Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

Guarantee vets a job

In response to “Baseball pitches in: Hat sales to fund jobs for vets” [Frontlines, July 7], I think this idea is great. I also say the government should give every disabled veteran from our current wars a job. These soldiers should not have to look for work when they return.

We owe it to them to have something for them.

CW 4 Richard J. Lachapelle (ret.)

Douglas, Mass.

EXTEND CAB ELIGIBILITY

I am a soldier who wears the Combat Action Badge. The idea that we should not extend eligibility retroactively is wrong-headed.

The Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard have had a nonspecific military occupational specialty Combat Action Ribbon, with virtually the same award criteria as the CAB since 1969 — and they had the sense of duty to their combat veterans to extend the eligibility to Dec. 7, 1941.

As a former enlisted military police officer and current transportation officer, I have studied the combat histories of my branches and the combat sacrifices made by those MPs and transporters.

With particular respect to the Vietnam War, I cannot fathom the concept, as articulated in the July 7 editorial [“Keep CAB in the present”] — that somehow our combat experiences in Iraq or Afghanistan represent a “new kind of war” worthy of a combat award we can’t allow other veterans to wear. It’s simply another case of stolen valor.

What kind of combat soldier would even entertain the idea of an administrative burden being too great to honor those who fought and died?

If soldiers can document their combat service, give it to them.

1st Lt. Joseph T. Martin

Dublin, Calif.

PTSD IS AN INJURY

I fully understand the negative responses generated by the idea of awarding the Purple Heart to service members diagnosed with combat post-traumatic stress disorder. However, I believe the issue requires further consideration. PTSD is a medical condition, not an act of cowardice.

I am a permanently disabled veteran diagnosed with PTSD and panic disorder. My disorders stem from peacetime trauma, not combat trauma. However, I fully understand the pains and symptoms that those with PTSD endure. PTSD is not temporary. It is a debilitating disease that can cripple an individual for life. Flashbacks, nightmares, high anxiety, depression and irritability are just some of the symptoms.

I am not asking the armed forces to award the Purple Heart to everyone diagnosed with PTSD. Specific criteria must be met before considering awarding a service member a Purple Heart.

First, a thorough after-action report must specify that a service member either engaged the enemy that resulted in extreme mental trauma, or was exposed to continuous mental trauma that noticeably changed the service member’s overall behavior. Second, a service member must be “command referred” to a psychiatrist for evaluation and diagnosis.

Finally, the psychiatrist must conclude without reasonable doubt that a service member is suffering serious PTSD symptoms from combat exposure. If any of the three aforementioned elements are not met, then a Purple Heart is not warranted.

After diagnosis, the service member’s highest authority should be required to assess the situation and determine if he or she truly deserves the prestigious Purple Heart.

PTSD is an injury to the brain. Any service member who is wounded by the enemy receives a Purple Heart. However, no service member is awarded a Purple Heart when suffering a mental injury or a “hidden wound of war.”

That needs to change. I am not asking the military to hand out Purple Hearts like candy. At least decorate our service men and women for suffering from the serious mental traumas of war.

Staff Sgt. Scot Adler (ret.)

Brillion, Wis.

KEEP ENDURANCE RUN

While there are some proposed PT program changes I applaud, I believe elimination of an endurance run to be a mistake of significant magnitude [“Sweat equity,” June 16].

Inclusion of training to develop overall body strength is definitely a step in the right direction. There is no doubt the Army needs to add strength training to its program. Upper body strength is most assuredly needed in combat, but so is leg strength and endurance.

Development of aerobic conditioning, gained primarily through distance running (weight training will help but it alone won’t do the trick), must be included. Distance running develops both body and mental endurance that are necessary for sustained combat, long patrols, missions of expanded length, combat under stress caused by fatigue and lack of sleep and food, and so many other protracted situations.

Sprint training develops anaerobic conditioning and will not develop the type of endurance needed in so many combat situations.

Our soldiers deserve the type of physical training that will best prepare them for all conditions encountered in the combat zone, some that can be anticipated, but many that cannot.

To throw out distance running from the PT program would be doing our troops a disservice tantamount to sending them into modern combat with an M1 rifle.

Lt. Col. James H. Saine (ret.)

Aiken, S.C.

I am writing in response to the article about the new physical training program in the works. I am all for it.

Training is supposed to prepare us for war, and a PT program that helps prepare soldiers better for what they will face when deployed makes sense.

After all, we don’t do combat missions in the IPFU [Improved Physical Fitness Uniform] and reflective belts.

Sgt. Christopher M. Churilla

Honolulu

BUILD GRENADE SUMPS

I retired from the Army in 1978. My branch was Transportation Corps, but I was a regular Army officer and served from 1948 to 1952 as an Army Security Agency enlisted man and as an infantry lieutenant from 1955 to 1957. I have also commanded both an armored personnel carrier (M113s) and a truck company.

During basic training in 1948, I learned to dig a grenade sump in my foxhole. As an Army analyst for Science Applications International in 1978, I worked on the “armor blanket” study to protect missiles and nuclear warheads from projectiles and bullets in transit.

I am impressed with the courage and valor of Medal of Honor recipient Spc. Ross McGinnis in smothering that grenade to save his buddies. But I am not happy that the Army has failed to (1) build single grenade sumps of steel in turreted vehicles and (2) put bath-mat-size pieces of armor blanket in turrets to smother the rove grenade that gets in.

These solutions are practical and conserving of our most precious resource — our fighting men in a very risky but predictable situation.

Lt. Col. Miles B. March (ret.)

Sterling, Va.