I also find it hard to believe that the impact will be as high as predicted. Now I have much less experience than you to draw from and the Marine Corps is a much smaller branch than the Army, but in my gut I just don’t feel the losses will be nearly as rough as the White House and Pentagon are claiming.

In short, this might not the best possible option, it certainly doesn’t have the best timing, and it OBVIOUSLY should NOT be a part of an “emergency supplemental” bill since it is a long-term, far-reaching program, but I think the Webb bill is our best chance for improving our military.

The sad thing will be if the bill cannot overcome Bush’s veto and another year passes with no reforms made.

Snead, I’m not claiming that at all. I’m claiming that we won’t have the people to BECOME good NCOs. 16% is a LOT of turnover for an organization, much more so one that is involved in combat! Retention is vital to carrying over experience, good sense, and training!! Remember, the higher up you get the more the rank structure bottle-necks. If you’re losing 16% of your force, regardless of how many are new recruits, that’s even less to pick from to lead our military into the future.

And now you’re claiming too many good NCOs will be lost? You know one thing that makes a good NCO: commitment to their service. Good NCOs usually reenlist. Especially if they recognize all the other educational benefits offered to active servicemembers as you’ve outlined. So I’m not sure how you can claim all these “good” NCOs will just abandon their branches, but I’d love to hear more.