Fight two wars, yet no hazard pay? Unconscionable!

Editor’s Note – Panetta says we can still fight two wars at once, yet the folks fighting those wars may not even get ‘hazard pay’. As part of the cost-cutting, now the foot soldier is again taking the lumps. This is something every American should abhor! The primary duty, the BIG IMPORTANT one, of the federal government is to secure America, from all enemies foreign and domestic. Yet, what does the left do over, and over…they cut the military, usually just prior to the moment we may need it most.

This is criminal! Please read both short articles, then call you representative and Senators. No one is immune from blame here. It is simply amazing how the government looks at the big picture here, the little picture there, yet the important picture and decisions about them often cause the most unintended consequences.

SHAME!

Panetta: US can fight Korea and Iran at same time

Washington Examiner

By Joel Gehrke

United States Armed Forces could win simultaneous conflicts in the Korean peninsula and against Iran, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told American soldiers in Germany today, despite the impending force reductions.

Leon Panetta at Ramstein speaks to troops

“We could be fighting a land war in Korea, and suddenly Iran moves to close the Straits of Hormuz,” Panetta said, discussing a hypothetical scenario, during a visit to soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center today. ”We’ve got to have the capability to be able to confront each adversary, to not only deter them, but defeat them.  And we can do that with the force that we’ve put in place.”

North Korea, currently transitioning from one dictator to another and armed with nuclear weapons, has concerned United States foreign policy analysts for decades. Similarly, Iran’s push to develop nuclear weapons has resulted in oil sanctins and the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Panetta assured the troops that the United States could defeat two such enemies, but the scheduled force reductions will preclude fighting a two-front war on the scale of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “If we are engaged in a major combat operation in one theater, we will have the force necessary to confront an additional aggressor by denying its objectives or imposing unacceptable costs,” Panetta explained in a recent summary of Defense Budget Priorities and Choices.

News Transcript (Official)

_______________________

Meanwhile:

Obama Pulls Combat Pay for U.S. Troops

By Javier Manjarres

Shark Tank

President Obama’s latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at.

So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I’m constantly in a combat zone…it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense…come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here… Florida Marine Corp Soldier (We are not posting his name for obvious reasons)

According to Military.com, as of February 1, 2012, this new measure went into effect, and soldiers who are to received the additional $225/mo. combat pay ‘must’ be in immediate risk of harm. The measure is very specific in its criteria for receiving the additonal pay.

The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.

A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:

Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;

On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;

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 subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.

The last bullet point speaks volumes as to the sheer stupidity of this measure. The whole point of going to Afghanistan and Iraq was for combat operations- Afghanistan still is a hostile warzone, and both U.S. and NATO forces continue to suffer losses in and out of combat hot zones. Insurgent attacks have accured throughout areas that have been deemed ‘safe’, and in areas where hostilities were not forseen.

Shortlink: