posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
These are primarily Naval officers - those who want to somehow link this to "getting rid of officers who won't fire on Americans" is beyond a
stretch - if there were martial law, for example, I doubt the Navy would be playing a major part.
What this appears to be is the same thing I've seen in years past - military retirement benefits are pretty lucrative - 50% of pay at 20 years - so
very expensive. Someone that retires after 20 years can look forward to many years of benefits - which is expensive for the government to pay.
After the Gulf War, and Cold War drawdown, saw the very same thing happen. Sometimes it's political (the Clinton administration was notably
anti-military, so many upper-echelon soldiers who displeased the "Executives" paid the price), and sometimes economic.
Saw the same thing even during the Reagan administration - Reagan increased pay and benefits, and the manpower shortage of the late 70's-early 80's
disappeared - so, a lot of guys who were cruising towards their '20' suddenly found that they were too fat, or drank too much, or whatever, and
suddenly found they couldn't hang on until retirement - barred from re-enlistment, or sent back to Reserve status. But primarily, it's when troop
strength needs to be reduced - and often, the way they do it is disgraceful. And what seems to happen in the officer class is the actual combat
leaders are dismissed, and the political climbers and ass-kissers are retained.
It happens, and often, it's very unfair, and often political - but there's no conspiracy afoot.