Letters - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

Honor the beret

An NCO recently made a valid point about the beret having a history of being worn with distinction by the most professional of soldiers. That will never be disputed. On the other hand, I believe that the distinction and professionalism take a hit because so many of today’s soldiers wear the beret improperly. The beret is either not shaven or shaped properly, the flash is not centered over the left eye, there’s too much material draped over the right ear because the beret is too large, the drawstring is often protruding from the back because it wasn’t cut and burned after the beret was fitted, or the beret is old, dirty and discolored. There are too many factors that play into the proper, professional wear of this headgear.

The patrol cap is a more convenient headgear choice. There’s very little shaping involved, and it’s supposed to be a wash-and-wear item, like the ACU blouse and trousers. The patrol cap also gives the ACU a more uniform look than the beret does.

In the past, the beret (be it maroon, green or black — when it was Ranger wear) was headgear that was earned. It was a rite of passage, not just another part of the uniform or an issue item. Soldiers took the time to properly shave/shape, wear and maintain the beret. It was a source of pride.

Yes, let’s honor the beret. Honor the beret by pairing it with the uniform it fits best — the uniform it would lend more distinction to — the Army Service Uniform.

Better yet, honor the beret by giving it back to its rightful owners, the Rangers.

— Sgt. 1st Class Terrence Griffin, Fort Huachuca, Ariz.

———

I truly do not understand the hate for the beret. When worn properly (that’s key since people can’t even wear the patrol cap properly), the beret presents a neat and professional appearance. I don’t see the airborne, Rangers or Special Forces complaining about it, so what is with the rest of the Army? We have a combat helmet that has less total area protection than the old one, a combat uniform that doesn’t blend with anything, a new combat uniform that’s better but won’t be fielded as standard issue, an assault rifle that’s older than dirt (and about as reliable), a new service uniform’s Class B variation that makes one look like a rent-a-cop, and people choose the beret to complain about.

I once overheard a British soldier in Kuwait (they wear berets even in combat zones as a matter of pride) say that Americans complain about the silliest things. I see what he meant now.

— Spc. James Sharpe, Baltimore, Md.

Camo: go simple

I think the current Army Combat Uniform/Universal Camouflage Pattern does not provide basic concealment for soldiers. Additionally, I do not believe MultiCam is the answer either and should be kept short term. MultiCam is expensive and proprietary, making it unattractive financially while offering only moderate improvement over the ACU/UCP.

It’s my opinion that soldiers will require two sets of uniforms, similar to the Marine Corps, designed for service in two distinct terrains, i.e. desert areas or those with barren or scrub-cover landscape, and terrain with ample green foliage. The science of camouflage has led us to employ multicolor, integrated, digital patterning versus solid-color patterning. I think returning to a generally more simplistic “three-zone” approach is worthy of consideration. An example: Our World War II Marine Corps jungle pattern and the famed woodland Battle Dress Uniform are still very effective. If they became less effective colorwise, why not make color-coded variants? Their patterning is effective. I believe the current digital print and color selections do not provide definitive colored patterns that yield adequate breakup.

— Former Spc. Michael J. Rossini, Randolph, Mass.

———

It would only make sense for the Army to revert to the Marine Corps’ camo uniforms. It would be more beneficial to the soldier because the uniform would be more accessible and less costly.

The Army could use the same supplier as the Marine Corps, which means more demand, and we all know that bulk normally equals less money.

— Former Staff Sgt. Brad Munn, Arlington, Texas

Combat exercises unneeded

In the article “PT test update” [July 12], statements were made that “the run needs to be more tactically relevant” and “if you have to run two miles in combat, there’s a huge problem with your air support.” In my opinion, exercises need not exactly mimic the military task to be performed.

A good score on the Army Physical Fitness Test will reflect a solid level of fitness, thus enabling the completion of many military tasks. For example, elite boxers will not run two miles in the ring, nor do push-ups and sit-ups in the ring, but they obviously use these exercises to build the strength, endurance and mental toughness to prepare themselves for their strenuous and demanding event. Just about every athlete uses these types of exercises to prepare to perform their specific events, just as we do.

— Sgt. 1st Class David Field, Los Alamitos, Calif.

The cannabis option

All three Veterans Affairs medical centers in Michigan now allow vet patients to use therapeutic cannabis. The directors of all three have stated in writing that it is acceptable for veteran patients to test positive for cannabis if they have the Michigan state legal permit to use it.

For almost 20 years, VA doctors have recommended the adjunct therapy of cannabis to myself, a disabled vet with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions, and I have been using it because it helps me cope with my situation. It is time for the VA to allow all vet patients to use therapeutic cannabis across the U.S.

The opposition to this is based on an irrational fear and ignorance of the effective medical uses. It is only for biased political reasons that it is not accepted at all VA medical centers in the U.S.

— Martin H. Chilcutt, Kalamazoo, Mich.

‘Family first,’ for everyone

As a soldier who has served with many gay soldiers in the past, I think it is everyone’s best interest that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy be changed. Of course you can try to get in-depth and say that it’s a “logistical nightmare” that may cause riffs between soldiers who work together, and that gays are asking for some sort of “special treatment.” What special treatment? To finally be allowed to be open about who they are, who they love and not fear losing their job over it?

Aren’t we taught as soldiers to work with people from all walks of life and that discrimination for any reason is intolerable? While all of this debate is going on, gay soldiers in committed relationships, their partners and their children are going without the benefits that they need and deserve. How nice it would be for them to receive the same benefits and entitlements for their children as married couples. How nice it would be for them to be able to take their families with them to organizational days and other family-oriented events.

Is this really too much to ask that they be allowed to let people they work with know that they are in a committed relationship, and that relationship just happens to be with someone of the same sex? What happened to family first?

— Sgt. Amy McCafferty, Puyallup, Wash.

Call sign ‘dustoff’

The small blurb in Army Times on the origins of “Dustoff” stated that two authors determined it was a name picked from a list of unused call signs [“Here’s Why,” July 19].

I believe the book by Jim G. Lucas, winner of the Pulitzer Prize, titled “Dateline: Vietnam” provides the true origin. “Dustoff” was the call sign of Maj. Charles Kelly. Maj. Kelly was a doctor who could also fly helicopters and pioneered the day or night, all-weather medevac flights at a time when there were no night-vision goggles or sophisticated navigation equipment.

The sound of his chopper and his call-sign “Dustoff” was a comfort to wounded soldiers.

I’m sure that, as in all wars, there are myths and legends. However, the first-person account by Jim Lucas should be told and added to the list.

— Chief Warrant Officer 2 Timothy Smith (ret.), Tacoma, Wash.