Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off.

Anger Greets White House Opposition to 3.5 Raise

Tell G. W. and senior Department of Defense folks that if they think the 3.5 percent pay raise for 2008 is too great, grab a weapon and join up. We can always use a few more grunts.

RUDY SCHULTZ
Via e-mail

Have we ever had a President more unfeeling and uncaring than George W. Bush?

First of all, he keeps our troops in Iraq though we didn't belong there in the first place; we have had little or no success stabilizing the country; we are hated by a substantial portion of Iraq’s populace; we are having no notable success stopping insurgents even with additional troops; we are tired of his failed Iraq policy and want our young men and women home.

I mention Bush's obstinacy over the Iraq fiasco because he dares to oppose much-needed benefit improvements for service people while forcing them to fight a very unpopular war. How does he have the gall?

It appears Bush just doesn't care a hoot about retired folks either. He can't deploy them anymore so he doesn't want to be bothered with their welfare or that of their surviving spouses. The man cannot see the big picture even when it has been painted for him by people of far greater intelligence and insight.

I am a Republican but a Republican who has become very disillusioned by the seated President and wishes there were a way to remove him from office. Unfortunately, pig-headedness and blind stupidity are not valid causes for impeachment. One cannot help but wish they were!

VERNON C. HOGDEN
Major, USAF-Ret
Beavercreek, Ohio

The White House's Office of Management and Budget compares soldiers in combat with persons in the private sector. Who are they kidding? They sound like comedians with bad one-liners.

Why don't those private sector persons who the White House’s Office of Management and Budget compares the military with go to Iraq?  

EDWARD F. VOWELL
Staff Sergeant, USA-Ret.
Via e-mail

This White House consistently has opposed military and veterans'
benefits increases. What would you expect with 80 percent of top administrators there having never served in the military?

When it selected American civilians to staff advisory positions in the Iraqi government and key Iraqi industries, the White House supported substantial pay and benefit packages for these modern-day carpetbaggers. The hiring requirement for such key positions was not relevant experience or education but whether the applicant was a member of the Republican Party.

This resulted in a 21-year-old advisor to the Iraqi Stock Exchange who had no experience or education in finance or stock trading.  Across the board, Republican hires had one other thing in common -- enormous pay and benefit packages substantially disproportionate to that of military personnel serving on the front lines in Iraq.

A key factor behind this consistent White House policy of budgetary constraint on military and veteran personnel is their real concern that Congress will repeal the capital gains tax break. This 15 percent tax waiver was an important plank in the last Republican presidential campaign. With burgeoning costs of Medicare and strain on Social Security funding, the capital gains break for the nation's rich is in jeopardy. When you add a billion dollars a day that the Iraq war costs our nation, the White House has no choice but to slash military and veterans’ pay and benefits rather than lose the tax break so important to their party.

H. HAKODA
Hawaii

Does the White House truly believe the 3.5 percent pay raise proposal is too costly?

There are costs associated with today's armed services that far outweigh this extra .5 percent pay increase or any other House-passed proposal. There needs to be a new mind-set on spending in this country. The armed services should be on top, along with actions to address serious environmental concerns.

M. MAHONEY
Via e-mail

Maybe the White House staff should try to live on E-4 pay. It's fine for a single man, but not a family.

THOMAS PATERSON
Via e-mail

How about a compromise? Take the “extra” .5 percent from federal civilian employees and give it to the troops. No one is shooting at us.

BILL SUTHERLAND
Via e-mail

DAYS OFF FOR DEPLOYMENTS

I fell compelled to say how insulting the “extra days off” compensation plan is for deployed troops.

First, how can anyone possibly believe one day off will somehow compensate for another full month of separation from wife and kids? Three days off for another 90 days of being gone, spanning a second Christmas, a second birthday? I won’t even mention this plan to my wife; she'll be irate that so little value is given our family time.

Second, when might we be able to take these "administrative absences”? We get “block leave” when we return. But right after that, it is time to start preparing equipment and new soldiers for the next rotation. New commanders don’t care how hard you worked and the residual stress you bear from the last deployment.  It’s a new day and time to go 100 mph to prepare for the next rotation.

We normally can’t even get regular leave approved during this time because the unit is below 50 percent due to all the separations and permanent change-of-station moves following the last deployment. The rest of us work overtime. It will take months to get back up to 100 percent and then it is off to field training and the National Training Center.

We are soldiers returning from war. If you want to reward us, give us an additional two weeks of combat leave. Right now we just get the same leave everyone else in the Army is earning that we have not been able to take for the last 15-18 months.

Also, if you really want to raise morale, stop charging us for the 15 days of mid-deployment R&R leave. We have given up 104 weekend days and about 20 more everyone else in the Army is enjoying. That's 124 days in 12 months. Surely you could give us 15 days off during a combat tour! That would leave us with more leave time to take when we get back and try to put our lives back together.

One day off per month? It's insulting. Either show professional soldiers and their families that you truly care or just don’t bother.

DAVID MIKKELSON
Chaplain (Major)
Camp Liberty, Iraq

I think this plan will be good for those who deploy early or often in the future. But consideration should be given to those who had back-to-back deployments when this war first started.

I deployed 24 months out of 32 and in between I was in a school for two months. Why aren’t these plans considered beforehand instead in reaction to the problem.

MICHAEL HURLEY
Via e-mail

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com

Contact Your Elected Officials