During the garrison years, I noticed an interesting thing from where I sat. All we had were UDPd to Okinawa, Med and WestPac floats, and the occasional disturbance that required a condition 1 presence. Many Marines simply got bored and decided to move on.

Shift to the OIF years, where we have no downsizing concerns, and the reasons are markedly different. After doing a run at OIF I, the majority of Marines I knew who made the choice simply said that they had done everything they had come into the Corps for. See a foreign land, prove themself in a combat environment, yada, yada. Some of these motivations were what drove a lot of IRR volunteers to come back on as combat replacements for the second go-around of OIF-II. They wanted to get in the mix.

I've known three good officers who decided to leave after their second tours. All were solid guys, but in almost every case, they simply had something else that they wanted to do on the outside, so they gave it a go. Although a couple would probably never admit, disillusionment with the administration's policies was a factor. They voted with their feet.

I don't think money will capture the 1/3 that "get it", but have competing demands that lure them out. For them it's not the money. The 1/3 who "have no clue" would be all over monetary incentives. To make this thing work, we'd have to connect incentives to quantifiable performance.

"Oh, so you say you're a bag of donuts but want the $20,000 bonus to stay in? Let's take a gander at your performance files. Hmmm, it says you graduated at the bottom of your Basic School class, and the bottom of your Logistics Officer course. No thanks...next please."

It could be argued that this would be a difficult task to accomplish, given the poor state of our awards systems and such, but the GS side has been using performance awards for years. All it takes is conscientious administrators who follow the letter of the program, and it can be effective. Applying it to the military context would be tough, but I wonder if it has even been explored.

Amongst the 1/3 that do get it, I think there is a sense that standards continue to decrease, the "lost ones" continue to find promotions and juicy assignments, and personnel rotation policies are out of whack. Heck, it was just recently that I heard that Master Gunnery Sergeants (E-9s) were going to hold a conference, comparable to the Sgts Major conferences that are held routinely. As I think about it, that sort of stuff should have been happening all along. It was refreshing to hear from a MGySgt (recently joined to the battalion when we were deployed) tell me that he had stiff-armed the Sgt Maj and let him know that he would be talking to the career monitor for the MOS 0369 staff sergeants and above, as well as helping those Marines chart their course.

Some times it is a lack of focus. I know many Marines who think the leadership should focus on the most serious of matters that face us, and prioritize acquisition of a new PT uniform to the bottom of the list of things to do. Oh, and if anyone thinks that they can find the triggers for a servicemember's separation aims, it won't come from a ream of anonymous surveys, met thinks.