Troops in Iraq Face Pay Cut

EDWARD EPSTEIN / SF Chronicle 14aug03

Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster

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.

[ See Below: Pay Cut Plan Outrages Bay Area Relatives ]

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

Pay Cut Plan Outrages Bay Area Relatives

CHARLIE GOODYEAR, MEREDITH MAY, JIM HERRON ZAMORA / SF Chronicle 14aug03

Military families reacted angrily Wednesday to news that pay for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan could be cut as soon as October.

"It's a slap in the face to those putting their lives on the line to protect this country," said Terry Godchaux of Antioch, whose 21-year-old son, Kevin, is a Marine recently transferred from the Persian Gulf to the Philippines. "This is going to hurt morale and really hurt those families trying to make ends meet."

His comments were typical of military family members reached by The Chronicle on Wednesday.

Cookie Tillman of Concord, whose 23-year-old son is a Marine now in Kuwait, was stunned by the news of the pay cut.

"I can't believe this," Tillman said. "I think this is ridiculous. They have a price on their heads over there. There's danger just to be over there in harm's way. It's just flooring me. It's very upsetting."

At issue is a pay hike approved in April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances." It was approved by Congress in recognition of the dangers troops face in Afghanistan and Iraq, where service members are being killed at the rate of about one each day since major combat operations were declared over. It is due to expire next month unless renewed by Congress.

In trying to eliminate the extra pay, the Pentagon says it is costing the Defense Department $25 million a month. Now, unless Congress acts before Oct. 1, the extra pay will be cut. Advocates for troops said they should be paid more, not less.

"I'm appalled the government would do this to troops—while they are in the field," said Dotty Selmeczki of Castro Valley, whose son is a Marine corporal just returned from Iraq. "That is ridiculous. They are in imminent danger, and they don't make any money to begin with."

Her son had to buy his own camouflage paint, underwear, socks and many other miscellaneous items that were not issued by the Marines, said Selmeczki.

"My son had to pay nearly $1,000 to get the items he needed to go overseas - - he put it on my Visa card," she said Wednesday night. "Most of our troops—especially those with families—are already near poverty level."

Maj. General Paul Monroe, head of the California National Guard, said it doesn't make sense.

"Someone probably looked at this and figured it would save a lot of money," he said. "But sometimes it's not worth the cost of the grief caused to the soldiers and their families."

News of the pay cut comes as U.S. officials acknowledge that troops in Iraq will most likely serve there a year before being rotated out.

"I know the war is costing our nation a lot of money, and they need to do something," Monroe said. "But for these people in Iraq there's no end in sight, and we're asking them to do an awful lot, especially the ones from the National Guard. These people leave higher-paying jobs, and now we are going to take what little we pay from them? That doesn't make sense.

"We are concerned in the National Guard because people join the Guard voluntarily," he added. "We'd like to keep them in, but policies like this will push them out."