Originally Posted by Damien435

How the hell did this "report" end up with the number of 75%? Only about 1 in 7 soldiers has an MOS that would be considered a combat role, granted war has a way of dragging people into it, but still, 75 percent? I'm calling the bluff here, the Air Force has very few boots on the ground in Iraq, the Navy doesn't dock at Basra on a regular basis, the Marines are spread all over the world with Embassy duties and the whole have to be ready to hit any beach any time with 48 hours policy. Plus our presence in Afghanistan has never been that large, we probably have more troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea (separate, not combined) than we ever did in Afghanistan.



A.) Yes, the military should always value its veterans more than finding new recruits. B.) Where do you get this idea that the military doesn't have "sign on" (enlistment?) bonuses? When I initially joined three years ago my enlistment bonus was.... $5,000ish back when the Army was still exceeding its legitimate quotas, not these ridiculously reduced numbers that the Army uses now because missing their mark for 15 consecutive months doesn't look good, today's enlistment bonuses are up to $20,000 in the Army, see link below.

Link