You'll have to understand our skepticism while we await your retention data.
And that ladies and gentlemen, is the argument in one sentence.
Communities, cities, societies and nations have always been faced with threats - invasion, insurrection, fires, floods, criminals - that have to be dealt with. Those threats, until relatively recent times, were always met by ordinary citizens putting down the tools of their trade and picking up a weapon or a bucket and going off to protect their homes and families. It was incumbent on all able-bodied citizens to answer the call and stay until the job was complete.
Those threats still come every day and survival mandates responses as it always has. But, at least in most places, there is no longer an obligatory general response from the citizenry. You don't have to get out of bed at 0300 to go douse the big warehouse fire across town. When the bank across from your office gets robbed, you and all the other CPAs don't have to jump up from your desks, grab a weapon, and waddle off in pursuit with everyone else who heard the hue and cry.
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, there are walls in this world that have to be guarded by men with guns. Who is going to do it?
Our decision has been to create professional full-time forces to respond to these threats. It makes a heck of a lot of sense if you think about it. The threats have become more complex, and the responses require some skill sets that take years to acquire. Plus, would you want to drive across the bridge designed by some guy who, on the day he did the critical calculations, was half-asleep because he was up all night putting out a fire?
These jobs are, to a varying extent, sacred obligations. But once we start paying people to do them we have also made it a question of how much is it worth.
What is it worth to us to be able to run out of a burning building while some other man runs in? And, what is it worth to him?
And how much is it worth to you, that when somebody does show up to protect you, your family, or your possessions from danger; that they are damn good at what they do? We aren't just paying people to take risks, we are paying people to be competent and for them to organize, train and equip themselves to be effective at confronting things that threaten us.
It's that latter question that brings up retention and the "up" or "out" philosophies. It also brings up why people who aren't on the front lines are vital to these forces.
Somebody has to make sure that when the troops on the line show up they have the right training, competent and experienced leadership, the proper equipment, and finally, someone to orchestrate how all the elements come together to accomplish the mission. The people on the line have to have confidence in their training, equipment and leadership. Because if they don't, the response to, "Get out of that ditch, move forward and fire on that position!" is liable to be "screw you!" The response to that 0300 call of, "They're opening evacuation shelters across the city and we're providing the security. I need you to report at 0600" is liable to be, "And whose going to protect my family while I'm screwing around with a bunch of people I don't know?"
You're not just paying for the 19 year-old rifleman to be on the line, or the 23 year-old rookie firefighter to walk up the stairs of a burning building. You're also paying for all those 30 to 40 year-old veterans who
knew where and when to send them,
knew what gear they needed, and
knew how to teach them what to do when they got there. And don't forget that you're also paying those leaders and commanders to have what it takes to inspire the confidence of those young kids to want to get up on their feet and move forward toward danger when the leader says "charge".
There are a lot of reasons why teenagers and 20-somethings show up to do these jobs. But they all eventually grow up and have families and the other trappings of adulthood that require money to take care of. There comes a time for all of them when they have to decide if staying makes financial sense. You can hook them with the salary, benefits or pension, or any combination of those, but you have to pay for the whole package.
You are free to make whatever offer you think is appropriate. And I am free to accept your offer or go elsewhere.
My decision to stay came down to the quality of the pension. If the pension had not been there, or was of lesser quality, than I would have expected more in salary and benefits. And if my employer was not willing to make the compensation package attractive enough, I would have had to make the decision to leave.
You can decide to pay whatever you want and somebody will show up. There are people in this world who would pay you to get a shot at the power and access that some of these jobs come with. My only response to that is: good luck with your employees if that is the route you take.
Some of the discussion on comparing combat roles vs non-combat and then on to similar civilian occupations got far afield and more than a little ridiculous. You may have a problem understanding why someone who spends their days doing the same sort of office crap that you do would receive anything better than you get.
Simple reason: Nobody is ever going to come into your office and order you to go draw your weapon and deuce gear because "we're filling holes in the line." I can't think of a war this country has fought, in which there wasn't at least one battle when the cooks and clerks were issued weapons and put into the fray. Rare and extreme? Yes, but still they are trained, equipped and prepared to pick up a weapon and stand a post.
Where do you think all of the extra cops come from when a natural disaster strikes, the looters run amok, or there is a credible terrorist threat to infrastructure? We don't have extra street cops laying around in storage. No, we stop all but the most vital admin work and put all those folks into uniforms and out on the streets.
If we try to differentiate who is more worthy based not on what they were ready to do in our defense, but what their actual experience was, it quickly becomes ridiculous. Does the artillery get a delayed pension because they weren't as close to the line as the infantry? Do the guys in the 7th Marines get a delayed pension because there were fewer enemy in their AO? Does L/Cpl Jones get a delayed pension because fewer enemy bullets came close to him as compared to PFC Smith?
If someone joins the military and is prepared and willing to go into harms way to protect the rest of us, I won't question that commitment if the worst danger they are ever actually exposed to is a paper cut. Even if someone enlists and spends twenty years in the most demanding combat capable unit you can imagine, but never actually participates in an engagement against an enemy, I would not think any less of them or believe them less deserving than any other service member. And while I might question the sanity of someone who spends years floating around in a radioactive submersible phallic symbol, I am grateful for all of those submariners who went out ready and armed to the teeth, but, thank God, never had to fire an actual war shot.
Lastly, I don't know about the others here who have stood on this side of the question, but I'm getting tired of the continued attempts to compare military/public safety benefits to the private sector. Somebody always puts forth a not-so-subtle, "it's not fair" argument. Which often sounds a lot like, "if I'm not entitled to it, then nobody is". It makes me want to channel my inner Colonel Jessup:
I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.
