« Training Injuries | Main | Party Time »

May 28, 2004

Kerry's Plan for the Military

So John Kerry has a new plan for taking care of the troops and their families, assuming he’s elected President. (Apparently us trigger-pullers will just have to suck it up if Kerry isn’t elected; I’m beginning to get the feeling Kerry doesn’t ever plan to go back to the Senate, although he’ll probably continue to cash the paychecks.) I thought I’d take a look, since I have a somewhat vested interest in whatever Kerry proposes for the military.

JOHN KERRY: KEEPING THE PROMISE TO AMERICA’S NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
Will Ensure Troops Are Prepared and Protected
The current Administration promised that “help is on the way” to the men and women of our military, their families and this country’s veterans. Unfortunately, that help has yet to arrive. During the past four years, our men and women of the armed forces have been called on to sacrifice at rates unseen in over a generation. Yet at the same time, they have been asked to do more with less: Less health care, less protection and a smaller commitment to their needs.

I’m not sure how Kerry comes up with these accusations. Yes, the military has been asked to do far more over the past three years than it is accustomed to, but I’m not aware of how we’ve enjoyed less health care, less protection, and smaller commitment to our needs. Health care is poor, that’s true enough, but I haven’t noticed it getting any worse over the past three years. Nor do I know where Kerry’s dreaming up that we have less protection or less commitment to our needs. If you want to argue that the military doesn’t have enough protection or commitment to its needs, I’d be willing to hear you out, but arguing it has decreased doesn’t seem to have any bearing in reality, at least in my experience.

John Kerry has a comprehensive plan – a Military Family Bill of Rights – to ensure that service members and military families are treated with the respect they deserve. Kerry is guided by a basic rule: “Mission First, Troops Always.” He will never turn his back on the military and will provide our soldiers and their families with higher pay, health care and a commitment to only use their services when all other options have failed. John Kerry knows what it means to serve and he is committed to those who continue to make sacrifices for America.
NO PAY CUTS FOR TROOPS:
Won’t Cut the Pay of Troops in Harm’s Way. John Kerry opposed the Administration’s proposed cuts to the military. He will not abandon our troops or cut their pay, particularly at a time when so many members of our reservists are facing danger.

This is very nice, I suppose, but I don’t recall the last administration that cut the pay of the troops. So I don’t see any real difference between a Kerry administration and a Bush administration.

GIVING TROOPS THE PROTECTION THEY NEED:
Never Break His Commitment to The Troops. John Kerry believes there is no excuse not to provide our troops with the body armor, up-armored HUMVEEs, and weapons they require. Kerry introduced legislation requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse family members who paid money out of their own pockets to provide the personal body armor that the government failed to deliver. Let families send pictures and care packages to their loved ones serving our country – not body-armor. John Kerry will ensure that Department of Defense provides the body-armor and other equipment needed to keep our troops safe.

This is a great sound bite, and I hope that Kerry can pull it off, if he’s elected. But the fault for the lack of body armor and up-armored HMMWVs goes beyond a simplistic attempt to blame it on President Bush. These were items that weren’t deemed high priority for the last decade or longer, meaning the blame can be shared among at least three administrations and a half-dozen Congresses (all of which Mr. Kerry served in). Furthermore, I don’t see any way Kerry can get body armor and up-armored HMMWVs produced any faster than the current administration, so this once again sounds more like a great sound bite than any real difference in policy.

DON'T OVERSTRETCH OUR RESERVISTS AND NATIONAL GUARD:
Reduce the Strain on the Military. John Kerry has called for a temporary increase of about 40,000 active-duty Army troops. This increase would be temporary but likely to last the remainder of the decade. About 20,000 of the troops would be in such specialties as military police and civil affairs which are currently carried out mostly by the reserves. The other 20,000 would be combat troops. The proposal will ease the burden on the National Guard and Reserves who have been called to duty at historic rates.

Definitely a good idea, although it is going to take time. You can’t just spin up 40,000 troops out of thin air. Granted, we could continue to stop-loss existing troops to make up the shortfall, but that strikes me as a solution tailor-made to create resentment. You could also jack up pay and benefits and reenlistment bonuses to try and keep soldiers in longer, or you could simply recruit more soldiers and accept that it will take a year or two to get the necessary numbers into the system. I’d like to hear some specifics on how Kerry plans to do this before I buy it as any more than another empty promise.

ALL RESERVISTS DESERVE HEALTH CARE:
Ensure That All Military Reservists Have Health Care. Members of the National Guard and the Reserves are fighting alongside members of the active duty. John Kerry believes that these brave Americans deserve access to the same level of healthcare as other soldiers on the battlefield. As part of his Military Family Bill of Rights, John Kerry supports legislation to provide access to TRICARE, the military’s health care system, for all members of the National Guard and Reserves. In cases where it is impractical for reservists to use TRICARE, Kerry supports government payment of COBRA fees so reservist families can keep their civilian insurance.

Another excellent idea, but a costly one. Where’s Kerry going to find the money to pay for this? Or is he going to open Tricare to reservists, but require them to pay for the privilege? More details, please.

HELPING MILITARY FAMILIES:
Provide Assistance to Family Members Affected By Extended Operational Deployments. Deployments cost military families. They must pay for extra child care. Making routine appointments and medical visits becomes a greater challenge, and precious monies are spent sending mail and personal care packages to far away locations. Our service members and families deserve more support during operational deployments, and John Kerry will ensure that receive proper consideration and assistance, including penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for expenses associated with deployments.

Kerry has certainly identified a problem here, but he is once again lacking in specifics. What ‘proper consideration and assistance’ will his administration suggest to reduce these costs? And where will the money come from?

Support for Small Businesses and Reservists. More than one-third of military reservists and National Guard members suffer a pay cut when they’re called to defend our nation. Many of these reservists are professionals with families who depend upon that paycheck. Unlike many big businesses that can afford to provide supplemental income, most small businesses cannot afford to provide this benefit. John Kerry will provide help to small businesses through a tax credit to make up the difference in salary for a reservist called up to active duty.

I’d like to see some statistics to see how many small businesses, even with a tax credit, could afford to do this. And where are we going to make up the lost tax revenue?

Ensure Reasonable, Up-To-Date And Accurate Information About Deployments. By their very nature, emergency deployments are unpredictable. But routine rotations to sustain on-going operations are reasonably predictable. Our families deserve the best, most current information about the timing and duration of deployments. Our service members and families deserve to know when their loved ones are leaving and when they are coming home, and John Kerry will make every effort to ensure that they are kept well informed.

This sounds great, and I sure hope he can pull it off, but I won’t hold my breath. The military has to go places on short notice by definition, and changes are just part of the order of the day. I’ll give Kerry the benefit of the doubt and assume that he would honestly like to do this, but I don’t believe he’s likely to be any more successful than President Bush.

GEORGE BUSH: A RECORD OF CUTS FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVISTS
George W. Bush meets often with military service personnel but he has failed to protect our troops and their families. While Bush talks about patriotism, he has walked away from benefits that the National Guard and Reservists have earned and deserve.

TRIED TO CUT PAY FOR OUR TROOPS:
Proposed to Cut the Pay of Troops in Iraq. The Administration wanted to cut imminent danger pay from $225 to $150 a month and the family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, from $250 to $100 a month. These cuts apply to both active duty and reservists. [San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/03]
Pentagon Opposed Pay Raises for Troops Serving in Iraq And Afghanistan. Bush’s Defense Department effectively decided “to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat” by opposing renewal of the pay raises. After criticism from Democrats, the Pentagon announced that current salaries for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be cut. [Knight-Ridder, 4/5/03; Los Angeles Times, 4/3/03; CQ, 4/16/03; San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/03; Army Times, 8/13/03]

There’s no doubt the administration dropped the political ball here, but this once again comes back to the question of money. With 100,000 troops (ballpark) in Iraq receiving the Family Separation Allowance, that’s $25,000,000 a month the Pentagon has to shell out in additional pay. Add in $22,500,000 a month for imminent danger pay and you’re spending more than half a billion dollars a year just on these allowances. Trying to save money here isn’t politically wise, but it’s understandable when you’re trying to resolve other issues such as Kerry’s next accusation.

FAILED TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS:
Shortages of Equipment for the Troops. The Secretary of the Army admitted that U.S. forces were “not prepared” for the current war in Iraq. Members of the National Guard and Reserve know this story well, having been sent into harm’s way without the latest body armor or up-armored Humvees. [Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee, Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 3/2/04; Los Angeles Times, 9/29/03]

Again, this is a problem that goes back a decade, as we spent the peace dividend by not bothering to properly equip our military. Given Kerry’s history of opposing increases to the defense budget, he would be wise not to raise too many questions about why many troops went to Iraq without the latest equipment.

OVERSTRETCHED OUR MILITARY:
Overstretched the U.S. Military. The American military was designed to fight with coalition partners. Lacking those partners, due to a failed policy of unilateralism, our Army is stressed to the breaking-point. It is the sad legacy of this policy that has cost too many American lives and diminished our country's security. The Bush administration has compensated by using the National Guard and Reserve and more than 165,000 are on active duty. Given the current and expected demands on the military, there is a very real need for an increase in the size of the U.S. Army. [Department of Defense, National Guard and Reserves Mobilized as of May 26, 2004]

Kerry can either fix this by convincing other countries to provide troops, or by pulling out of Iraq. Since he isn’t going to be any more successful than President Bush in getting more foreign troops to join the Coalition, and he says he won’t pull out of Iraq, this sounds like another sound bite designed to attack the Bush administration without admitting that Kerry won’t be able to fix the problem.

Reservists Face Longer and more Frequent Deployments; Cost Less. In November 2003, the Army announced that reserve and National Guard soldiers could expect to be in Iraq for a year, meaning their total time on active duty could extend to 18 months, including training to deploy and the demobilization process after their return. According to the Newport News Daily Press, “Compared to active duty brethren, deployed Reserve and Guard members see smaller and fewer reenlistment bonuses, are ineligible for critical skill bonuses, face tighter payment rules on monthly special pays and, by law, can’t be offered bonus contracts while overseas, which denies them a tax advantage many active duty prize while in a war zone.” The cost of maintaining an active-duty soldier is $120,000, six times the cost of a reservist. Every 10,000 active-duty soldiers costs taxpayers $1.2 billion annually, excluding the cost of their equipment. [Newport News Daily Press, 4/2/04; Rick Attig, The Oregonian, 3/28/04; Times-Picayune, 1/25/04]

And Kerry is going to do what, exactly, about this?

Unpredictable Deployments. Not only are Reservists and members of the Guard now going on the firing line, how they get there has been unpredictable. The Miami Herald reported, “Currently there is no official regularity to reserve call-ups, and some who joined without expecting ever to be mobilized have been shocked to find themselves in Iraq for full-year tours.” Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, the Army Reserve’s top officer, admitted that there were problems with the current system. “Helmly acknowledged that the Pentagon made life difficult for many reservists last year. He said that about 10,000 Army Reserve members were called to active duty on less than five days' notice -- much less time than most people need to make adequate arrangements with their family and employer. Another 8,000 were called to active duty and then demobilized without ever being used. Of that number, about 4,000 to 5,000 were called up a second time after being demobilized, he said.” [Miami Herald, 1/21/04]

This is definitely a problem. Too bad Kerry doesn’t actually offer a solution.

REFUSED HEALTH CARE FOR RESERVISTS:
Opposed Health Care for Military Reservists. Bush opposed the $87 billion of funding for Iraq if it contained a measure to expand the military health care program, called TRICARE, to military reservists. [Statement of Administrative Policy, S 1689 and HR 3289, 10/16/03]

Again, what would Kerry do differently? Where’s he getting the money to pay for the expanded Tricare?

RESERVISTS STRUGGLE FINANCIALLY WHILE ABROAD AND UPON RETURN:
Soldiers Suffer Financial Loss From Increased Duty. The LA Times reported, “Many soldiers have drained their savings to support their families while they are gone. Some have lost their homes. Others have lost their jobs at small businesses, which say they can't afford to keep the positions open — even though they're breaking the law. And numerous small-business owners have shut down their companies or have had to declare bankruptcy.” [LA Times, 5/12/04]
Reservists Find Fewer Jobs at Home Upon Return. Thousands of Reserve and National Guard troops returning from active duty in the war on terrorism are complaining that their civilian employers don’t always welcome them home with open arms. Federal law requires employers to immediately give returning men and women of the National Guard and Reserves their civilian jobs back, along with any pay raises, promotions, pension contributions and other benefits they missed while away on duty. Officials say such problems are likely to worsen now that President Bush has ordered extended tours of duty for 20,000 personnel serving in Iraq and elsewhere. The Pentagon’s Employers Support of the Guard and Reserves committee, known as ESGR, is getting 20 complaints per month from reservists and Guard members in Louisiana. The Labor Department has received nearly 3,200 job-related complaints from returning Guard and Reserve soldiers since 9-11. [AP, 3/25/04; Times-Picayune, 9/21/03]

And that’s the end of the Kerry statement. It’s great that he’s identified a number of problems that the military faces, but it would appear he hasn’t done much thinking about how to solve them. Like the rest of Kerry’s platform, it appears that he believes that the best thing he can offer the country is that he’s not President Bush. While that will doubtless be sufficient for many, I’d like to hear a little more about who John Kerry is, and a little more about the deficiencies of President Bush.