Things have changed dramatically since tax breaks and incentives were granted to soldiers in a war zone. They receive extra pay, plus all of the money they earn in a war zone is tax-free. Decades ago, the military fought the wars. They cooked their own food, fixed their own vehicles, constructed the buildings and bridges and fought the war as well. They did, and still do, jobs the majority of Americans shun.

Things have changed. With the intent of making it look like the military is smaller, jobs have been civilianized and/or contracted out. Today, soldiers still fight the wars in most cases, but a large part of the support work is done by civilians.

There are three types of support civilians in a war zone: local hirees, contractors and government civilians. Local hirees are the direct beneficiaries of our presence in the war zone. Contract workers in a war zone are paid several times over what their services are worth in the States because of the conditions, and if they meet certain criteria a large portion of their income is tax-free. Government civilians, like their military counterparts, receive additional "danger pay" while in a war zone, but unlike their military counterpart must pay taxes on all of the monies they earn. There is clearly inequity in this system.

As a government civilian worker, to get my present job, I have signed a "mobility clause," which means the government can send me (and, by the way, is sending me) to Iraq, or wherever they feel my services are needed. I sent an e-mail to our three congressmen about this; none has responded.

This inequity clearly needs to be remedied. Equal risk and obligation should receive equal treatment.

John M. Orr, Evans