Improve public understanding of the necessary differences between civilian and military cultures and the many demands being placed on military personnel and their families; civilians and military leaders must make a greater effort in telling the military's story to the American people... From "American Military Culture in the Twenty-First Century," The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)

As I read Ms. Cindy William's opinion, "Our GIs Earn Enough," published in the January 12, 2000 The Washington Post, the above recommendation in the CSIS report came to mind. It is ironic that Ms. Williams cites that report as the springboard for a discussion of her naive view of military service and compensation. While I agree with Ms. Williams that the various pay "gaps" are the results of attempts to compare the incomparable, I must take the same stance regarding her attempts to draw parallels. As a former DoD employee, the daughter of a 30-year police veteran, and the wife of a man who has spent over 20 years on active duty in the U.S. armed forces--that they wear uniforms and put their lives on the line is where the similarity ends. If she actually understood the skills, responsibilities, and levels of accountability typical of the military personnel she compared with theoretical civilian cohorts, the error in Ms. Williams' analogies would be self-evident.

In her recommendation of decreased deployments, relaxed rules and improved working conditions, nowhere did Ms. Williams acknowledge the hallmark principal of our armed forces--readiness. Although the current peacekeeping involvement and its impact on personnel tempo should be critically analyzed, it is to ensure readiness that our troops deploy and train as frequently and intensely as they do; and to prepare so thoroughly for what is admittedly, often only a threat. To some this may seem irrational, as may many of the rules our military members live by. The gap in understanding cited by CSIS is only too real.

While Military Operations on Urban Terrain may represent an increasing share of the military theater, it is still doubtful that soldiers and marines will be grabbing a hot shower, a back rub, and a newspaper in their Marriott suite after a tough day of war. Even firefighters and police get to go home every night or so.

Nowhere in her idealistic discussion of military service and compensation did Ms. Williams even mention one of the chief sources of aggravation for nearly every servicemember and military family member-- frequent relocations. It is not atypical to hear a retiring GI or family member recount a relocation history that averages sometimes less than two years in a single place. Such moves are also made as directed by the "needs of the service."

Defense studies have only partially documented the significant financial impact these frequent relocations have on the military family. Eighty percent of military spouses are in the workforce (currently working or seeking employment); yet, DoD studies have shown that over a 20-year career, military spouses earn 25% less on average than their peers who marry civilians. Such losses are attributable to periodic unemployment and loss of promotion opportunities due to frequent relocation. Becoming vested in a retirement plan of any sort is particularly difficult. Their lack of longevity frequently precludes or at least limits spouses from benefiting from employer-contribution retirement funds due to enrollment waiting periods.

Unemployment among military spouses remains in the double digits, despite the lowest nationwide unemployment rate in over 26 years. Spouses of enlisted personnel are hardest hit. Military families bear the full financial burden of a spouse's unemployment; very few states allow military spouses to collect unemployment benefits when they are forced to give up their job due to the military member's transfer. As a result, no one-- not DoD, the Department of Labor, nor the states-- has a compelling financial incentive to address the spouse unemployment problem.

There are no federal laws to prevent employment discrimination against military spouses, and anecdotal information suggests widespread problems. State laws vary, yet in most states it is perfectly legal to refuse to hire job candidates because they are married to a member of the armed forces.

Mobility makes it difficult for spouses to continue their education, and thereby increase their job opportunities and earnings potential. Often, they must pay higher out-of-state tuition rates. And, insufficient time between receipt of relocation orders and the time of the move means that many find financial aid coffers exhausted when they arrive.

Status of Forces Agreements at overseas locations severely limit employment opportunities for spouses, and various regulations still limit self-employment options in U.S. locations and for those living in government quarters. Self-employed spouses must also bear the full cost of relocating their business, as regulations prohibit business equipment and inventory from being moved at government expense.

In comparing military salaries with the civilian sector, these are the aspects no one talks about. The long hours, lengthy separations from family, inherent dangers, and the personal and financial impact of frequent relocations on the military family all combine to help justify higher pay for those in the armed forces. I assure you that the military is the only occupation that is characterized by all these challenges-- and more.

If one believes that throwing more money at recruiting is the solution, they are mistaken. While glitzy ads and savvy recruiters may be able to bring in more GIs, that cannot sustain them when the demands of military service become evident; depressed retention statistics will prove out the shortsightness of that approach. Demographic projections for the next several decades suggest the difficulty in recruiting may only get worse. If not a focus on retention, the most likely strategy will be a relaxing of entry standards-- an illogical one in light of the increasing technical sophistication and complexity of emerging military systems. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"-- sage advice, particularly when one considers the value of training lost, when a servicemember opts not to re-enlist.

And, while all servicemembers do receive four weeks of paid vacation, "comprehensive healthcare," "discount groceries," and many other benefits are really only available to those who live near a major military installation; those in remote areas or at smaller installations receive a more limited medical benefit and often have no access to military commissaries and exchanges. The seemingly lucrative enlistment and reenlistment bonuses cited in Ms. Williams' article are only available to individuals with selected skills or commitments; and the long hours and frequent deployments of military service frequently negate the availability of tuition assistance programs. Other benefits, such as housing and subsidized childcare are in such short supply that many servicemembers spend more time on waiting lists, than they do actually receiving these benefits. It is perhaps these perceived inequities and the persistent "overselling" of benefits that adds to the already gloomy perception of military compensation equity.

The CSIS report makes it clear that compensation is but one piece of it-- but it is a factor nonetheless. Patriotism is perhaps the only sound principle that DoD can hope to leverage as it seeks to recruit and retain a ready force. But until Ms. Williams and others can recognize the significant role our military plays as they attempt to comprehend and embrace the underlying tenets of patriotism-- only then can we even hope America's youth will answer the call to duty.