Letters - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

INAUGURATION COSTS LEGIT

Recently on conservative talk radio, Fox News and a comment made in Army Times [“A costly inauguration,” Feb. 2], I have heard a lot of quibbling about how expensive the inauguration of President Barack Obama was.

Those who quibble argue that, given the current financial situation in the U.S., government spending on the ceremony should have been a lot less than it was. They have failed to also inform the American people that taxpayer funding for the inauguration was used mainly for security for those in attendance, and that most of the inaugural funds came from private donations.

Securing the president, vice president, members of Congress, other members of our government, and more than two million Americans who attended, is a legitimate matter of national security.

It is hypocritical that we spend billions of dollars protecting Iraqi politicians, yet some conservative Americans make trivial objections to the expense of securing our commander in chief and millions of their fellow Americans. Where were those fiscal conservatives for the past eight years?

1st Lt. Thomas A. Jackson

Greenwood, Ind.

A PASSIONATE THANK YOU

I want to thank the members of our military and their families for their constant courage and selfless deeds on behalf of our nation. I am awestruck by their heroic accomplishments in the cause of freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan and so many other places around the world where they are asked to undertake the most difficult and dangerous missions imaginable. I thank them for risking their precious lives for America’s future.

They do so because they understand how vital America is to the future of the world. They represent all that is good, strong and honorable about our nation, demonstrating the highest principles of character and commitment, which trace back to our Founding Fathers.

As they continue this war on terrorism, which is no less a fight for freedom’s survival, they should know that their fellow citizens hold them close in our hearts and in our prayers. Our faith and confidence in them is steadfast. We understand what is at stake in Iraq and how victory there is crucial to America’s security.

May God grant his guidance and blessings to all of them.

Marisa Harris

Lakewood, N.J.

‘DON’T ASK’ HAS PURPOSE

At the risk of being accused of some form of prejudicial bias, I would like to offer my opinion of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” While I do not agree with the policy, I still think it has a valid purpose. I hate to be the one to say it, but the military does not treat everyone equally. They never have and probably never will.

In my opinion, this policy has absolutely nothing to do with a person’s patriotism or qualifications. Segregation based on sexual orientation and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy stem from the need for our society to provide privacy and protect our citizens from unwelcome and uncomfortable sexual situations. Unlike acceptable segregation based on gender, orientation is more difficult to identify and deal with unless you ask.

Sure, the military could provide individual sleeping and bathroom facilities for everyone, but it really isn’t feasible. Another option would be to establish unisex facilities where men and women would be forced to share sleeping quarters. Who thinks that would work? Who would ever allow their child into any unisex base facilities?

One standard for all military personnel would be refreshing and easy to enforce, but it just isn’t going to happen. The Army can’t get past the little things like separate hair, earring, and fingernail standards, much less separate fitness standards or selective service requirements. Sexual discrimination is actually required by military regulations for such issues. Sexual orientation will probably continue to be as divisive as gender itself.

Without a definitive means to provide privacy for everyone, we are left with what we have: a discriminatory policy that serves the best interests of national defense and not a social agenda.

The military is a reflection of our society. There is no way to avoid this, unless you propose discriminating against the intolerant.

Chief Warrant Officer 3 Allen Harvey (ret.)

Bloomingdale, Ga.

In response to the letter from Sgt. 1st Class Wilshire Hallstead [“Don’t keep ‘don’t ask,’ ” Feb. 9], I would like to answer the question given in the article concerning gays in the military. The writer asks, “How does being gay mess up good order and discipline?”

I would like to know, if the policy is removed, then will the restrictions be removed about women and men taking showers in the same area at the same time? How about women and men rooming together in Iraq or Afghanistan? If this policy is removed, then it opens all of the other doors.

How about transsexuals and cross dressers? Which latrine will they be allowed in? If this policy is removed, then it will be no different for men and women to shower and room together than it is for a gay and straight person.

For the gay person, the attraction could be there, just as it could for a straight man and woman. If the policy is repealed, there would be order and discipline problems.

The military branches are not for everyone. We are not an equal opportunity employer. That is why we don’t allow flat-footed or overweight people to enter.

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Randy J. Pauley

Wheeler Army Airfield, Hawaii