For more details, put "military pay scale" in Google.

Actually, I did and posted the link here.

Know what I found?

That the lower ranks are earning wages that put them below the poverty level.
Many of our soldiers below the rank of Sargeant would qualify for food stamps,
free school lunches, etc.

I also found "typical" BAQ and uniform allowances closer to $600-800 per month
than the $1400 (probably extreme) example you offered.

And check this out: The US Army Chief of Staff earns under $160,000 a year.
Average pay for a CEO running a private corporation even half as complex as the
US Army is almost $1 million a month.

Tough to keep the best and the brightest in the service with that kind of
disparity.
The USACOS should be earning more money than a moderately successful yacht
broker or real estate salesman.

We should increase military pay. These people work for all of us, doing a
dangerous and important job. They should earn at least as much as their
counterparts do in other government jobs with equal responsibilty, and rather
obviously they do not.

My son will be teaching 8th Grade this fall,
with a beginning pay scale (for a new teacher with a master's degree plus a
certain number of credits) about equal to a beginning Major in the Army. No way
is his responsibility as high as an Army Major.
How could you possibly argue that the military is adequately compensated?
It seems inconsistent somehow.

Is it your position that all other wages should be reduced to the point where
military pay is comparatively attractive?

It would seem reasonable that if the pay were better, we would not be so short
of manpower. As the economy oh-so-slowly improves, (and it is), it will become
ever more difficult to find guys and gals willing to get shot at in hot, desert
climates for $1000 (plus a little) per month.