Pentagon Dispels Military Compensation Rumors (Update!)

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Pentagon officials met Thursday with reporters to "put to rest" a "burgeoning rumor" that the defense department is planning to reduce compensation for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"That is not true. We are not going to reduce their compensation," said David Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness.

"There is an open issue about how we're going to do that which depends on exactly how the conference report in the Congress comes out on some technical allowance issues, but the bottom line is we will at least maintain the compensation of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan," Chu said. "We're not going to cut their pay or anything like that."

A statement released Thursday by the defense department explained that In April, after President Bush's budget was submitted, Congress authorized an increase in both the Family Separation Allowance and Imminent Danger Pay and legislated that these increases would expire on Sept. 30, 2003.

The statement indicated that the defense department is "aware of the problem that would result for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan if these allowances were allowed to expire."

"This is an issue of targeting those most deserving, and certainly people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in these categories. We intend to ensure they continue to receive this compensation at least at the current levels," the statement read.

A reporter, speaking to Chu, described the primary issue as "when this extra money provision expires in September, the report was that you were opposed to extending it."

Chu responded, "That's a separate issue. The department has a variety of pay and allowance powers already with which it plans to maintain the compensation of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan should the current allowance provisions expire."

"Whether they expire or not is a question which we don't have the answer to. But actually we would prefer, and I think that's how this rumor got started, we would prefer to use those other compensation powers as our way of ensuring that we target these compensation benefits on the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan," Chu said.

"The premise that we would somehow disadvantage U.S. forces in a combat environment -- it's absurd," said acting Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita.

"That's why I was so startled when this story arose," Chu added. "We are actually looking at the opposite issue. What should we be doing for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as appropriate for their circumstance, especially those who are serving long periods of time. We had discussions underway at this very moment of R&R type powers for the commander, some of which he already has but which we are looking at extending."

"So how do you explain the statement that says you hadn't budgeted for these increases and therefore you didn't want the increases?" a reporter asked.

Chu responded by saying, "What I think you're pointing to is one piece of a very thick technical appeal document that speaks to the question do we want to extend the language Congress used in the Family Separation Allowance and Imminent Danger Pay statutes."

"And no, we don't think we need to extend that language. That's a different statement from are we going to reduce compensation for those in Iraq and Afghanistan," Chu said.

What I'm saying on the record for Iraq and Afghanistan, absolutely yes, we are going to continue compensation for those folks," Chu added.

Di Rita reminded reporters that for the last three years, "we've provided gradual increases to the pay accounts, in many areas targeted those for the more distressed ratings and distressed pay grades."

"This administration has an admirable record, together with Congress, of providing pay raises over the last three years to bring our military back to where they sort of lost ground in the late '90s," Di Rita said.

Auditioning for commander in chief

WASHINGTON -- When candidates talk, it pays to listen. Sure, there are those who believe "you can tell a politician is lying when his/her lips are moving," and that old saw may even be true when they are testifying under oath about their girlfriends or fund raisers at Buddhist temples. But once you sort through all the hype and spin, those running for office really are telling us what they believe and what they intend to do if elected. And when you hear opposing candidates in a common venue, it can be very revealing. That's what happened this week in Milwaukee, Wis., at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) annual convention. It was an audition for the next commander in chief. It was also a missed opportunity.

The "privilege" of speaking first at the convention went to Texas Gov. George W. Bush. The GOP nominee told some 7,000 of my fellow veterans that: "The current administration inherited a military ready for the dangers and challenges facing our nation. The next president will inherit a military in decline." That's true. The Clinton-Gore-Cohen troika has presided over a debilitating 40 percent cut in military spending while undertaking an average of one new overseas deployment every nine weeks. Gov. Bush accurately stated that "even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment and rapidly declining readiness" and added: "A volunteer military has only two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks or it can inspire the best and brightest to join and stay." He offered a prescription: a $1 billion pay raise; a review of all overseas commitments and a "timely withdrawal" from Bosnia and Kosovo; $310 million for better schools on or near military bases; and $20 billion on research and development for new weapons systems.

A day later, having heard George Bush's comments, Al Gore waded into the same VFW crowd and promised to "ensure that America's military remains the most powerful in the world." He said that he, too, would raise military pay and benefits and that under his plan, "we'll be able to afford it." The vice president crowed that the Clinton-Gore administration "signed a 4.8 percent pay increase -- the largest in 20 years." True enough, but what he didn't say was that the Clinton-Gore White House opposed a military pay raise of that magnitude -- and that his running mate, Joe Lieberman, was one of only eight senators to vote against it.

As expected, Gore reminded the audience of his five-month visit to Vietnam as an Army correspondent, his service on the House Intelligence Committee and that he had "crossed party lines in the Senate" to vote in favor of fighting the Persian Gulf War. He further claimed that the Clinton-Gore administration has increased defense spending (from a low of $262 billion in 1991 to the $288 billion defense spending bill for 2001 that William the Impeached signed into law two weeks ago). Mr. Gore apparently forgot that this bill was the result of Republicans in Congress insisting on more than the administration wanted for defense.

That's where both candidates for commander in chief left the crucial issue of national defense. Al Gore went back to bashing American businesses, courting union votes and telling us not to drink the water or breathe the air. George Bush left Milwaukee to talk about his education proposals, why his tax cuts are a good idea and how he will repair Social Security. Voters are left to wonder if filling the role of commander in chief is simply a matter of deciding how best to spend their tax dollars at the Pentagon.

The VFW could have done a great service to the nation by asking both candidates a question similar to the one Bill Clinton posed at the Democrat's convention: "Is America as well-defended today as it was eight years ago?"

That question might have prompted Al Gore to explain why military recruiting, retention and readiness are at a 50-year low; why more than 15,000 U.S. servicemen are deployed around the world at the beck and call of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (and nearly 800 wearing UN uniforms); why he once said that Americans killed in Iraq had "died in the service of the United Nations"; why we have so many ships that cannot go to sea, aircraft that cannot fly and tanks that cannot shoot; why Clinton-Gore administration officials call Marines "extremists"; why we have "sensitivity training" in our recruit training centers and whether we really need a homosexual tolerance "litmus test" for appointments to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as he once suggested.

Such a question would have given Bush the chance to respond that, as commander in chief, he won't treat our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines like lab rats in a radical social-engineering experiment; that he will not permit our armed forces to serve under foreign officers, and that the credibility of the United Nations isn't worth one drop of American blood. Now that's a message Americans would like to hear! ©2000 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on2000828.shtml

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.