thedrifter
03-04-05, 06:56 AM
01-24-2005
A Campaign for Fairness for the Troops
By Roger Charles
As you, the readers, of DefenseWatch, and supporters of SFTT are all too aware, it’s a “target-rich environment” when it comes to where to focus our attention and efforts on issues of concern to the troops.
But lately, one issue has surfaced that is just so blatantly unfair to those who fight and who too often bleed and die on our country’s designated battlefields, that SFTT has decided to make an all-out assault to educate and inform our fellow citizens about this injustice.
The issue is what is commonly (and erroneously) referred to as “Combat Pay.”
As you will learn in Hack’s latest column leading this Special Report, currently there is no such thing as “Combat Pay.” There is something called Imminent Danger Pay – IDP. In articles posted today on DefenseWatch, and in follow-up pieces in the days ahead, SFTT will prevent additional details.
Here’s the key issue from our perspective: If you’ve been thinking that all those getting IDP are somehow exposed to actual combat, well, you’re wrong – flat wrong.
Let’s be clear: This is not an “infantry versus others” issue!
It’s a case of those most at risk not being compensated for that higher risk at a higher financial level than those who are at substantially less risk.
Here’s a partial list of just some of the “non-combat” support personnel from all the services who daily risk life and limb and should be paid higher imminent danger pay at a level that reflects the demonstrated higher risk they endure:
the Army Spec. 4 driving a fuel truck through RPG Alley and IED Boulevard between Mosul and Baghdad;
the Navy 3d Class Petty Officer corpsman serving with a frontline Marine grunt platoon in Fallujah;
the Air Force Staff Sergeant tactical air controller serving with an Army SF detachment in eastern Afghanistan;
the Marine Lance Corporal MP escorting a convoy to an outpost in Ramadi.
the Army MI Sergeant who speaks Arabic and is serving as a translator for a grunt company on a sweep in Samarra.
the Coast Guardsman on a small boat patrolling the main shipping channel in the Shatt Al Arab.
All these stout-hearted Americans are doing their duty – dirty, dangerous and demanding duty – and they do not man the ramparts of freedom for the pay! (SFTT is not endorsing a mercenary military, so don’t accuse us of trying to create a modern corps of Hessian grenadiers!)
Two related questions will almost certainly arise: One, how much should the IDP be increased? Two, where will the money come from?
SFTT’s answers are:
First, the amount of IDP should be determined based on a study of casualty data to date. The Pentagon knows full well which duty assignments, in which units and in which areas, produce casualties. This same data will also show which ones do not. There should be a minimum level of IDP for everyone at risk in the theater of operations. SFTT is not calling for any deployed troops payments to be cut.
Second, our government can quickly allocate large sums for worthy causes, as it did in pledging $350 million to fund disaster relief for deserving tsunami victims. Our soldiers serving in positions of high risk deserve similar support.
Once we became aware of this blatant unfairness, SFTT could not sit silent. If you feel as we do, that this outrageous inequity in IDP should be corrected, we hope you will register your outrage through your elected officials and through your local media. See our Intel Center request below for specific information we seek on IDP equity issues as well as alleged abuses of the IDP system. We also encourage your emailed comments to our Feedback section at defeedback@yahoo.com.
What should the message be to those Pentagon and congressional leaders who have the power to set things right? That the blanket, geographically-based assignment of qualifications for IDP may be great for the bean-counters in the Pentagon and the Congress, but it is an affront to the nearly 1,400 men and women who have died, to the thousands who have been maimed and crippled for life, and to those serving today who are being treated in such an indefensible and unfair manner.
Bureaucratic indifference and administrative convenience should not be allowed to determine the proper levels of IDP.
The United States of America can, and should, do better. It's a simple matter of fairness.
Roger Charles is President of SFTT. Please email comments on this Special Report to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
Ellie
A Campaign for Fairness for the Troops
By Roger Charles
As you, the readers, of DefenseWatch, and supporters of SFTT are all too aware, it’s a “target-rich environment” when it comes to where to focus our attention and efforts on issues of concern to the troops.
But lately, one issue has surfaced that is just so blatantly unfair to those who fight and who too often bleed and die on our country’s designated battlefields, that SFTT has decided to make an all-out assault to educate and inform our fellow citizens about this injustice.
The issue is what is commonly (and erroneously) referred to as “Combat Pay.”
As you will learn in Hack’s latest column leading this Special Report, currently there is no such thing as “Combat Pay.” There is something called Imminent Danger Pay – IDP. In articles posted today on DefenseWatch, and in follow-up pieces in the days ahead, SFTT will prevent additional details.
Here’s the key issue from our perspective: If you’ve been thinking that all those getting IDP are somehow exposed to actual combat, well, you’re wrong – flat wrong.
Let’s be clear: This is not an “infantry versus others” issue!
It’s a case of those most at risk not being compensated for that higher risk at a higher financial level than those who are at substantially less risk.
Here’s a partial list of just some of the “non-combat” support personnel from all the services who daily risk life and limb and should be paid higher imminent danger pay at a level that reflects the demonstrated higher risk they endure:
the Army Spec. 4 driving a fuel truck through RPG Alley and IED Boulevard between Mosul and Baghdad;
the Navy 3d Class Petty Officer corpsman serving with a frontline Marine grunt platoon in Fallujah;
the Air Force Staff Sergeant tactical air controller serving with an Army SF detachment in eastern Afghanistan;
the Marine Lance Corporal MP escorting a convoy to an outpost in Ramadi.
the Army MI Sergeant who speaks Arabic and is serving as a translator for a grunt company on a sweep in Samarra.
the Coast Guardsman on a small boat patrolling the main shipping channel in the Shatt Al Arab.
All these stout-hearted Americans are doing their duty – dirty, dangerous and demanding duty – and they do not man the ramparts of freedom for the pay! (SFTT is not endorsing a mercenary military, so don’t accuse us of trying to create a modern corps of Hessian grenadiers!)
Two related questions will almost certainly arise: One, how much should the IDP be increased? Two, where will the money come from?
SFTT’s answers are:
First, the amount of IDP should be determined based on a study of casualty data to date. The Pentagon knows full well which duty assignments, in which units and in which areas, produce casualties. This same data will also show which ones do not. There should be a minimum level of IDP for everyone at risk in the theater of operations. SFTT is not calling for any deployed troops payments to be cut.
Second, our government can quickly allocate large sums for worthy causes, as it did in pledging $350 million to fund disaster relief for deserving tsunami victims. Our soldiers serving in positions of high risk deserve similar support.
Once we became aware of this blatant unfairness, SFTT could not sit silent. If you feel as we do, that this outrageous inequity in IDP should be corrected, we hope you will register your outrage through your elected officials and through your local media. See our Intel Center request below for specific information we seek on IDP equity issues as well as alleged abuses of the IDP system. We also encourage your emailed comments to our Feedback section at defeedback@yahoo.com.
What should the message be to those Pentagon and congressional leaders who have the power to set things right? That the blanket, geographically-based assignment of qualifications for IDP may be great for the bean-counters in the Pentagon and the Congress, but it is an affront to the nearly 1,400 men and women who have died, to the thousands who have been maimed and crippled for life, and to those serving today who are being treated in such an indefensible and unfair manner.
Bureaucratic indifference and administrative convenience should not be allowed to determine the proper levels of IDP.
The United States of America can, and should, do better. It's a simple matter of fairness.
Roger Charles is President of SFTT. Please email comments on this Special Report to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
Ellie