It's "supposedly" designed to make soldiers consider longer terms of service. Thats a fucking snow job though. We don't have a problem filling the NCO ranks. We have a problem finding, training and keeping privates.
The military is a hierarchal system, we need many less E-5s through E-9s than we do E-1s. We don't want everyone, or even most enlistees to stay for the long haul, we don't need them. We need new lower enlisted soldiers from the grades E-1 through E-4, thats what these benefits are designed to attract. Shit, I've only done this for 8 years though, so you know, never mind what I think. Once you cross that NCO border for the most part you are looking at a lifer. As a matter of fact the last thing I want are senior NCOs that are there to receive some kind of bump in benefits, at that point it had damned well better be for their love of their soldiers, and for the love of soldiering. Robert Munn wrote: > That's exactly what the alternative bill is intended to do. Create demand > for service instead of creating demand for a quick exit from service. > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> How about creating benefits good enough to create DEMAND for military >> spots? Course I see your point on how large those benefits would >> have to be given the leadership right now. >> >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:260810 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
