Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

Shorten deployments

Anyone who has heard Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey speak, or read his interviews, is aware of his long-held desire to increase dwell time for soldiers. My question has always been, why not decrease the duration of deployment? If the Army wants to set a dwell ratio of 1-to-2 or 1-to-3, why don’t our leaders examine the possibility of that ratio representing six months gone and a year back, or six months gone and a year and a half back, instead of one year gone and two years back? There was a time when six-month deployments were the norm.

I spent six months deployed to both Kosovo and Afghanistan and witnessed all the same problems soldiers have today when away from home. Divorce, infidelity and suicide were present during both my tours. When I deployed to Iraq for 12 months, these problems seemed to multiply. Not just in terms of severity for each affected soldier, but for the sheer number of soldiers having them.

Reducing the toll on families subjected to multiple deployments is an admirable and righteous goal, but is increasing the dwell time the only way to ease that burden?

A deployment of any length will require certain sacrifices, but why has there been no discussion of reducing the number of sacrifices required in one tour?

Staff Sgt. Derrick Marble

Fort Hood, Texas

FAVORITISM FOR FAT SOLDIERS

There is a problem in the Army with overweight soldiers and malingering. These soldiers are claiming to be hurt so they don’t have to participate in physical exercises, and they don’t work like the rest of the soldiers. The doctor will write them a temporary excuse to malinger; the doctor will not sign off on a permanent profile knowing their only medical problem is they are overweight.

The Army regulation for overweight soldiers is to give them a certain amount of time to lose the weight or be discharged, but the chain of command is finding ways to overlook the situation.

In my company, I have seen several cases of soldiers being promoted even though they can’t pass the Army Physical Fitness Test, along with passing weight and tape standards.

I’m getting tired of the system being unequal. I and other soldiers are putting out 100 percent for the Army to get the mission accomplished, while the obese soldiers get everything given to them.

Spc. Oittis D. Allen

Hunter Army Airfield, Ga.

NO TO BIGGER ARMY

The nonsense of the last sentence in the “Bigger Army necessary” editorial [Jan. 18] truly sums up the ass-backward thinking taking place throughout the whole piece and the military-industrial complex. To write as the Army Times does that “The troops need a ... bigger Army” clearly is a case of having the cart before the horse. Who in their right mind thinks that way? Besides those sucking up to the powers that be in order to curry favor and position, that is. Shame on the Army Times.

Furthermore, to add, as the same sentence does, that the nation also needs a bigger army is begging the point that it was their fault that the Army allowed itself to be used and abused by those with a dubious agenda. It was not “We the People” who caused the colossal failure in senior military leadership resulting in becoming engaged in a never-ending struggle all over the Middle East. That is crazy talk.

Col. Joseph C. Kopacz (ret.)

Louisville, Ky.

DON’T SUE GUN MAKERS

As a proud member of the NRA, I would like to remark on what an asinine statement was made in the “Ask a Lawyer” section [Jan. 11] in Army Times.

The lawyer suggested that the family may try suing the manufacturer of the handgun that was used in the Fort Hood shooting. The weapon functioned properly, and it did not injure the user.

The manufacturer cannot and does not regulate how its products are used. All it can do is ensure that it ships its products to stores and shops that follow applicable laws when selling them.

In our country we have enough problems with tort lawyers making mountains out of molehills. We do not need to encourage these types of senseless lawsuits that have no merit but give the hope that a fast buck can be made.

Maybe if we start holding individuals accountable for their actions instead of blaming manufacturers and businesses, we can start solving some problems and saving some money.

Warrant Officer 1 David Copeland

Fort Drum, N.Y.

VETS NEED TO PLAN

As a recipient of the Montgomery GI Bill from 1993 to 1997, I know it set me up for the success I enjoy today. The Montgomery GI Bill put me light-years ahead financially, as compared with the majority of my college friends. Veterans today with the Post-9/11 GI Bill will be even further ahead.

But even with the financial advantage it gave me, I didn’t take it for granted. As a single E-4 and 21-year-old making $805 a month after taxes at Fort Polk, La., in 1992 when I separated, I was saving money frantically.

I ask the question, what are my fellow veterans doing with their money? Separating from the military takes a plan, college financing takes a plan, life takes a plan.

Maj. Preston Hayward

St. Paul, Minn.