Letters - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

Pregnant soldiers don’t have it easy

In response to the letter by Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Lambert [Dec. 21]: Female soldiers do not get pregnant for extra uniforms or tennis shoes, and we do not get “months of convalescent leave.” Female soldiers get pregnant for the same reason as other women — because they want to have a child, because they have a birth control failure, because they want to.

Female soldiers are issued extra uniforms, but these uniforms are not ours to keep — and they cannot be worn except during pregnancy. We don’t get issued tennis shoes, but some women are allowed to wear them to prevent swelling.

The Army does not give female soldiers months of convalescent leave — it is six weeks. Soldiers may opt to take more leave if approved by their command, but the extra leave is ordinary leave. Female soldiers are exempt from the Army Physical Fitness Test standards for six months after giving birth, but this is to give them time to get back into shape after pregnancy and childbirth.

It is a recovery period It is necessary but not relaxing. It is hard work, and it does take time.

Sgt. 1st Class Danielle Hart

Fort Huachuca, Ariz.

‘NO’ TO OLD BOYS NETWORK

I was appalled to read the Nov. 30 report [“Military, industry pay high ranking ‘mentors’”] and similar reports in USA Today on Dec. 8 and 15. First, the Defense Department’s actions represent the unbridled arrogance of the “old boys network” run amuck, resulting in the loss of trust of the American taxpayer and the respect of the troops they have sworn to serve.

This war profiteering is made even more offensive by the Army spokesman’s justification that the arrangements were perfectly legal and “do not create any ... clever loopholes.” Values-based institutions do not base their decisions on legal technicalities and loopholes.

Furthermore, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the services are looking to guard against “conflicts of interest, or the perception of conflicts of interest.” By its nature, the mentoring program invites the perception of conflicts of interest at best and the actual conflict at worst.

The way to eliminate the conflict is to immediately terminate the mentoring program because the Defense Department cannot keep retired general and flag officers off the payroll of defense contractors.

Second, the hiring of retired general and flag officers as “mentors” represents the outsourcing of one of the most basic leadership obligations of the military profession, developing one’s subordinates.

Any active officer who would be “mentored” under the program has a rater and a senior rater whose job it is to mentor and develop that subordinate. If the rater and/or senior rater is either unable or unwilling to discharge this obligation to the subordinate, he should be relieved.

Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich (ret.)

Powell, Ohio

NEW HOOD FIREARMS POLICY

Someone needs to fire III Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Robert Cone for gross lack of intelligence and failure to have a clue. His new firearms policy at Fort Hood is nothing short of ridiculous and will do nothing to prevent more incidents like the one on Nov. 5.

Why aren’t soldiers, who are trained to handle weapons and trusted in time of conflict to carry weapons, allowed to arm themselves on post? Why aren’t properly trained civilian and military personnel who have state-certified Concealed Carry Permits allowed to defend themselves and their families? Why has General Cone created a policy that does nothing except create more paperwork for the lawful firearm owners?

Why does Gen. Cone still have a job?

Master Sgt. Claude A. Works (ret.)

Kathleen, Ga.

TO BLOG OR NOT TO BLOG

The military wants its leadership to understand and embrace the technology age, but it reprimands soldiers who want to voice their opinion.

In any organization, there are problems. Voicing your concerns is the only way to bring those problems to the forefront. The backlash to voicing your opinion could be a career-ender.

Maj. Janene Marshall

Leavenworth, Kan.

REVISE VFW ELIGIBILITY

Present-day Veterans of Foreign Wars posts are slowly dying.

This is because the restrictive requirements to becoming a VFW member prevent many Cold War veterans from joining. This is unfortunate because they also served their country.

Current rules mandate that a veteran must have received a campaign medal for overseas service, have served for at least 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days in South Korea, or have received hostile fire or imminent danger pay to join. This excludes tens of thousands of veterans who served during the Cold War at stations and posts all over the world. Some of the veterans fought in small skirmishes — not campaigns.

A lack of new members is resulting in the deterioration of many posts. There is no strong influx of young veterans to take over the organization’s reins. They are dissuaded by their perception of the VFW as an organization of old men drinking beer and telling old war stories.

Fixing this problem will require a big revision to the standards. They must be amended and revised. I, as a lifetime member of the VFW and as a retired Air Force master sergeant, would be glad to welcome all my fellow veteran brothers and sisters who have served and been honorably discharged, even if they don’t qualify for membership under current standards.

This would not degrade the VFW, but rather would help it stay healthy and grow into the future.

Air Force Master Sgt. William P. Johnson (ret.)

Waseca, Minn.

BRING BACK BDUs

Maybe I’m just old school, but what was wrong with battle dress uniforms? The military spends millions on a uniform that doesn’t work. If two uniforms are needed, we can easily get back to BDUs and teach the newer soldiers the importance of pride in their uniforms, but we could use the desert combat uniforms for the current operations in the Middle East.

Sgt. 1st Class Rudi Thomfohrde

Camp Bucca, Iraq