In this time of difficult recruiting, it stills is interesting that the US Army and the Department of Defense for that matter would do the opposite as far as resource management. Last year I asked the INSCOM SGM a serious question. "With the shortage of intelligence analyst within the National Intelligence Services, why do we as a military force then place trained analysts in non-MI roles and then hire a civilian to do the same job and pay that person 3 times the pay to do less than the Soldier?"

My response: "Whether you are MI or Infantry you are a Soldier and you go where the Army needs you."

Sounds great on paper but lacks creditability in real life. I have seen a increase of civilian contractors and DACs used for this case in the MI role and actual trained and experienced MI NCOs given non-MI missions and tasked that leave them out of the loop for several months. I think that if anything we need to look at creating a new MOS entitled TS/SCI approved S1 PAC/Admin Clerk because only a small portion of the MI branch actuallys does MI work.

The US Army is cranking out up to 7000 to 9000 additional MI analysts. Reason is not because we have such a huge increase of unread intelligence but we are losing thousands and thousands of MI Soldiers a year to the contractor's world. Hard to sell the Army to a Soldier who has spent the last 4 years doing S1 duties and getting the short end of the stick. Then wave a 6 digit pay scale, weekends off, home by 4pm and potential bonus plan??

I see even E7s who would be fast trackers decide to leave the service. It is hard to keep the young ones in. The guys already past 10 years may stay but that is now even a 50 to 50 chance.

What is the status among the other MOS out there? Give me a SITREP.

I could be wrong....if so I will always admit I made a error in judgement. But I asked all of my younger Soldiers who I have in my section (we do actual intel work) and they are all getting out. Not because of poor leadership but they want a bigger paycheck, less deployments, stablization, and a chance to settle in one spot more than 3 years. I think after the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan the US military will be in a reassessment and revamping process.

I'm not sure about this specific situation but:
Generally speaking, it costs the Army less to hire civilians than to keep soldiers. Yes this is counterintuitive given that the Army "Pays civilians 3 times as much to do less work" (something I've often heard but never seen evidence of). The Army does not have to train, house, feed and cloth civilians. When a civilian can do a soldier's job, it's more economical to use the civilian.

Good point, I have seen contractors working for the US Army paid a considerable sum of money both while serving on a CONUS and OCONUS status. I agree in part with the cost of insurance, benefits, and food, but I think the military as a whole needs to re-foucs on hiring civilians to do the jobs of Soldiers and hire the civilians to do more of the "paper-pushing" and other jobs that Soldiers get sucked into. But it was a good point thanks for your response.