Update: Obama has changed the rules again on combat pay for US forces!


Commentary by Jim Campbell

Apparently being mortally wounded or severely injured isn’t considered being shot at, so says Obama who has never served our country in combat. It is now quite clear that if a decision is to be made Obama will make the wrong one.  What decision has he made that has been right for “our” country?  (emphasis on our not his!)

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I’m constantly in a combat zone…it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense…come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here… Marine from Florida (We are not posting his name for obvious reasons)

According to Military.com, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 1540-7 Sec 616) as of February 1, 2012, this new measure went into effect, and soldiers who are to receive the additional $225/mo. combat pay ‘must’ be in immediate risk of harm. The measure is very specific in its criteria for receiving the additonal pay.

The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.

A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:

  • Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
  • On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
  • Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or
  • On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.
The last bullet point speaks volumes as to the sheer stupidity of this measure. The whole point of going to Afghanistan and Iraq was for combat operations- Afghanistan still is a hostile warzone, and both U.S. and NATO forces continue to suffer losses in and out of combat hot zones. Insurgent attacks have accured throughout areas that have been deemed ‘safe’, and in areas where hostilities were not forseen.
Share this post below.

11 responses to “Update: Obama has changed the rules again on combat pay for US forces!

  1. I find it “odd” that obama is screwing with the military (cuts and this b.s. pay change) when Iran is making nukes and threatening to block the oil in the Straits of Hormuz! Who needs enemies when we have obama and his administration?

  2. The way this country treats our active duty military and its veterans is friggin lunacy. The strongest country in the world treats its military and veterans worse than any other country in the world. Why is Obama messing with military pay? Oh, I forgot, we can’t afford it. How about cutting back on Congressional pay and benefits and that of his administration then? Oh no, the elite are above such cuts!

  3. hipshotpercusion

    Maybe O-Bozo and The First Wookie should stay home and eat “Hamburger Helper” instead of living like Royalty.

  4. They are in a hostile area just being in Afghanistan wo everyone there should get that $225 in extra pay for what they are doing.

  5. I am pretty sure I will get blasted for saying this. That’s okay…I will still NOT change my mind.
    WE need to change who can run for President in the future. No one will be able to run for President UNLESS they have served in the Military.

    People, we have been at war for how long? Do you see that changing in the next 20 years? How can a Commander In Chief feel confident in being the “high dog” on the totem poll to direct what the Military can and cannot do if he/she has never had that experience under their belts?

  6. Regina McGlashen

    Upaces, While that is a great idea, there are many that experience may be a plus, but not a absolute requirement to measure up to effectively commanding military operations and logistics. I mean if no one has ever been president of the US before, how can they handle that? It is all in the wilingness , intelligence, ability and comprehension of the task at hand that makes a formidable representative or spokesperson. Just like the president has advisors, there are military advisors also, but if a president wants to override that on his own say so, a military background means nothing.
    I certainly do agree that a basic knowledge of the human experience counts mightily, but many presidents have never been poor, and there are millions of poor or sub standard wage earners in this country that vote.

    • Thanks for giving me your honest opinion. Now, I will have to read your comment again, and probably again…since I have that stuck in my head. LOL…I will do it though. I will read your thoughts again…and get back to you.

    • “IF they’ve never been in politics?
      Obama never even had a lemonade stand as a kid — yet he wants to tell us how to get jobs as he makes more and more regulations. He never really had a job that wasn’t handed to him. In other words, he was NEVER awarded a job due to his resume (his girlfriend, The Moose, at the time “Got HIM the job.”)

      Anyone who has been in the Military understands a “chain of command”; meetings to resolve battle plans (which is by it’s format the same as attacking a problem– you sit in meetings and brainstorm (as in plan of attack). A President has his “advisers in every area of politics: financial, strategy; as well as those who help him and advise him in refining himself for his next meeting(s) whether they are heads of state from other countries; or meeting with other politicians. They give him a “heads up who is strong in which areas, and who is not.”

      Don’t you remember the first two years how many of his little helpers were jumping ship (quitting). He “refused” to take their advice — and that is what they were there for.

      It was only a thought…Just wanted to see what kind of feed-back I’d get.

  7. I feel the answer to this is send Obama to Iraq or Afganistan and let him stay and fight or just sit. Then decide who gets what. To demean the military this way if just unamerican and hateful. Of course, that is expected from the lame ass president anyway.

  8. As long as you are in a war zone whether in front or behind you get combat pay.

    • Ya know, Ralph, he plays these very very sick games. Back about 3-5 months ago, he had the Seniors scared to death due to SS. Then it blew over. Now he is doing the same thing to the vets.

      His Motive? Make people feel some kind of gratitude for changing it back to the way it is supposed to be? Just like the seniors, they WILL NOT forget this! He is “playing with their emotions, their fears…wait… he isn’t finished yet with his evil little games.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s