It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Military Separation Pay if more troops are needed?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I had never heard of this before.

If supposedly we're fighting a worldwide War on Terrorism and we seem to be short on troops, why is the US military giving out Involuntary Military Separation Pay?
Why would the Air Force force out officers with mspay as much as $70,000+ per officer?

The reason was presented that the AF doesn't need officers. The Army needs soldiers.




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I read a report (I'll try and find it later). Of Coast Guard personnel being assigned to guard army convoys in Iraq (after a short crash course on US Army tactics and procedures).

The military needs fodder and is having a hard time recruiting. . . For some odd reason, hmmm.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Yes, that would be a most interesting read.
What do they do, put wheels on the Coast Guard vessels?
Or do they jump out of a truck, ready to tie a line to shore?
Ah, the sight and sound of a CG helicopter over the dry desert; just don't do drills where a swimmer is dropped from the craft!

I would have thought that, instead of releasing officers involuntarily, the AF could have used them in some capacity.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
This is a similar article to the one I read, substitute Marines for US Army:
findarticles.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Thanks, Clay. I guess I also hadn't realized the extent of the US Coast Guard missions. The USCG used to patrol the watery borders of the US; after the "War on Drugs" started up, it crept northward and southward. Now it's all over the place apparently.


The US military just needs more ied fodder.
Getting rid of officers just doesn't make sense. Of course, the officer who received the tens of thousands of $ was made an offer he couldn't refuse. At a time when troops are being used past the point of exhaustion!



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
It's quite simple actually. You see, the Air Force does not have a shortage of people right now (they say, I beg to differ) the Army does. The Coast Guard is running convoys supporting the Army thats all.

We are in a vicious circle. WWI, WWII major buildup. Then we shrank down, Vietnam build then shrank. Reagan kept us beefy but clinton shrank the military big time. Then they realized they messed up and tried using incentives to keep people. The excuse in the AF is they cannot continue to fly old planes and need knew ones. In order for that to happen if they slice 50,000 people they will save X amount of money to buy planes. In the meantime the Army is gainfully employed and requesting assistance from whatever barnch is willing to fess them up.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Thanks, Keebie, for input.

It seems that the military branches are shaking to see what falls down. Rumsfeld was put in his position to shakedown the military, to get it ready for a 21st cen fighting force, by Pres Bush.

Note: I wonder if "blame Clinton" came about as an excuse for the fiasco in the elective war in Iraq. Rumsfeld even said in Dec 2004 that we did not have "too little" troops, just that the Reserves and Guard had been built up instead of active duty.

Anyway, the Air Force would still need personnel to fly (even an UAV needs someone to fly it from a chair!) and maintain aircraft, maintain bases, etc. What are they going to do--get rid of enlisted and hire contractors (ala WalMart), thereby not having to pay medical and retirement benefits?
I don't ever remember a service kicking out personnel to afford a plane or system.

Whatever is going on must be worth it to them to pay out up to $100,000 cash per person. That seems a large amount of cash to me.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   
It's too simple. The OP said as much as 70,000+ per officer. I am will to bet that 70,000 is on the higher end of things. They most likely look at the rank of the officer and how much time they have left in service. They are going to save money in the long run.

The Airforce is not hurting. The airforce has personal. The Army and Marines are hurting. The war in Iraq demands boots on the ground. An Airforce officer in an aircraft can cover a lot of ground. I soldier on the ground can only cover so much area.

We also have a problem of sending the same troops overseas over and over again.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
This is nothing new to the military, it has been going on for some time.

I think you are making a big deal out of a little thing. Without programs like this, you would have unqualified officers and enlisted folks who are being retained.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Styki
They most likely look at the rank of the officer and how much time they have left in service.


Yes, I think this is what happened in the case I have in mind.

COOLHAND, it could be the military didn't want a decorated (Afghanistan) officer with a master's degree, but the interesting thing is, the person is still working for the military, just as a civilian.
In business there is a "golden handshake" or a buyout of someone's contract to get rid of unnecessary/expensive employees. I didn't realize the military did this, too. Everyone else I know who is in the military has taken advantage of reup bonuses.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join