Time to screw over the vets again.

[RoadKingLarry]

AZ you just don't get it and I'm not sure you have the back ground to understand.

The military is a young man's (and women ) world. At 30 I was pushing into "old man" territory. If I had stayed for 20 I could have "retired" at the tender age of 38 (or more likely closer to 40 due to "encouraged" extensions), actually it is officially a transfer to the Naval reserve as I would have been obligated to a further 10 year inactive reserve term during which I would have been subject to involuntary recall, there is a good possibility had I stayed for 20 I could have still been subject to recall after 9/11. As it was when I took an early out at 12 years of service I was obligated for a 2 year inactive reserve. That expired in 1994.

I am unaware of any civilian occupation where you can forceably be recalled to a previous job.

How long did it take you to become competent at your chosen career? How long did it take you to get good at it?

Would you like to start over in a similar but not quite the same line of work (oh, and a significant part of your resume is "classified"), starting at the bottom working with people that have been doing your new line of work for 10-15 or more years?
 That's what most vets face when they get out of the military whether they served 20 or a lesser hitch like I did. Sure a 4 year enlistment isn't that big a set back to a career but try starting over after just 12 like I did.  I had spent 12 years first learning then becoming pretty damn good at what I did which in addition to being an electronics tech I also trained and for the last several years supervised my division on the boat. Sure when I got out I eventually landed a job doing electronics/computer work but it was entry level and I had to work my way back up from the bottom, which I did in pretty short order.

A 20 year career does entail considerable sacrifice. Just compensation for that sacrifice at the very least includes our government not breaking the promises it made to the people that volunteered to serve their country risking their life and limb so that the majority of people in this country don't have to.

Yes, we face a serious pendng financial crisis but military retirements and other earned benefits are not the anchor that is dragging us into oblivion.

[Balog]

Son, I've got bad news for you. We can't afford the $500 to get your abscessed tooth fixed. Our budget is bad, and we just don't have the cash.

But dad, couldn't you maybe reduce the high def sports package on cable and drop your membership at the country club to a lower level just for a month?

WHY ARE YOU SO SELFISH? WHY WON'T YOU SACRIFICE FOR THE FAMILY, JUDAS?!?!?!?!

 

There's so much pork and BS to be cut, that saving a tiny fraction of what's needed by doing the thing that most harms the people who have already been harmed the most by their service is asinine.

[dogmush]

You're right, that was inflammatory.  I apologize.  It was hastily written looking for something suitably barbed, and I overdid it.

However:

AmRevWar soldiers did not get pensions after 20 years of service.

Civil War era soldiers did not get pensions after 20 years of service.

WWI/II era soldiers did not get pensions after 20 years of service.


There were highly skilled warriors in all those conflicts.

Much less then you think.  I take it for granted but I am sometimes slapped in the face with the fact that America has NO IDEA how to fight a modern war.

Since you seem such an expert on  "Highly Skilled" warriors, what do you think the list of common and individual tasks that you need to know to be an Infantryman is?  Just go to Skill Level 1, you're basic qualified E3 or so.  Or an MP.  "Bureaucratic Support".  That's pretty vague.  But Combat Logistics is not that same as ordering something from Amazon.  What makes you think there are ANY unskilled E6 and up positions in the military?  (There are, but you don't know what they are.) 

FWIW the skills that are needed to be a good soldier this century have never before in the history of mankind been required of the enlisted troops.

[French G.]

We'll eventually by default of being broke get our libertarian wet dream of a vastly reduced military able to maybe defend our borders. Then when the next big idiocy kicks off we'll spend 2 years getting competent again and kill a bunch of green people because war is easy, get more conscripts!

[AZRedhawk44]

Much less then you think.  I take it for granted but I am sometimes slapped in the face with the fact that America has NO IDEA how to fight a modern war.

Since you seem such an expert on  "Highly Skilled" warriors, what do you think the list of common and individual tasks that you need to know to be an Infantryman is?  Just go to Skill Level 1, you're basic qualified E3 or so.  Or an MP.  "Bureaucratic Support".  That's pretty vague.  But Combat Logistics is not that same as ordering something from Amazon.  What makes you think there are ANY unskilled E6 and up positions in the military?  (There are, but you don't know what they are.)  

FWIW the skills that are needed to be a good soldier this century have never before in the history of mankind been required of the enlisted troops.

I have no idea what those skills are, and my peer from 500 AD probably had no idea what the advanced skills would have been to be a Roman Centurion.  And I'm sure there was skill necessary to be learned, and that it could be taught efficiently to new recruits.

Supply chains have been one of the defining factors of military campaign success or failure since wars involved anything more complicated than a few dozen barbarians randomly pillaging the countryside.  Yes, they're complicated.

And if war was as simple as knowing a static skillset and never evolving, it wouldn't be war.

AZ you just don't get it and I'm not sure you have the back ground to understand.

How long did it take you to become competent at your chosen career? How long did it take you to get good at it?

Would you like to start over in a similar but not quite the same line of work (oh, and a significant part of your resume is "classified"), starting at the bottom working with people that have been doing your new line of work for 10-15 or more years?
 That's what most vets face when they get out of the military whether they served 20 or a lesser hitch like I did. Sure a 4 year enlistment isn't that big a set back to a career but try starting over after just 12 like I did.  I had spent 12 years first learning then becoming pretty damn good at what I did which in addition to being an electronics tech I also trained and for the last several years supervised my division on the boat. Sure when I got out I eventually landed a job doing electronics/computer work but it was entry level and I had to work my way back up from the bottom, which I did in pretty short order.

A 20 year career does entail considerable sacrifice. Just compensation for that sacrifice at the very least includes our government not breaking the promises it made to the people that volunteered to serve their country risking their life and limb so that the majority of people in this country don't have to.

RKL, any career nowadays is a temporary creature.  It's pretty well standardized that people nowadays will have several careers in their professional lives, and skills from one career will not carry over to the next.  7-15 years per career is the number I think I've heard.

No pensions for us out in the private sector.  Those are long gone, unless you're Union, a government employee (but I repeat myself), or Armed Forces (but I repeat myself).

Breaking promises... no.  If they were made, they should be honored.

But it's time to stop offering pensions.  The rest of the world has.  Except unions and such, which are causing a significant portion of the financial troubles that exist today.

[Tallpine]

skills from one career will not carry over to the next

But it sure helps if you got the wits to just figure things out