Pentagon’s Spin On GI Bill Is ‘Offensive Nonsense’

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

That used to be the case, but that was during peacetime. Now that we're in a shooting war the Army is cutting all kinds of deals to get people in the door.

I don't know what the current training situation is in the Army. Are you saying they're not training their people as well as in peacetime in order to get bodies to Iraq? Or providing the same training but with shorter initial enlistments?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

That used to be the case, but that was during peacetime. Now that we're in a shooting war the Army is cutting all kinds of deals to get people in the door.

...all or most or many of the four year active/four year reserve hitches are now 2 years?

[Bruzilla]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...all or most or many of the four year active/four year reserve hitches are now 2 years?

It goes to branch of service. The Army is mostly 2/6 right now. The Navy is a lot of 4/4 and 6/2, as is the USAF. If this were mainly a naval war I'm sure you would see the opposite. I'm assuming the guy who wrote the article is an Army type as no one else offers 2/6 contracts.

[Bruzilla]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

I don't know what the current training situation is in the Army. Are you saying they're not training their people as well as in peacetime in order to get bodies to Iraq? Or providing the same training but with shorter initial enlistments?

It's both, which seems a lot worse than it is. Peacetime training is by necessity longer because you're not really training someone for anything in particular. Wartime training is different as you have a much better idea of exactly what this person is going to need to know. Right now most Army forces are going to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, so they don't need much training on things like cold weather operations or heavy mechanized operations. You can reduce those segments of the training and shift them out to the line areas to provide themselves once troops get to those kinds of commands. You can also close up the curriculum to focus on all the lessons learned from combat instead of teaching generalities.

[itsbob (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Lenny

Actually, granting these bennies at two years would break the bank. Taxes would skyrocket as kids, looking for an easy scholarship, signed up for a two year hitch and then stuck the taxpayers for a full-ride. Same for home loans and others.

GI Bill has always been reserved for those who did more than show up for the parade.

VERY few jobs in any of the services come with 2 year comittment, matter of fact I think the Army is the only service that offers a 2 year (plus training) option for select combat arms jobs. The only other people that would qualify would be those medically discharged with only 2 years in.. but what about the lowly private that gets wounded and medically discharged straight out of AIT with only 6 months in service?

Those that get less than honorable don't qualify for ed bennies so you can take them off the list of possibilities..

AND what percentage of veterans actually use their education benefits at all? And those that do, how many use more than say 50%?

So, no, it won't break anyone's bank worse then it does now

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by itsbob

VERY few jobs in any of the services come with 2 year comittment,

...says the army is mostly 2 year.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by itsbob

but what about the lowly private that gets wounded and medically discharged straight out of AIT with only 6 months in service?

That should be rehabilitation, not GI Bill. Two separate issues here.

[itsbob (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...all or most or many of the four year active/four year reserve hitches are now 2 years?

First look at your 'reserve' term.

Most contract are 4/4. 4 years active duty, 4 year Inactive Ready Reserve(IRR) In the IRR you don't actually DO anything, your name is just maintained on a possible re-call list.

Now they do have some 2/4/2 Contracts where when you join the active component for 2 years, at the end of your active stint you go directly to an Active Reserve unit. (One weekend a month 2 weeks a year etc etc) of course these days, you may not see a difference between Active Duty and Active Reserve Duty... THEN you go on the IRR for the remaining 2 years.

The Army has most of the 2 year contracts, and I think the Navy has limited open contract 2 year.. BUT as soon as you strike out for an A school they add an additional 2 - 4 years to your contract.

Basically what I read above is about 10% of first time enlistees would qualify for Ed Benefits, and the chances are better than 50/50 that those other 90% are going to be in a combat zone, but if you are sitting on your ass at home on welfare suffering from some bull#### malady, you get your eduction 100% paid for.

Personally I think our soldiers, sailors and others deserve it, and have earned it.

[itsbob (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...says the army is mostly 2 year.

No, the Army is very limited as to who they offer 2 years to, and it's 2 years plus training.

You are not going to find anyone joining the Army with any kind of technical job with only a 2 year stint UNLESS the job is offered with the 2/4/2 program. So would you be enlisting for 2 years, or 6 years? I'd personally call that a 6 year enlistment.

If you want to be an Infantryman, an Armor Crewman, an Artilleryman you could get 2 years, and possibly a Cook, or a Laundry and Bath Specialist.

I'd bet the majority of contracts are still 4 year, as this is where you get the most benefits, and the best selection of jobs.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by itsbob

Personally I think our soldiers, sailors and others deserve it, and have earned it.

...both. My hope was your background and knowledge would make it a lot simpler to counter Bru's point that the army is mostly 2 year. You could find out the proper fertilizer rates for impatiens. It would just be quicker and easier to ask me.

If I was president, I would have started increasing US manpower starting 9/12/01 and doubled every ones pay, increased expectations and standards and made provisions for more room for more people for longer military careers. I also would not have anyone with a weapon who was not US military personnel.