Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

Respect pets

Recently, I had the opportunity to move up in family housing, but before I could move, I had to have my house inspected and the housing office had to verify I could pay for it.

I also had to pay a $250-per-pet deposit. That got me thinking how much we pet lovers are restricted when it comes to owning and caring for our pets.

Airmen in base housing are limited in the number of furry friends they can have; for most bases it’s two. However, if my wife and I were willing, we could have as many children as we wished.

I am not looking to open a zoo but another dog or cat is not going to ruin my house.

Next, if I wish to have a pet in my home, most bases require a deposit. I have no issue with this, as long as couples with children have to make a deposit as well. My animals are going to shed. Most modern vacuums pick that up. However, children can break windows, put holes in walls. The list goes on and on.

Are couples with children expected to pay a deposit for potential damage? The answer is no.

To make a permanent change of station, I would have to do a few things to prepare my pets for the move, most of them vital to their survival. The base vet would have to check them out and ensure they would be able to travel. This can be complicated if your PCS is from the continental U.S. to overseas or vice versa. Then there is the flight itself, which can be quite costly and difficult to plan for. In order to keep my cats with me, I had to pay around $2,000 to ship them from my prior base in England, to Kirtland, N.M., and that does not include shots, excessive baggage fees or a hand carrier — since the plane’s storage compartment was too small for two animals. The military did not pay for any of this, nor did it offer helpful advice about what items to purchase, such as a small carrier for one of the cats.

In contrast, the military ensures your children are healthy, covered by Tricare. It pays for their flight, and ensures you know about your next base’s schools, hospitals and other relevant information.

It is time for the military to modernize its views toward pets and how to better assist pet moms and dads around the world to care and pay for them.

Staff Sgt. Dustin Miller

Albuquerque, N.M.

Wife speaks out

I disagree with much of what Laura Dempsey says in “The military vs. marriages” [Different Views, March 3].

After reading the full column in The Washington Post, I have to wonder where she is getting her information. Many large universities already grant in-state tuition to military spouses. I entered the University of Wisconsin as a senior, and it granted me in-state status and accepted all of the credits I needed to remain a senior.

Having transferred schools a few times even before I became a military wife, I know it often takes diligence and tenacity to get credits transferred. Also, it is not the government’s job to legislate child care options. As an attorney, Dempsey should be aware that there is no constitutional authority for such an action.

Military wives should be working together at local levels to establish a military family friendly environment. It’s time to grab our own bootstraps.

Anna Baker

Okinawa, Japan

Ad sends wrong message

To my eyes, the full-page Air Force ad I saw in The New York Times presents a fear-based political message that amounts to propaganda, and as such is not what the U.S. military should be doing at taxpayer expense.

The Senate Armed Services Committee should look into it.

I am not anti-military. My father worked in long-range planning at the Pentagon. But the role of the armed forces in our democratic society and government is clearly circumscribed for good reasons. This kind of advertising damages the integrity and credibility of the Air Force and the armed services in general.

Richard Barber

Brooklyn, N.Y.

On Soviet WWII fighters

Fred Borch and Robert Dorr’s article on the Soviet Yak 9 fighter of World War II [“Soviet WWII fighter Yak-9 had last hurrah in Korea,” Transitions, Feb. 25] implies that it was the best Soviet fighter of the war. However, it was outclassed in most performance categories by the Lavochkin La-7.

Produced relatively late in the war, the La-7 had a higher top speed, 425 mph vs. 417 for the Yak 9, a faster rate of climb, 3,608 feet per minute vs. 3,280 for the Yak 9, and a higher power-to-weight ratio, 0.25 hp/pound for the La-7 vs. 0.21 hp/pound for the Yak 9.

The La-7 also had heavier armaments — two 20mm ShVak or three 20mm Berezin cannons compared with one 20mm ShVak and one UBS 12.7mm machine gun for the Yak. The La-7 also had a longer range than the Yak, except for the Yak-9D, which had a range of 845 miles.

Many Soviet pilots considered the La-7 to be the most maneuverable Soviet fighter of the war. Because of its sturdy construction and air-cooled radial engine, the La-7 had an enormous ability to take battle damage and continue flying. The only category where the Yak 9 was consistently superior to the La-7 was that its service ceiling of 35,000 feet was higher than the 31,160-foot ceiling of the La-7. It should also be noted that Ivan N. Kozhedub, the top-scoring Soviet and allied ace of the war claimed most of his 62 confirmed victories in an La-7.

Maj. Albert M. Carter (ret.)

Greensboro, N.C.

Tricare burden is light

Ralf W. Zimmermann claims that the task force co-chaired by Gen. John D.W. Corley and Gail R. Wilensky “unleashed demands for drastic Tricare fee increases for military retirees” [“Undue burden,” Back Talk, Feb. 25]. He states “the most dramatic increases” would result in a quadrupling of Tricare fees to $1,750 annually for military families earning more than $40,000 annually by 2012.

At today’s pay scales only an O-5 retiree with more than 20 years of service or an E-9 retiree with more than 38 years would be earning at or above the $40,000 threshold. This hardly affects the vast majority of the retired force.

Zimmerman also fails to inform his readers that Tricare fees have basically remained unchanged since 1995, when Tricare was launched. He further failed to note that health care costs have increased by an average of 8 percent or more each year and, at current projections, almost half of the Defense Department’s health care costs will be for retirees.

Isn’t our first priority to provide the absolute best care for our active-duty force and then, and only then, to provide the best care for our retirees and veterans?

The military I remember believes in fairness and carrying a fair share of the load. When I retire from my second career, unless I elect Tricare, my health care costs under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program will be approximately $3,000 to $3,600 annually. Somehow $1,200 to $1,750 annually, not today, but four years from now, doesn’t seem like an undue burden.

Chief Master Sgt. Paul D. Bocconcelli (ret.)

Peoria, Ariz.