Letters - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

A veggie dilemma

There cannot be just one soldier in the ranks who embraces the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle. The Army limits soldiers who decide to embrace such a lifestyle to a meat- and preservative-plagued smorgasbord of entrees.

Vegetarian soldiers do not have “veggie” accommodations readily available to them in garrison or in deployed environments.

Even if there is just one vegetarian/vegan soldier to every 1,000 meat-eaters, the chow hall could provide a few entrees to accommodate these soldiers. Many soldiers have a jaded opinion of their vegetarian/vegan counterparts, and criticize them based on the humane choice they have maturely made.

Entering a typical Army chow hall, you can usually expect to find the same variety of food. Yes, the cooks make nutritious food, but offer limited variety for the few who have eliminated meat and animal products from their diet.

Soldiers who embrace this dietary lifestyle succumb to eating the same bland variants of vegetables, horribly cooked white rice, beans and other assortments of meat-free choices, day in and day out, that have been cooked in animal byproduct. Most soldiers who are deployed cannot even obtain the essential veggie products their body needs to stay strong and alert.

Though our 21st-century Army is not based on individualism, sometimes the Army needs to give a little.

I mean, the Army recognizes “jedi” as a faith — why not help out the meat objectors?

— Pvt. Corey Zupka, Orlando, Fla.

Bring back the M1

During my past years in uniform, I trained with the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M14 and M16. The Army even threw in the AK-47 to be familiar with Soviet weapons. Two different mechanical categories were represented. One proved more reliable than the other.

The Garand carbine, M14 and AK-47 are the gas piston type and proved to be completely reliable under almost all hazards.

The M16, from its inception, was a problem because of its gas-bolt face system. Today’s troops find it still jams. Some feel it’s politics that put it in and politics that keep it in now. As the cliché goes, “Why reinvent the wheel?”

Possibly one of the most reliable shoulder weapons has proven to be the AK-47. Israel removed the rear sight from the barrel and placed it eight inches to the rear. The improved sight radius eliminates the inaccuracy complaint of the AK-47.

— Former Staff Sgt. James Abell, Manvel, Texas

Pregnancy is no excuse

I am writing in response to the “Charge or Discharge?” article [Nov. 30], in which I saw an opinion from the field.

A sergeant first class made a comment that it wasn’t easy to deploy and leave your child in someone’s care. I will agree it is tougher for a single parent facing a deployment, but the fact of matter is this: You know what you’re doing when you sign the paperwork, and no one is immune from deployment.

If you refuse to honor the commitment that you swore to honor, there is no “charge or discharge” about it, you are to be held accountable for your actions.

I am fairly sure her unit was given more than enough notice about the upcoming deployment.

— Staff Sgt. Jessie Walton, Camp Shelby, Miss.

Multicam, please

In regard to the new uniform issue affecting the Army: I’ve bit my tongue long enough.

First, the old timers and higher-ups made a mistake with the cool-looking and flashy digital camo we’ve all grown to hate.

So why are we spending even more money to research and fix the problem when the MultiCam pattern has already been tested and proven by special operations forces? Maybe it’s because we have to have a conventional Army unit use it first.

Maybe we’re too stubborn to acknowledge special ops for doing the work for us.

— Sgt. Rich Allen, Fort Knox, Ky.

Grow those beards, boys

Compliments to Sgt. Clay Reyer for his thoughtful, forward-looking comments on the rightful place of beards in the Army, and compliments to Army Times for printing a photo of Gen. Ulysses Grant, illustrating how a well-trimmed beard can be fully consistent with proper military bearing [Dec. 28].

A photo of Gen. Robert E. Lee, among many other distinguished Army leaders, would make the same point.

Some have argued that short hair and clean-shaven faces are essential for military effectiveness. One frequently sees photos of U.S. soldiers and Marines with neatly trimmed beards fighting valiantly in Afghanistan today. Their hairy faces do not seem to diminish their military effectiveness; on the contrary, in that particular setting, working among that population, a beard may well be a positive asset.

So perhaps it is time for the present Army leadership to consider Sgt. Reyer’s suggestions, acknowledging that times and places do continue to change, and that an occasional well-trimmed beard might not be the end of the world, even in today’s modern Army.

— Maj. John Rollinson (ret.), Clovis, N.M.