Military Community, military installations, discussions, blogs, photos, videos - Military Times

LETTERS

Air Force needs new rifle

I agree with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. [“Senator pushes for gun makers to compete to replace the M4,” May 21]. The M4, while a fine weapon and better in most situations than the M16 series, is still based on a 40-year-old design that is not very forgiving when not properly maintained. Buying more M4s instead of the HK or FN modern designs would be like buying more F-15 Eagles instead of F-22 Raptors. The F-15 is still a lethal aircraft and one of the best in the world, but it is not an F-22.

There was apparently some discussion at one point regarding the entire Air Force going to the M4, but it would make more sense to me to adopt the HK or FN for battlefield airmen and other career fields with a high likelihood for having to use a weapon (security forces, Office of Special Investigations, explosives ordnance disposal, Red Horse, combat communication) and transition current M4 inventories to replace the M16A2.

I would rather see the Air Force adopt a new rifle than a news pistol. The M9 was an unfortunate choice (largely decided by the Army), based on the locking block tending to fail at 5,000 rounds and the large grip and frame, which make it hard to conceal and difficult for shooters with small hands to use. (We almost got the Sig Sauer P226 instead, with superior reliability and ergonomics and this was borne out eventually with the adoption of the P228 to be the M11.)

Pistols typically get used when nothing else is available. But when you need it, you want it to be able to work, and you have to be proficient enough to put rounds in the vital area under stress and with adrenaline surging.

Capt. Jeff Becker

Keesler Air Force Base, Miss.

Let airmen display medals

I am so proud of our fine enlisted men and women for their accomplishments today. They are earning medals in the finest time-honored tradition. Yet the only way they can proudly display them in uniform is on the mess dress jacket. The rare dinings in do not justify the cost of the uniform. Why not let the enlisted personnel wear miniature medals on their semiformal dress uniform? In the past, this was appropriate with the white shirt and the black bow tie.

This is the 60th anniversary of the Air Force. One of our great traditions is to recognize and take pride in those who serve. Let them know how much their great efforts are appreciated by all of us by any visible recognition we can give.

Chief Master Sgt. Joseph M. Basting (ret.)

Palm Bay, Fla.

Give veterans their due

I received an e-mail today saying the Pentagon had decided to have military retirees pay larger deductibles and more of the cost of prescriptions. I was disappointed that they would take this action.

When someone joins the military, he weighs several factors. We understand that we may have to deploy and leave our families for lengthy periods. Our families have to carry huge burdens when we deploy. There are risks that put us in danger as well as pay that is usually lower than in the private sector. There are travel benefits while in the military as well as for retirees. But the medical benefits through Tricare and Tricare pharmacy are far and away the largest factors in our decision.

We look for security in our “golden years.” To see the Pentagon try to take that away is unconscionable. The admirable people who step up to protect our nation are denied promises when the time comes to start receiving payment for their hardships. It is certainly frustrating for those who thought they were taking the admirable path.

Chief Master Sgt. Jim Cox (ret.)

Granger, Iowa

General’s efforts in vain

Clearly, the commander guy has “tasked” Army Gen. David Petraeus to expend American lives to keep what passes for an Iraqi government on life support until January 2009.

What are the odds that Gen. Petraeus will report in September that he has failed?

Master Sgt. Ken Redfern (ret.)

Mariposa, Calif.

A new look at ‘Don’t Ask’

Why does Robert F. Dorr believe the ban on homosexuals openly serving in uniform should be lifted? I am confused after trying to follow his reasoning [“I was wrong: Ban on gays in uniform should be lifted,” Back Talk, May 21]. He seems to indicate in his column that the ban was in place because most Americans used to be “uncomfortable” with homosexual behavior, finding it “repugnant.” Should we have restrictions based on comfort? Should we lift restrictions to make the majority happy? What is moral and immoral? Who decides?

First, Dorr argued that most Americans don’t care any longer about this issue. So, if we, like societies of years past believed that it was OK to sacrifice children to the gods, would that make it OK? If most Germans were heartily in support of the persecution of the Jews in World War II, would that make it OK? Does a majority make something right? Both he and I know that not to be the case.

Why not? There is objective truth in this creation, not subjective truth. Man is not the judge of what is ultimately right or wrong. Our founding fathers feared the tyranny of the majority and set up a republic instead of a democracy as a result. In their writings, it is made plain that they knew our republic would last only as long as we were a Christian nation. When reasoning of pragmatism replaces obedience to objective truths, our nation will ultimately fail, as all nations in the history of mankind that have followed that path have failed. Look to our founding documents — “inalienable rights” — objective rights given by God to man.

Dorr’s next argument was even weaker. Two homosexual men flew a mission in an F-111 and did not have sex while airborne — therefore they should be allowed to serve openly in the service. I too flew F-111s. I served with an instructor pilot who smoked dope in private off base. He was arrested and spent several years at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. Yet when he flew missions, he wasn’t smoking dope. I served with another pilot who was kicked out of the Air Force for shoplifting. When I flew with him, he did not steal from me. By Dorr’s reasoning, both of these men should have been allowed to stay on and serve as instructor pilots because they acted professionally while at work.

So what other behavior should we allow? Pedophilia? Necrophilia? Cross-dressing? As long as the majority of Americans accept it — fine by Robert F. Dorr? The problem is that homosexuality, whether or not you believe it, whether or not you like it, is immoral behavior. You can take straw polls to your heart’s content and the results don’t matter. We as a nation must conform ourselves to the objective truth that God has set down. When we stray from that, we are doomed.

I vote with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His reasoning is sound and correct. Dorr’s is not.

Maj. Richard Crandall (ret.)

Aberdeen, Miss.

Bravo! It’s about time somebody like Robert F. Dorr acknowledges that the government’s policy on gays in the military is faulty. I’m hopeful his contemporaries will gain the same insight, for there is no logical reason to continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians who wish to serve their country. However, there are many good reasons why this unnecessary policy should be overturned as speedily as possible.

Most of our coalition members in the war on terrorism already allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. Our closest partner in the war, the United Kingdom, not only allows openly gay service members, but the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have targeted the gay community in their recruiting efforts.

The Netherlands, Germany, France, Australia and many other countries allow openly gay troops and, frankly, I’m embarrassed the U.S. is not a leader on this issue. We’ve learned from our allies that gays can be integrated and become productive and cohesive members of combat units. I can’t understand how the Pentagon can say homosexuals undermine unit morale and cohesion when our troops serve, live and fight alongside open gays and lesbians from members of the coalition.

Furthermore, as far back as 1988, the Pentagon itself had concluded through a report from the Defense Department’s Personnel Security Research and Education Center that “having a same-gender or an opposite-gender orientation is unrelated to job performance in the same way as being left- or right-handed.” A Rand study commissioned in 1993, responding to a request from the defense secretary, concluded that “homosexuals can be successfully integrated into military and public security organizations.” Former Presidents Clinton and Carter, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Shalikashvili and former Defense Secretary William Cohen have all said the current policy should be revisited.

This flawed policy has not only cost the government a tremendous amount of money, but has proved costly to our national security, as well. According to the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon has spent about $200 million for additional training to replace gays and lesbians kicked out due to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Worse, dozens of Arabic and Farsi translators, some of whom have served in the war on terrorism, have been discharged despite the fact that the need for military translators has increased since the Sept. 11 attacks. Why is a policy that mindlessly discriminates more important than national security?

I, like Mr. Dorr, have known gay and lesbian service members and all have been honest, hardworking and highly respected members of their military units. In some cases, they have served in silence, although I can see at the unit level that this, too, is changing. May their fight, like our country’s fight, end in victory.

Maj. Mike Butler

Travis Air Force Base, Calif.

I found the column to be short on facts or even anecdotal information. One item that I don’t think Mr. Dorr has considered are that gay men still continue to have the highest rate of HIV infection in the U.S.. Even though the military tests for HIV, there is nothing preventing a gay serviceman from being infected post-testing. In a combat situation, your buddy is the first person who is going to treat you to stop bleeding and probably won’t have any gloves or even the time to get them on.

At which point do we draw the line with this? Will transgender people be allowed to join also? How can we say that they can’t serve if the door is opened to gay people? What about the gay service person who wants to dress in what many would consider inappropriate dress during off-duty hours (in the dorm). Would this hurt good order and morale? I know that not all gay people do this, but one needs only to see the news coverage of a gay pride parade to see that this could happen. Would you want to see a gay infantry brigade commander dressed in outlandish and provocative clothes in a gay pride parade? Please put more thought into this issue before putting your weight behind an editorial supporting openly gay people serving in the military.

Master Sgt. Bill Dehler

Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash.