Letters - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

OFFENSIVE VIDEO GAME

I had heard a lot of hype about the new “Call of Duty” game. I played it and was forced to shut it off after only four missions.

In act one, mission four, a CIA agent working undercover in a Russian terrorist organization, your mission is to conduct a terrorist attack, where you and your teammates open fire on unarmed civilians in an airport. It is not only wrong, but outright sickening.

This is in direct opposition to Army Values and should not be encouraged for soldiers.

Sgt. Tony M. Schmid

Fort Riley, Kan.

SYMPATHY EFFORTS FALL SHORT

Although Maj. Nidal Hasan is at Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, he is in effect, in pre-trial confinement, locked up. I find it hard to believe that he was stopped on his phone call from speaking with his brother, whether they were praying or just talking about life in general.

His lawyer is working, through the media, to build sympathy for the man charged with the murder of 13 American warriors. If Maj. Hasan was locked up in a Muslim country, do you think he’d even get a phone call, let alone a media-seeking lawyer/publicist fronting as a mouthpiece? He should thank his stars he survived.

Staff Sgt. D. Butler (ret.)

Shertz, Texas

KEEP EXPANDING NEW GI BILL

I am writing in response to the Army Times viewpoint “Don’t expand new GI Bill [Dec. 28].” I wholeheartedly disagree with the Army Times view, and I am quite surprised that the publication has taken this stance. There are many good things with the new Post-9/11 GI Bill, but the one thing legislators got wrong was the Transfer to Dependents portion. It is no wonder that many veterans are expressing great dismay and anger over the decision not to include them in the right to transfer benefits to family members.

Retirees and other veterans who have served their country with many years of service deserve to have this transfer right of their hard-earned benefits. As long as the obligation of service years required has been met, there is no reason why this should have not been included. Retirees served their country honorably for at least 20 years of their lives when very few others do. The explanation given is that this should only be a tool for retention is greatly misstated. Others will look at this and see how veterans and other retirees were slighted and look to expect the same at some point in their future careers. This is not the example the military wants to set. This is a slight that all soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines should be greatly concerned about.

Maj. Michael Consiglio (ret.)

Evans Mills, N.Y.

SEND SUICIDE CONDOLENCES

In regard to providing full honors for those who commit suicide, let us not kid ourselves. There is no honor in suicide. It is a tragic loss that curses those who survive and inflicts untold pain on the immediate family.

Suicide is a personal choice. The more that we wrap it in the flag and call it a legitimate response to personal pain, or blame it on others, the more people will become vulnerable to it.

A stigma actually helps to maintain a cultural taboo that prevents most people from resorting to the act when they are vulnerable. If you remove the cultural inhibition, you put others at risk. That is why suicide runs in families — members remove the barrier to make peace with the deceased loved one.

But families of those who kill themselves need and deserve help and understanding. The family should not be stigmatized. As such, it is appropriate for the president to send a letter of sympathy to a family of a military person who kills himself or herself.

The letter should not glamorize the person or blame the country for the act. Rather, it should say, “I care and I am sorry for your loss.”

Cmdr. William Payne

Camp Lejeune, N.C.

MENTOR GENS. A BARGAIN

The Army’s Senior Mentor Program has received a great deal of criticism. I contend that the program, far from being scandalous, is indispensable from an operational perspective.

The purpose of the Senior Mentor Program, which employs not only general officers but also retired field-grades and command sergeants major, is to advise the senior leadership of soon-to-deploy units during command post exercises.

I have personally seen one of these mentors in action during a CPX for a deploying brigade headquarters. His impact on the exercise was invaluable for the deploying unit’s senior leadership.

Most critics accept the value of the program. The problems they are vocal about are the pay and the potential conflict of interest.

Three hundred dollars an hour is a lot of money. I will not argue otherwise. But compared to what these officers with 30-plus years experience can make as corporate senior executives or board members, it’s not excessive.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others argue that these retired officers should take on the responsibility for training deploying commanders out of a sense of duty and patriotism. I agree, but as the average yearly wage of a Fortune 1000 board member is $850,000, I would argue that agreeing to train deploying commanders for less than a third of that amount displays considerable patriotism and a very well-developed sense of duty.

The conflict of interest concern is valid. However, there is no alternative to these retired general officers manning this program. No one else has the required skills and training. Government contracting violations are punishable by stiff fines and prison sentences. In the unlikely event a general officer defrauds the government, then he should be treated like any other crook. But saying that no retired general may do this job because someone, somewhere might break the rules makes no sense.

If there is anyone we as an Army want well-trained, it is the senior commanders who are responsible for translating the civilian leadership’s strategic goals for the country into the orders that govern soldiers’ daily lives and missions. The training these retired officers and command sergeants major provide is a bargain at three times the price. Instead of being embarrassed by this successful program, we should be defending it.

Maj. Marcus White

4th (Vanguard) Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division