DefenseWatch This article is provided courtesy of DefenseWatch, the official magazine for Soldiers For The Truth (SFTT), a grass-roots educational organization started by a small group of concerned veterans and citizens to inform the public, the Congress, and the media on the decline in readiness of our armed forces. Inspired by the outspoken idealism of retired Colonel David Hackworth, SFTT aims to give our service people, veterans, and retirees a clear voice with the media, Congress, the public and their services. Related Links: Article Archive Military Base Guide Hot Discussions Have an opinion on this commentary? Sound off. DefenseWatch Website Get Breaking Military News Alerts Related Links Get $1004 a Month! Your service may have earned you great education benefits. Get up to $1004 per month to pay for your undergraduate, graduate or technical degree. Find out about military-friendly schools today.

  Email this page to friends

[Have an opinion about the views expressed in this article? Sound off in the Hot Issues with Defensewatch Forum.]

By Paul Connors

Regardless of which candidate wins the presidential election on Nov. 2, the men and women of the U.S. armed services can expect a wild roller coaster ride of a year in 2005: Whether a newly re-elected President Bush or a newly elected President John Kerry takes office on, the U.S. military faces continued war overseas and new upheaval (that is, transformation) here at home.

Here is a rundown of what members of America's armed forces can expect in the coming 12 months. There is good news and there is news that will cause concern for military members and their families.

(First, this note: It is not the policy of DefenseWatch to endorse candidates from any party because politicizing what effects our troops only does more harm than good, and because we are a nonprofit educational organization, not a traditional, partisan operation. While some of the criticisms leveled here are oftentimes barbed and strong, there are also times when we like to call to our readers' notice some of the very good things that our political representatives have provided in the way of pay, allowances, benefits and so on. Reporting on successes can be quite exhilarating, while reporting on major foul-ups can be just as demoralizing for us as it is for the sad-sack on the receiving end.)

In 2005, we can expect to see:

Pay and benefits improvements: Basic Pay for all service members (regardless of rank) will increase by 3.5 percent for FY 2005, which actually began on Oct. 1, 2004. The pay increase is the same for active duty and reserve component personnel. In the case of reservists and Guardsmen, the increase applies to drill pay as well as payments for periods of annual training.

Combat or Hazardous Duty Pay will remain unchanged at $225 per month. This special pay had been scheduled to revert to $150 permonth upon the expiration of the authority that originally increased it to its current level. The law now makes this rate permanent. The same change also makes permanent family separation pay (now at $250 per month). It too had been scheduled to revert to its previous level of $100 per month.

Soldiers, Marines and Airmen on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are now authorized to seek reimbursement for costs associated with private purchases of body armor used for self-protection. Pentagon officials had opposed this move, citing non-standard equipment outfitting of troops and the maintenance and replacement headaches that private purchases cause within a military standard procurement system.

However, Congress has authorized DoD to mandate reimbursement with service members filing their claims for reimbursement within one year of the purchase of the body armor. Military members should be aware that Congress has also capped the amount that may be reimbursed at $1,100 per item and the equipment purchased must be certified as usable for personal protection. The privately purchased body armor must also be unavailable as standard issue. Troops seeking reimbursement should keep all of these conditions in mind before they lay out private funds for the purchase of non-standard body armor.

Congress has again moved forward with plans first released during the Clinton administration for the elimination of out-of-pocket costs related to off-base housing for service members and their families. Under the plan, housing allowances were supposed to increase by sufficient amounts to reduce the out-of-pocket costs incurred by service members. The method used was increases in BAH at levels higher than the annual rise in rental rates.

With servicemen and women facing an average of 20 percent of their housing costs coming from out-of-pocket, the program has reduced the imbalance, on average, to just 3.5 percent of costs. Service members need to remember that BAH rates are driven by local conditions and the rates for 2005 will be released in December 2004. Ideally, the increase for 2005 will be 6 percent or better, thereby eliminating the imbalance between the BAH rate and any out-of-pocket expenses for the member.

There are other issues that could have a negative effect on active duty members and activated members of the reserve components.

Administration officials have told Congress that increases in benefits for veterans and military retirees could jeopardize benefit increases for the active components. Congress recently approved the repeal of two taxes on benefits paid to retirees and veterans.

The "Widow's Tax" will be eliminated incrementally over the next four years. The tax provision had previously decreased by one-third the Survivor's Benefit Plan payments once the spouse of the deceased retiree reached age 62.

Reform of "concurrent receipt": Some limited changes in the century-old "concurrent receipt" fiasco, which afflicts disabled military retirees by reducing their pension on a dollar-by-dollar basis for disability income received, are also on the horizon.

Combat disabled retirees will see immediate implementation of a reform measure fully ending reductions in their active duty retirement pay to offset disability pension payments. Retirees whose disabilities are rated at 60 percent or more, but that are non-combat related, will see their "losses" to concurrent receipt decrease incrementally over the next ten years.

Since these payments are considered a joint responsibility of both the Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affairs, DoD had opposed increases for veterans and retirees in the belief that funding should go to support serving members and potential recruits. The new legislation, while imperfect, takes into consideration both the needs of the serving military and former service members retired or disabled.

Quadrennial Defense Review: The year 2005 is also the time for another congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review. The new QDR is anticipated to incorporate lessons learned from the events following the 9/11 attacks, including the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, to determine the services' future defense needs and doctrine.

While specific transformation plans envisioned by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be modified in very significant ways should there be a new occupant in the White House in 2005, it is likely that the armed services will continue to study and implement deep reforms on their own.

Each of the services has already embarked on separate paths in the process, reflecting the broad consensus that large conventional wars - the focus of military planners for over a half-century - are exceedingly unlikely, while complex "Fourth Generational Warfare" pitting the U.S. military against nonstate insurgents and terrorists is the more likely threat.

In the future, military planners will consider service needs based on fighting irregular and non-national enemies. Planners will be forced to consider a dual set of needs. The first and most important will be those battles we will wage against international terrorists and ethnic insurgents, with the traditional defense against well-equipped, trained and led national forces coming in a distant second.

Base Realignment and Closure: The two presidential candidates have disagreed over a new round of base closure hearings set by current law for 2005, with President Bush supporting the review and Senator Kerry opposing the process. Given the parochial concerns voiced by incumbent senators and congressmen over BRAC, this is one major change that will probably depend on who wins the election, although its impact on military members and their families will be only indirectly felt.

No letup in conflicts: On the international scene, 2005 will also bring continued American military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other overseas locations and deployments. It is safe to predict that our ongoing commitments will require the continued utilization of large numbers of reserve component troops and their units. Retention of those critical reserve capabilities will be an issue that will need addressing, no matter which candidate and political party occupies the White House.

[Have a comment on this opinion article? Sound off in the Hot Issues with Defensewatch Forum.]

Paul Connors is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at paulconnors@hotmail.com. ©2004 Paul Connors. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.