Posted on 05/25/2012 5:37:54 AM PDT by 11th_VA
SASEBO NAVAL BASE, Japan — The Marine Corps soon will offer early retirement with benefits to some troops as part of force-shaping efforts aimed at cutting 20,000 jobs from the rolls over the next four years, Corps officials said this week.
Under the plan, expected to start this fall, Marines and officers with 15-20 years of service will be offered early retirement with benefits. It’s part of a larger Marine initiative that includes voluntary early discharges and the convening of a selective early retirement board for lieutenant colonels and colonels already eligible for 20-year retirement benefits, who have stagnated in their grade.
Some of the administrative directives could be released as early as next month, Marine spokeswoman Maj. Shawn Haney said Friday in an interview with Stars and Stripes.
The Corps is looking to trim 5,000 troops in fiscal 2013, and drop from 202,000 to 182,100 Marines by the end of fiscal 2016 as part of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s plan to streamline the military following a decade of wars.
(Excerpt) Read more at stripes.com ...
There are more public sector state employees in little New Jersey then there are active duty US Marines. Something is really wrong.
Funny how all liberals want to cut is the military. I don’t have a problem with cutting the military per se, but when that is ALL they want to cut, I wonder.
Next time some unwashed loudmouth spouts off about Bain Capital, tell them Bain Capital didnt really cause anyone to lose their job- they were just helping companies do “force shaping”, like panetta and obama are helping the military
“Something is really wrong.”
***************
***********************
Holy Sx!x!, Batman!
This is...whadda you people call it?.....hughe?
get the word out, quick!
Semper Watching!
;)
*****
“Wow - this could empty out the top ranks ... IMHO”
The manpower reductions program will certainly allow the administration to reshape the officer corps to reflect the new world order point of view. Politicization of the general staff and officer corps will be complete if Obama gets reelected.
“Wow - this could empty out the top ranks ... IMHO”
The manpower reductions program will certainly allow the administration to reshape the officer corps to reflect the new world order point of view. Politicization of the general staff and officer corps will be complete if Obama gets reelected.
As a new lieutenant, I witnessed the early retirements and SERBs of the early 90's. Typically these are geared to weed out the middle ranks. The 15-20 year careerists they target will be majors and lieutenant colonels, as well as as some captains with enlisted time. This isn't so much about emptying the current upper ranks as it is about grooming the next generation.
This isn’t the first time this has been done. I retired from the USAF at 15 years back in 1995. Back then, they were offering early retirement or 10s of thousands of $$$ to simply quit.
20,000 jobs destroyed by Obama.
The fewer...
the proud?
I'm not military, so I'm talking out of my butt, here....
But it strikes me that in an organization like the Marines, a little turnover might not be a bad thing....
....Provided that it's not "politically motivated" and done properly.
I've no doubt about the latter. Marines always get things done right. The former, though, I'm not so sure about.
I remember the cutbacks of the 90’s. I don’t recall the Marine Corps offering 15 year outs in the 90’s. At 20 years, your retirement pension is 50% of your pay. What is the retirement pension for 15 years?
Back in the day when I served ... early Vietnam era the Corps was 160,000 strong. That changed, of course, as the Vietnam war accelerated.
Two schools of thought on that. The US military has generally operated on a "move up, or move out" philosophy. IOW, those not showing potential to serve at the next highest grade (i.e. are "passed over" for promotion) get shown the door. In general it works well, but it does have its downside as well. Some officers will compete for command positions, not because they really want them, but because they need to "check the block," in regards to their career progression. Needless to say, in those cases, the soldiers under them are not necessearily as well led as they deserve to be. Another downside is that in many cases, an officer or NCO is placed in a position just long enough to display competence and really become proficient at their job, when they're moved out to give somebody else a chance. In some other militaries, you may have a company first sergeant or company commander in those positions for years and years (which also has its upside and downside as well).
It really is a double-edged sword...
“Well, Bob, how are we going to decide who has to go?”
“I guess we could look at their records and see who was successful in combat.”
“Naww....takes too long. I’ve got a tee time at 3. We need a way to compare them with numbers....I know! Let’s decide based on their physical fitness test scores!”
“Ummmm....what proof do you have that high physical fitness scores equals good combat leadership?”
“Well, wouldn’t a good Soldier make sure he could run fast?”
“Not necessarily. We could end up just promoting cross country runners.”
“What harm could there be in that?”
“Not being able to win wars.....10 years in Afghanistan?”
“Oh, well let’s weigh them too. Everyone knows skinny guys are better fighters.”
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.