One more factor to weigh in which 16%, new inlistment vs retention, is better. The 16% increase in new recruits also equals the same increase in basic and advanced training and the same increase in first timers in the field. The 16% increase in retention equals 16% more experianced soldiers, already trained and with experience in the current theatre of operations. These are people who have likely already made their stupid mistakes, we all make them, and survived them to learn better. IMO these experianced soldiers are the more valuable group; not to mention those less likely to be injured in the field.

_Exactly_. I had wanted to be the one to point this out but it looks like you beat me to the punch.

It's just about rank idiocy to compare newly enlisted troops to those who re-enlist and find them to be equal. The military has already spent huge amounts of time and money to train one group of them. In addition to the training, there's also the incalculable benefit of experience from the previous tour. I can't think of anyone who would swap experienced soldiers for rookies at a 1 to 1 ratio and not be thought insane.

There are other benefits as well. Since reenlisting soldiers have been already trained, they can be deployed immediately to wherever they're needed. The new recruits will always have to go through basic training at the minimum and then further trained in their specific jobs. Second, reenlisting soldiers will contain, for obvious reasons, higher numbers of people with rank, whether n-coms or officers. That is incredibly valuable to a functioning military. One of the problems we're facing right now is we're losing a lot of the middle command staff. Anything that is more likely to have those individual re-up is a huge boost.

This entire entry was just full of sloppy thinking.

As a retired soldier with over two decades of service in the US Army, I can tell you that retaining mid-level NCOs is critical to maintaining an effective fighting force. You have an amazing amount of money, resources, and experience invested in each soldier as they near the end of their first term of service. It is foolish to design a GI Bill that does not try to encourage people to re-enlist.

The idea that you would reward someone with three years or service the same as someone with six, eight or ten years is a receipe for failure. You must have a system that rewards people with 3-4 years of service well, but significantly better with each additional two years of service. Make that benefit transferable to your spouse and children, and you are going to have a program that will encourage retention and build a sustainable military force.

Some additional ideas would be to expand Boot Strap and Green to Gold type programs, where young NCOs can use these benefits while still in the service.

The GI Bill should not be looked at as solely a social welfare program, but as a tool to build a strong military. The Webb bill falls way short of that goal.

The 16% increase in new enlistment will increase new recruits by 30,000 and decrese re-enlisting by 7000. The rate of re-enlistment will decline to 36%.

Given these facts, apply the 36% of re-enlisting on the 30,000 new troops and you get a little over 10,000 experienced soldiers. Granted, you have to wait 3 years for those soldiers, but the long term gain in experienced soldiers should compensate for the short term loss.

The exchange is not 30,000 green soldiers for 7,000 veteran soldiers. This GI bill offers 30,000 green soldiers, of which 10,000 will re-up as experienced soldiers in 3 years, in exchange for 7,000 expierenced soldiers now.

Hey you need to get John out on the stump with that one. That's catchy.

I always thought it was part of my pay and benefits package from a greatful nation for my honorable service.

Now I find I was actually on welfare.