[x1stcav]

I have to admit I haven't read the Army Times in awhile, but isn't the tone of this editorial rather strident and contentious? Have some of the NYT's editorial staff taken refuge there. Sounds like this could have been written by Howell Raines himself.

As a metter of fact, I wonder if this is the sort of morale builder the troops need.

Is this usual for the Army Times or is there a hidden story?

[Nick Danger]

News Flash: Army Times complains about low defense spending.

How 'bout we take their number, the New York Times number, and figure the right number is about about 2/3 of the way toward the Army Times number. Save us a bunch of time, and we don't have to sit through another PowerPoint on the Stryker.

[Pukin Dog]

The current Army leadership hates the Bush Administration because they do not have the respect of Don Rumsfeld, who is downsizing their weaponry and reducing their role in favor of the better trained and more disciplined Marine Corps.

Articles like this one are to be expected.

[mystery-ak]

That's great, reducing Hostile Fire and Family Separation Pay....wait til I tell Mike when he calls....this better not be true!

[Radix]

Gee, capping the salary increases of the lower ranks at a lower percentage than the higher ranks ought to do wonders for re-enlistments and retention of junior grade officers.

I do not know if all of the numbers are accurate, but I would accept them unless I was confronted with evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps they might want to consider capping or reducing the salaries of the members of Congress.

[Snickersnee]

Calm down y'all -- the "Army Times" has nothing to do with the Army. It is a Beltway newspaper mostly for and about civil servants that emphasizes careerism and the entitlement mentality. Same publisher puts out "Federal Times" that parrots the AFSCME line. I think their editorial policy is taken from DNC faxes. Under the Constitution, the Army would be forbidden from taking editorial stances in its own newspaper or any other media and rightly so. We in the Army don't exist to opine -- when we say "take a position", we refer to the terrain feature at Kilo Juliet 09352782, and inform the TOC when you've secured it. Move out smartly.

[TLBSHOW]

Nobody is fooled by Bush anymore.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Got to find some dough somewhere for the $15 billion needed to address AIDS in Africa.

[PhiKapMom]

Army Times was taken over by Clintonites some years ago and touts the Clinton line. AFA's magazine wasn't too much better for awhile during the last four years of Clinton but has improved in the last few years. AFA's anti-Republican stand and pro-Clinton stand did not go unnoticed because letter after letter let them have it.

Why people continue to believe some of this crap without facts is beyond me.

Some Clintonite/Clark Army Generals are also mad because Rumsfeld nominated someone out of retired ranks for the Army Chief of Staff instead of promoting a Clintonite. They are also mad because Rumsfeld cancelled the Crusader for a smaller version.

The Army became more Clintonized than any of the services thanks to Clark and his buddies.

Just glad the AF promoted Mike Ryan to serve as our Chief of Staff in the last years of Clinton because he would tell it like it was in Senate hearings along with the Marine Corps while the Army and Navy Chiefs would lie with Cohen.

You can take it to the bank that this article is from one of the Clintonites that runs Army Times!

[dts32041]

Standard fare for Army Whines since the 50's

[colorado tanker]

I won't defend the Army Times.

But I will say I'm disappointed with how Bush and Rumsfeld have held the purse strings tight on the Army given the amount of pork this administration has packed over the last 2 1/2 years. The low level of soldier pay is a scandel Bush promised to fix.

The Army is under seige from Rumsfeld, some deserved, some not. Appointing a Secretary from a rival service and jumping over all active Generals to name a retiree Chief of Staff isn't going to help the situation, IMHO.

The Army performed magnificently in Iraq, yes the mechanized Abrams/Bradley force Reagan installed that Rumsfeld's whiz kids thought was obsolete, that force. I fear Rummy seems determined to ignore the lessons of Iraq to continue unmodified the transition to a much smaller and more vulnerable Army.

[nuconvert]

Something doesn't smell right to me. Way too dem-sided.

[squidly]

Whether the article is appropriate or well written is beside the point. It underscores a disturbing trend, which is the Bush administration's ambitious use of the military yet neglect of military necessities required for this ambitious use. I hope to see the trend reverse, but it's been going on long enough to have me wondering.

[Imal]

The Army Times is basically parroting the DNC on this one, but I have noticed a general trend toward screwing over the troops in recent years.

Maybe Bush is a part of it, but the trend is older than he is. The blame more properly rests on Congress, who is more than happy to fight over base closures and military pork, while squeezing service members in a variety of penny-ante bogus ways.

I, for one, would love to see more attention being paid to proper compensation for our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and their families.

[marron]

I know nothing about the Army Times, but I do know that Bush had promised more money for the troops. That means more money on their checks, but it has surprised me how much of the guys' basic gear they pay for out of their own pockets. Army life isn't supposed to be a free ride to affluence, but it should be enough for a dignified existence.

As for families, anyone who is on his second enlistment, or beyond, should make enough to support his family on his basic pay. A soldier should not be working a second job outside the military to make ends meet. If that is the case, then its past time for another raise.

And I agree with the article; to roll back the hazard pay while they are still under fire is a petty slap at people who deserve better. I normally have only the nicest things to say about Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, but I have also been disappointed that more has not been done to improve basic military pay.

[Terp]

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.

I'm not sure about the imminent-danger pay I don't have enough info on this but the family-seperation allowance has been a big grip of mine. If you happen to be married and your seperated from your family for over 90 days this little beanie kicks in. But if you happen to be single you never see this money. It's only for married personnel so were's the fairness in it? The single guy is still seperated from his family unless of course he's an orphan.

[Terp]

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150)

I don't like seeing money taken away from any service member but most may not be aware of the fact that those serving in an area that is eligible for imminent danger pay makes all of your pay tax free. In other words those guys serving in the Persian Gulf region pay no taxes.

[Terp]

While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.

This practice started about 3 years ago while Clinton was in office. It was recommended as a way to keep the mid level personnel in the service not penalize the lower ranks. You notice they say the E-1s, E-2s and O-1s get a lower pay raise but that the average is 4.1 percent on average. Those who are making a career out of the military are those getting the biggest pay raises as it should be in my opinion.

[Terp]

All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.

I can tell you that this money is going somewhere. And I'm willing to bet instead of it being spent on a new BOQ it's probable being moved to purchasing spare parts which is just the opposite of what was being done during the Clinton years.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Army Times publishing company (Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, Army Times, Federal Times, Defense News) is owned by Gannett. Same outfit that puts out USA Today and 89 other dailies.