Wasn't it Hackworth who claimed that CBS' fake anti-Bush memos were *real*?!
Posted on 01/25/2005 8:31:25 PM PST by Former Military Chick
Maybe you better sit down and pop a Xanax before reading any further, because what I'm about to tell you should seriously short you out: not only is the average soldier's salary barely life-sustaining, the combat pay of the average grunt in Afghanistan and Iraq is only $7.50 a day or a measly $225 a month. And to make matters worse, the folks bringing up the rear - hundreds of miles from the horror show - are pulling down the same combat pay as our heroes who daily lay their lives on the line.
America was far more generous to her soldiers during World War II, when combat pay on the battle fields of Europe and Asia was 30 cents a day or about ten bucks a month. Taking the rate of inflation into account, our draftee Army that whacked the Japanese and Germans received three times the hazardous duty pay we're currently paying our professional Army.
Since the invention of the spear and shield, grunts have always been at the bottom of the pecking order and always gotten the shaft. The reason for this is that - with rare exceptions, when caring leaders make a point of insuring their fighters are treated appropriately - grunts inevitably receive the lowest priority.
Grunts not only have no union to protect them, they rarely have committed patrons concerned about their welfare. This is especially - and tragically - true today, with an all-volunteer defense force and with few Beltway politicians who've worn a uniform or who have kids on the killing fields. Nowadays soldiers are considered pros who signed up to fight for our country, so they should shut up, suck it up and do what they're being underpaid to do.
When I discussed this national shame with Lt. Col. Roger Charles, USMC (Ret.) and President of Soldiers For The Truth, he told me "Hack, you've only got it half right."
Then he gave me the hot skinny that his organization has been studying what's really going down with Imminent Danger Pay (IDP) in order to inform the American public and the U.S. Congress and hopefully cause change. "Combat pay is a misnomer. Today there's no such thing as combat pay if you're talking about extra pay that goes to those who actually trade rounds with the bad guys. Military personnel who serve in cushy posts hundreds of miles from Afghanistan and Iraq earn the same amount as those who kick in doors in Fallujah or drive fuel trucks through RPG Alley and IED Boulevard between Mosul and Baghdad."
So I made a few phone calls. And sure enough, the guys living the good life in places like Kuwait and Qatar - for example that bronzed, handsome lifeguard saving lives at the base pool - get the same $7.50 a day as our heroes facing the bear on the mean streets of Iraq and in the treacherous mountains of Afghanistan.
A soldier's father reports that his son and his buddies - just back from Afghanistan - became very bitter when they went on R&R in Qatar and talked to Joes and Jills inside a fortress-like base so safe that soldiers are not authorized to carry individual weapons. And these lucky stiffs living in a relative paradise were also drawing combat pay!
Another loophole creates an even more gross inequity: senior officers - read generals and colonels - regularly fly into Afghanistan and Iraq on monthly 48-hour useless VIP visits in order to both collect their combat pay for the entire month and rack up tax breaks that can run almost seven grand a month. Not bad double-headers for Perfumed Princes who can barely tell a foxhole from a bidet.
"The problem of our paying an equitable combat pay is the Pentagon's bottom line," says DefenseWatch Editor Ed Offley (SFTT.org). "Two years ago the ink hadn't dried on the last Imminent Danger Pay increase when the Pentagon bean-counters were hustling to cut it."
There's more to supporting the troops than slapping a bumper sticker on the back of your wheels or occasionally flying Old Glory and feeling good about vowing to bring freedom to the world. Trust me, making sure our valiant grunts get at least the equivalent of what the Greatest Generation received during the Big War would be far more meaningful.
Then again Hack has been only a back seat driver, when has he set a foot where the soldiers are serving?
I don't know what he's talking about but when my son was in Iraq he made a lot more than $225 a month. Is he talking about additional money for being in a combat zone? All I know is he came home with lots of money in the bank.
Hack is getting a little long in the tooth to even be visiting combat zones. The man did serve at the end of WWII after all. Even though he signed up while under age, he has to be well past 70.
So9
/sarcasm off
Wasn't it Hackworth who claimed that CBS' fake anti-Bush memos were *real*?!
When I was in 'Nam they had what was called "hostile fire pay" which was different, and over and above "hazardous duty pay" and over and above "overseas pay". It wasn't (still isn't) enough, but I wonder if we are getting the whole story here.
I lost lots of respect for Hack for his media, semi-flowerchild, dropout days. I have not had boot on the ground in Afganistan and Iraq, so I don't know how RE the REMFs are. However, I do know that "combat pay for everyone" in Vietnam used to get my goat. A REMF at MACV-Saigon got paid the same as his 11B counterpart in the Ashau. Phooey! But then, I was in the Ashau, so I might be biased.
"Hackworth is a hack unworthy of my time but still worthy of my derision."
Ditto
Then do NOT read the thread. Can't miss who wrote, it is stated, so you can take a pass.
While I would love to give your first hand information, my beloved just finished a tour in Iraq, he is an officer and did receive sep rats, hazardous duty, separation pay and one other item. He is in Europe right now, so I am unable to ask that he give me the lowdown, when he does I will post the rest.
Great, now you've got me trying to remember if "hostile fire pay", and "hazardous duty pay" were paid to REMFs before, or after, 68 Tet, or if it was unit, campaign and MOS rated.
Other than that, thanks for the post.
{^_^}
Your mileage may differ.
Best regards...
Hackworth is about as credible as Scott Ritter is. I wouldn't be surprised if he has already taken money from Islamic charities.
What is so unfortunate, he has created this reaction by many devoted readers, when he started to become anti military in the sense of looking for folks to come to his site, send a note saying how they were being shafted by the military and make it a cause? Despicable notions if you ask me.
So when he brings things up that are legitimate, such as the pay for our finest serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere in the world for that matter, people just do not want to read him.
So, take it this with a grain of thought, I stumbled across this on the military.com website, a site that our troops read daily, posting the articles here brings to light what they are reading while serving.
Send a note to Hack, tell him off, there are many things we can do, I would rather try then to hide my head in the sand and pretend this was not written.
I understand. It is not a good thing to grow old and have things slide down the memory hole. I guess the alternative is worse though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.