Should the military create a warrior class?

CPT (Join to see) So I'm curious, Captain. What do you say to the Naval Fire Controlman who can push a button -- just ONE Sailor, mind you -- and annihilate 300 infantrymen. Does THAT service member deserve respect? Where does the 'Queen of Battle' theory fall then?

Look, I have nothing but respect for anyone that puts on a uniform. I thank you for your service. My comment was a dig at that soldier whining about havin respect. You didn't pick up on it but, I'm sure he did.
As to your question directly, no, I do not consider a person who sits behind a computer screen and pushes a bottom that then fires off and travels miles before hitting its intended target a warrior in the same class as Infantrymen.
You sit behind that computer and never see nor personally experience the horrors of what you do. You face very little danger from the forces we are currently involved with. You sleep in a bunk and eat freshly cooked meals. You have access to clean clothes, water and don't really have to worry much about the oppressive heat or cold in your nice operations room you sit in. You don't have to train for hours on end on the intricacies of tactics or become an expert in the use of your weapons. Other than the technical training to push that little button and hpw to ensure you don't kill the wrong 300 Infantrymen, I doubt that you receive much training in the field of dismounted combat operations. You don't jump a rucksack that weighs half your body weight for miles on end while wearing 50lbs of personal protective gear up and down the hills and mountains of Afghanistan. You don't have to see your buddies laying on the ground in a pool of their own blood after being hit with an IED, or shot, or stabbed! So no, SN Greg White, I don't consider you one of the warrior class. I don't think less of you for it, but you are not one of us!

CPT (Join to see) - While my limited field training was sufficient to cause me to respect grunts, the truth is artillery fire historically kills far more enemy than grunts ever do. Add in the downpour of JDAMs and basically you grunts only kill a fraction of the enemy. So, while you already have the respect of everyone here, you over-play your hand IMHO like the grunt who started this thread, just not to the same degree. Oh, and let us not forget that pretty much all our grunts since Vietnam have served under a blanket of airborne protection so they generally don't have to worry about being bombed from the above, and have ready access to bombs dropped on anyone who tries to lob mortars on you for more than 5 minutes, so in that regard you face far less danger than your predecessors.

What's your definition of Combat Arms? Certainly our sailors have often faced direct danger on the high seas or loitering offshore to provide supporting fire, so are they not warriors? How about our pilots that circle the battle space with the constant threat that some grunt has a man pad and can blow them out of the sky at any moment? I could go on all day with examples of support people that face real danger every day to make sure you can make a call and get what you need, and they don't have the benefit necessarily of all the extra practice you get with close quarter combat when they face their moment of truth, are they not brave warriors? Yeah, I know what it is like to pack 100 lbs of gear for 20 miles up and down every hill in the immediate area when you weigh only 130 lbs. yourself, which makes one very fit, but that isn't the measure of a warrior.

I agree that there are many Combat Support and Combat Service Support Soldiers/Marines/Airmen that also face similar danger to Combat Arms counterparts. But, we define Combat Arms as those Military Occupational Specialties (MOS)that close with and destroy the enemy, and they traditionally are more likely to face those dangers to a greater degree. The asymmetric battlefield that we faced in Iraq, has changed the probability of facing hostile fire because all MOS now transit the same areas because the enemy is all around us, and there is no traditional front and rear lines.

Raising pay for CA troops would of course be welcome by them but would it help recruitment? I don't know. I suspect that it really wouldn't because no one I know ever joined for the paycheck. I would like to see it tried though.

They do get paid extra, it's called Combat Pay. There are plenty of guys who reenlist and volunteer to be deployed for that very reason. I know a Ranger who got out after two tours in Iraq and rejoined and redeployed because he was doing pretty well on the combat pay incentives he got when he was in Iraq.

Well said Gunny.