As a veteran it must be pointed out that we have programs in place that "give education benefits" to our military. The Webb-Hagel GI Bill is about expanding benefits for those that have joined after 9/11 and have been serving in the military since that time.
Though the bill certainly has great merit it does not as you say "give" these benefits as many of us used or are using such benefits upon leaving voluntarily or being politely asked to leave by the mandates of the Clinton administration in the 90's ( we called it "downsizing" in those days). I find it also rather disheartening that our brethern who cut teeth in Somolia will not and would not be able to take advantage of the expanded benefits proposed in Webb-Hagel as well as its lack of provisions for transferability of benefits, something all military servicemen are in favor of, especially career enlisted.
I am a little discouraged if you read some of the military bloggers and apparent lack of real input given by current military in these discussions.
I know a bill cannot be all things to all people but apparently much of what active military would like to see is not within the provisions of Webb-Hagel. Thats not to say its a bad bill, on the contrary, but it may need to go further in addressing the real needs of our active duty armed services. many of us veterans support any increased benefit, thast simply human nature bron out of a sense of pride and honor for the military, but I do not think that this bill should be created as if going through some kind of labor union discussion. It needs real input by the those with boots on the ground and also from the family groups and wives of those serving overseas while they remain stateside. This could be historic "New Deal" stuff if its is crafted better in my view.  

is that those current educational benefits are no where near what a returning GI would have received in WWII.  A returning GI could attend pretty much any school in the country -- from a state school to an Ivy League school -- and have educational costs covered.  (Even post-Vietnam Webb was able to get a law degree from Georgetown -- these days a returning vet would be able to get a law degree from Georgetown and $150,000 worth of debt).

The current education benefit is much smaller than it once was because of the impact of inflation over the past several decades.

As far as Somalia vets go -- I can see a good argument for including those guys as well.  I don't have any hard numbers, but I suspect many of them were still in the service post 9/11.  The total numbers from the Somalia mission were about 5,000 from what I understand.

What provisions do you hear are missing from the current bill?  

Political timing of this debate aside, the issue of the educational benefit was determined to be for in-state public colleges only and not private. At least that is my understanding given the wording of the bill in the House. S.22 does not have a provision for the transfer of benefits to ones children or spouse which many in the military feel is virtually discriminatory against career enlisted. Why? Because there are programs for career enlisted to take college level courses while on duty in the military and pursue a degree while they remain in the military. There are certainly and unfortunately different structures of course for the offcier class and the enlisted.
For example, if a career, by this I mean someone serving 20 plus years for this arguement enters the military at say 20 and retires at age 40 and is retiring from the military, whether an officer or enlisted with retirement benefits, he/she cannot transfer the education benefit to anyone else.
There are many career military that are enlisted that are abpve the age of fifty. When they retire will they opt to go to college? Or would it be a better benefit to allow them the opportunity for their service to transfer that benefit to a child?
This is where the whole debate over retention comes in. Anyone who ever has been in the military knows that if you ever have sat with a recruiter the GI Bill is the biggest pitch they have for getting one to sign a contract of enlistment. Why not encourage people to remain in the military by allowing them to build that benefit over time for ones children. In my view, that is truly looking out for military families. What were are saying now is if your in your twenties we will reward your completion of your contract with the educational benefit without any regard for what it will cost to replace that soldier in the field.
There needs to be some compromise between the two plans being carried around Washington regarding the GI Bill.

My point about Somolia was simply to imply one does not have to have served during the War on Terror, which in my view the Democrats and Republicans signing onto this bill have provided a full admission as to such a war that a mere year ago they (mostly Dems)denied existed  to have provided great service to our country. Its as if Vietnam vets like Webb and McCain are providing a similar slap in the face Vietnam vets got by not allowing Somolia, Desert Storm, Panama or any other military deployment vets before 9/11. Was their potential sacrfice less than now post-911?

as far as transferability goes I could see some argument in favor of allowing this for career military.  

Although, as far as generals go, their children are already on an upper-upper middle class track thanks to parent's connections.  As far as mid-level officers go I see a clearer argument in favor of transferability of educational benefits.  

The retention argument that I have heard is an overblown concern.  Only 25% of the military force enters a career track under the current circumstances.  There isn't any evidence that I've seen which suggests the Webb-Hagel bill will cause more people to leave the force early.  In fact any loses will probably be off-set by improved recruitment numbers.

I see an argument for providing an additional benefit for the 75% who follow the call to military service, but who opt for a non-military careers long-term.  Especially given that a number of these people have served in combat.  Some of these soldiers can take online course now -- but a degree from a state university -- especially one of Virginia's top-flight state programs would provide a much better pathway up the economic ladder.  Given their commitments I don't see why this path should be closed.  I hear the retention argument, but I think this really seems to boil down to more of a question of the economic cost of a program.  Given that we're wasting $1 billion on an embassy in Iraq built by foreign contractors, I have a hard time understanding that there isn't a sufficient level of political will to support our own through the Webb-Hagel GI Bill.  

I think one aspect that we are underestimating in terms of the impact on retention is the current environment and conditions in the military. They are certainly overworked, overdeployed and underpaid. There is no comparison really between the military today and say fifteen years ago in terms of deployments, both regular and reserve forces. That environment coupled with the incentives of increased levels of benefits I think would have an influence on the retention levels. Its one thing to be serving our country, but its quite another for folks to be deployed countless times for long periods of time. I had fellow Marines stationed in Japan for four years and the biggest reason they got out was the fact that the were so far from family for so long a period of time and that was in peacetime. I can only imagine how these young men and women feel today.