Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

Getting a pass

The Army has a process in place that allows some athletes to be excused from duty [“Drafted from war,” Frontlines, May 12]. Caleb Campbell won’t go to war, even though he is a West Point graduate — instead he will be allowed to play football, earn large sums of money and live safely here in America. What about the men and women who have given their lives; and how about those separated from their families — some with medical degrees, law degrees, and degrees that are more important to society than football?

I don’t want any parent’s child placed in harm’s way. But how dare the Army place greater value on one profession than another?

How do you explain this policy to the 160,000 men and women now fighting the war and to the families of the more than 4,000 men and women who have died? Are their lives not as important as a football player who chose to go to a military academy? He could have chosen any college in America, yet he chose West Point.

Sgt. Joseph Ruggiero

Houston

FLAWED QUAL TASK

I hope the Army will soon move to a more practical and realistic marksmanship training such as that covered in the May 5 issue [“Marksmanship: Army overhauls weapons training and qualification”]. Yet one aspect of the new marksmanship qualification took me by surprise: clear stoppages.

To include clear stoppages in marksmanship qualification sends a strong message that M16 series rifle jamming is a clearly accepted fact. Yet I’m not going to get into the Vietnam-era debate about the reliability of the M16. Rather, I feel that the proposed method for testing this task by putting a dummy round in every magazine is not necessary and represents the incorrect method to train this task.

A dummy round does not simulate the unpredictability of a true weapon jamming since the dummy round will “jam” the same way every time. This method will require soldiers only to pull the charging handle back instead of the other immediate and remedial methods that would clear various types of stoppages. For example, my most tried-and-true method of slapping the magazine will not clear a stoppage caused by a dummy round.

Also, we’ve been unofficially testing this task all along. All soldiers are trained to properly clean and maintain their weapons and if they aren’t, they will see the result of a jammed weapon on the range. Thus, soldiers would have failed the unofficial “clear stoppages” task and most likely result in a non-passing score.

As long as soldiers are trained to prevent jams, as they already are, then testing soldiers to clear stoppages with dummy rounds isn’t necessary and sends the wrong message to soldiers about their weapon.

Staff Sgt. Paul Chin

Torrance, Calif.

AGE DISCRIMINATION

The article “Tricare fee hikes” in the April 28 Army Times indicates an obvious disconnect between retirees and those who are supposed to be representing them in the halls of Congress. The Defense Department’s proposal to increase Tricare fees by as much as 400 percent smacks of age discrimination for retirees under age 65 who are enrolled in Tricare Prime.

I was encouraged by the Senate Armed Services Committee rejection of the Pentagon’s proposal to increase Tricare fees in February but dismayed to see that Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., might be willing to support “modest increases” of Tricare fees. I was also dismayed to see that representatives from some military associations expressed a willingness to accept fee increases that are no more than the size of the annual military raise or the cost of living adjustment in retired pay.

Who will determine what a “modest increase” means? The proposal to limit the increase to the annual military pay raise or the annual COLA for retirees equates to a “bait-and-switch” proposal. Do they really think we should feel good about a military pay raise or COLA increase only to have it deducted in the form of Tricare fees? This would amount to an annual zero-sum gain for Tricare participants and ultimately will result in sizeable net pay decreases for all.

Is this an example of a nation’s gratitude for the service rendered by its service members and retirees? I feel sure the money to fix the Tricare program could be found by eliminating ridiculous congressional earmarks such as the “bridge to nowhere” and the “Woodstock museum.”

For the politicians who think Tricare increases must be imposed to avoid the perception of the civilian populace that we are getting something for nothing, let them wear the uniform every day, pull extended tours on the other side of the globe, be separated from their families and do a job they feel is someone else’s responsibility.

It’s time for all active-duty, Guard and reserve members to let their voices be heard on the Tricare fee issue. As the national election cycle approaches, ask your political candidates the tough questions regarding their position on Tricare increases. Don’t accept the “once-over-the-world” answer that the brunt of the increase is necessary from retirees under age 65.

Tricare increases can and should be eliminated by diverting billions of dollars in wasteful and ludicrous congressional earmarks to the Tricare program. It’s a matter of support from your elected representatives and it’s time for them to step up to the plate. Get your answers now so you can make an informed decision before you go to the polls in November, and don’t be afraid to let them know you are only one of hundreds of thousands of veterans and retirees who vote on their political existence.

Command Sgt. Maj. Michael James (ret.)

Louisville, Ky.

RAPID PROMOTION

In 1940, the Army was composed of 175,000 soldiers. With the introduction of the draft in 1940, it grew to 1.4 million by 1941. By 1945, the Army had increased to 8.3 million. If every enlisted soldier in 1940 became a senior noncommissioned officer, the Army still would not have had nearly enough NCOs.

Where did the NCOs and officers come from who led the Army? New soldiers mostly. Talk about rapid promotion. Yet the results were phenomenal. It begs the question, if they did it then, why can’t we make it work now by promoting early to staff sergeant?

Chief Warrant Officer 5

Mark G. Smith

Fort Belvoir, Va.

PERPETRATORS KNOW WRONG

Tech. Sgt. Brenda Bush has a point when she proposes the sexual assault prevention training the military does should be improved [“Time to change course,” Back Talk, May 5]. However, teaching troops how not to be a perpetrator isn’t the way to improve training.

Telling someone how not to be a rapist is unnecessary. Rapists have the same thing in common as a robber or a murderer: The person knows what they are doing is wrong, but they feel that the end result of their crime is worth breaking the law — in the rapists’ case, the sexual pleasure, the sense of power or whatever else they get out of it.

As early as basic training, recruits are briefed on the consequences of a rape conviction, the maximum penalty being death under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Obviously, no man or woman deserves to be raped. But just as you don’t walk through a dark alley with money hanging out of your pocket, you don’t put yourself in a position to be raped, such as participating in drinking games with several members of the opposite sex or by leaving your door open to invite intruders.

Trying to teach someone to not be a perpetrator won’t stop someone who is set on doing it; it might even have the opposite effect by giving him ideas on how to better do it.

Staff Sgt. Adrian Ducker

Fort Benning, Ga.

ASKING FOR SACRIFICE

It’s hard to deliver a letter critical of an editorial titled “Troops deserve even more” [April 28]. I’m a troop. Hell, I’ll take all the help I can get. At the same time, some portions of the editorial rank somewhere between bizarre and dishonest.

Our fellow citizens back home are negatively described as “by and large detached from the sacrifices being made for them.” I’ve been over here only about a year. I’ve already lost track of the number of packages I’ve received from organizations and individuals located in areas of America I’ve never even visited, let alone lived or can claim family members.

It’s true our fellow Americans have not made across-the-board sacrifices to support the ongoing deployments to the Middle East. But that’s only because our civilian leadership has failed to ask our fellow citizens to sacrifice. Instead, our leaders offer sugar-coated, candy-coated tax cuts. Predictably, the operations in the Middle East continue to be borrowed, not paid for, and the national debt grows.

When called upon, Americans have been willing to share in wartime sacrifice. During World War II, Americans back home rationed gasoline and rubber, planted victory gardens, and bought war bonds to help pay for the effort. Nothing like that is happening now.

But you can’t blame the people. The people must be asked. And they are not being asked by our current president, who recently claimed Americans were sacrificing enough simply by being forced to watch things in Iraq blow up on television every so often.

The editorial closes with a wish that Americans “finally understand what is at stake.” How about an equal wish to the effect that the Iraqis themselves “finally understand what is at stake” in their own country?

Sgt. Al Fecteau

Al Asad Air Base, Iraq