Letters - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

MULTICAM: IT’S ABOUT TIME

I am mystified and angered as to why the Army, for years, has ignored the obvious tactical value and effectiveness of the MultiCam pattern [“Camo change: Army to begin replacing digital in Afghanistan,” March 1].

Approval of MultiCam was needlessly delayed after numerous redundant field tests only confirmed what was known years ago: MultiCam performed far better than the Universal Camouflage Pattern in a wide range of real-world operating environments.

With the MultiCam to finally see widespread Army use in combat, I am happy that at times, sheer logic, real-world feedback from those with “boots-on-the-ground” and the overall situational reality can triumph over the red tape and bureaucracy.

— Sgt. 1st Class Alejandro Villalva, San Antonio, Texas

———

I am happy to see that common sense has finally prevailed and the UCP will be scrapped for our soldiers in Afghanistan. It is a good start. The next task is to get the pattern changed for our soldiers serving in the Philippines, Korea, Central and South America, Europe, and Iraq. The only thing universal about the UCP pattern has been that it is a universally bad camouflage pattern. This should not come as a surprise. If you make something to blend in everywhere, you just made something that blends in nowhere.

— Lt. Col. Jeremy L. Simmons, Alexandria, Va.

TAKE PRIDE IN THE ACU

I must say that I am a bit taken aback by the lack of pride being displayed in the reader responses to the article “Class A pride” in the Feb. 22 edition [“Class A pride: Troops call ACU ‘sloppy’”].

If soldiers think that Army Combat Uniforms are sloppy in appearance, they should take some pride in themselves and ensure they are sharp and not a ragbag. If they are in leadership positions, they should take charge and make some on-the-spot corrections to troops and get them straight.

Last time I checked, we are an Army at war. I do work in an office but do not spend my time “making PowerPoint presentations and preparing coffee” as one second lieutenant stated. I have deployed multiple times and dare anyone to tell me I am not a combat soldier — in my former MOS or current one.

The Pentagon and Beltway are a complete business setting and should be treated as such. Making a blanket decision that all office personnel will wear Class A’s at all times is a knee-jerk reaction.

— Maj. Michael P. Frank, Fort Greely, Alaska

OVERBLOWN HEADLINE

Your cover tease [in the March 8 issue], with Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey’s picture and the words “Chief vs. Obama” in the upper right-hand corner is damaging on several fronts. First off, to suggest this figurative confrontation using a Journalism 101 tactic, between Gen. Casey and the president of the U.S. is irresponsible. Second, I don’t think this “hook” to the story inside on page 21 bears any relationship to what was actually discussed in the narrative.

The main point is that the chief, as well as his fellow service chiefs, did not think any suspension of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy while the issue was studied was a prudent move, or to paraphrase his words, how can you act to implement a “freeze” and study its implementation at the same time? So where is the suggested confrontation with our commander in chief?

— Brig. Gen. Lewis M. Boone, Chief of Public Affairs, U.S. Army, The Pentagon

RULES APPLY TO ALL

Recently I have been reading the articles on the military’s review of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy [“Mullen: Dropping ‘don’t ask’ is ‘the right thing to do,’” Feb. 15]. I’ve read complaints from soldiers wondering what will happen if a gay soldier hits on them or they are harassed by one of their superiors who is gay. But don’t we have the same questions about those of opposite sex?

The Army has rules and regulations for conduct between members of the opposite sex meant to protect them from unwanted advances, harassment and invasion of privacy. These can be applied to conduct between same-sex soldiers as well.

It is foolish to believe that gay members are not already serving right next to us now, and it seems not to be much of a problem. Gay soldiers will still have to follow the same regulations as straight soldiers. So, if soldiers do their job and act professionally, why does it matter if they are gay or straight?

— Cadet Alan Siegle, West Point, N.Y.

SOLDIERS SHOULD DEPLOY

I would like to say I wholeheartedly disagree with the author of “Judge the ‘whole soldier’” [Letters, Feb. 15].

The author said soldiers who have deployed should not get preferential treatment when it comes to promotions, and soldiers who have not should not be automatically overlooked. The last time I checked, the entire objective of the Army was to train soldiers to fight wars here and abroad. So if you have not deployed, how can you say you truly are a soldier?

We all know, though some of us like to think it does not happen, that many soldiers who have not deployed have not done so because they have purposely avoided it. But some have hidden out in Training and Doctrine Command, had problems with their family care plans or come up with sudden mental issues. Do you want to tell me that these people deserve a promotion? I do not care what your PT score or your Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report or counseling statements say in garrison. The only true test of a soldier is how he performs in theater.

— Staff Sgt. Jamie McCroy, Olympia, Wash.

FLY THE FLAG IN HAITI

American flags are not being flown in Haiti? That is criminal [“U.S. flags not flying in Haiti,” March 8]. If other countries or organizations choose not to fly their flags, that is their choice. We’re America. We’re there to help.

If Haiti neither wants nor needs our help, fine, let’s leave. Americans should proudly fly their flag.

— Chief Warrant Officer 3 Ray Lane Aldrich (ret.), Warrenton, Va.