The Adventures of Chester: Why not raise military pay?

Tigerhawk has an interesting post which excerpts a report from Strategic Forecasting. StratFor makes this argument with regard to the draft:

We do not expect to be taken seriously on this proposal, but we will make it anyway: There is no inherent reason why enlistment -- or conscription -- should be targeted toward those in late adolescence. And there is no reason why the rich themselves, rather than the children of the rich, should not go to war. Or, for that matter, why older people with established skills should not be drawn into the military. That happened in World War II, and it could happen now. The military's stove-pipe approach to military careers, and the fact that it allows almost no lateral movement into service for 40- to 60-year-olds, is irrational. Even if we exclude combat arms, other specialties could be well-served by such a method -- which also would reduce the need for viciously expensive contractors.

Traditionally, the draft has fallen on those who were barely adults, who had not yet had a chance to live, who were the least equipped to fight a complex war. Other age groups were safe. Rangel is talking about drafting the children of the rich. It would be much more interesting, if the United States were to introduce the draft, to impose it in a different way, on entirely different age groups. Let the young get on with starting their lives. Let those who have really benefited from society, who have already lived, ante up.

Commentary

Here's an idea: why not dramatically raise the pay of military personnel? Now there's some social engineering I could go for, and would be worth it even if it failed. Military payscales as they stand are structured such that pay rises dramatically during the first 10 years or so of service and then plateaus, rising much more slowly after that. This is for two reasons: The upper limits of pay are capped. No military officer can make more than a Congressman. The other reason is that at the ten year point, they figure you've drank the koolaid and are probably going to stick around for another 10, so you can get your nice military pension.

So why not say that there is no upper limit for all military officers, with the exception of those of flag rank? The rationale would be that those in the lower ranks can receive ever higher pay that matches their abilities. Seriously, what's the market value of a battalion commander? Certainly more than the $90k or so per year he makes. This is someone who can plan and execute complicated maneuvers involving hundreds of people. I'd put him at something like $200k.

But, treat promotion to flag rank as something similar to getting a federal judgeship or such. You take a pay cut out of service. That way, those of flag rank, who are most likely to be advising Congress, won't be making more than them.

Just my $.02.

Some would argue this would be far too expensive. But I bet it would be far less expensive than a draft, which would not be cheap. If the goal is to get all parts of society more interested in the military, why not sweeten the pot a little?

Posted by Chester on November 22, 2006 12:03 AM to The Adventures of Chester