Critics Want Overhaul of Army's Bonus System

[Rose Siding]

snip>
But outside the Pentagon, a growing number of military experts, retired Army officials, recruiters and applicants have begun to clamor for an overhaul in how the Army doles out its incentives. They say that the Army's use of the top bonus amount can be confusing, and it is indeed handed out very infrequently, leading some to charge that applicants can be misled. The bonus disparities among seemingly equal recruits, they said, can also lead to dissension in the ranks as soldiers compare what they received to enlist.

Most fundamentally, though, critics described the program as an ineffective tool for attracting troops - a holdover from an era when the most significant recruiting challenges came from competition with a robust economy. Now the main hindrance to recruitment is war, many said, and bonuses should be used to boost compensation for anyone willing to volunteer.

"The problem is that they need volume," said Col. David Slotwinski, a former chief of staff for the Army's recruiting command, who retired in 2004. "The bonuses should be spread so you can attract the greatest volume in the shortest time."

http://nytimes.com/2005/08/15/national/15recruit.html

[TahitiNut]

1. They sure give 'dedication' and 'patriotism' short shrift.

I guess when you do it for money rather than love (of country) it's an exception to the standards for prostitution, huh? :eyes:

Maybe there should be an MOS for pimps? :shrug:

[Miss Chybil]

3. If our country was in real danger, you can bet there'd be a line at the

recruiting office. On the other hand, who's going to believe our country's really in danger after being lied into this war?

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. "who's going to believe our country's really in danger" - Excellent point

.
.
.

Even those that now try to justify the slaughter in Iraq with such lame rationale as "The world is better of without Saddam anyways" relaize that the danger to the USA from Iraq was NIL.

There is but one nation that is now gobbling up other nations for its own greed . . .

Betcha ya know who it is too.

The US Administration used 9/11 to further it's PNAC adgenda, NOT to protect the American people

But the American voters may have realized this just one election too late . .

(sigh)

[TahitiNut]

6. Do you think "growing number of military experts" believe this?

My remarks, of course, were aimed at those who're focusing on the financial incentives for enlisting and reenlisting. It seems to me that, like pimps, they're not significantly concerned with "being lied into this war."

I see this as the typical ethical failing of utilitarianism - where there's an embedded presumption that the ends justifiy the means, and then the means actually become the ends. In this case, the 'means' is recruitment and retention in an 'all-volunteer' military.

Interestingly, the draft was more than 1/3rd of enlistments during WW2 - a time when our country was (arguably?) "really in danger." As always, when there's a draft, many of the 'voluntary' enlistments were motivated by avoidance - avoidance of 'no option' in duty assignments or branch of service. During the war in Viet Nam, the Navy and Air Farce had no problems attracting recruits. It was, many thought, better to spend 3-4 years in those services than 2 years in the Army, with a year sloggin through the boonies trying to avoid punji pits. You see, 'voluntary' is always very heavily populated by those coerced -- either economic coercion or draft avoidance coercion.

There is no example in American history of sufficient numbers of volunteers (or even close) to fight any war. None. (Not even the Spanish-American War - often called the "perfect war.")

[Corgigal]

2. good luck with that army

Green Day's new video is number 1 on MTV. I think the kids might not step up.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. kick