That's the nickname we used to have for the Army. There is much truth in CAPT Byron's commentary. Certainly it is provacative and has many points worth discussing.

The basic purpose of our military is to engage and destroy enemies of the United States. All programs and policies should support this fact. To the extent that military welfare programs have become self-perpetuating bureaucracies in their own right, and in so being they don't support the basic purpose, they need to be eliminated.

I agree with some of his ideas, and I agree that it is something worth talking about. That said, I think it would be uniquely unfair to force service members to pay state/local taxes where they are forced to live. Members would then be "punished" for living in an area with higher taxes that wasn't of their choosing, vice an equivalent service member who lives in an area with very low taxes that is also not of their choosing. Most communities around a military base already benefit greatly from the military's reliable paychecks and large numbers of young soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines willing to spend them. I personally think a better route would be the elimination of on-base housing, as my experience has been that it is generally substandard to the local housing community's offerings anyways.

First, I won't dignify the "no skin in the game" comment ... how could anyone pen such a line about members of the military today?

Bu isn't the real question here whether to maintain the all-volunteer force or return to some sort of national service model? All of those "welfare" examples are exactly what re-enlistment NCOs use to help convice soldiers to stay in the military.

The bottom line: 18 year olds make the decision to enlist, but 22 year old military wives make the decision to re-enlist. And those are the soldiers/marines you have to keep!

I've alwys thought a large part of the reason for what Capt. Byron describes above as "welfare" was the sheer unpredictability of military life. Despite "dream sheets", career managers, etc, in the end we get minimal say in where we go and when. IF we could predict with a year's certainty where/when we were going, and IF we could anticipate when deployments would happen, I'd be all about the above. But we can't, and that unpredictability would keep many folks from fully leveraging the ideas he describes above.

When I got told on 30 days' notice that I was coming to my new assignment (while my spouse was deployed), was I thankful for the supports he desrcibes above? Bet your ass I was. It kept me from having to simultaneously learn where useful things were in the community at the same time as I was trying to learn a new job.

Like many other "inefficiencies" in military practice, the above benefits are there because we are in an inherently unpredictable business, where things don't always conform the the rgand designs of bean-counters. (And to pre-empt the inevitable come-back: I am NOT calling CAPT Byron a bean-counter. I am referring instead to the constituencies within DoD who would love to see such steps take place solely because it fits better into a TQM/Lean Six Sigma/ [insert current management fad here] paradigm.)

There is something offensive in a retired O-6 ranting about the cushy “paternalistic” military welfare system. Are we really talking about cutting the commissary, affordable housing, and tuition benefits from the spouse of some E-3, who has to endure the absence of her husband on repeated prolonged deployments from which he may not return, and is possibly caring for children and scraping by on E-3 pay?

Instead let’s stop retired senior officers from using their connections to hock substandard products and services (MOLLE pack anyone?) on those same E-3’s actually fighting wars, while at the same time collecting a fat defined-benefit pension and other benefits.

As the percentage of our citizenry that serves in the military continues to shrink, I think it’s not only fair, but morally imperative to confer on those that do special privileges. And equating that to communism? Take that Tea Party garbage over to World Net Daily.

In my view the crux of the matter is the hyper-expensive volunteer system that should be done away with and a new National Conscription Act designed and introduced in which all young able-bodied young citizens must participate. These young people should be categorized by intelligence testing and allowed to select military or civilian service. Those persons that select military service might be given some special benefits such as college tuition aid upon the receipt of an honorable discharge. But the key here is that we need higher quality unmarried recruits for the enlisted ranks that represent a broader cross section of American youth. Trainability is key and the more technical armed services would profit from being able to draw upon a much broader population pool of quality recruits. Additionally, in the civilian world there are many areas of our country where organized bodies of young people could contribute their time and skills to bettering our society and environment. An additional accrual would be that the political class would be required to think twice before they opted to send their constituents kids into harms ways for trumped wars and bungled military operations.

I don't know, I think the military needs to be out of the civil support business. Most of the on-post services are inferior to those found off-post. Housing for single people in particular is grossly inferior. Single officers can find a far better place to live with their BAH off-post (maybe use the BAH to buy a house and build equity). Enlisted personnel are often tempted to get married early for the myriad of priveliges they get; most importantly, they don't have to live in the barracks. (Would you want to live at work? Whom do you think the 1SG is going to wake up when the grass needs to be cut on a Saturday, or when the alarm in the arms room fails and needs to be guarded?)

The commissary does not offer lower prices (just tax-free shopping), it's only open for about 12 hours a day, and in many locations, it closes all day on Monday. Every pay day, the place is a nut house. I work too late to take advantage of the commisary, I live too far away, and I get better service off-post. Gas prices in AAFES facilities are no cheaper than they are off-post, and the gas stations off-post are typically open 24 hours a day.

Military clothing sales? I get better deals at the surplus store off-post. Forget to bring your tan t-shirt to work and need to buy a spare? For this everyday occurance, I go to the surplus store off post. Why? Because military clothing sales opens at 9 AM, and won't let me walk in wearing my PT uniform. Bradley's Army Surplus off post is set up to cater to the needs of troops.

Government employees running businesses and housing? What could possibly go wrong?

There is no denying that our pay and benefit system is outdated by at least 25 years, maybe 50 (401k, anyone?). Let's include re-looking the 20-year retirement too. Nate Fick made a comment about that recently. But Byron's 2 major overhauls are myopic at best, and possibly self-destructive.

You hit the nail on the head at the end there, Tom: "all volunteer force." And a good comment by RPM about re-enlistments. As my father-in-law, a 30-year Navy man, said once: "we're doing a job that only a few people in our country want to do, so Congress needs to keep those pay and benefits coming until someone else wants to do it." We're competing with the rest of the economy for the few 18-25 year-olds in our country who have finished HS, aren't criminals, and don't do drugs.

As for the local voting, taxes, etc., I think that's B.S. In 20 years I have lived in a house I owned for only 3 (and that turned out to be a financial mistake). Now I don't care who my local county commissioner is, or who the state senator is, because I'll PCS before the election. I don't care who runs the school board because my kids won't finish more than one grade in this school. And I don't want to pay income tax to a state that I don't even want to live in.

CAPT Byron has hit upon a long-standing discussion regarding military compensation and the value of monetary and non-monetary benefits and, certainly as the Department looks hard at reducing personnel expenses going forward, the entire range of costs needs to be examined.

Last week a similar discussion on this blog looked at the issue of exploding TRICARE costs for service members and their families, but this is just one of a number of non-monetary modes of compensation available to military members that makes service attractive enough to maintain the number of volunteer bodies required to prosecute two consecutive wars for nearly a decade.

I certainly agree that there would likely be efficiencies gained if the Department were to privatize more of its services and/or shift those services to the private market (i.e. doing away with the Commissary system comes first to mind).

But I think I would like to hear from a recruiter first before I did away with too many benefits. Right now a recruiter has a laundry list of tools with which to attract an applicant from the labor market into a job which promises hardship, separation and, these days, combat.

College tuition assistance, housing allowance (or military housing), access to commissaries and the exchange system, MWR facilities, healthcare for you and your family, a defined payment retirement system, just to name a few, are sales tools which might, just might, convince a potential recruit to pick up a gun for a few years instead of going to nursing school just yet. (We can help you with that later!) Concrete benefits, I believe, are often more effective inducements than simple cash payment increases.

Moreover, many of the services which have become part of the contract of military service have non-market values which are hard to duplicate. We could, for example, pay soldiers and sailors an extra $100 per month for off-base gym memberships so that they would stay in shape, and thus be able to get rid of the "fitness" infrastructure throughout the service. However, this does not account for the goals of promoting a culture of fitness throughout the force--with its attendant benefits (superior combat performance, reduced health costs, etc.).

Another example might be child development centers. Why is the DoD in the business of offering child care anyway? It is crazy! Aren't we are warriors who should be focusing our energies on defeating our enemies in battle and preparing for the next war! Surely the civilian market for child care can handle the requirements of military families.

Well, I am not so certain. My next door neighbor is an Army CAPT with a 5-year old boy. Just back from AFG, he thought he was headed to the Pentagon for a year of staff duty, but is now going in two months to back-fill a guy in Korea who is surging to AFG. In the middle of the school year, where can he find a private pre-school to accept his kid for two months? They are just not set up that way. Whereas a military-run facility will take a financial loss on the deal in order to satisfy the requirements of a military servicemember (and in doing so, keep the CAPT in the service as he becomes a MAJ).

By no means am I suggesting that these things are off the table. Quite the contrary, I believe, that military pay and compensation should probably shrink in real terms over the next decade. However, this will require a diminution of our strategic commitments commensurate with the reduced number of volunteers we will be able to attract at the new, "rational" rate.

CAPT Byron's second broad point, regarding the divide between military and civilian cultures exacerbated by "base privileges" and preferential taxation policy is a cogent one but probably runs deeper than whether we all shop at the same grocery store. What is the likelihood that my Army neighbor is going to be voted onto the school board? Will he be more in tune with the community if he pays taxes this year in North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland (his primary residences since getting back?) If there is a civil-military divide, I would attribute this more to the self-selection process of a volunteer military rather than the parallel systems of on-base and off-base services.

In any event, thanks for bringing this up and I look forward to seeing how the Secretary proposes to strike a balance here.

There is merit to some of what that diesel fuel smelling (they like it & never get rid of it) Capt. Byron talks about. However, we should also understand there are unique factors in play such as when your command/unit is in pre-deployment training/back and forth to training areas or restricted to base as the designated quick fly away force, etc. Having facilities such as barber shops, PX's, commissaries, etc., close by almost becomes a necessity, as time management is a prerequisite.

In addition, with the phenomena of service members more likely to married at an earlier age than their townie counterparts, on base activities run by special services can also play an important role, as again time management with the family can be a premium in regard to recreation.

Just a few thoughts from an active duty PFC (private frigg’en civilian). : )

As one of the British military writers noted, "there are only two kinds of military: conscripts and mercenaries."

This is a valuable question but it might be wise to table it until these wars both simmer down. After all, until the economy got bad we were paying tens of thousands of dollars just to get truck drivers to re-enlist.

I have served 9 years on active duty, enlisted and officer, and am now in the reserves. My perspective for the officer corps is thus: 25% of the talented ones stay in, vs. 75% of the untalented ones who stick it out because there's no way they can get as comfortable a job on the outside. The top 25% go on to battalion command and general's stars, but the rest make for a mediocre cadre of staff officers, XOs, and S3s that guys like me see and have no desire to be like.

There is a well-researched and refreshingly honest series of papers here addressing the Army officer corps: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=912

Personally, a big reason I joined the reserves after getting off AD was the much cheaper health care. If that was the wrong reason, I plead guilty. But I had a mix of reasons, some selfish, some not. For the military, it's really a function of supply and demand.

On the enlisted side, there is no doubt that a 20-year old man with a high school diploma, a wife, and a couple kids, will not find a better paying job. But again, supply and demand reigns.

I agree with the CAPT's assessment that the military unfairly incentivizes marriage, when we ought to at least make it even and let the optempo provide enough disinicentive. That means no more child care (find your own or get out) and no housing except possibly privately operated rental housing on-post.

The details are tough but worth examining line-by-line. The overarching problem is that the benefits system creates a sense of entitlement amongst we soldiers, plus disconectedness leading to a feeling of superiority over the people whose freedoms we're supposedly defending.

Speaking of entitlement, I had a buddy who got wounded in combat and spent a year at Walter Reed. He absolutely hated most of his fellow wounded warriors there (many of whom were not hurt as a result of enemy action), because of the sense of entitlement they develop after months of free clothes, free Redskins tickets, and other well-intentioned gratitude. He hated the way the place was run, too.

An interesting topic, for sure.

Totally agreed. At least officers should have a lot of these benefits cut out (and monetized) and I for one have resisted all benefits that come with a commitment to service attached: they should be discarded, because an officer's job is to be ready to lose his job. I have different feelings baout enlisted for reasons that I'll get to maybe.

But one thing Byron conveniently doesn't mention directl is the pension: the 20-year pension has to go. That's because people like LTC Nagl are telling us over and over about the need for more feedback from mid-career officers: but those mid-career guys with say 10 years in -- well, if they walk, they get no pension, so they have a powerful incentive to do 20, so they have a powerful incentive to "go along to get along." I'm not saying that MAJ Smith, in choosing not to dissent with bad superiors, is counting up his money. But it's a hell of an incentive, and incentives matter: MAJ Smith has on more powerful reason to rationalize that he's doing the right thing when he squelches his dissent. All the worse if he owes 'em time for a Ph.D. or some damn thing. So benefits with service strings attached shuld be tossed and pay increased to compensate if necessary: we have to get rid of those disincentives.

In addition the goofball correspondence course Ph.D.'s and rapid Army-paid degrees and so on have many pernicious effects. Very few officers seem to get what those degrees really mean in the civilian world, and we are as Byron points out far far too isolated from that world. As with owed time and the pension, these things prevent us from having a lot of Cincinnatus-types who move between military service and civilian life -- something that would benefit us by keeping Army aware of real-world, up-to-date practices and benefit society at large by giving you more people with a military perspective.

1. The 20 year pension has, as already noted, perverse incentives. A better system would reward 5, 10, 15, 20, years of service, but could only be collected upon turning 60.

2. Military life is precisely the opposite of being a civilian. You are supposed to place your needs secondary to the larger organizational requirements. I know I will return to civilian life - and when that happens, I will completely re-integrate into that community (taxes, politics, organizations, owning property, etc.). Military life means that the JOB is more important than everything else...including, as required, family. Yes, your duties outweigh your family commitments. They should.

3. This has several important implications. 1) The military should not encourage families, or family formation, including among officers (Lts may not marry, Cpts should not marry, etc). Young families (both officer and enlisted) impact on the mission. Marrying late (mid to late 30s) would probably enhance the overall force effectiveness. Whether this is culturally or politically feasible...separate issue (the Marines, bless 'em, tried in the 1990s). 2) Given the chaos of military life, families move constantly and without predicability. This means that military families must basically survive on 1 paycheck, the servicemember's. It also means that they must be able to function entirely in the repeated and prolonged absence of the servicemember. Given 2 and 3, the military's welfare system should at least reduce stress and uncertainty.

4. The welfare system obviously must strike a balance between efficiency and luxury. It is with some amusement that I learned that I can transfer my GI Bill benefits to my children - that is clearly excessive (excepting my being KIA). Some aspects of civilian life are absolutely dysfunctional (healthcare). I will deal with that dysfunctionality when I leave the service. If my family lost their military medical benefits, I would leave the service. ASAP. I am willing to spend half my service away from my family; in exchange, I ask that my family's life be without additional and unnecessary stress.

5. A recent book describe Corporate America's RELOs (Next Stop Reloville). Bottom line, they moved every 3-4 years, they did not have a welfare system (unlike the military), they were all managers, and they all made a ton of money (150K upwards). It is my anecdotal impression that many of the junior officers who get out desire to join that corporate America.

6. Etc. America is an unmilitary society. We got rid of the draft, and now only the volunteers have to fight wars - the political class will use the military as it sees fit, the civilians pay, and the (socially isolated) military fights. As for comments about deadwood officers etc, staying in for the benefits, I don't see it. In fact, my impressions are the opposite - that the dangers are from hyper-ambitious and talented officers. They are smart enough to steer their careers well clear of any problems, while embracing institutional conformity.

This article was really too vague to allow any reasonably informed decision. What entitlements or benefits is this Navy man suggesting be cut? Moreover, he seems to suggest that while some service members are relatively well off, others are considerably less fortunate, and are forced to live in conditions much of the middle-class would not accept.

Personally, I found many of these comments ludicrous and some downright insulting. The comparison of Army life with life in a corporation is ludicrous: I fail to see the hardships that men who are earning a decent or very decent salary for working in an air-conditioned office share with men who are out there fighting for their lives for a miserable pittance.

The military should not be encouraging soldiers and officers to start families? I would probably agree from a theoretical perspective, as it would eliminate the distraction of a family and do wonders for the defense budget, but isn't such a suggestion rather extreme? Don't these men and women sacrifice enough? Moreover, this argument is outrageously hypocritical, if your contention is that soldiers should have an equal "stake" in America. What is a greater stake than having a family whose future you have to worry about? Would you dream of making such a demand of a civilian? No, of course not, because it is impossible for civilian and military lives to be truly equal, and any attempt at this is both imbecilic and futile.

Look, of course there are flaws in this system. That is the nature of humanity and life. And of course there are service members who take advantage of a country's gratitude because they feel that their sacrifice entitles them to do so. But you know what? We have men and women who have served multiple tours in combat zones and who have made unbelievable sacrifices for this country. If anyone "deserved" to game the system, they would be it.

1. As noted in various excellent comments above, military compensation is tied up with the military retirement system (which really needs a fresh look) and the All-Volunteer Force (which works for small conflicts of short duration but which has let us down in the two on-going wars ... and which flies in the face of this nation's long-standing abhorrence of a standing army).

We're facing a new world with a force-design from the Cold War, a system of staffing that force from the early '70s, and a retirement system predating World War Two, all tied up with a system of pay and benefits that harkens back to the days of the cavalry outpost. Beyond a hard look at the pay system, the discussion shows the need for fundamental military reform.

2. The sense of entitlement wafting from some above is a bit off-putting and perhaps unseemly. It's called 'service,' not 'you owe me.'

3. And these same commenters give more-than-ample demonstration of the gulf of ignorance in those who serve of those they serve. And of the American free-enterprise system that fuels our nation. Military people need to get out more. The isolation serves no good.

And it's a two-edged sword. When as now the military rides high in public esteem, separation and mystery add to that. But when the military's stature is low and hurting (vide: Vietnam), the gap between the military culture and civil society is an exacerbating factor and makes it all worse. Been there...

Military service is special in many ways, but it is not unique in altruism, sacrifice for community, or the personal and family issues it brings. Better military be seen as yet another aspect of the richness of American life, not something different and apart.

4. The math baffles some. My modest proposal subtracts nothing from the total compensation received by servicemembers. It only converts the value/cost-to-government of those welfare services received in-kind into paycheck cash. And it gives the servicemember control over what benefits and services are needed for each individual situation instead of one-size-fits-all. And it removes location and personal circumstance from the compensation equation.

5. I was startled in research to find the premium paid servicemembers for being married averages above $20,000 a year. I am aware of no other form of employment in our society that so advantages married over single: what social goal is served and who decided that this should be so? And 'need' is not a good answer, lest this special pleading be seen for what it is, reflection of half of Karl Marx's formula for communism, 'To each according to his need.'

6. Once again we heard above the Army folklore that military families must live on post so predeployment units can meld as a team. That's a constant meme in Army discussion, advanced by commanders and senior enlisted as vital to mission ... though with scant empirical foundation. (Somehow we won World War Two and fought well in Korea and Vietnam with draftee-sourced all-star teams based in individual rotation.)

Just want you to know that it sounds pretty silly to Navy people, who are experts in whole-unit rotations even though the crewmembers of a ship typically live much apart in widely scattered locations all around the geography surrounding the homeport. Navy bonds on the job, not at Saturday picnics. We'd say that the quality of a crew is a function of training and leadership, not a common zip-code. And when deployed, the spouses and families, with help of homeport staff, operate a support network easily as good as any run by the Army. See the definition of 'shibboleth.'

7. Great discussion. Thanks for hosting it, Tom.

Reinstitute the draft! It's ridiculous that taxpayers should fund living and health expenses for military families; especially when many have several children who need healthcare and education. More importantly, an equitably administered draft would make it far more difficult for the US to get involved in stupid wars that are counterproductive

1. The principle of equality of sacrifice, the desire to get "civilian skin" in the game, and theory that popular risk mitigates against foreign wars...they all suggest that we should bring back the draft.

In principle, I agree with such noble sentiments.

2. The reality is that the cunning and mendacious will avoid conscription, while the simple and honest will serve. One need only examine the fortunes of those males born between 1940 and 1953. For the intelligent and ambitious, any service in Vietnam was ultimately a deliberate choice. They had too many alternate means to avoid the draft. It is impossible to imagine, in the current fragmented, dysfunctional culture, an outcome any different.

Do you REALLY think that undergraduates at State schools, Ivy Leagues, and Community Colleges will accept the imposition of a draft. The burdens of the draft will fall upon the same class of Americans who are already enlisting. American culture is fundamentally different today than it was fifty years ago. Reimposing a peacetime or a wartime draft would not ensure equality of sacrifice, nor would it even work.

It's helpful to distinguish benefits which are in consideration of the unique military lifestyle and those which are designed as compensation. When you require spouses to be separated for over a year, that places some unique constraints on families which should rightfully be accommodated. That's not compensation - it's consideration.

It's also helpful to acknowledge that these benefits can't be examined in a vacuum. In a volunteer military, the accommodations need to be somewhat competitive with private sector alternatives. We have guys who are easily quadrupling their compensation simply by doing largely the same job in a private security role.

The Captain's ideas make sense in theory. But they ignore the real world challenges of maintaining a volunteer military which is being stretched to its limits.

You say I "ignore the real world challenges of maintaining a volunteer military which is being stretched to its limits." Is yours an argument for continuing this company-town approach to military compensation or one against continuation of the (failed) AVF?

This AVF thing has morphed into a vaca sagrada. Our tradition, following the deep beliefs and intent of the Founding Fathers, has been to avoid a standing army, having enough military to cope with immediate threats but relying on the citizen-soldier to fight our wars. We've turned this wise, time-honored. and constitutional approach on its head and now outsource war to the AVF and its contractors. I think that's shameful, harmful, and dangerous. And it brings with it the whole system of military welfare needed to keep our hired guns hired. This is serious stuff. Don't confuse the AVF with virtue.

I always laugh when people bring up the "This is what the founding fathers" wanted argument. Yeah, after they wrote the stuff about congress having to pass legislation every two years for the Army, they went back to their plantations to manage their slaves. So leave the "Our founding fathers" thesis at the door. By the way, each founding father that became president, wound up expanding the military for one purpose or another (XYZ affair, Whiskey Rebellion, Exploration of the West, War of 1812, Indian Wars, etc...).
They had great wisdom, allowed for a constitution that can change, but they were not infallible.
With todays pace of the world, good luck keeping a army composed of "citizen soldiers" up to date on the latest technolgy, tactics, intelligence, and so forth.

The CBO says personnel costs around $130,000 a year when all costs are included. Imagine if we scrapped all benefits and paid that much, recruiters would be overrun. We' d have MBA signing up as E-1s.

His point is that benefits have run amok. We now provide college benefits for children. What about nursing home care for the parents of older GIs? What about a company car for each GI?

Ever notice why local communities near bases are often run down? Its because GIs don't pay sales taxes on base, which includes all those living off-base, and retirees. This is why nearly all communities benefited from base closures, as the military freeloaders who don't pay property tax either were booted. Does Congress care to reimburse local communities for that? Drive outside any military bases and see the huge numbers of tax exempt military types using the roads, schools, parks, jails ect.

Overall, I'd phase out the communist style commissary/exchange systems in the USA (not overseas) and just rent the buildings to major retailers. I' have Congress (or GIs who earn 2-3 times more than local people) pay sales taxes.

Mr. Byron, before I begin, I'd like to say that I'll try to address your arguments in the most tactful and direct way possible. I'd like to say that, but I might be lying. To be completely honest, I am shocked that you and I are a part of the same military. The military I know, which seems to be vastly different from yours despite the reality being that we are members of the same "department", endures countless hardships that one, are not even comprehensible to most civilians, and two, are hardly compensated for, even with all these golden benefits you so despise. With that said and lines drawn in the sand, let's begin.

Let's start with your original arguments made in the article. Your first point, that nearly all posts have equivalent privatized services outside of it, is already flawed. From my experience and the servicemembers I've talked to, that type of equivalency would certainly be the exception and not the norm. Typically a military post is located on a relatively desolate tract of land (hence why the military chose it!) with minimal access to the rest of society. I understand that your experience in the Navy may have been much different because often ports are required, by necessity, to be in an economically advantageous area, such as large cities with attractive port facilities. In some instances such as those, yes, you will find services in town that match or better those offered by the post, such as commissaries and exchanges. However, for the rest of us, we find posts and bases in near austere environments (29 Palms anyone?) that have extremely minimal access to anything even resembling "equal" privatized services. To remove those facilities and services is not only ludicrous, it's unthinkable.

Next up, you attack the unfairness of military benefits from post to post, family to family, servicemember to servicemember. If this is really your issue, and not just another unfounded complaint which I think it is, then why would you not argue for some type of reform within the military benefits system? That is something that I think would actually be a productive and healthy discussion. There are dozens of programs which are either over-funded or under-funded and could really benefit from some smart, pork-reducing reform. Instead, you argue that the system is broke, so let's remove it entirely. Faulty logic, at best.

Your next point. That if services and facilities were removed it would result in an equal rise in local companies and the adjacent economy is one that might be worth discussing. However, the issue remains that the government has required the servicemember to live and work in a certain post. As mentioned earlier, if he cannot rely on his post for basic services and those services are not provided out in town, what of him and his family then? We simply cannot allow for an instance of that nature to occur, hence the reason for these services and facilities.

Next up, you argue that military members should have a stake in their local community. I concur. And if they want to participate, they are more than welcome to and indeed, are often encouraged to. However, to force someone to pay taxes and vote in a community and state which they had no say in living is simply wrong. And here we get into the civilian 'mover' job v. military lifestyle debate. Before that though, let's address the 'communist' lifestyle comment. The modern military was hardly built around a communist ideal, but rather, a (wait for it!) military post model! Militaries by their nature need to be self-sustaining. That includes all aspects of supporting a local community, to include foods, products, clothing, weapons, transportation, quality of life services, etc. This is the model that our modern bases and benefits system was developed on, NOT communism, I can assure you. To say otherwise is simply ignorant of military development.

Onto the civilian v. military discussion. I'll boil it down to a few counterpoints that I beg you to show me the parity in the civilian world. First and most importantly, we in the military literally lay our lives on the line day in and day out. Is this statement cliche and obvious? Perhaps. However, I ask you what corporation asks the same of it's employees and does NOT compensate them in kind with benefits or pay? The only counterpoint you can generate here are privatized military corporations which we all know pay an exceedingly large amount and do not attempt to claim to defend a nation, as our military serves to do. Second, what corporation literally forces, by law, his employee to move to another location? I'll give you that at certain types of corporations and businesses, your boss will ask you to move locations for the good of the company. You can choose to accept and continue working with the company and moving up the chain. Or you can CHOOSE to fight to stay with the company where you are at, or find other employment. Difference being, that you have a choice. You are not bound by the whims of a government entity to move you and your family with little notice, to anywhere in the US and across the world. Should you choose not to, good. You go to a military prison and your family goes without. Oh ya, that's definitely comparable to being asked to move from Florida to South Carolina. Third and finally, what corporation sends its employees across the world, occasionally without more than a weeks notice, into a combat zone without means of communication, into a land where half the population would love to see your body splayed across the street, sleeping on a rocky floor, eating pre-rationed meals for months at a time, and then tell them they won't see their friends, family, or home for anywhere from 6-18 months. Then tell them that even when they get home, they WILL go out to do the same thing 6-12 months from now. Tell them that as soon as you get done telling him how his job is pretty much the same as Bob who works a 9-5 at FedEx and complains about missing his family when he spends a weekend away at a convention.

I could go on and on with some of your further responses to the comments, but in an effort to keep this fight clean, I'll just pick a couple to point out the continued fallacies.

You say that today's AVF has 'let us down...flies in the face...of the nations...abhorrence of standing army'. That's insulting on several levels to include attributing the entire military to the loss of a campaign that asked it's military to defeat a government, not a nation. Could the US military defeat a nation? Absolutely, we could eliminate entire nations from this planet given our technology and weaponry. But that was not what was asked of us and not what we are doing in either of these wars. We are fighting to create new governance and legitimacy. We are a military that is attempting to build nations. All this, despite the fact that we are trained and designed to fight and win wars. The fact that you seem not to grasp that is truly shocking.

You advocate raising an 18 year old's pay from $25,000 to over double that and expect things to just work themselves out? I'm all for empowering our youth and especially our young service members. I trust them with my life, my family's life, and with everyday decisions that could have strategic and catastrophic results if carried out wrongly. But when it comes to financial management, you're advocating giving a kid fresh out of high school an income comparable to a relatively experienced college graduate. That is going to create an innumerable amount of economic and financial issues that I won't begin to address here.

On the issue of the draft, I'll just say this. The tone of your argument is that unless a draft is instituted, Congress and the President will simply send the AVF into harms way without a thought to the 'cost of war' as you put it. As if a draft will actually stop to make them think about the American lives they are willing to sacrifice for their cause. I'm just in shock that this is actually being put forth by not only you, but other commenters. And our founding fathers didn't loathe a standing army because of a draft, they loathed a standing army because of the risk a mismanaged army could pose to the populace. Another fact that seems to be skewed awry in this 'discussion'. And I truly wish I could call it one. I enjoy as much as anyone a healthy discussion between opposites on a topic and I firmly believe that is what our democracy should be founded upon. Differing opinions benefit this country in a way that no other country enjoys. That's as far as my 'elitist' military attitude will take you. I do believe that we are better than others. I believe that we, as Americans, are a better lot than you'll find across the world and my faith in us as a people will never fail. But to suggest what you have above is disheartening and cold disservice to us in uniform. We stand on guard when others choose not to (and believe me I'm not saying that makes us better, only different), and all we ask for in return is a fair shot to build and maintain a happy healthy family and an honest quality of life. All these benefits do is to serve that purpose, and to remove that would be a disservice to your fellow Americans.

But an objective reading would find you actually making my same points, at least where you don't having me saying things not said or intended.

In summary response, perhaps the whole issue is best seen through a triple lens, of freedom, fairness, and realism.

Does the paternalistic system of military welfare enhance the individual freedom of the servicemember or constrain it?

Is the uneven distribution of military benefits fair or unfair?

Should the servicemember and military family be insulated and isolated from life's vicissitudes in a special way denied the society being served?

Finally, you suggest that the case could be made to actually expand the system of military benefits. Fair point. But expanding military welfare is manifestly unaffordable. My approach saves money.