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

Letters

ABU WEAR RULES UNFAIR

There was an article on the wear of rank for officers, i.e., no shiny rank [“ABU rules restrict unit patches, rank insignia,” Sept. 17]. But how about the poor noncommissioned officer out in the field? If you have two individuals who are standing together in a hostile environment, one a first lieutenant and the other a staff sergeant, discussing operational plans and there is a sniper 100 or 200 yards away, who do you think he’s going to shoot first? Wearing rank on your sleeve in this day and age can be hazardous to your health.

The Air Force needs to get away from tradition and individualism and think of safety and security for our troops in the field. Our sister services now wear their rank on the front of their uniforms or on their collars so you can tell who is who without painting a big target on their arms. We already do it on our Gore-Tex, why not on our airman battle uniforms?

Tech. Sgt. Jerry Humphrey

Peru, Ind.

HEADLINE WAS OFFENSIVE

I’m sure there’s a less-than-offensive explanation for the use of the words “whiskey, tango, foxtrot” as a kicker for the Air Force Times story about the Air Force losing track of six nuclear devices [“Officials red-faced over nuke error,” Sept. 17], but I’d like to know what it is.

In my book, it represents the startled response one might expect in such a situation: “What the &$#$?”

Regardless of whether it was an innocent mistake or intentional attempt to be cute, someone owes the readers of Air Force Times an apology. To me, it was extremely unprofessional. If Air Force Times doesn’t have editors and copy editors there who recognize that, the newspaper should follow the Air Force’s example and have a standdown to think about it.

If the paper’s staff doesn’t agree, it won’t be long before they have one less subscriber — and maybe a few more who could have been as disappointed as I was.

Senior Master Sgt. Mike Davis (ret.)

Indianapolis

AUXILIARY AIRMEN-HEROES

Once again, Robert F. Dorr has hit the ball out of the park. His Sept. 10 column, “Civil Air Patrol stalked German submarines” [History in Blue], accurately captured the wartime genesis of the Air Force Auxiliary and the contribution it made to the war effort. His superbly researched article honored the service of Lt. Eddie Edwards, now age 93 and one of my heroes — and one of the reasons that I have spent my professional life in the Air Force. He and the other pilots and aircrewmen of CAP Coastal Patrol Base 2 at Rehoboth Beach, Del., took the war to German U-boats that preyed on U.S. shipping along the eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast. I will be attending their reunion, as I have been doing for a dozen years. They are much fewer in number these days, but they still exemplify the American fighting spirit that thrives in our Air Force and in the CAP officers and cadets who serve in today’s Air Force Auxiliary — and who play a central role in homeland defense. My hat is off to Bob Dorr for his superb writing and his willingness to honor these minutemen of the air.

Col. Richard L. Anderson

Woodbridge, Va.

OFFICER WAS DISHONORABLE

Lennox Yearwood, while a member of the Air Force, spoke publicly and demonstrated against the war effort in Iraq, and for that he is being given an honorable discharge [“Anti-war officer being discharged,” Frontlines, Aug. 13]. To give Lennox Yearwood, lieutenant and minister, an honorable discharge, with any qualifications whatsoever, is a travesty of justice. He is not satisfied with this generous judgment. He wants to get the “for behavior clearly inconsistent with the interests of national security” expunged from his discharge document on the grounds that the discharge is a “politicized attack.” The only politics involved here is political correctness. Lennox was insubordinate and working against the war effort. He deserves an honorable discharge no more than he deserves to wear the uniform.

Col. David R. Rudy (ret.)

Delaware, Ohio

DECISION HURTS VOLUNTEERS

This is in response to Lt. Gen. John Bradley’s comments in “Unhappy ARTs at least will get uniforms free” [AirForceTimes.com, Sept. 6].

Lt. Gen. Bradley is missing the point. The issue is not about who is paying for the uniforms; it is foremost about the violation of our civil rights. Whether we receive the same amount of uniforms is only one of many issues concerning this new mandate, but the bottom line is that we are not active-duty airmen, we are civilians.

The only time that reservists are legally required to wear the uniform is when they perform military duty 15 days a year or when they are activated. We proudly wear the uniform when in military status, but ordering civilians to wear the uniform while performing duty in civilian status is in direct violation of Title 5 and Title 10 of the U.S. Code and labor management agreements across America. By mandating the wear of the uniform, Lt. Gen. Bradley demonstrates his total disregard for the law, Congress and the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

This mandate is responsible for discontent among civilians who have faithfully served this country in a dual capacity since 1958. Many of us had voluntarily served on active duty, left active duty and again voluntarily joined the Air Reserve technician program. We are now “illegally being drafted” as civilians, just so Lt. Gen. Bradley can project a “Total Force Image.”

Lt. Gen. Bradley stated that he believes we all have a better future in the Air Force if we wear uniforms. What does this mean? We are still civilians who are not authorized to engage in combat. If Lt. Gen. Bradley is concerned about the future, he needs to think about this: Prior to the issuance of this illegal mandate, ARTs had volunteered for deployment, but now, ARTs across America have voiced their discontent and stated that the command can no longer count on their volunteerism. ARTs will either retire or look for a strictly civilian position, and they will take with them years of valuable experience.

Senior Master Sgt. Ursula Benitez

Yucaipa, Calif.

CONSTITUTION TRUMPS ALL

For all the military Christians who think they’re being persecuted because they no longer have free rein to proselytize and override the Constitution — cry me a river. Let me offer a few facts:

The Constitution trumps your god every time. Christians don’t have moral superiority over anyone else, nor have they ever. America isn’t, nor has it ever been, a “Christian” nation. This farce lies only in the minds of Christians. The current wars aren’t a religious crusade. If you believe they are, please do all Americans a favor and separate. Military members didn’t join to be saved or be spiritual. Chaplains and on-base churches are a waste of taxpayer dollars. Are there not any off base? Military members who are not Christians or don’t go to religious functions are not inferior leaders. The saying “there are no atheists in foxholes” is ridiculous.

May I suggest some good reading material: it’s called the Air Force Core Values.

Those using their military career to fulfill a higher calling are more of a danger to good military order and discipline than gays ever will be.

Staff Sgt. Alexis B. Sherman

McChord Air Force Base, Wash.

PHOTO SHOWS GUN ERROR

I just have a comment on the photo and caption on Page 48 in the Sept. 3 issue of Air Force Times [Letters]. The caption says that the individual in the picture is securing the area at a location in Iraq. I’m prior Army, so I know a few things about the M16 and M4. The photo clearly shows that the individual does not have a magazine full of rounds attached to his weapon. Exactly how is he “securing” the area? I truly hope this was a staged photograph, but even then, shouldn’t he have his weapon ready to fire in such a place as Iraq? Please don’t tell me we have a training issue here where the individual forgot to insert his magazine.

Capt. Harvey Andrew

Colorado Springs, Colo.