This seems to me a telling comment on the state of democratic values in America. Basically, the U.S. Government has shelled out six-figure salaries to veteran Navy SEALS and Green Berets to keep them from shifting to private defense firms like Blackwater USA (who is currently under investigation for a high number of apparantly needless deaths in Iraq).

Now, these are guys that put their life on the line in the service of what is taken to be the nation's interest, so I'm certainly not opposed to them be compensated for the risks they take. But my understanding is that the money being offered up to them is part of a retention plan -- meaning, if the government didn't shell out the money, it expected them to jump ship for a corporate payroll.

It seems to me that the underlying premise here is that there isn't much implicit in our system or ideals that would maintain the loyalty of a fighting elite, particularly if some other institution could offer them a six figure salary.

For the record, I'm not saying that's the opinion among service men -- just that our government seems to think it is.

The fact that the government is so eager to retain this "small but elite group of enlisted troops with vast experience" also points to a change in the demands placed on the military. We're no longer as concerned about the needs of defending ourselves against a major military action. Instead, we're relying on small, tactically sophisticated groups to handle "unconventional" military situations overseas. Mogadishu jumps to mind.

I can't help but wonder if there's some connection between the two facts -- ie. the perception that monetary compensation is the only way to maintain loyalty, and the change in the style and causes of modern military action. Any thoughts?

Speaking from a financial perspective, the fact that the US Government needs to payout six figure retention payments to older and experienced soldiers is troubling. This to me means two things. One is that there is obviously a "brain drain" effect in that these experienced troops do not have adequate (and cheaper due to fewer years of service and lower rank) replacements coming up through the pipeline. So there is a shortage of experience and expertise in the middle of the organization. The second issue would be a shortage of incoming new enlistments which means that the older people are still needed. Any organizational manager will always take cheap new talent that show promise, especially if a highly compensated and well benefited older person is seeking to move on. Money is a strong motivator which is why the six figure salary is being offered. But (hopefully) our government is also motivated by money (in not spending more than they need), so one must ask why the need to spend a huge amount of money to retain soldiers is needed? That question is troubling for the state of our armed forces.

Anytime we find ourselves fighting a war that the majority of people do not support we will have these problems. Money is more of a motivator than "defending our nation" when we don't even understand what we're defending against. If we get into a conflict that the nation supports I doubt we'll have a problem with recruitment and retention.

The nation certainly supported the war effort when it was first launched. Lots of young men rushed out to enlist following 9/11. The government heavily advertised to enlist new recruits. As support has decreased, most certainly so have enrolments, I am sure. Better exit packages for our soldiers might be a solution to attract more men and women to the armed forces. 100% Educational funding, retirement packages, health care packages, etc. The state of Veterans Affairs currently is no doubt not enticing recruits either.

Also, my understanding of the article was that these payouts began long before the invasion, so the tendency of these veterans to go to private firm doesn't have much to do with our current situation in Iraq.

Basically, the U.S. Government has shelled out six-figure salaries to veteran Navy SEALS and Green Berets to keep them from shifting to private defense firms like Blackwater USA (who is currently under investigation for a high number of apparantly needless deaths in Iraq).

Let's not use these ridiculous phrases. Blackwater and its competitors are mercenaries. And if the only reason that a soldier would remain with the US military is because they're getting paid more, then they are mercenaries.

I cannot speak for the majority of Veterans, but my father has been treated extremely well by the US government. As a 100% disabled war veteran all of his medical is paid. They give him everything he needs at the VA nursing home and from what I have seen they have lots of equipment that other nursing homes simply cannot afford.