Pentagon rethinking cut to "danger pay" for troops in Mideast - Polidicks

[quote]The Pentagon is reconsidering whether to end "imminent danger pay" for troops in several regions of the Middle East and Persian Gulf in the wake of increasing violence there in recent weeks, according to a Defense Department official. The Pentagon had been considering the move, which would save about $120 million each year, the official told CNN. He declined to be identified because there is no final decision on the matter. In addition, the Pentagon quietly is considering whether to proceed with a planned September U.S. military exercise with Egypt. That exercise would send thousands of U.S. troops to Egypt with aircraft and land-based weapons. For now the exercise remains on the calendar, but a second Pentagon official said it's certain to be re-examined in light of the recent violence.[/quote] [url]http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/29/pentagon-rethinking-cut-to-danger-pay-for-troops-in-mideast/[/url]

This is a really easy decision to make for some guy sitting in an air-conditioned officer in DC all day.

For fuck's sake, quit cutting important shit like this.

perhaps cut the danger instead by getting them out of there?

When most people say they want to cut the military budget this is not what they're talking about.

I have something to say to this that's entirely simple. The soldiers will take a cut to their pay when the entire executive branch, the entire legislative branch, and the remainder all do first. Easy-peasy. Otherwise, you're pissing off the people who you charge with the protection of not only the nation, but themselves. Specifically those people who are putting their lives [I]in danger[/I] on a daily basis.

[QUOTE=Worldwaker;41655275]I have something to say to this that's entirely simple. The soldiers will take a cut to their pay when the entire executive branch, the entire legislative branch, and the remainder all do first. Easy-peasy. Otherwise, you're pissing off the people who you charge with the protection of not only the nation, but themselves. Specifically those people who are putting their lives [I]in danger[/I] on a daily basis.[/QUOTE] Not as if they can unionized and go on strike.

So first, you have shit like this: [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2011/12/19/how-to-waste-100-billion-weapons-that-didnt-work-out/[/url] And this: [url]http://onthecommons.org/why-most-wasteful-government-agency-not-part-deficit-discussion[/url] Then, they think that the best way to save money is to cut danger pay? Why the fuck not just stop giving away stupid amounts of money to the military-industrial complex instead?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;41655353]Not as if they can unionized and go on strike.[/QUOTE] Well, they could. Its just it would mean shit is hitting the fan.

Hey guys, please read. [QUOTE]The Pentagon had been considering cutting the danger pay to save money. Under the initial proposal, danger pay would have been eliminated in countries such as Egypt (except for Sinai), Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia as well as the land, water areas and airspace around the Arabian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman and the Red Sea.[/QUOTE] Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Saudi Arabian deployments are pretty much a vacation. Honestly, I am all for imminent danger pay being cut in those areas. There is no fighting going on in those countries, and US personnel are not in a lot of danger at all in those areas. Leave it for Afghanistan or other active combat zones, to be paired with hostile fire pay. Give those in the other areas (such as those listed above) separation pay instead of imminent danger pay.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;41655794]Hey guys, please read. Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Saudi Arabian deployments are pretty much a vacation. Honestly, I am all for imminent danger pay being cut in those areas. There is no fighting going on in those countries, and US personnel are not in a lot of danger at all in those areas. Leave it for Afghanistan or other active combat zones, to be paired with hostile fire pay. Give those in the other areas (such as those listed above) separation pay instead of imminent danger pay.[/QUOTE] I still see it as a gateway for them to cut the danger pay in the actually dangerous deployments.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;41655794]Hey guys, please read. Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Saudi Arabian deployments are pretty much a vacation. Honestly, I am all for imminent danger pay being cut in those areas. There is no fighting going on in those countries, and US personnel are not in a lot of danger at all in those areas. Leave it for Afghanistan or other active combat zones, to be paired with hostile fire pay. Give those in the other areas (such as those listed above) separation pay instead of imminent danger pay.[/QUOTE] How much is separation pay?

[QUOTE=Forumaster;41655868]I still see it as a gateway for them to cut the danger pay in the actually dangerous deployments.[/QUOTE] You're using the same logic that says gay marriage is the gateway to beastiality. They're considering cutting danger pay in countries where the troops are not in danger, simple as that. Also, like it or not, if you really do want the military's budget to be reduced, pay is the logical area to start, the biggest parts of the military's budget are on pay and pensions.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41656310] Also, like it or not, if you really do want the military's budget to be reduced, pay is the logical area to start, the biggest parts of the military's budget are on pay and pensions.[/QUOTE] And futuristic weaponry that is both not needed and non functional.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;41656406]And futuristic weaponry that is both not needed and non functional.[/QUOTE] Not if you look at the numbers I'm afraid, also you people vastly overestimate the cost and underestimate the importance of R&D.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41656446]Not if you look at the numbers I'm afraid, also you people vastly overestimate the cost and underestimate the importance of R&D.[/QUOTE] Remind me again how the F-35 is doing?

[QUOTE=Forumaster;41656523]Remind me again how the F-35 is doing?[/QUOTE] From what I've heard, it's pretty much okay, all except the vtol model. The problem with the VTOL is that it's not a light aircraft and it's different compared to something like the harrier which was a light aircraft.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;41655469]So first, you have shit like this: [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2011/12/19/how-to-waste-100-billion-weapons-that-didnt-work-out/[/url] And this: [url]http://onthecommons.org/why-most-wasteful-government-agency-not-part-deficit-discussion[/url] Then, they think that the best way to save money is to cut danger pay? Why the fuck not just stop giving away stupid amounts of money to the military-industrial complex instead?[/QUOTE] Because the military industrial complex generates remote weaponry! Don't have to pay a drone pilot danger pay! THINK OF THE SAVINGS! :P

[QUOTE=Forumaster;41656523]Remind me again how the F-35 is doing?[/QUOTE] Clearly all other great innovations went without failures first, right? Like the trials and errors that went with the project of getting a man on the moon.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;41655469]So first, you have shit like this: [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2011/12/19/how-to-waste-100-billion-weapons-that-didnt-work-out/[/url] And this: [url]http://onthecommons.org/why-most-wasteful-government-agency-not-part-deficit-discussion[/url] Then, they think that the best way to save money is to cut danger pay? Why the fuck not just stop giving away stupid amounts of money to the military-industrial complex instead?[/QUOTE] But we need more tanks!

[QUOTE=O'Neil;41658107]Clearly all other great innovations went without failures first, right? Like the trials and errors that went with the project of getting a man on the moon.[/QUOTE] See now, what IF that $400bn was spent on space.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;41655794]Hey guys, please read. Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Saudi Arabian deployments are pretty much a vacation. Honestly, I am all for imminent danger pay being cut in those areas. There is no fighting going on in those countries, and US personnel are not in a lot of danger at all in those areas. Leave it for Afghanistan or other active combat zones, to be paired with hostile fire pay. Give those in the other areas (such as those listed above) separation pay instead of imminent danger pay.[/QUOTE] Stop beating me to all of these articles, damn it. <3 I completely agree with getting rid of danger pay for those certain areas. They're not under live fire every day like in Afghanistan and other active combat zones in the world so yeah, let's go for it. Besides, I kind of dislike some of the people in my unit stationed in Qatar complaining about how hard life is with TGI Fridays and aclohol.

There's protests in Bahrain (though severity is incomparable to Afghanistan), and a threat of such in the Gulf as well as heightened tensions in Egypt. Admittedly, I think the military pay is absolutely shit so I'd rather it stay as it is tbh. [URL="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/army-says-no-more-tanks-congress-insists"]We have other shit to cut first.[/URL]

I hardly get paid enough for being in Afghanistan. Bahrain is not a hostile environment. I have many friends who are contractors that relocate to Bahrain after being in Afghanistan because they get to have apartments and go out and enjoy life. That's not hostile at all. A few riots don't mean anything. I have friends deployed in South Korea and occasional riots occur between them and the civilians but they're not in imminent danger every day.

[QUOTE=azndude;41663579]I have many friends who are contractors that relocate to Bahrain after being in Afghanistan because they get to have apartments and go out and enjoy life. That's not hostile at all.[/QUOTE] This is accurate. But keep note you don't have to be under live fire or endure explosives, you get a separate pay for that too. [quote]Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or On duty in a foreign area in which he was [B]subject to the threat[/B] of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of [B]civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, [/B]or wartime conditions[B]. [/B][/quote] Egypt meets the criteria for civil insurrection. Bahrain, not as significantly as it was during the Arab Spring, but threats of terrorism still persist even with some acts being carried out recently (though minor). Again, it's not comparable to Afghanistan but it meets the bare minimum required for danger pay.

I understand they meet the requirements for danger pay but it's just not as significant as other parts of the world. Like I said I can see what you're saying but it's not enough for me to justify giving them danger pay.