I would guess the temporary raise in hazardous duty and family seperation pay was based on estimates that Iraq, come September, wouldn’t be very hazardous and that many troops would be able to come home, thereby reducing the numbers of troops drawing seperation pay. As with many pre-war predictions, this has missed the mark somewhat. As of now Iraq is still pretty hazardous and there are still fair number of troops over there with families who need the extra cash back here. Extending it seems a no-brainer. As to questions of why they are “entitled to it”, well, they’re entitled to it because the situation is still dangerous and they’re still seperated from their families. Fluxuations in the situation should drive fluxuations in pay. As of now, I don’t see why the troops should take a reduction in pay other than the deadline on the legislation. As I mentioned above, I believe this deadline was set based on a flawed assumption and should be extended.
The story refers to the efforts of Bring Them Home Now in publicizing the discontent amongst soldiers, thier spouses, dependents, parents, etc. Thier website is worth a look:
A poignant response:
"Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman, said the antiwar campaign does not reflect the views of most soldiers or family members.
This small group is clearly out of step with the vast majority of servicemembers, families and veterans who clearly understand that we can fight and win the global war on terrorism in places like Iraq, or we can lose it in the streets of America,'' Cassella said. The troops know that, they’ve connected the dots.’’
I’m sorry… I must be really exhausted that my single working braincell can’t follow… And I ask myself this question already for months and months now…
But: How do Americans think to win this imaginary"war on terror" in IRAQ?
The American people are kinda dumb, and readily manipulated by irrational and emotional appeals to nationalism, etc. What are people like where you’re from?
It was exactly November 4 1969 on Hill 10. About 20 miles due west of Danang. I remember so well because we got overrun 2 days before my RTD. Piss off,Reeder
I am shocked you haven’t figured it out,Aldebaran. We’re going to build a massive military complex outside Baghdad where we can strike anywhere in the Middle East in minutes. Look at a map and think about it.
<singsong voice>
I WAS RIGHT I WAS RIGHT I WAS RIGHT I WAS RIGHT
</singsong voice>
Whee!
This had political death written all over it. If a large chunk of those soldiers either fail to vote or vote democratic over the pay issue the administration goes back to being businessmen in a bit. They need those votes and know it.
This is so true. Americans are “readily manipulated by irrational and emotional appeals to nationalism, etc.” . . . . . pretty much like every other people on earth. It’s human nature.
Can someone possibly clear up the details of this little matter for a dumb limey?
So, these temporary increases in pay, which came into being for troops going into Afghanistan and Iraq… how were they explained at the time? I understand that they were temporary in law, but were the troops told that they would only last as long as they were in theatre/overseas/danger? Did troops reasonably expect them to be ‘permanent’ ie whilst on active service?
In any event, at least your guys are properly equipped
