NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: Holy crap! I was in the wrong war for sure!


Bonuses up to $150K for special operations forces re-enlistments

Friday, February 4, 2005 Posted: 10:31 PM EST (0331 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior members of U.S. special operations forces will receive bonuses of up to $150,000 for staying in the military, an increase designed to keep the commandos from bolting to the more lucrative private sector.

The policy, announced by U.S. Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, provides an array of bonuses and incentives to experienced members of Army Special Forces, Navy SEALs, Air Force pararescuemen and a few other specialties.

whoa i bet you never got offered anything close to THAT

is surprises me that there is any problem keeping special forces in the military. are so many really willing to leave a job unfinished? i hope they live to spend their bonuses.

Whether or not there was a shortage, wages and bonuses were bound to rise. Special Forces are now more important than ever. Not just for conventional combat, but also security and recon ops in countries where US troops aren't even meant to be.

is surprises me that there is any problem keeping special forces in the military. are so many really willing to leave a job unfinished? i hope they live to spend their bonuses.
Half the time they go to military contractors that pay more but said military contractors are then utilized by the army for various ops. They do the same stuff, they just get paid more working for the private sector.

Half the time they go to military contractors that pay more but said military contractors are then utilized by the army for various ops. They do the same stuff, they just get paid more working for the private sector.
We better monitor that. We might have a mercenary problem similar to privateers. Most are too loyal to the US to knowingly work for an enemy, but that is not always the case. We could have a computer nerd from Kansas serve as a Ranger, and as he is desparate for money, be hired by an al-Qaeda shell company.

Whether or not there was a shortage, wages and bonuses were bound to rise. Special Forces are now more important than ever. Not just for conventional combat, but also security and recon ops in countries where US troops aren't even meant to be.

And this is different from the way it's been in SF for many years how? :)

Half the time they go to military contractors that pay more but said military contractors are then utilized by the army for various ops. They do the same stuff, they just get paid more working for the private sector.

Sometimes, yes, although most of these seem to be in the civil affairs field. I suspect that most military commanders are leery of hiring outside contractors to do much of the real "black ops."

And this is different from how it's been in SF for many years how? :)
Well I'm just saying that there is a greater need for that type of stuff. The enemy is stateless, so we need forces that can operate in any state. I would also think that they'd need greater skill in blending into the civiliian population. Hispanics were used in Baghdad before the war to be the Special Force's erand boys. I also think that they may need more expertise in disrupting low-tech financial transactions, and fighting "netwars".

We better monitor that. We might have a mercenary problem similar to privateers. Most are too loyal to the US to knowingly work for an enemy, but that is not always the case. We could have a computer nerd from Kansas serve as a Ranger, and as he is desparate for money, be hired by an al-Qaeda shell company.

Computer nerds hardly ever wind up in SF. It requires an entirely different mind-set and personality.

I think it's probably a good idea to offer the bonuses. For all that I disagree with current UK/US military operations, the singularly worst part has to be the use of 'security consultants'. In doing their dirty work, countries should at least have the decency to use their own soldiers not mercenaries, and that's what they should be called, no euphemisms.

Additionally. Surely anyone acting as a mercenary for the US/UK in Iraq, no matter how recently a member of the armed forces should be arrested as an 'illegal combatant'? This is because I fail to see the difference between a foreign (non-Iraqi) un-uniformed soldier who kills 'our' Iraqis and one who kills 'their' Iraqis.

Well I'm just saying that there is a greater need for that type of stuff. The enemy is stateless, so we need forces that can operate in any state. I would also think that they'd need greater skill in blending into the civiliian population. Hispanics were used in Baghdad before the war to be the Special Force's erand boys. I also think that they may need more expertise in disrupting low-tech financial transactions, and fighting "netwars".

Back when I was in SF, we had a virtual United Nations and every language from Chinese to Farsi. As far as "Infowar" goes, one of the few friends I have left who are still on active duty, heads up a section under this operation. According to him, most of those in his section are SF first and are only inforwar specialists secondarily. I suspect, although he hasn't shared many details ( and I haven't asked ), this is because they sometimes do intercepts and cable taps cross-border.

Surely anyone acting as a mercenary for the US/UK in Iraq, no matter how recently a member of the armed forces should be arrested as an 'illegal combatant'? This is because I fail to see the difference between a foreign (non-Iraqi) un-uniformed soldier who kills 'our' Iraqis and one who kills 'their' Iraqis.

Black ops operators all carry cyanide or one of the newer, faster-acting and supposedly painless poisions.

Black ops operators all carry cyanide or one of the newer, faster-acting and supposedly painless poisions.

what I meant by un-uniformed could have been mis-leading. I wasn't talking about special forces guys. I was referring to the employment of (usually ex special forces) people as 'civilian security consultants' and other such euphemisms. If the war is as noble in aim as is claimed, the politicians should call them what they are, which is mercenaries. I'm assuming that they don't as it'd make a lot of people think wtf!

what I meant by un-uniformed could have been mis-leading. I wasn't talking about special forces guys. I was referring to the employment of (usually ex special forces) people as 'civilian security consultants' and other such euphemisms. If the war is as noble in aim as is claimed, the politicians should call them what they are, which is mercenaries. I'm assuming that they don't as it'd make a lot of people think wtf!

I suppose you could make an argument either way. Since the contractors are retained by the US Govt., they have to abide by the terms of their contract, which state ( among other things ) what the status of their operatives are under US law.

It's still plain old fashioned spin to not label them mercenaries though. Especially when anyone who does the same on the other side is lambasted as the filth of the earth.

Back when I was in SF, we had a virtual United Nations and every language from Chinese to Farsi. As far as "Infowar" goes, one of the few friends I have left who are still on active duty, heads up a section under this operation. According to him, most of those in his section are SF first and are only inforwar specialists secondarily. I suspect, although he hasn't shared many details ( and I haven't asked ), this is because they sometimes do intercepts and cable taps cross-border.
Well I feel that they will become more involved in infowars because the SFs have a unique perspective of what goes on at the theater. They could, for example, infiltrate a closed computer network by going there, finding a way to hack into it, and install a honeyweb. Or they can install a sattelite uplink. I know I make them sound like spies, but Donald Rumsfeld wants to use them as such.