JC,

What do you think if a select run of folks (senior capts thru new to mid-majors) were offered a boost in retirement pay at 20 yrs, say up to 75%, for signing on to that 20?
I think that is a pretty good incentive, but as you'd mentioned earlier - I think it needs to be performance oriented, but not targeted at say a particular branch or FA. Right now most of those coming up on 20 are in the High 3 category (50% of the average of the last three years). Going to 30 allows you to work up to 75%.

Now a guy who gets 50% of his base pay at 20, and picks up a job say making at least what his base pay was now has a significant increase in his income. If he picks up some disability - (this is on the increase by the way from hearing to other ails that come from working in a combat zone repeatedly over say a 6 year period - lets say since 9/11, and all the other things the military gets asked to do - fighting wild fires, disaster relief where HAZMAT is an issue, etc.) - then there is definitely competition to staying in past 20. Not to mention, the prospect of continuing deployments etc with decreasing resources - the politics of funding - where is the incentive.

Now, say a yearly 5% increase that takes you to 30 so that at 30 you are looking at 100% - there is an incentive. Make it performance based with demonstratable standards that reward innovation, agility, etc. and are unbiased in the categories of branch, or position held - where there are no maximum quotas, but where everyone can aspire to, and you have a formula that people can work hard towards. I'd also think something at the end like educational benefits for introduction back into the civilian world would not only benefit the serviceman, but the nation - putting these valued members back into the community in positions of responsibility is good for our Republic.

Conversely, as professionals, officers and NCOs need to be prepared to meet the needs of the Army and the war. This may mean working in shortage areas and being professionally challenged. To do this effectively we need to ensure we invest in our officers and NCOs the type of education that provides the most flexibility to meet the challenges ahead

This brings me to something else, it should not just be the Federal government who recognizes this, but incentives at the state and local level beyond what is offered. Some states have great programs - I believe Indiana offers some of the best in terms of tuition, but what if say we explored the areas of taxes (Local, State, Federal), licenses (of all types), fees, etc.? What if more local businesses offered up something that provided some recognition - after all, we're talking about less then 1%. Any former CDR knows how local businesses around military businesses often take advantage of the 18 year old private soldier (even with new regulations its still happening) - who has a say in this - local, city and state leaders - its not all just on US congress as the federal legislative branch to improve.

Anybody who has flown into both Dallas and Atlanta on R&R can tell a huge difference between the two. In Dallas Soldiers, Marines, Airmen & Sailors are received as heroes. In Atlanta, its business as usual.

I mention all of this because the Legislative branch tends to be a reflection of the voting public so much as it supports agendas and re-election - this is not a new phenomena, but has been around since Democracy began. It would be hard to expect political support on increasing the compensation and benefits without public support that recognizes the past, current and future sacrifices of those who wear the uniform and their families.

The public may see the death tolls and statistics from the 24 hour news channel, but they really don't understand the personal sacrifices made by service members and their families - its much easier to watch American idol then to try and identify with say a military spouse who is at home worried about her husband and trying to raise 2-4 children in a post far away from her family. She could go home yes, but that causes further disruption in the children's lives, and heightens their sense of danger for their father. On the flip side, the father/mother is trying to do their job in the most difficult of conditions while worrying the 15 months if his/her family is OK. Now when the family gets back is off to a delayed school or gamut of schools while trying to spend as much time making things appear normal before deploying yet again with another unit - this is the reality of today's military family, and will be for the foreseeable future.

This is not a war that ends with the fall of Nazi Germany or even the destruction of Osama Bin Laden, this war will continue as long as their are people and groups who try and impress their will upon the increasingly globalized world through acts of terror and intimidation. Since what happens in almost any part of the world is now inextricably linked to the other parts of the world (and our freedom) it matters. Since everyone knows that the United States of America is generally the only state with the wherewithal to do something about it (and that the world expects us to - but reserves the right to condemn us for it), those same evil people and groups will work hardest to intimidate and convince us that we are wrong and will suffer for it.

This means they will attack us at their first opportunity. The world is smaller, and it works much different the the Average American (qualified by non-celebrity status and having never left their own borders for those of a third world state) understand. The average American does not understand except through the portal of the media (generally biased toward one agenda or another - but always in the business of selling soemthing). Their experiences are limited to their everyday concerns.

We are arguably the most generous people on this earth (look up the amounts expended in the causes of charity, the groups who solicitate here, and the amount spent airing those causes), but unless explained to, will not support the type of dialogue writers on this site participate in.

Getting back on target - yes, considering a change in the perception of continuing past the 20 year mark is needed - but it has to take into account what is offered in the context of what is expected. It has to be a substantial change to effect the perception of those making the choices. If not, most will approach anything less with skepticism, some with mild contempt.