early to get full benefits will be offset by the public knowledge that benefits are given to guys who do a full tour. Enlistments increase enough to offset the loss. It won't really stop the never-ending occupation of Iraq (which I still don't understand why anyone worth their salt who opposes the occupation calls it such instead of a "war").

Posted by Byrd | May 20, 2008 3:15 PM

Another vet here who would benefit from the new Webb GI Bill. Personnel costs are definitely a large chunk of military spending, but I think a big part of the increase can come from savings of eliminating some of our really ridiculous and unnecessary future combat systems like the F-22 and the Wolf-class submarine. We do not need these now. If (*IF*) we go to war with China in 25 years, we won't need them then. We do need to update our equipment, but that doesn't mean replacing it - we can get a dozen F-15s (the newest models are years ahead of where they were when they first came out) for the price of 1 F-22. It's stupid.

Posted by Tom | May 20, 2008 4:20 PM

What say we stop this contracting bullshit.

Instead of paying Blackwater cost plus for every contractor, keep it in house and pay the soldiers the 100,000 a year plus OT.

Posted by Stiv Bator | May 20, 2008 6:50 PM

Better yet, cut the military to ten percent of its current size - and cut even more the expensive and useless weapons systems - and ten percent of its budget. That would still be more than enough to defend the US - if not to invade every other country in the world.

Then you can start upping the pay and benefits to the point where people who like the idea of being in the military can afford to. Preferably people with some brains instead of the morons the military has in it today.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 20, 2008 11:03 PM