Support NeoGAF

[whytemyke]

I read a feature in Foreign Policy magazine this issue and there's some absolutely incredible numbers in regards to the US military. Basically it's a two-parter... the first part is just raw statistics of Iraq and exactly how bad it is. The second part is a survey they did of roughly 4000 officers (O4+) in the US Military-- retired, active, inactive reserve, etc... so you get a feel for how the mid- to upper-echelons of the military view themselves, too.


From Iraq:
Over 25,000 wounded in Iraq/Afghanistan
Over 4,000 killed

The Army had a shortage of 3,000 Captains and Majors last year, and it's expected to double by 2010.

58% of the West Point class in 2002 left active duty when their obligation to serve expired in 2007. The military academies are the chief mechanism for creating officers... you can probably imagine how bad this is.


When asked if the Iraq War has broken the US military, 42% of officers agree.

When asked if the war in Iraq has stretched the military dangerously thin, 88% agree.

Asked whether it was reasonable or unreasonable to expect the US military to successfully wage another major war at this time, 80% said it was unreasonable.

When the officers were asked if they agree or disagree with the statement "Torture is never acceptable," opinions were split... 53% agreed, 44% disagreed.

Only 16% express "no confidence" at all in the President.

Asked about ways to increase enrollment in the military (they could vote more than once):
Nearly 80% of officers support expanding options for legal, foreign permanent residents of hte US to serve in exchange for US citizenship.

almost 40% favor reinstating the draft.

lower education standards 58%

allow gays/lesbians to serve openly 22%




just some food for thought. i'm done creating threads now.

 

[Tyrannical]

I suggest drafting anti-war activists and liberals into Iraq. I'm hoping that allowing them to peacefuly interact with the insurgents would show them the error of their violent ways.

 

[Brannon]

Drastic numbers that don't surprise me one bit.

 

[Phoenix]

I suggest drafting anti-war activists and liberals into Iraq. I'm hoping that allowing them to peacefuly interact with the insurgents would show them the error of their violent ways.

Or we could just send war activists and war mongers to Iraq so they can show the terrorists whose boss themselves as opposed to arguing to send other people to go. Seems to make more sense than your argument.

 

[cheekymunky]

I suggest drafting anti-war activists and liberals into Iraq. I'm hoping that allowing them to peacefuly interact with the insurgents would show them the error of their violent ways.

I got a better one....how about all the fucksticks in this country who are so goddam gung ho for the war go and join up....




...seriously. Recruiting stations are around every corner.

 

[titiklabingapat]

I suggest drafting anti-war activists and liberals into Iraq. I'm hoping that allowing them to peacefuly interact with the insurgents would show them the error of their violent ways.

Antiwar people are anti war specifically because they, and anybody else don;t want to dirty themselves with the dirt of third world country in endless wars.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"58% of the West Point class in 2002 left active duty when their obligation to serve expired in 2007"


Isn't the military cutting back personel along with pretty much every other branch? I friend just got out of the air force with an honorable discharge due to the big cutbacks theyre making.

 

[Nicodimas]

Hmmph.. Interesting..

The US military still is extremely strong.

Isn't the military cutting back personel along with pretty much every other branch? I friend just got out of the air force with an honorable discharge due to the big cutbacks theyre making.

Just on overmanned fields. This always happens. Or they crosstrain and reenlist where the military needs you.

 

[Tyrannical]

Or we could just send war activists and war mongers to Iraq so they can show the terrorists whose boss themselves as opposed to arguing to send other people to go. Seems to make more sense than your argument.

Why are you against peace? Don't human lives hold any value to you?

 

[Zaptruder]

edit

jesus fucking christ. What am I doing. Responding to the same joke character over and over again. I don't know how that fuck stick isn't banned like hell yet.

 

[Tyrannical]

edit

jesus fucking christ. What am I doing. Responding to the same joke character over and over again. I don't know how that fuck stick isn't banned like hell yet.

Jesus, chill. Phoenix was probably just joking anyways.

 

[lopaz]

They'd rather force people to serve than accept gays... right.

 

[npm0925]

Pay soldiers what they deserve. $100,000 per year minimum, tax-free sounds fair to me.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Why are you against peace? Don't human lives hold any value to you?

What peace?

 

[Frester]

I wonder if the disapproval numbers are accurate, seeing as if you're in the armed forces you're not allowed to speak out against the president as your commander-in-chief.

 

[Learn2read]

Or we could just send war activists and war mongers to Iraq so they can show the terrorists whose boss themselves as opposed to arguing to send other people to go. Seems to make more sense than your argument.

:lol :lol

Always enjoy seeing a chickenshit chickenhawk called out.

Why are you against peace? Don't human lives hold any value to you?

Why don't you go back to your GI:JOEs you little shit.

 

[chadums90]

58% of the West Point class in 2002 left active duty when their obligation to serve expired in 2007. The military academies are the chief mechanism for creating officers... you can probably imagine how bad this is.

Incorrect - more officers are created every year (aggregate) by ROTC. The service academies are the single largest "detachments," if you want to look at it that way. They create less than 1000 officers a year. But the more important point is that most service academy are leaving after the 5 year commitment, and these are the ones that joined knowing what they'd get in to post-9/11. You find your most critical officers among the Service Academy graduates, from my experience. I'm kind of disappointed they didn't ask any of these people (they only asked O-4+, and all the service academy graduates who left recently were only O-3s).

I wonder if the disapproval numbers are accurate, seeing as if you're in the armed forces you're not allowed to speak out against the president as your commander-in-chief.

It's a survey so it is OK. Those numbers look pretty accurate to me based on what I've seen from the enlisted force and junior officers. The fact that it comes from higher ranked (O-4 and up) officers is a little more surprising, though.

Pay soldiers what they deserve. $100,000 per year minimum, tax-free sounds fair to me.

All tax-free pay is capped at 80k, per law. Everything after that is taxed. I don't hear anyone complaining about that, though. I also don't hear anyone complaining about their pay from when they were 'over there.' I feel that the military is pretty well-compensated, especially at the lower end of the officer corps. Look up the charts and then add housing allowance (which is tax-free).

 

[slidewinder]

Pay soldiers what they deserve. $100,000 per year minimum, tax-free sounds fair to me.

That would make war so expensive, though.

 

[way more]

Pay soldiers what they deserve. $100,000 per year minimum, tax-free sounds fair to me.

If they want that kind of money they need to go to a private contractor.

 

[h1nch]

If they want that kind of money they need to go to a private contractor.

 

[suEcide]

Jesus, chill. Phoenix was probably just joking anyways.

Hey, look at you, Big Boy. You're getting attention!

 

[PS2 KID]

Darpa really needs to increase funding into robotics and Artificial Intelligence technology several fold right away. It'll help to combat the decrease in military personal without losing combat effectiveness. Unfortunately, that may not happen for another decade or two but it's the future.

 

[whytemyke]

Incorrect - more officers are created every year (aggregate) by ROTC. The service academies are the single largest "detachments," if you want to look at it that way. They create less than 1000 officers a year. But the more important point is that most service academy are leaving after the 5 year commitment, and these are the ones that joined knowing what they'd get in to post-9/11. You find your most critical officers among the Service Academy graduates, from my experience. I'm kind of disappointed they didn't ask any of these people (they only asked O-4+, and all the service academy graduates who left recently were only O-3s).



It's a survey so it is OK. Those numbers look pretty accurate to me based on what I've seen from the enlisted force and junior officers. The fact that it comes from higher ranked (O-4 and up) officers is a little more surprising, though.



All tax-free pay is capped at 80k, per law. Everything every that is taxed. I don't hear anyone complaining about that, though. I also don't hear anyone complaining about their pay from when they were 'over there.' I feel that the military is pretty well-compensated, especially at the lower end of the officer corps. Look up the charts and then add housing allowance (which is tax-free).

See, in one part of the survey they kept saying how they only asked O4 and up (I'm converting this here, as they said nothing lower than a major) but then they constantly reference talking to Captains, too. I'm rusty on my Naval chain of command but unless Captain somehow got dropped like 3 spots in the Navy then I just dont' get it.

Anyways, what you said about West Point is what I was trying to bring up. I'd say the majority of career officers are from the service academies, and the fact that almost 60% of people coming thru there are ditching after the mandatory minimum is pretty bad.



Tell ya what. if China was smart they'd just take Taiwan right now. nothing we could really do about it, plus there's no way we'd have the public support for putting troops on the ground in yet another country, undermanned, against China. THANKS BUSH

Darpa really needs to increase funding into robotics and Artificial Intelligence technology several fold right away. It'll help to combat the decrease in military personal without losing combat effectiveness. Unfortunately, that may not happen for another decade or two but it's the future.

Another stat there said that the two most important things to invest money in, these officers said, for the health of the long term military was in Special Forces (something like 70% said this was most important) and Intelligence (around 25% said this was paramount.) When asked about new technologies, about 20% said it was important to develop better technology and weaponize space.

 

[madara]

They should get top 20 percent of Halliburton employees to offer their serves. By now they must be getting bored with raping woman and making money off of wars anyhow, right?

 

[akachan ningen]

"Ever hear of Shaggy?"
yeah, he's a rapper.
"How about former Marine?"

 

[Gig]

almost 40% favor reinstating the draft.

allow gays/lesbians to serve openly 22%

 

[Garcia]

Only 16% express "no confidence" at all in the President.

That explains a lot.

 

[whytemyke]

That explains a lot.

it skyrockets when they're asked about civillian leadership in general... to about the 65% range

 

[Weenerz]

Sounds like the US Military needed to be reprogrammed like the cylon raiders who were thinking for themselves.

 

[Culex]

All tax-free pay is capped at 80k, per law. Everything every that is taxed. I don't hear anyone complaining about that, though. I also don't hear anyone complaining about their pay from when they were 'over there.' I feel that the military is pretty well-compensated, especially at the lower end of the officer corps. Look up the charts and then add housing allowance (which is tax-free).

I call bullshit! Were you deployed overseas? I was, and the pay is horrible for active duty. Sure, if you're an officer, the pay is managable, but for the majority of enlisted, you can't even pay your bills while deployed.

Soldiers do not get paid enough, period. Increase the pay for deployments, and I garuntee a huge influx of people wanting to join. Cut down on contractors getting paid 120k for 9 months of 'work' while active duty gets maybe 35k for a whole damn year. It boggles the mind.

 

[chadums90]

I call bullshit! Were you deployed overseas? I was, and the pay is horrible for active duty. Sure, if you're an officer, the pay is managable, but for the majority of enlisted, you can't even pay your bills while deployed.

Soldiers do not get paid enough, period. Increase the pay for deployments, and I garuntee a huge influx of people wanting to join. Cut down on contractors getting paid 120k for 9 months of 'work' while active duty gets maybe 35k for a whole damn year. It boggles the mind.

Not yet - I leave in a few months - but I am intimately familiar with the financial problems many of my airmen have. Life is hard for many of them but there is a level of personal responsibility for being an E-3 with multiple kids and living outside your means. A lot of difficulty is a product of our times of broken families, plasma TVs and F-350s.

35K is perfectly reasonable for someone coming in with no training and no degree. I'm sorry but it is very hard to effectively argue for any significant pay raise on the low end of the enlisted scale...Especially given the incredible benefits afforded to military members from health care to education (from the GI Bill to plain old TA available to even service academy graduates who already took $300k worth). It is very hard to find similar pay/benefits for those qualifications in the civilian sector. And yes, I'm well aware that many young (and old) enlisted are extremely well qualified, some more educated than officers. There are plenty of enlisted like this (definitely in the AF). But there is no draft, and highly qualified enlisted can apply to become officers.

And the whole contractors argument - I agree that it's not "fair," but life rarely is...

 

[whytemyke]

chadums is right... it's hard for me to sit here and say that enlisted people out of high school aren't getting a decent comp package.

if you're in the army and you're smart yuo can basically bank every cent you earn as a "paycheck" the entire time you're in, since everything you need to live is provided already. yeah, you gotta pay for clothes and travel and stuff, but even with food you're only paying on the weekends.

 

[Captain Glanton]

Edit: I love everyone on GAF and wholeheartedly support the board's policies and administrators.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Hey there, West Point grad here, Class of 1998. To provide some historical perspective on retention past the 5 year mark, here's a graph. The blue bars are the percentage who stay in, the line is the total size of the officer corps.

As you can see, ever since the Reduction in Force in '92, an average of 30% of grads bail out after five. So, 2002 is twice the normal rate.

The reason for the drop from the high 80s to the low 70s was because that after the drawdown, only 70-80% of officers would get promoted past Captain, and it was a much more difficult decision whether you would stay another four and see if you made the cut or call it a career at the end of your five.

But now, with 98% of Captains making Major, that's no longer a reason.

Oh, and what's this 35K figure being thrown around? You've got to be a Staff Sergeant with 10 years in before you make that. Your average soldier gets 25K. Yes, the other benefits add a lot of value to that-- and you get an extra 8K if you spend all year in Iraq (but only if you're married; if you're not it's 5K), and that 30-33K is (income, not Soc. Sec. or Medicare) tax free-- but soldiers that are now spending their sometimes third or fourth year in Iraq do not get paid enough.

 

[Ether_Snake]

If they want that kind of money they need to go to a private contractor.

And who pays the private contractors exactly?

 

[Ether_Snake]

But then you can avoid the draft by saying you're gay

 

[esbern]

do these numbers include blackwater, etc. contractors?

 

[WickedAngel]

do these numbers include blackwater, etc. contractors?

Why would third-party contractors fit into reports of the US Military by the US Military?

*Edit*

And how in the fuck do you lower the education standards required for enlistment? It's always laughable as it is.

 

[Culex]

Oh, and what's this 35K figure being thrown around? You've got to be a Staff Sergeant with 10 years in before you make that. Your average soldier gets 25K. Yes, the other benefits add a lot of value to that-- and you get an extra 8K if you spend all year in Iraq (but only if you're married; if you're not it's 5K), and that 30-33K is (income, not Soc. Sec. or Medicare) tax free-- but soldiers that are now spending their sometimes third or fourth year in Iraq do not get paid enough.

That 35k figure is what the average lower enlisted (E1-E4) National Guardsmen in CT would make during a 15 month overseas deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Active duty is far lower.

 

[my name is ed]

You know, I would be in favor of allowing 18+ year olds to drink if they're in the military. No beer for under 21s if not in the military. Watch the military grow!

 

[-Rogue5-]

I
Nearly 80% of officers support expanding options for legal, foreign permanent residents of hte US to serve in exchange for US citizenship.

almost 40% favor reinstating the draft.

Starship Troopers redux on the first comment.

As for the 40% favouring the draft is that "40% say they *could* reinstate the draft for more people" or "40% *want* the draft reinstated"? I find it hard to believe anyone, even military, believe in reinstating the draft...it just seems weird.

 

[border]

Oh, and what's this 35K figure being thrown around? You've got to be a Staff Sergeant with 10 years in before you make that. Your average soldier gets 25K. Yes, the other benefits add a lot of value to that-- and you get an extra 8K if you spend all year in Iraq (but only if you're married; if you're not it's 5K), and that 30-33K is (income, not Soc. Sec. or Medicare) tax free-- but soldiers that are now spending their sometimes third or fourth year in Iraq do not get paid enough.

Are you serious? That's just utter shit. I thought they made like twice that. I guess the money goes pretty far when your housing and insurance is covered, but still...

 

[chadums90]

Hey there, West Point grad here, Class of 1998.

...

Oh, and what's this 35K figure being thrown around? You've got to be a Staff Sergeant with 10 years in before you make that. Your average soldier gets 25K. Yes, the other benefits add a lot of value to that-- and you get an extra 8K if you spend all year in Iraq (but only if you're married; if you're not it's 5K), and that 30-33K is (income, not Soc. Sec. or Medicare) tax free-- but soldiers that are now spending their sometimes third or fourth year in Iraq do not get paid enough.

Air Force Academy grad, class of 2006 here. That 35k was just a quick rough number I threw out there with benefits, tax exclusion, GI Bill, training, etc added to it. I know that it can be lower. I also think that those on their 2nd/3rd/4th deployments sure earn more somehow (maybe a bonus of some sort). However, I stand by the assertion that military pay on the low end is equivalent to fair market value in comparison to the aggregate qualifications of the individuals. In all honesty, I think it is better as most new high school grads wouldn't get that pay or those benefits, and I also think a recent college grad would be hard pressed to do better than the pay/benefits of the first few officer ranks. Obviously there are exceptions (enlisted with college education or officers with engineering degrees/master's degrees), but it was still their choice to sign up. They could've chased the money if they wanted to, but they didn't.

With that said, I absolutely support more military pay raises. It might attract some high quality people that are being paid more in the private sector.

 

[YakiSOBA]

conscription for all imo

 

[Gaborn]

I suggest drafting anti-war activists and liberals into Iraq. I'm hoping that allowing them to peacefuly interact with the insurgents would show them the error of their violent ways.

I suggest that a prerequisite for being in the US Senate or house be at least 5 years of prior military service. For President I suggest 10 years of service.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

You know what? I think Santino was right:

They're saps because they risk their lives for strangers. Your country aint your blood, you remember that.

 

[TheRipDizz]

I got a better one....how about all the fucksticks in this country who are so goddam gung ho for the war go and join up....




...seriously. Recruiting stations are around every corner.

Isn't that mostly the situation right now? A volunteer army? **shrugs** It really doesn't matter if that was the situation anyway. You guys would just bitch endlessly regardless and the world would just keep on turning.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

See, in one part of the survey they kept saying how they only asked O4 and up (I'm converting this here, as they said nothing lower than a major) but then they constantly reference talking to Captains, too. I'm rusty on my Naval chain of command but unless Captain somehow got dropped like 3 spots in the Navy then I just dont' get it.

Anyways, what you said about West Point is what I was trying to bring up. I'd say the majority of career officers are from the service academies, and the fact that almost 60% of people coming thru there are ditching after the mandatory minimum is pretty bad.



Tell ya what. if China was smart they'd just take Taiwan right now. nothing we could really do about it, plus there's no way we'd have the public support for putting troops on the ground in yet another country, undermanned, against China. THANKS BUSH


Another stat there said that the two most important things to invest money in, these officers said, for the health of the long term military was in Special Forces (something like 70% said this was most important) and Intelligence (around 25% said this was paramount.) When asked about new technologies, about 20% said it was important to develop better technology and weaponize space.

actually we'd probably do better against an enemy like china than we would against Iraq, they actually have something to lose and there wouldnt be any of this precision strike crap; just load up the b2's etc and let em take out what the nuclear subs missed. Conventional war yeah we can do that, take and hold/ occupy...no we arent too good at that. Remember during the clinton admin we cut back on the large millitary in favor of a smaller mobile strike force.

 

[Phoenix]

actually we'd probably do better against an enemy like china than we would against Iraq, they actually have something to lose and there wouldnt be any of this precision strike crap; just load up the b2's etc and let em take out what the nuclear subs missed. Conventional war yeah we can do that, take and hold/ occupy...no we arent too good at that. Remember during the clinton admin we cut back on the large millitary in favor of a smaller mobile strike force.

China isn't in a position to invade, US isn't in a position to repel. China has a shitload to lose in trying to take Taiwan, and very little to gain from it. And there will be no nuclear strikes against any country which can respond in kind... and China CAN respond in kind. They do have the capacity to kill millions of Americans - and that's a fact. We don't have the capacity yet to prevent them from killing millions of Americans - that too is a fact.

If in our scenario China does invade Taiwan and the Taiwaneese military can't stop them (and they are a formidable force - don't let the country size fool you), kicking them off would be a somewhat costly encounter.

 

[Elfforkusu]

The first Gulf War proved that numbers mean nothing when you're totally outclassed technologically. Iraq in '90 had a strong army, and some very smart military people thought we would be in for a tough time if we attacked them.

The war was over in 4 days. Their tanks would get blown up before they could even see the US's. China will not do a damn thing, and if they do, it won't end well for them.


The problem with Iraq now is that we're fighting an insurgency. It's a totally different, unconventional war, and the ridiculous plan Rumfeld/Cheney/Wolfworthlesshoweveritsspelled decided would work ignored any plan for "Phase IV" (occupation). They just didn't/don't(?) have the numbers to destroy a country's entire infrastructure and rebuild it.

One of the original plans that was drawn up called for around ~500,000, because it was pretty clear that we'd be staying there if we wanted to do the whole thing properly. Naturally, those were dismissed by the RCW thinktank, who instead cherry-picked the one that, uh, apparently tasted the best. I don't know. Anyway, sure enough, we were staying there, and with not nearly enough numbers to get the job done, so things escalated, etc etc.