23rd

Army ends pay for WWII Alaska militia vets

January 2009

Rachel D’Oro of the Associated Press writes from Anchorage, Alaska,

The Army has decided to cut off retirement pay for veterans of a largely Native militia formed to guard the territory of Alaska from the threat of Japanese attack during World War II.

The change means 26 surviving members of the Alaska Territorial Guard — most in their 80s and long retired — will lose as much as $557 in monthly retirement pay, a state veterans’ officer said Thursday. The payments end Feb. 1.

Full story here. 

What do you think?  Should the U.S. Army reverse its decision?  Why or why not?

If you are interested in joining the Facebook group “Pay the Alaskan Territorial Guard”click here.


«
»


Posted by Jim Dolbow in Uncategorized
Tags:
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Byron

    Yup. If you make an agreement, stick to it. The next time you ask someone to do something they might tell you to stick it where the sun don’t shine.

  • Bill

    I am astonished almost beyond words. Almost. So..some bright bulb in an Army bean counting office actually had the authority to eliminate what could never cost more than 1.7 million dollars for the ‘life’ of the payouts..and had the authority and acumen required to balance that cost against the damage that such an incredibly callous action will have on the image of the defense department should it come to light??? The Army throws that much money away daily at any number of bases across these United States in disposing of ‘surplus’ expensive spare parts. Argh.

  • Bill

    I should have couched that better. The guy faced with making that decision might have had little lattitude…sigh.

  • SSG Jeff (USAR)

    Since apparently the Congressional intent was unclear, it’s up to Congress to clear it up.

  • http://xbradtc.wordpress.com XBradTC

    Dumb. Incredibly dumb. Maybe Congress’s intent wasn’t clear, but apparently it was clear enough for the Army to begin paying. Once started, it’s hard to pull back from that without appearing callous. I’m all for saving money, and sometimes feel veterans have too much of a sense of entitlement for the privilege of serving, but in an all volunteer force, it’s never a good idea to go out of your way to look like a bad employer. Or to be a soldier who can’t be bothered to care for your troops.

  • http://www.jimdolbow.blogspot.com Jim Dolbow

    thanks for commenting all! As a former congressional staffer, I get peeved when unelected bean counters and their hordes of lawyers pull stunts like this hiding under the umbrella of congressional intent.

  • Josh

    I’m trying to find more about this story, but there isn’t much. I’m wondering if this accounting measure is to stop paying national guard service in the future due to Bush’s two wars and the massive amounts of National Guard that have been summoned to fight these pointless and ridiculous wars. If all the Nat. Guard have to be pensioned, it really would deeply impact the military budget in the future. I’m not saying I disagree with taking care of them, but the people who hate Obama weren’t complaining that Bush and Cheney sent our men and women to Iraq

Subscribe

Get blog posts delivered to your inbox
* = required field

video title


© 2008 - 2013 U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE
Contact: blog@usni.org
Powered By Unleashed Technologies