Soltz: Pentagon’s Spin On GI Bill Is ‘Offensive Nonsense’ That ‘Insults The Intelligence’ Of Soldiers
Soltz: Pentagon’s Spin On GI Bill Is ‘Offensive Nonsense’ That ‘Insults The Intelligence’ Of Soldiers
Our guest blogger is Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets.org and veteran of the Iraq war.
Yesterday, ThinkProgress highlighted the latest reason from the Bush administration to oppose a real GI Bill for troops, offered by Senators Webb and Hagel. The Pentagon spokesperson said, in part:
[W]e are certainly concerned that this would be eligible to them after only two years of service. We think pegging it to a longer period of service — the number we have in mind, at this point, is six years of service — that the longer you stay in, the sweeter the benefits are to you. Six years would show a commitment to service. … The last thing we want to do is provide a benefit — or the last thing we want to do is create a situation in which we are losing our men and women who we have worked so hard to train.
Wow. There are a few very serious flaws in this logic:
First, the time of service isn’t a measure of commitment to service. What about the troops who served under six years, did a few tours in Iraq, and came back without a limb, and could no longer serve? Have they shown less of a commitment to America? I would love for this spokesperson to go to Walter Reed and tell anyone there who served three years, but now cannot continue their service, that they haven’t shown a commitment.
Second, no one is leaving the military after two years. I’d note that when you sign up, it’s for an eight year contract, most for four years active. They can serve in a number of ways. For example, I served four and a half years active (because I was Stop Lossed), went to grad school and served in the reserves, but was called back up after ten months. So, the point remains that you’re not talking about a flood of people breaking their contract after three or four years. The overwhelming majority of men and women serve out their contract for eight years, so even if they do begin school when they’re done with their active duty commitment, the military can call them up at any time they need them, for the life of the troop’s contract. A GI Bill isn’t going to change it.
Third is that if the administration was serious about retention, they would focus on the role of contractors, who continually snatch up troops, offering them up to 10 times their military pay to do a similar job in Iraq. That’s a much bigger threat to retention than offering a service-member the chance to get a quality education.
Personally, it took me months after I got back to get contractors to stop calling me, offering me six-figures, tax-free, to do work for them in Iraq. I didn’t take them up on it, but there are far more who do leave to make money. I do not blame the troops for this, by the way. They have families to provide for, and if they’re going to take on a dangerous task, it’s far more attractive to do it for a lot of money, which they can leave to their families.
But the fact is that the administration hasn’t taken on contractors – it’s embraced them. The administration continues to dole out bloated contracts to private contractors, instead of increase the size of the military, or address how the war in Iraq has overextended our forces. The result is that those contracts are spent, in large part, to lure away members of the military.
So, the latest spin by the Pentagon isn’t just nonsense – it’s offensive nonsense, because it insults the intelligence of the service members who recognize that the administration has never been serious about retention. Otherwise, they would have done something about contractors a long, long time ago.
You can read all about this issue, and how the troops and veterans are reacting, over at www.VetVoice.com
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
28 Responses to “Soltz: Pentagon’s Spin On GI Bill Is ‘Offensive Nonsense’ That ‘Insults The Intelligence’ Of Soldiers”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
.
The Pentagon, the Whitehouse and 44 Senators oppose the GI bill that benifits the troops…
Why does the Whitehouse, the Pentagon and 44 Senators hate the troops or their service?
.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:11 pmThis is from ‘DemocracyNow’
‘In military news, the Pentagon has announced the re-establishment of a US Navy fleet to oversee activity in the Caribbean and Central and South America. The Fourth Fleet has not been used since its disbandment in 1950.
Some critics warn the fleet’s renewal could be seen as a warning to governments seeking greater regional integration to counter US influence, most notably Venezuela.
DN.’
South American governments are increasingly moving towards a continet integration which will lead to great and needed social reforms. I said needed, because after decades of military dictatorships backed by the criminals in Washington, the continent is a mess. Now the Pentagon criminals are begining to do the same game as they did decades ago.
WAR ON CEMOCRACY, a film by John Pilger. YOUTUBE IT!
May 7th, 2008 at 3:14 pmYou know, the GI Bill is suppose to be a benefit to soldiers. It recognizes their service to the country. It is also a benefit to the economy by providing a well educated and trained work force.
The plan of the Republicans (apparently as supported by the Pentagon) is to tie benefits to making a career of the service. Think about that. Our country is based upon a citizen military. Yes, we need professional officers and NCO’s but we also want a good turnover in personnel simply to avoid the danger to democracy inherent in a totally professional military.
When do you get you military pension? Twenty years. By the time that you have spent 6-12 years on active duty, you have started constraining the soldier into making it a career since these are not a transferable retirement benefit.
There really is a hypocrisy with so many soldiers now being lured into private contractors because of the pay disparity. These are mainly jobs that had been done by the military in the past. They also represent a far greater expense to the country than having filled it with military men. More importantly, these were jobs which provided a method of rotating troops to less demanding and dangerous tasks. A good way to relieve stress and to provide a backup force of trained warriors in the case that immediate support was needed. However, this has all been tossed aside to help contractor profits.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:26 pmJon Soltz - you are a true patriot! Thank you for your continuing service to this country!!
~ A
May 7th, 2008 at 3:30 pmMax-1 Says:
.
The Pentagon, the Whitehouse and 44 Senators oppose the GI bill that benifits the troops…
Why does the Whitehouse, the Pentagon and 44 Senators hate the troops or their service?
Doesn’t matter - they have their lapel pin on.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pmSoltz is my hero, and it’s pretty damn clear who the ‘enemy’ is.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:33 pmVFW and American Legion Halls all across America should be rallying to the vets side on this issue. And making sure McIIIrd doesn’t see the inside of the White House, except on a guided tour.
First of all - you go Jon! I think you’re great and the work you’re doing is fabulous!
Jon makes a lot of sense. That bit about some not being able to serve their whole four years due to injury is undeniable. And private contractors shouldn’t be making so much more than our troops. That’s just nuts.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:36 pmNo, no, no - the only thing that insults troops is a John Kerry joke about our president’s knowledge of history or a MoveOn.org ad that highlights how the commanding general in Iraq is nothing more than a mouthpeice for the administration.
If they can’t be used as a backdrop for a speech beseeching the American people to give the administration more power, why even have troops? Blackwater does it much better, in a more secretive manner, and you give to give your buddies more and more taxpayer cash.
It makes perfect sense - you just have to look at it through the Rethuglican prism.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pmThe Pentagon military-bureaucracy has become corrupt to the core–it is anti-Democratic and filled with schemers looking to make their fortunes in contracting.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pmI had no idea you were guest blogging here today Jon! You gotta give us a heads up when you do this :) I just emailed Brandon about it.
Chris LeJeune
May 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pmExactly. Even if they didn’t lose a limb or receive any other physical wound, who in their right mind think that any Iraq or Afghanistan veteran does not deserve the benefits proposed in the Webb-Hagel GI Bill? Only this falsely patriotic “Support Our Troops”-car-magnet-sporting-lapel-flag-pin-wearing-Bush Administration and its fans.
-AF
May 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
Or what about the female soldier who joined September 12, 2001, did a tour in Afghanistan and two in Iraq - but her husband left her after the first tour and tried to gain custody of the kids during her third? If she gets out with only four years of service, three combat tours, and a broken family to show for it, is she not a committed enough soldier to get educational benefits?
May 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pmWhy would Bush go after private contractors? Such a move would block his own plans to privatize our military.
Bush’s plan is for the DoD to recruit them here so KBR can recruit them over there.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:06 pmWhat the hell is wrong with these people? They pass a stupid resolution honoring Charles Heston or whatever the hell his name is, but they can’t pass a bill that benefits the very men and women they supposedly “support” and have nothing but the highest esteem and regard for their patriotism so that they can get a few more years out of them.
JFC these people make me ill.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pmit is a shameful disservice to the veterans who put their life and limb on the line. they deserve better thn that.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pmSo, the latest spin by the Pentagon isn’t just nonsense – it’s offensive nonsense, because it insults the intelligence of the service members who recognize that the administration has never been serious about retention. Otherwise, they would have done something about contractors a long, long time ago.
Why worry about retention when they can just ’stop loss’ the troops they need.
This administration has never been serious about giving support to the troops that put their lives on the line. From lack of armor to lack of care (Walter Reed for example), to lack of gratitude. Bush continues to expect sacrifice after sacrifice of the men and women in our armed services while asking for nothing here at home. And the hypocrisy of this is never clearer than in Bush’s supporters sporting ’support the troops’ magnets on their cars.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
May 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pmUncle Ho Says:
it is a shameful disservice to the veterans who put their life and limb on the line. they deserve better thn that.
It is also a violation of the promises to veterans that this country has made for many years.
Support the troops my A$$
May 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pmWhat is the reason that McCain gives for not backing the Bill ? I haven’t heard his reasoning. But why does this surprise anyone after the continuing rotten treatment in every aspect our troops put up with.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pmAccording to my DD-214 I spent one year, eleven, months, and twenty-nine days in Uncle Sam’s Army. In return for that involuntary service I received what was termed “The GI Bill” for a college education. Those benefits enabled me to complete my Junior and Senior years and earn a Jewish Engineering Degree (Business Administtration) and also to earn a Master of Public Administration degree(all in 2 1/2 calendar years at night) while working full time as well. In return I worked for some 30 years for the military in a civilian and/or consultant/contractor status. I think both the Military and I got value for value and the most dangerous place I was stationed was Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. It is absolutely criminal to suggest our troops volunteering to serve in King George the Dumb’s illegal crusade should not be entitled to the same benefits that have been offered to others for at least the last 50-60 years. The only possible justification is that the bushco brass do not want to see the canon (I guess it is now IED) fodder educated or they may revolt.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:26 pmMy nephew just deployed to Iraq, he had previously been deployed to Afghanistan. He does some form of military intelligence, although I’m not exactly sure what. He has been recruited heavily by contractors (six figures living stateside) and he’s got at least a year to go in active service (thanks to stop loss).
May 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pmtexaslady -
McCain is claiming that the new GI Bill would hurt retention, and he is trying to push his own watered down version.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pmIts all about money, short change our military, National Guard included as they are doing the same as the traditional military to continue spending for Blackwater, KBR and the rest of the scum suckers. Why ANYONE would sign up for this administrations military is beyond me.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:46 pmI particularly liked this comment yesterday from deebaser:
“I have a compromise. One year of tuition for every year of service. After 4 years, tie it to GPA.
If one of our soldiers wants his doctorate after 10 years of service, I have no problem paying for it.”
That doesn’t account for injuries though.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pmAs Riddick so clearly stated, ‘I hate Mercs’…
May 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pmExcellent post Mr. Soltz. The obvious flaw in the Bush/McCain objection to the Webb-Hagel bill is the lack of feeling towards soldiers who cannot complete their tour because of wounds. The hypocrisy is most pronounced however in the tolerance of open recruitment of our troops by military contractors supported by the administration. As horrible as the callous Republican use of the troops as a disposable political prop is however, the class warfare aspect of Republican opposition to the bill is perhaps more sinister. The post-WW II G.I. Bill was a tremendous leveler, providing access to higher education to thousands of veterans (my father included) who otherwise could not have afforded it. I can’t help but believe that part of the resistance to this bill is just another example of the privileged class not wanting to see what it regards as its servants earning the same opportunity that the patricians enjoy from birth.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:04 pmWounded soldiers need tuition money to earn the education for a career that accommodates their injuries, so length of service should not be a factor. An IED isn’t particular who gets blown apart. The GI Bill needs updating and grandfathered into everyone serving in this illegal war. When are Americans going to step up for those who believed this war mongering president ?
May 7th, 2008 at 5:16 pm.
Just as we have learned from how we spat in the faces of returning troops from one war and that disgrace, here we see another ’spit in the face’ of a different but similar war all by the lips of the NeoCon Gang Of Phascists and Loyal supporters… what a disgrace they make of themselves… NO?
.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:40 amAs a deployed soldier, I appreciate the support of those Americans who see the frustrations we face. It’s a difficult decision whether or not to re-enlist when your options are so limited. I could re-enlist for a few more years, (with an undetermined number of deployments, in a war the soldier may or may not agree with), or try to join the job force in a struggling economy with little to nothing to keep you afloat for the first few months. My initial enlistment is 6 years. I have a year left after I get back to the states (assuming I don’t fall into the stop-loss trap). I want to become an RN. Todays soldiers aren’t all 20 year old kids just out of high school. I will be 29 when I return to civilian life. I’ll spend the last few months of my enlistment trying to start a new life. I have to find a job, a place to live, furniture, and all the other things everyone takes for granted. When someone seperates from the military, it’s hard. Honestly, I’m scared. It would be amazing if I could come out of the army, and transition to school. Just like the kids who didn’t join the military, and went to college after high school on their parents dime. I guess that’s too much to ask for though. All the folks that have the (made in China,) “Support Our Troops,” magnets on their bumpers that don’t support better GI Bill benefits, only have that magnet to ease their own minds about the men and women who are fighting and dying for their country, while they complain about how they can’t seem to get rid of their love handles. Boot camp is a hell of a weight loss program, think about it.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:09 am