"US Troops in Iraq Face Pay Cut"

Pentagon Says Tough Duty Bonuses are Budget-Buster

Edward Epstein, San Francisco Chronicle, August 14, 2003

Washington -- The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S.
troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style
attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.

Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress
returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the
9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of
$75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family
separation allowances."

The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't
sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the
proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and
veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army
Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families
that is seldom so outspoken.

Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002,
but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30
unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense
appropriations legislation.

Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force
members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The
family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay
rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, was
raised from $100 a month to $250.

Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report
saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing
about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In
its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending
congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended
returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military
experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months.

WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE

A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's
view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report.

Military families have started hearing about the looming pay
reductions, and many aren't happy.

They say duty in Iraq is dangerous -- 60 Americans have died in
combat- related incidents since President Bush declared an end to
major combat operations in Iraq on May 1. Another 69 have been killed
by disease, the heat or in accidents.

"Every person they see is a threat. They have no idea who is an enemy
or who is a friend," said Larry Syverson, 54, of Richmond, Va., whose
two sons, Brandon, 31, and Bryce, 25, are serving in Iraq. Syverson
appeared with other military families at a Washington, D.C., news
conference to publicize efforts to bring the troops home.

"You can get shot in the head when you go to buy a Coke," added
Syverson, referring to an incident at a Baghdad University cafeteria
on July 6 when an Army sergeant was shot and killed after buying a
soda.

AFRAID FOR HER SON

Susan Schuman of Shelburne Falls, Mass., said her son, Army National
Guard Sgt. Justin Schuman, had told her "it's really scary" serving
in Samarra, a town about 20 miles from Saddam Hussein's ancestral
hometown of Tikrit.

Schuman, who like Syverson has become active in a group of military
families that want service personnel pulled out of Iraq, said the pay
cut possibility didn't surprise her.

"It's all part of the lie of the Bush administration, that they say
they support our troops," she said.

It's rare for the independent Army Times, which is distributed widely
among Army personnel, to blast the Pentagon, the White House and the
Congress. But in this instance, the paper has said in recent
editorials that Congress was wrong to make the pay raises temporary,
and the Pentagon is wrong to call for a rollback.

"The bottom line: If the Bush administration felt in April that
conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan warranted increases in danger pay
and family separation allowances, it cannot plausibly argue that the
higher rates are not still warranted today," the paper said in an
editorial in its current edition.

On Capitol Hill, members say the issue will be taken up quickly after
the summer recess when a conference committee meets to negotiate
conflicting versions of the $369 billion defense appropriations bill.

"You can't put a price tag on their service and sacrifice, but one of
the priorities of this bill has got to be ensuring our servicemen and
women in imminent danger are compensated for it," said Rep. Ellen
Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Armed Services
Committee.

"Since President Bush declared 'mission accomplished' on May 1, 126
American soldiers have died in Iraq, and we are losing more every
day," Tauscher said. "If that's not imminent danger, I don't know
what is."

The Senate bill calls for making permanent the increases in combat
pay -- the first in more than a decade -- for service in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The House wants to pay more for service in those two
countries than for such duties as peacekeeping in the Balkans. With
the money saved, the House wants to increase the size of the active
military by 6,200 troops.

What won't be clear until Congress returns is whether the Pentagon
will lobby against keeping the increase.

The Pentagon reiterated Wednesday that its goal was for service
personnel to rotate out of Iraq after a maximum of a year in that
country. Units of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which played a
major role in last March's invasion, have already come home.

By the numbers

U.S. troops in Iraq: 148,000

U.S. troops in Afghanistan: 9,000

Imminent danger pay: $225 per month, but is scheduled to drop to $150 a month

Family separation allowances: $250 per month, but scheduled to drop
to $100 per month