February27, 2007:
A U.S. Department of Defense proposal to pay troops "distress pay" if
they were sent overseas sooner than expected, has caused a vigorous debate
among the brass over how far to go with what is also called "inconvenience
pay." The current proposal would pay soldiers $1,000 dollars for each month of
stateside time they lost because they were needed overseas sooner than expected.
The U.S. Army wants to have troops at their home bases at least 24 months
between overseas assignments. So if you were sent back to Iraq 20 months after
getting back, you would get $4,000 for loss of "dwell time" (at your home
base.)
The
current "distress pay" system began during World War II. Back then, the average
enlisted soldier got paid (adjusted for inflation) about $500 a month. They
received an extra $100 a month if they were overseas, and an extra $100 if they
were in combat. Sailors were also given extra pay for being at sea, flight crew
got a similar bonus. Paratroopers did best of all, getting the equivalent of
$500 a month extra. Ironically, paratroopers ended the war with a lower
casualty rate than most regular infantry units. That was mainly because
airborne units were pulled out of the fighting to be rebuilt and train for
their next jump, while regular units just kept getting replacements while they
continued fighting.
The
"hazardous duty pay" concept continued after World War II, with more categories
being added. We now have "family separation allowance" ($250 a month for being
away from your family), "imminent danger pay" ($225 for being in a combat zone)
and "hazardous duty incentive pay" for particularly dangerous jobs ( Parachute
Duty, Carrier Flight Deck Duty, Demolition/handling explosives Duty,
Experimental Stress Duty, Handling Toxic Fuels or Propellants Duty, Handling
Toxic Pesticides Duty, Dangerous Viruses or Bacteria Lab Duty, Handling
Chemical Munitions). For some very dangerous jobs, like high altitude parachute
(HALO) jumping, you get an extra $220 a month. This all adds up,
increasing the pay of many troops by more than fifty percent.
Many
senior officers are OK with dangerous duty bonuses, but don't want to set a precedent
for extra pay for those who are inconvenienced. The other side of the argument
is that the dangerous duty pay IS an "inconvenience pay" issue. Getting shot at
is an inconvenience, and bad for morale. So is being away from your family and
in a combat zone for extended periods of time. What is often forgotten in all
of this is that soldiers have always received "combat pay." It's better known
as plunder (given permission to loot enemy territory). In times past, the
prospect of plunder was more of an incentive to join an army, than the promise
of regular pay. It was like the lottery, and many soldiers got very rich.
During the 14th century Hundred Years War between France and England, many
English farmers joined up as archers, and came back wealthy men (after
capturing a French aristocrat and holding him for a huge ransom). Since the
18th century, Western armies have gradually decreased the opportunities to
loot, at least on a large scale and with permission. The whole "distress pay"
concept says, in effect, "if some of you can't strike it rich, at least all off
you will be a little better off," for going to war. Times change, but many
customs don't go away.
