What Price a Dedicated Military?

Here in the Trenches, we handle a fair number of divorces for members of our Armed Forces.  Sometimes we represent the servicemember, and sometimes their spouse.  For these families, sometimes the only asset they have of any value is the military pension.  Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about whether that pension should be divided upon divorce (I think it should, and I know that can be a controversial position). That's not what this post is about.  There is a move afoot to abolish the military pension as we know it in favor of a defined contribution type of plan (that's a plan like a 401k or IRA).  This would be a cost saving measure for the military, and it would provide for those individuals who do not stay in the military until retirement some retirement savings for their military service.  It's an interesting debate.  On the one hand, the reason our military personnel are paid less than the general public, like our federal government civil servants, is that they have a pension waiting for them at the end of their 20 years.  That way, while these folks are still relatively young, they can collect a pension that supplements the lesser earnings they will command coming into the civilian workforce for the first time.  It also ensures our military retains experienced soldiers by shackling them with golden handcuffs.  Without that pension, most enlisted personnel, at least, wouldn't stay in the military for their full 20 years.  On the other hand, there are a lot of soldiers, who for whatever reason, don't stay in the full 20 years.  As the system is now, they get nothing toward retirement for their service, and for the most part, they don't earn enough to put anything aside on their own.  Is that really fair, considering everyone else, including civil servants, have some form of retirement savings, especially as they risk their lives to keep us safe?  We'll be following this debate carefully here in the Trenches.