If they're unaffordable, then they're too generous, but the people willing to serve in this way deserve generous benefits. If they have to be cut, make the cuts as small as possible.

If they're unaffordable, they may have to be cut, but the people who serve in this way deserve a great deal of credit. Make any cuts as small as possible.

The need for economic austerity is understood but the DoD budget is so much more than pensions. Its also healthcare which can also kick in before the 20 year point due to service related disability amongst so many other related issues like procurement. However, while we are somewhat in a drawdown, we are also still fighting a couple of wars that we can ill afford to walk away from.

Typical bureaucratic and media word manipulation -- the terms in this article "half of salary" and "half of pay" are completely inaccurate! The actual term is 50 percent of BASIC PAY. This amount is actually about 60 percent of total salary/pay each service member receives. Not included are amounts for housing and other allowances that compose total salary/pay. So actually half of Basic Pay means about 30-35 percent of salary/pay. Without this accuracy in reporting facts comparably, an enlisted retirement does seem extremely generous; when it actually is anything but generous. This is especially true considering that military members can be moved on 24 hours notice anywhere in the world to face combat and separation from families who often must fend for themselves with reductions in income because of the forced separation and family hardships.

Taken in context, this retirement pay for the 80 percent of enlisted people who comprise the overall military force is anything BUT generous. C'mon veterans and military organizations, stand up and get the facts out to the American public who have no idea what the facts are beyond the misapplied terminology pundited by bureaucrats and unquestioningly swallowed and reported by the media without fact checking the terminology!