Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

Respect THE PRESIDENT

I just want to make a statement about the state of political discourse appearing not only in the country, but also showing up in our military. The military has traditionally been a nonpolitical entity except for our ability to vote in every election.

We, as soldiers, have not usually gotten involved in the partisan discourse that has festered in our political system. But that is starting to go away. In the past three to four years, and particularly in the last six months, I have observed some of the strongest feelings toward former President George W. Bush and the current President Barack H. Obama.

While I am not one to limit intelligent debate or stifle the free speech of anyone, I think it is important for soldiers to remember that, when it comes to politics, we are held to a higher standard.

I am referring to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Contempt toward Officials. As a reminder, Article 88 states, “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

In all fairness, I was not and am not a supporter of former President Bush. Regardless of my personal feeling, I always maintained my bearing enough to stay within the confines of Article 88 when discussing him. It has been my observation that the level of bearing I have shown is not shown by others. The current president, whom I support, seems to have given rise to even stronger feelings within the military community, and many officers have forgotten the tenets of Article 88. I think it is our duty as officers to remember that regardless of the political party or policies you support, we are held to a higher standard.

— Maj. Santel H. Powell II, Lansing, Kan.

CORRECT DoD AUTISM PLAN

This week, over 19,000 military dependents living with autism and their families received a difficult blow from the inaccurate statements made by the Defense Department as recounted in Army Times [“DoD: Congress’ autism care plan could jeopardize patients’ safety,” Sept. 28].

As an advocate for families with disabilities, military spouse and parent of a child with autism, I feel compelled to speak out.

Currently, Tricare segregates applied behavior analysis therapy — an effective intervention for autism and many other disabilities — into a separate arm of the Tricare basic program, called the Extended Care Health Option, as a special education service. ECHO is available only to active-duty family members, denying treatment to dependents of retirees, and places a financial cap on a child’s treatment program of $36,000 per year.

Unfortunately, most military families do not have the resources to pay additional costs out of pocket and are forced to go without the therapy.

[The Defense Department’s] uninformed argument that ABA is “special education” flies directly against public policy — 15 states mandate coverage of ABA therapy as medically necessary under their respective state insurance laws — and consensus among the national medical policy organizations.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Mental Health all recognize ABA therapy as an effective intervention for the treatment of autism. While it is correct that the American Academy of Pediatrics refers to ABA therapy as an “educational intervention,” the AAP goes further to define “educational” as “the fostering of acquisition of skills and knowledge to assist a child to develop independence and personal responsibility.”

In short, ABA is educational in the sense that it teaches a child skills to function independently. [The Defense Department’s] classification of ABA as “special education” is in error, and does our military families a disservice.

Further action is needed, and I request the leadership and support of Congress to intervene on behalf of our special kids.

— Karen Driscoll, Marine Corps wife, San Diego

RELY ON EXPERIENCE

The Army is now looking at new ways to increase its current force structure. The increase is in response to the possible surge of forces in Afghanistan so as not to break the hearts and minds of our soldiers. How do we grow in the short term our Army’s units and provide the surge we think we need on the ground? Maybe we do not need more infantry battalions and brigades to surge but more career officers, noncommissioned officers and government employees to deploy in a more specialized role. Officers, civilians and NCOs with more than 10 years of experience represent the skills needed in mentoring foreign soldiers and civilians to be a more responsive and responsible government force.

First, we need to take a hard look at our Army component commands and how we have prioritized and manned these headquarters. We need to transform these organizations based on current laws, threats and manning to represent present and future national priorities.

Second, we can review contributions of NATO forces in support of the fight against terrorist activity worldwide. If European countries feel less of an obligation to contribute forces to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we should decrease our presence in their region proportionately.

Third, take no excuses from non-supporters.

Fourth, have our field-grade officers, civilians and senior NCOs fill in for shortfalls in all kinds of U.S. government agencies deployed.

Finally, we need to re-evaluate our force structure so we keep these field-grade leaders and NCOs in the service of the country longer and not take for granted that this generation of officers and NCOs will carry the burden indefinitely.

If we want to grow the service in the short term we will have to rely more on the soldiers who have been in the Army longer than a few years. We will need to rely more on the career soldier to bring us through this difficult transition.

— Lt. Col. Craig A. Triscari (ret.), Ocean City, N.J.

CAMO ‘TUG-OF-WAR’

What is so difficult to see when it comes to the effectiveness of the MultiCam pattern in multiple environments [“New camo takes the field,” Sept. 21; “Camo consensus,” Aug. 17]? Why is it clear only to some soldiers on the effectiveness of this pattern?

Why is it that the majority of our special operations forces are using this pattern? Is that not validation enough?

The pattern has been available for almost six years, has undergone testing and has been used on the front lines. [The Army is wasting] time that can be used to give our soldiers the proper equipment and clothing for the operational environment. There needs to be a serious paradigm shift. Whoever is pulling the strings needs to wake up or retire.

The Army was very swift to field the Army Combat Uniform’s Universal Camouflage Pattern. That same swiftness needs to be applied if a change is going to be made. If the powers that be can accept that the ACU was a terrible mistake, then that change needs to happen immediately. The testing has been done, the research is already available.

Real-world use has already been happening with MultiCam. Get it fielded so that those of us who are willing to risk it all are not stuck in a tug-of-war over what looks cool to someone who has the luxury of hanging out with the beans, bullets and paperwork.

— Staff Sgt. Dennis Walczyk, Fort Bragg, N.C.