Letters - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME?

Does Army leadership ever read these letters that soldiers write in, maybe think about them, and take action? Or do they just discount them as mere complaints?

I have some ideas that just may work for the benefit of the whole:

1. With the safety consciousness of the Army, why do we wear black physical training trunks and gray physical training T-shirts that must be augmented by a reflective running belt or road guard vest? Why do we not wear the commercial colors? We could wear the Army gold shirt with black lettering and black shorts with gold reflective lettering. With a highly visible colored shirt/jacket, it negates the need for an additional piece of equipment in the reflective belt. Plus, with the commercial and traditional advertising logo, it would match what the world recognizes as the Army logo.

2. With the vast number of soldiers who have voiced an opinion about the worthlessness of the Army Combat Uniform’s Universal Camouflage Pattern, why must it take years to design and research a new uniform? The obvious solution would be to buy rolls of MultiCam pattern, feed it into the machines and start cranking out our new uniforms and equipment.

3. The new Army Service Uniform is a disaster. Who makes the decision that everyone will have more pride without asking anyone about it? When so many voice displeasure over the idea of having to buy yet another expensive uniform, the ugliness of it, and the misplaced uniform priorities, who listens? Many in the top leadership thought the black beret would add a sense of pride and professionalism to the uniform, but no one really likes it that much, and many in the force really don’t wear it correctly.

These seem like complaints, but they are questions to better understand why we do some things. When they reflect many others’ opinions, and no one seems to take the time to answer them, it becomes frustrating to accept “dumb” ideas as the norm.

— Sgt. 1st Class Jared C. Hamilton, Forward Operating Base Warrior, Iraq

DEFENSE FOR DRILL LEADER

There seems to be a lot of issues of importance about respect in the Oct. 12 issue. One that really pops out is the letter from Sgt. 1st Class William Caldwell regarding the appointment and assignment of Command Sgt. Maj. Teresa King as the commandant of the Drill Sergeant School at Fort Jackson, S.C., and whether the Army is ashamed of her for not having a combat patch on her right shoulder sleeve [“CSM lacks combat badge”].

When the Army appoints a command sergeant major, it means that it has been determined that he or she can function in any assignment without regard to branch, specialty, previous assignment or combat. In the case of a commandant of a drill sergeant school, Command Sgt. Maj. King will command and ensure that instructors do their jobs.

Over my years of service I experienced the increasing responsibility gained by the noncommissioned officer corps. The enhanced education opportunities today far outweigh those of the past. When one reaches a senior level in the NCO corps, he or she should think about the opportunities and map a path to the highest leadership position. Let’s show some respect. Congratulations to Command Sgt. Maj. King.

— Command Sgt. Maj. John W. Armaly Jr. (ret.), Grosse Pointe Shores, Mich.

—————

This is in response to the letter from Sgt. 1st Class William Caldwell [“CSM lacks combat badge,” Oct. 12] regarding the Army’s Web page not showing the right sleeve of Command Sgt. Maj. Teresa King, [which Caldwell implied could be] to cover the fact she did not have a combat patch.

I have been retired for 11 years, but do not believe the Army has made it a prerequisite that you must have served in a combat zone to be promoted or appointed to “lofty” positions.

Command Sgt. Maj. King was one of the finest noncommissioned officers I knew in my 30 years of service. Command Sgt. Maj. King never tried to get out of an assignment and always wanted the tough jobs. To suggest that her lack of having served in a war or conflict should disqualify her from holding such a “lofty” position is just ridiculous. She was appointed to her position because she earned it.

Command Sgt. Maj. Willie M. Shelley (ret.)

Havelock, N.C.

FAILURES IN LEADERSHIP

Let’s see: Allowing politicians to take us into war without a constitutionally required declaration — our founding political document that we, as officers, are sworn as our first duty to preserve, protect and defend.

Deploying forces without proper personal and vehicular protection — or at least minimal planning to cover those contingencies.

Eight years into the “struggle” — a term coined by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Richard Myers — and we still do not have the best rifle.

Now, per Matthew Cox’s excellent piece in the Sept. 28 issue [“Pattern of failure”], we still cannot figure out what kind of uniform to wear. Plus, everyone knows that the answer is what the Marine Corps is wearing.

Furthermore, these are but the tip of what is now a very, very dull and bent — if not soon to be broken — spear. We can no longer move, shoot or kill the enemy and break his stuff. We have become decisively engaged by the military/industrial/political complex.

What we have here is a total, complete failure of senior — general-officer grade — leadership.

— Col. Joseph C. Kopacz (ret.), Louisville, Ky.

WHEN DISSENT MATTERS

I read with interest Maj. Santel Powell’s letter [“Respect the president,” Oct. 5]. Since he did not elaborate any specific incident, I assume he feels he has heard what he feels has been inappropriate conversation in reference to the office of president.

However, news reports show that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking to graduating West Point cadets in 2008, said, that officers have a duty to provide “blunt and candid advice” to their superiors, including civilian leaders.

He went on to say, “Listen to me very carefully here: If as an officer you don’t tell blunt truths — or create an environment where candor is encouraged — then you’ve done yourself and the institution a disservice.” He also said, “There has been far too much careerism, far too little dissent when dissent really matters, which is when you are in government and serving, and a tendency to take revenge after leaving.”

So can speaking critical of the president be considered “contempt toward officials” and warrant court-martial? You make the call.

— Maj. Steven D. Stock, Honolulu