I feel sorry for the administration and party that has to deal with that.

Luckily, I'm old enough to avoid a draft, but can't wait for the backlash!

Honestly, many soldiers enter the military single and end up with a family at some point. Because the conditions of their lives have changed, one should expect different attitudes toward family separation and deployment to hazardous environments. It could be said that they could just leave service at the first available opportunity, but that wouldn't necessarily be in the best interest of the military. Cost of training a new soldier with basic soldiering, combat, and specialized skills can be quite a lot. Not to mention, the time and years it takes to replace soldiers with mid level supervisory experience as well as cumulative on the job experience. Extra pay is always a good way to get soldiers to re-enlist, if they aren't otherwise inclined to do so. As far as lumping the incentive in to a front end bonus, I think that may be effective. However, many soldiers and especially soldiers with families will too much foresight to take a one time payment if other elements are included in the package. After all, that's why it can be so difficult to get military members to take early retirement or seperation packages. The loss to future benefits usually outweighs the benefit of a one time payment.

As far as "Warrior Pay" increasing fairness, extra pay(if enough) might encourage some soldiers to be less vigorous in attempting to avoid assignments they know will land them in a deployment situations. Anybody that's been in the military awhile has met that soldier that's managed to stay in relatively the same place for years and years, avoiding deployments or having to PCS, just by bouncing from one assignment to another in areas with plenty of military installations, like San Antonio or D.C. or anywhere there seems to be a headquarters of one kind or another. This creates a resentment amongst those that end up having to do multiple tours in combat zones. Adding additional pay might even up the score a bit, encouraging some to seek out deployment opportunities and making those soldiers that have received the short end of the stick a little less disgruntled.

I think the real issue behind Warrior Pay is the military's competitiveness with defense contractors. Many job specialties are facing a crisis with a lack of NCOs within them. There was an Air Force

Times article a few weeks back that discussed it, what the AF Times didn't mention was that many of those specialties are also ones that are increasingly staffed by defense contractors, especially in combat zones. When someone can get two or three times their pay by getting out and taking a contracting job in Iraq or Afghanistan, that becomes a real consideration for the soldier, airman, or sailor. As I mentioned before, the loss of the experience a soldier may have creates a situation that may not be beneficial to the military.

I think that would be a slap in the face to those serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. A deployment in Korea does not in any way produce "warriors". Don't get me wrong, I think all public service pay needs to go up, but this inclusion would be a joke.

I’m shooting in the dark at this point though…

“The Army is preparing to ask the Defense Department to move forward with a new type of compensation for soldiers who serve repetitive deployments in a combat zone.”