Once More into the Breech...

[foxglovehp]

Or perhaps not.  I'd be interested to read your thoughts on this.  Especially those of you on the left.

Comments

[exvapi]

Words fail me.

[agoodcuppajoe]

So, everyone in a convoy other than the crew of the truck actually blown-up by the IED would not be eligible for combat pay? Or since they were never "shot at", none of them?

I have to think that everyone involved in combat operations should be eligible. Even out on the Carriers, crews who will never, ever be shot at are facing stresses 24/7 well beyond peace-time training ops.

I may lean to the left, but that doesn't mean I don't think we should take care of our troops.

[level_head]

It appears to be both "not as bad as it seems" and "pretty bad" from what I can see.

Basically, if you're in a danger zone you get the pay, based on the number of days you're in it. Snopes (not always trustworthy) has details:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/combatpay.asp

The trick here is the definition of a danger zone. Is all of Afghanistan? Just active combat areas?

This was in the NDAA, and reads reasonably enough -- but a "narrow" definition of the combat areas could make this about as bad as portrayed.

===|==============/ Level Head

[selenite]

I can see some logic in taking the pay from full-time fobbits* but anyone who goes out side the wire should be considered "in a danger area."

*Said with affectionate respect, as my active-duty time was something that would be considered "REMF" by Corps HQ staff.