for the U.S. Military Community
| |
 |
|
| |
European edition letters for the week of
September 15 - September 21, 2002
Tired of empty ATMs
| Letters index (Click on date to jump ahead) September 15 September 21 |
I am a regular reader of Stars and Stripes and have read many letters to the editor during my two years in Germany.
Many of the letters are complaints ranging from things as minute as why soldiers’ berets look like Goodyear blimps and dishrags to perplexing problems, such as racism and favoritism in the USAREUR system and the military. I personally have been upset about problems in the Wiesbaden community and have, like many soldiers, found it easier to beat my head against a door than try to get something done the right way. It is easier to just forget about certain setbacks in customer service and hope things are better at the next duty station.
Unfortunately, there is one setback in Wiesbaden that has become a massive problem for a large group of soldiers and civilians.
Sharing this aggravation are those who have made many a trip to the Community Bank ATM at the Hainerberg Shopping Center because Andrews Federal Credit Union has again forgotten to reload its cash dispenser. This is no longer a series of incidents spread over a period of years.
This past Labor Day holiday, a line of impatient and upset people stood in front of the Andrews ATM and waited for someone to come and refill the cash dispenser so they might continue with their weekend. I’m sure many of these people had planned to travel or maybe eat somewhere on the economy with friends or family. Yet that Monday night, the ATM still had not been refilled.
This happens not only at Hainerberg, but also at Wiesbaden Army Airfield, where Andrews has its headquarters and where the majority of the soldiers live. How does Andrews or any financial institution expect to maintain the respect of a community when every time a person has to withdraw money, they are inconvenienced by the words "Unable to process transaction" on the ATM screen? It seems to me the credit union would be losing money from having to reimburse the hundreds of Andrews customers who wasted an extra $2 per transaction to pull money from a "foreign" ATM.
For families living off post, this is exceptionally irritating when the ATM at Hainerberg is out of cash or out of order; they must make the extra drive to Wiesbaden Army Airfield, only to find another empty machine.
I am only one person and long ago filled out my complaint card concerning this problem. Hopefully, this letter will prompt some kind of change in customer service at Andrews, as well as other businesses that serve the Wiesbaden and surrounding communities.
Matthew Jorgensen
Wiesbaden, Germany
Unaccompanied 'baggage'
Unaccompanied tours? The title of the Sept. 7 story in Stripes should have been "Unaccompanied baggage." That is what the Army is making family members feel like.
I would appreciate knowing who came up with this bright idea of making all overseas tours unaccompanied. Does this person or persons not have family? Do they not care if they inflict even more undue hardship on the soldiers and families? As if there are not enough other things going on in the world and even in our local communities for spouses to worry about, now we have to come to the realization that the Army is pretty much telling us, "You can marry military personnel, but do not plan on really building a life with him/her. You will not see them for one year out of the next three to four, and this will continue for the duration of their tour, so long as he/she remains in the Army."
The military will do its best to make sure there is cohesion within the units, but it seems not to care if there is cohesion within the families. Family stability? They say they are concerned about this, too. What a joke! Do the proponents of this plan not realize that having family close by can bring great peace of mind and stability to the soldier, his family and the community, as well as to his platoon, battalion and the armed forces in general?
Are there not enough problems in retaining good, committed soldiers and NCOs within the military? My husband’s commitment to the Army is strong, and I know he feels proud to serve in the Army, but I wonder what this will do to future generations of servicemembers.
For many soldiers and families, part of the reason they took the tour overseas was to see various countries, appreciate different cultures and know that our servicemembers are in the military to protect other nations, not just our own. I think it would be a great opportunity lost if families were robbed of seeing the cultural diversity. I am so grateful that we have had a chance to share these experiences with our sons the past three years. I am grateful they are old enough to be able to look back on their time here with a better understanding of the world around them. Unfortunately, their experiences may be shared by few others in the future.
If this is purely a financial decision on the government’s part, shame on them. If they want to save money by not spending it on the families’ living expenses, travel, housing and services, etc., maybe they should look at the fat salaries and retirement packages of our political figures. They should look at the overspending on the presidential Inaugural Ball, political campaigning and excessive travel — and even the White House Christmas trees (there are more than 50 decorated trees in the White House). Every time we vote a new president into office, taxpayers pay to redecorate the White House. This is fraud, waste and abuse if I ever heard it. We military families cannot even paint our government housing unless we have specific permission to paint a few rooms, and then we have to pay for it to be returned to the original state before we leave.
Maybe our politicians should work on a commission-only basis: They get a check only when they actually accomplish something. That would probably cut government spending by a third. We all need to speak out. I hope Stars and Stripes gets 10,000 letters on this subject. Someone needs to hear the voices of the people. Instead of the politicians speaking for us, they need to speak on our behalf.
Kate Ruger
Wiesbaden, Germany
Disgraceful depiction of flag
When I turned to the center of Stars and Stripes’ Accent section on Wednesday, my eyes burned and my stomach knotted up. What startled and shook me was the "In memoriam" depiction of the U.S. flag. This full-page depiction should put someone off the staff and behind bars.
For those readers who did not get a copy of, or missed this offensive, degrading and illegal portrayal of our flag (See The United States Code; Acts of Congress, Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec. 1.), allow me to describe what Stripes chose to display as a memoriam to all that occurred on 9/11. This was a full-page, in-color, in-your-face depiction. In the upper left-hand corner was a black field containing 50 white stars. Directly below were seven vertical red-and-white stripes. Next was a white stripe, a black stripe, a white stripe, another black stripe, a white stripe and a final red stripe.
I hope this description makes your stomach knot up, too. Anyone who has ever looked at the flag of the United States of America knows that there are 13 horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and 50 white stars on a blue field. More information on our flag can be found by asking any member of our armed forces, our firefighters or our police officers.
Those black-and-white stripes would look good on the clothes of all those responsible for the disgraceful depiction of our flag — the flag of the United States of America, Old Glory, the old Red, White and Blue.
Richard L. Haverkate
Seckenheim, Germany
Does Washington even care?
Would it be better not to have families overseas? Yes and no. I am currently serving as the rear detachment first sergeant for my unit deployed to Kosovo. True, I would be back in the line doing my job as an infantry soldier, but I cannot say that I would enjoy it under those rules.
Families are extremely important, not only to the soldiers stationed here, but also to the life of the community that surrounds our base.
I do not agree with two previous letter writers that they would get out if this tour changed. If that is truly how they feel, then they are serving for the wrong reasons. Yes, family is important; our mission to protect our country will always have a higher priority.
My wife is a German national and I know that she would not want to have to stay in the States while I came here for a tour. But she could come over; the Army just wouldn’t pay for anything.
The bottom line under all this talk is the costs that would be saved. These costs will come at the expense of our morale at a time when we need it the most. The only thing that shocks me is the fact that we still have soldiers who believe that Washington cares how we feel.
Sgt. 1st Class Matthew R. Cloyd
Schweinfurt, Germany
Proud to have served
As I conclude my 95 days of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 379 ESVS, I cannot believe how in such a short time troops from all over the world, active-duty and National Guard, could come together to accomplish what we have at al-Udeid Air Base. When nine of us Guardsmen from Rhode Island arrived at Camp Andy, it was small. Now, it has a full-size indoor gym/fitness center, basketball court, two swimming pools and an indoor movie theater.
Thanks to CE/Red Horse, we have wooden floors, doors and partitions in our tents. The showers were improved from tents to regular Cadillac additions with cold water. Communications chipped in with AFN cable TV and the Internet/phone service. Security forces worked long hours ensuring our safety while we slept and worked.
Most of us have made good friends we might not ever see again, but we will keep in contact through e-mail. All of these accomplishments were achieved in part because of hard work, dedication, patriotism and the remembrance of our brave and innocent 9/11 victims. This is who we are fighting this war on terrorism for.
I am proud to have served with all of the troops based at various places throughout the world to make America safe.
Tech Sgt. Joseph L. DeCurtis
al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar
Lots of loss, but no stop
After months of everyone waiting, the Army has finally informed those of us affected by stop-loss that we have to spend an extra year in the Army.
This is yet another ridiculous policy that solves nothing. Many of us had jobs lined up on the outside world but had to notify our future employers that they had to look for someone else. Others had to tell families the heartbreaking news they would not be coming home after all.
Once a soldier’s contract is up, that should be it. I am tired of having to put my life on hold for the Army. I thought the Army was keeping soldiers in droves. It ran out of money for re-enlistment bonuses. It has met 100 percent of recruiting goals for this year. It has in excess of 19,000 new recruits lined up for next year.
But apparently it is not filling the jobs it is short in because here I am, now waiting for this extra year to pass by as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, I watch soldiers and NCOs in my unit move on to garrison posts such as Fort Monroe and Fort Belvoir. A friend of mine asked about his options for his second re-enlistment. His choices? Fort Polk, Fort Hood and Fort Drum. This is the best the Army can do? This is the thanks he gets for being a seasoned noncommissioned officer while it gives a know-nothing recruit $6,000 or more for a bonus just to sign on the dotted line?
I don’t think it’s just me when I say there is something wrong with that. As for me, after watching nearly eight years of mismanagement, the ridiculous operations tempo and general lack of overall care for the Army’s people, no thank you. I will take my chances in the real world. If I am unhappy with what I do, at least I can quit.
Sgt. Michael P. Taylor
Kitzingen, Germany
Just the crumbs
In regards to the letter "A piece of the cake" (Sept. 10): Contrary to some, not all upper-level management personnel have these financial benefits you talk about. I, for one, am a GS-12 and I don’t receive a living quarters allowance.
Robert Pearson
Würzburg, Germany
No patriotism in wood chipper
I am responding to the letter "Be thankful for noise" (Sept. 7). I also read the original letter "Noise" (Aug. 27), which the writer was responding to. The original letter had nothing to do with patriotism or Army tanks or lawnmowers. It was talking about a wood chipper outside our base housing windows at 6 a.m.
I live in that same building and I know the writer; usually we can tolerate anything. However, this was unacceptable. It was not soldiers out there mowing grass, it was German contractors using a very loud wood chipper.
That has nothing to do with our freedom. There were no tanks rolling by. The letter "Noise" had nothing to do with terrorism, freedom, birds chirping, children laughing or anything remotely close to that, as "Be thankful" seemed to think.
The writer of "Noise" specifically said she can tolerate being awakened by noise of the Army, such as physical training counting, and any other inconvenience they can throw at us. I, like the writer of "Be thankful," take comfort in the sight of tanks rolling by, but I have and never will see patriotism in a wood chipper.
Ashley Porter
Bamburg, Germany
'Frightening' lack of qualities
Competence, clarity, decisiveness and consistent diplomacy should be hallmarks of an American government when military members and their families are asked to prepare for war. The glaring absence of these qualities in this administration is embarrassing and frightening. I have not spoken to anyone who believes that either the commander in chief or his administration has done anything to inspire confidence in officers, soldiers or citizens.
When the president called our allies for support for an invasion of Iraq and was rebuffed, it reflected a serial mismanagement of foreign affairs by him and his subordinates. Public swaggering about going it alone without allies is merely a cover for bumbling. British Prime Minister Tony Blair had to fly to America to lend credibility because our leaders are incapable of articulating a persuasive case about why Saddam must go, even though one clearly exists.
Within a week, statements from Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell were repeatedly contradictory about a war with Iraq. Security adviser Condoleeza Rice is a sovietologist ill-equipped to advise on Middle East politics and terrorism. This administration was briefed twice in 2001 on threats from al-Qaida, but said afterward that the priority was missile defense, not terrorism. U.S. intelligence confirmed that a terrorist threat was imminent, but when 9/11 happened, our leaders acted totally surprised.
This administration’s missteps would be comic if the possible loss of soldiers’ lives in an attack on Iraq were not so breathtaking. I pray that I will not see on CNN replays of "Blackhawk Down" on Baghdad streets, but the poor planning, ignored intelligence and incompetence shown thus far will certainly guarantee it.
Questions from allies about evidence, isolating and finding Saddam, inflaming the Middle East, nation-building in post-war Iraq, an exit plan, security of oil supplies and additional threats to Israel have yet to be answered by the Bush administration.
Saddam is an evil man whose weapons and ability to make them must be destroyed, but we must demand more from our leaders before we send troops into a battle that could unleash horror and be bloody. The effort and time required for this preparation take precedence over Texas ranch vacations and political fund-raising. This pathetic level of performance to prevent terrorism and remove Saddam is a poor tribute to those who lost their lives on that horrible day last September.
May God bless our soldiers and protect them from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
M. D. Wooldridge
Würzburg, Germany
Cuts mean shorter tours
I am a retired CW4 from the Army. I had one tour in Germany for 38 months and have had other short deployments as an Army Reserve officer. My longest kept me away from home for nine months.
With the cuts in the Army in the last 10 years, it is now necessary for servicemembers to have more short tours to support operations such as the Balkans and the war on terrorism. I think Congress should really think again before making any more overseas assignments unaccompanied. Too many GIs have marriage trouble as it is.
Alan Westwater
Nineveh, Ind.
Response to license policy
In response to the letter "License policy ‘crippling’" (Sept. 12), I strongly disagree with changing the requirements for a U.S. Army Europe driver’s license. The change to require people to have a stateside license before they can get a USAREUR license was due to the overwhelming number of inexperienced drivers on the roads in Germany. I do sympathize with the situation, but the roads in Germany — especially the autobahns — are the last place an inexperienced driver should be.
This new rule is a problem not only for spouses, but also for soldiers. Two people in my company are unable to drive because they don’t have stateside licenses; one of them is unable to be completely qualified on her equipment due to the inability to drive.
The solution to this situation is to ensure that soldiers and their families are aware of this policy prior to coming to Germany. I also believe that every soldier in the Army should have a stateside license prior to leaving for basic training.
Another remedy for nondrivers overseas would be to study the language of their host country to ease the confusion of public transportation.
Spc. Elizabeth Ojeda
Hanau, Germany
Women ill-suited for combat
A few weeks ago, I witnessed the expression of a political opinion that is emasculating our military. I attended a talent show on Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo where the guest speaker in honor of Women’s Equality Day was a female lieutenant colonel from the Air Force. Her message advocated opening ALL military roles to females, and she was thoroughly applauded.
What troubles me is that people are ignoring the obvious: Men and women ARE different. We have physical and emotional or cognitive differences that predispose us for different types of roles. That’s reality.
Those who support women in combat always mention exceptionally strong females that they know or have heard of as the paramount reason for their position. Well, where are they? If women really are or can be as strong as men, why do women have significantly lower physical entrance requirements compared with men?
If strength were the only criteria, why don’t we let diabetics or hemophiliacs into the military? I once knew a guy who was immensely more fit and physically capable than any woman I know, he only needed a kidney transplant. Why not let him in? Well, since time immemorial, military leaders have recognized the need for troops with as few physical encumbrances as possible. Being in combat is not like having a civilian job where hygiene needs, or changes to the body (e.g., pregnancy), can be accommodated with little or no impact to the job.
Besides the inability to effectively deal with physical consideration in combat, military roles readily offer something that civilian jobs don’t — the potential of killing or being killed, intense trauma, dismemberment, or having to make decisions that will jeopardize the lives of fellow soldiers. How is someone whom God designed to nurture children and embody society’s ideals of emotional caring and consideration for others, and all other aspects of life that are inherently feminine, appropriate for a kill-or-be-killed, horrifically traumatic combat environment?
We are introducing femininity to inherently masculine roles. For what? To make the military better at killing and destroying enemies, or only to appease feminists and the politically correct? I suspect it is for the latter, and I ask that our military leaders ignore the nonsensical pleas of the politically correct and make policy decisions based upon common sense. Equality should mean that we give people equal opportunity to succeed in the roles they are qualified for. Women deserve our honor and protection and do not belong in combatant roles; placing people into roles that they are not fit for compromises the purpose of our military.
Paul Gozé
South Riding, Va.
A dirty situation
I recently rented a van from Sixt car rental on post to use while my parents were visiting. When I went to pick it up, it was very dirty. The clerk behind the counter basically told me that if I wanted it, I’d take it like it was.
If you have ever tried to get a rental van at the last minute, you’ll understand why I took it dirty and cleaned the trash out myself. This turned out to be a mistake.
My family and I had a great two weeks, although we never crossed the borders to go outside of Germany. I returned the van and, without getting out of her chair, the clerk asked if everything was OK. Besides the fact it was dirty when I picked it up, everything was OK. The next week, an agent from the Criminal Investigation Division office asked if I could come to their office. Upon arriving, I was informed that CID periodically takes the drug dogs through the vehicles. When the dogs checked the van I rented, the dog sat in the seat, presumably indicating there was drugs present at one time.
After going through standard procedures at CID, they allowed me to go back to work. I guess they couldn’t see me riding around with my mom, dad, wife and three children getting high — along with that, the van wasn’t cleaned before I rented it.
I’m all for catching the bad guy, and it’s my fault for renting the vehicle dirty. But I wonder if I would have had my good name questioned and my picture and fingerprints now on file with CID if I had used a non-AAFES facility?
Ron Panter
Katterbach, Germany
Taking away more benefits
I was deeply disturbed when I read the story about Army Secretary Thomas White’s proposal to have Europe become another assignment for unaccompanied tours. The first thing that struck me as strange was that the proposal was being made based on a book written by a retired major. Obviously, since the major is retired, he is not dealing with the multiple deployments away from family that today’s soldiers do. He also will never visit Europe for six months to a year without his family; and, with all due respect, neither will White.
I joined the Army 16 years ago, and one of the things I truly looked forward to was being able to return to Germany, where I had lived as a child with my Air Force father. I enjoy my time in Europe, as does my wife, because of the close proximity of many historical and famous places to visit. I have extended both times I have been stationed here and, as I get closer to retirement, one of the things that makes me think I might stay a little longer is the possibility that I might get to see Europe one last time before retiring in the States.
The arguments put forward in the article do hold some validity. However, if the Army takes the opportunity for me to live in foreign places with my family, this soldier sees one more of our benefits being taken away. I am sure that many critics will say that we are not in the Army to travel but to serve, and they are absolutely right. However, if an incentive like the opportunity to travel makes the sacrifice easier to tolerate for some of us, why remove it?
The Army is constantly talking about the difficulty in retaining its experienced personnel, and I can honestly say that, if this proposal goes forward, it will lose another one when he hits 20 years. Me.
1st Sgt. Mark A. George
Wiesbaden, Germany
Bias and insult
With his letter "Five-year rule" (Aug. 20), the author tries to make believe that there is corruption and nepotism within the U.S. Army. To add proof to this he heaps bias, accusations and assumptions on all employees. He does not shy away from discrimination and slander. His statement in which he describes employees of other nationalities as "unqualified and overpaid" has especially hurt many feelings and made many of us very concerned.
For more than 40 years, German and civilian employees of other nationalities have been working for the U.S. Army in Europe. Numerous awards and recognitions prove that they are reliable and competent employees on whose longtime experience the Army often relies. Those employees have not helped in drawing up the five-year rule, which the author criticizes so vehemently, nor do they support it.
Yet the author should know that, with his portrayal, he has put a big burden on the working climate. Furthermore, he should know that his opinion opposes the 284th Base Support Battalion "One Family, One Team, One Community," with which the commander strives to improve team spirit and productivity. We can manage the difficult duties ahead of us only when we, like one family, work together. There is no room for intolerance, envy and jealousy.
We Germans like to work for the Army, and we identify ourselves with the mission and goals of the United States of America. For this reason, we cannot understand this attack and insult.
If it is really so unbearable for the author to accept and respect a German or other local-national supervisor, one wonders why he wants to stay in Germany.
Because here he will continue running into Germans, Turks and other foreigners.
Werner Schmidt
Giessen, Germany
Iraq attack
Many voices have been shouting for the United States to unilaterally attack Iraq. They are accusing Iraq of amassing biological and chemical weapons and of trying to acquire nuclear arms. They are also scaring the American people into believing that America is in grave danger of being attacked by Saddam Hussein. While I have no love for Saddam, I see no need for the loss of American lives by attacking Iraq.
The United States is monitoring Iraq with fighter jets in the north and south. We have Navy ships off the coasts and satellites that monitor every form of communications emitting from Iraq. The United States is not in danger from an attack by Iraq. We have contained the country! It’s my opinion that unilaterally attacking Iraq at this time is the one action that could put America, its people and the people of the world in the most danger.
One doesn’t have to be a general to realize that fighting a war unilaterally on multiple fronts is unwise. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s hear it from the generals:
"You don’t want to be at war on two fronts, if you can avoid it. I think that we would be lacking if we went alone at this time. It’s great to have other people with you even if their military contribution is small. It’s a commitment on their part that helps to strengthen the overall coalition." — Norman Schwarzkopf, ex-Desert Storm commander, "Meet the Press," Aug. 18.
"Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. It’s the wrong time." — Anthony Zinni, retired Marine Corps general, Florida Economic Club, Aug. 23.
"We should not seek war. It should be the last resort." — Wesley Clark, ex-NATO commander, Times of London, Aug. 29.
"Any campaign against Iraq is certain to divert us from our war on terrorism." — retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 15.
Finally, my biggest worry is from another of the so-called "axis of evil," North Korea. If the United States was to fight unilaterally in Afghanistan and Iraq, we’d be unable to stop a North Korean invasion of the south, short of using nuclear arms ourselves.
Let’s ask Congress to not waste American lives in Iraq. Send our military against the Taliban, al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. They are our enemies.
James Carrethers
Heidelberg, Germany
Driving in Germany
It’s great to drive in Germany. It’s a wonderful privilege to drive faster than in the United States and engage in high speeds on the autobahns. So what’s the problem? As I’ve driven around this country in the past couple years, I’ve observed more and more Americans who go far beyond the legal limits. On average, they show aggressive driving techniques that could one day get somebody injured or killed.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t drive fast. They should just use more common sense behind the wheel. Americans seem to have fallen into some bad habits. Among them are not signaling their intentions, speeding through speed zones, tailgating, flashing and signaling to force cars to move out of their way, not moving over to let cars pass, passing on the right, refusing to let cars into their lane in front of them, pulling out to pass on the autobahns at slow speeds with a high-speed car approaching from the rear and more. Would they be allowed to drive like this in the United States? I think not.
Every day, German news outlets report autobahn accidents that kill and injure children and adults and leave vehicles looking as if they had gone through a crusher. Fines are also pretty stiff, and the German police will not twitch at taking one’s license depending on the offense.
As I was driving to work the other day, I heard on the German news that a car had just slammed into the back of a truck while on the way to work. The top of the car was completely ripped off, killing the passenger and leaving the driver with serious head injuries. The reason? Excessive speed. Is it really worth the risk? Think about it. If a driver wants to become a statistic, he should go right ahead. But he shouldn’t take others with him.
Craig S. Weiner
Darmstadt, Germany
Freedom
During World War II, millions of men, including myself, fought to remove tyranny from the world. As history will show, our mission was successful.
The young, patriotic men who served were idealistic and perhaps naive. Their hearts beat wildly in anticipation of meeting and defeating the enemies of freedom. These same men believed that once their mission was complete that freedom and democracy would reign forever throughout the world. History has exposed their naiveté, as other despots have risen.
Closer to home, our veterans returned to their families as victors. It was a return full of hope for their futures. They were content to live out their lives as free people in our great democracy. But for our nation’s citizens, unacceptable changes have taken place in the way of life that everyone expected. Recent events have changed our freedom of choice, freedom of association, and freedoms of thought and speech.
A candidate who didn’t receive the majority of the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election was subsequently appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby becoming our illegitimate president. Voters’ choice was taken away by a partisan court in conjunction with voter fraud and ballot counting. And this was only the beginning.
The terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001, opened the door to further abuses and violations of our rights as Americans. The culprits were the administration as represented by President Bush and his rights-robbing attorney general, John Ashcroft.
Thousands of citizens, especially those of Middle Eastern descent, were detained without the right of communication or legal counsel. Authorized monitoring of conversations between detainees and their attorneys, when such counsel was permitted, quickly followed.
Legislation authorizing secret searches of ordinary Americans’ homes was sought by the attorney general. This outrageous request was followed by seeking the right to search the mail and the Internet for information deemed dangerous. What happened to the rights of privacy and free speech? When our citizens raised an outcry against these abuses, President Bush labeled us "unpatriotic" or "traitors."
The most recent insult and attack on our way of life is the "Operation TIPS" program proposed by President Bush and Ashcroft. They want to turn this country into a land of informants. Flashback to Nazi Germany, a country in which family members informed on each other, neighbors told officials of what they believed to be suspicious activities, and co-workers were not hesitant to turn in each other to the authorities.
Bush and Ashcroft didn’t live through the Nazi era, so they’re unable to realize the terror and death wrought by the Nazis’ "TIPS" program. Evidently, they paid little attention to their history lessons in school. If they had, they would’ve known that they are now off-course with their latest freedom-suppressing idea.
Every U.S. citizen should rebel when the job description of mailmen, home repair people, meter readers, delivery people and others coming into our homes includes the requirement to spy on the citizens whom they serve. But this is not to say that we citizens shouldn’t be aware of what’s happening around us. To the credit of the U.S. Post Office, it refused to participate in this outrageous activity.
With all these assaults on our freedoms, the young, bright-eyed, patriotic men who fought to retain these freedoms are now sad-eyed old men. These men, like me, are still patriotic. They still want to hold out hope for this country, but it’s a hope that seems to diminish daily. We’ve lost our naiveté and, perhaps, some of our idealism.
We citizens must participate to stop the assault on the freedoms and rights that are part of the heritage of every American. We must raise our voices in unison to express our outrage at the direction the Bush administration is taking us. We are now and forever will be freedom-loving Americans. The Constitution guarantees that. By fighting back, we will prove to President Bush that we are not a country of "traitors," but rather a nation of red-blooded patriots.
Donald Clark
Park Forest, Ill.
Punishing criminals
These people who we all too often read about in the papers and see on television who abduct, rape and/or kill children are far worse than the animals that we put down for attacking people. But they should be treated the same. These people commit these horrible acts with the intelligence and forethought that animals don’t possess.
When do we say that enough is enough? If a person takes a life, that person’s life is forfeited in return. I know some people don’t agree with that point of view. But until the punishment fits the crime, criminals will keep committing these crimes. Knowing that there will be no bargaining for an admittance of guilt and that death alone will be the price that they pay for their actions will not stop all of these people, but it will stop some. And if it saves the life of even one child, then in my opinion it’s worth it.
I’m sickened when I hear that a child abductor, rapist and/or killer is sentenced to 10, 20 or 30 years in prison. I don’t want my tax money going for one month to shelter, feed and clothe these people who prey on children, much less for years. While they obtain free medical and dental services, their victims’ families and friends must endure years of living with wounds that will never heal.
Again, I know some people believe that my eye-for-an-eye method is morally wrong and that no one has the right to take another person’s life, but I don’t care. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I hope something never happens to them or their families that would change their minds. As for me, I’ll continue to believe that all of these perpetrators’ lives combined are not worth the life of even one precious child.
John D. Hamill
Whidbey Island, Wash.
Hispanic Heritage Month
Every year around this time, I’m approached by people with the same question: "Hey, Chief," they say, "why do we have to have Hispanic Heritage Month? Aren’t we all Americans?"
I never argue that a bit, but there’s more to it. I’m sure readers know that we celebrate African-American/Black History Month in February, Women’s History Month in March, Asian-Pacific Month in May, Hispanic Heritage Month from Sept. 15 to Oct. 15 and Native American Month in November. The purpose of those observances is to educate those of us who don’t know a lot about those cultures and to acknowledge the contributions those groups of people have made to our own American heritage.
When readers ask themselves what it is that makes America great, they’ll find the answer is diversity. If they’ll look around (go ahead, no one is watching), they’ll notice that we’re made up of people from all kinds of cultures and from different parts of the country or the world. We all have different needs and desires, and we’re all different. What makes us great is that we’ve been able to synergize all those differences to form one very diverse but unified family that allows us to be ourselves and expects us to accept each other.
We used to talk about the American "melting pot." That’s an honorable idea, but I’m not sure it’s attainable. Why? Because there is very little — if any — chance that we’ll all "melt," that we’ll all assimilate, that we’ll all be the same. And I’m not so sure we all want to be the same.
I think it was Gen. George S. Patton who said, "If two of us are thinking the same thing, we don’t need one of us." There’s a marked difference between thinking the same thing and thinking with the same purpose in mind.
The concept of the American "salad bowl" comes closer to describing the culture in which we live. The illustration of the salad bowl describes a dish that, as a whole, is its own entity, delicious and healthy. What gives that dish its flavor and wholesomeness is all of the different ingredients that make it one. Each ingredient adds its own contribution to the whole. Any part of it that’s missing will affect the end result.
Author Stephen Covey has said that "unity is not sameness, it’s complimentariness." If we are to be united, we have to be willing to accept, appreciate and celebrate each other’s differences.
As we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, readers should join the fun! Get involved! Make time to enjoy the various events scheduled throughout this month. Readers don’t have to be of, or know a lot about, the culture. The people who have labored hard to organize the events will gladly teach readers and will welcome their support. Readers will learn a lot and they’ll find a kind of gratification they can’t find elsewhere. The education they gain and the relationships they develop will make them better, and they’ll make America better. Together, we can go forward.
Chief Master Sgt. Bob Vásquez
Ramstein Air Base, Germany
Thanks to larger family
This is an open letter to friends, family and brothers and sisters in arms:
I know that, in light of all that has happened over the past year, many people have forgotten or taken for granted what it means to put on the uniform every day. I want to let them all know that whether they are active, Reserve or retired, I appreciate all that they have done and will do for this country. I want them all to be proud every day that they put that uniform on or proud to be the one in the crowd who has that military ID saying that he has taken it upon himself and made that decision to protect this country.
I may not have been in as long as all of them or done as many cool things, but I can remember the first time I put that uniform on for real. It was in 1992 at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. I can remember thinking that my grandfather, God rest his soul, and my family would be proud of what I had become — an adult, a soldier, a man. I remember taking that oath as a tear came to my eye and meaning every word of it.
I look back over the past year and many of us have had trials and tribulations, maybe lost loved ones or even been unsure of the future. But one thing has remained the same — the United States of America. It’s here when we go to sleep, when we wake and when we think that there is no end to the atrocities of the world.
I’m writing this to let each and every one of them know that there are people out there thinking about them all — all of our brothers and sisters in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. I will never forget the fine soldiers with whom I had the honor and the privilege to serve — to dig those ditches, build those bridges and, yes, learn those languages. If I could be there right now with each and every one of them, I would — to remind them of the great job they are doing in everything they do.
A very dear friend of mine, Lt. Charles Hancock, said, "Never give up. We all need someone to sound off to." I want them to never give up, never lose sight of what it is that made them put on that uniform, and always remember that they are doing a great service to themselves and their country. They are in all our hearts and minds. They should keep their heads up and stay in the fight, no matter what or where it is. I love all of them and hold them all in the greatest respect.
Spc. Jason R. Sheehan
Wallingford, Conn.
Overseas tours
I applaud the announcement by Army Secretary Thomas White which indicated that overseas tours will someday be unaccompanied. My wife and I hope the study of this proposal will be brief and that the plan will be implemented quickly.
I was surprised to read the letters from some people who whined and complained about the proposal. They said they won’t stay in the Army if the plan goes into effect. If this proposal is all it takes to make their commitment to the Army and our nation waiver, I’d hate to see them under combat conditions.
Thanks to our last president, I can think of some other more critical reasons why to leave the Army. But the implementation of this plan is not one of them. On the contrary, this proposal would be a reason for true soldiers to stay in the Army and serve their country.
Sure, there would be some transitional discomforts at first if the plan were implemented, such as sporadic bouts of homesickness and the associated crying for mother. But the overall benefits to the Army would be great. Deployments with cohesive units would mean greater esprit de corps, and teamwork would be enhanced. Soldiers would be more focused on the mission at hand instead of being distracted by day-to-day family issues that can just as well be handled by a competent spouse. Families of deployed soldiers would be settled, safe and secure on their home soil during this time of war.
A lot of money would also be saved by the elimination of "pork barrel" family support infrastructure, which is already established and functioning in the States. The military police wouldn’t have to respond to such crimes as domestic violence situations. They wouldn’t have to arrest dependents who are involved in illegal drug sales and all the other associated social problems that dysfunctional families bring with them on an overseas tour.
If a family is established on the firm foundation of traditional family values (which seem to be scoffed at nowadays), and both husband and wife are of good character, then a 6- to 12-month overseas tour would be a minor inconvenience. All a well-prepared soldier would need when he leaves his home for a deployment is a good family readiness plan and a faithful spouse.
But here are some suggestions the Army should consider that would lessen the occurrence of potential problems:
1) The Army should ensure that the people studying this plan are not liberals and are educated in the social sciences. We don’t need liberals destroying this plan before it’s even off the ground.
2) The Army should ensure that recruiters fully explain to married individuals and their spouses the sacrifices that would be expected of them in order to serve their country, such as knowing, understanding, and practicing the concepts of Army values and traditional family values.
3) Upon entering the Army, married soldiers should not be assigned to a unit that is scheduled to deploy in less than six months after arrival. This would give families time to get their households in order and family readiness plans developed.
4) Have single female soldiers legally ensure that they will practice reproductive responsibility by not getting pregnant while assigned to a deployable unit. Those single-parent soldiers who are already enlisted in the Army would be assigned to nondeployable units.
5) For soldiers on 12-month or longer deployments, the Army would provide easier access on space available flights to and from Europe, as well as access to accommodations for soldiers who were on leave.
6) Reduce the amount of commitments we make to other countries to police their territories. More times than not, they end up being ungrateful toward America.
Previous letter writers have implied that the recent slayings at Fort Bragg, N.C., were attributable to the deployments of the soldiers involved. This is false. The letter writers avoided considering the concept of personal responsibility and accountability. This is a common liberal practice today. Those Fort Bragg soldiers allegedly took it upon themselves to willingly and knowingly take the lives of others as a method of conflict resolution because they lacked some important core values and morals. It was not because they were deployed away from their families.
I’m sure Army Secretary White’s proposal would not cause us to kill our spouses and children. But the challenge for the Army, to put it figuratively, would be to get good fruit off society’s tree when our past leaders (and some current ones) have been poisoning its root system.
Billy G. Willett
Heidelberg, Germany
Women in combat
I’m responding to the ignorant and chauvinistic comments made by the writer of the letter "Women ill-suited for combat" (Sept. 17). I’m not a feminist. I’m a homemaker for four children and a wonderfully supportive and nurturing husband. But the letter writer’s views of women were so narrow that I have to respond.
Women are capable of accomplishing anything they want, as are men. But to say that the Army should take diabetics or hemophiliacs into the military over women is just plain insulting. I believe the military is being chauvinistic as well by lowering physical fitness standards for women. Women and men should have the same standards. That way, the person who can meet the requirements can do the job. If a woman chooses to fill a combat role, then she should decide that pregnancy is not an option at that time.
If the letter writer is married with children, I feel sorry for his wife. She must be very busy being the only nurturer, since the writer believes that only women are capable of being nurturers. What a frightening world we must live in if only half the human population has, as the writer said, "emotional caring and consideration for others, and all other aspects of life that are inherently feminine" while the other half is only appropriately suited for a "kill-or-be-killed, horrifically traumatic combat environment."
Lesley Gandy
Wiesbaden, Germany
AFN censorship
I was appalled by AFN television’s blatant censorship when it didn’t show the lead piece of "20/20" on the slaying of spouses at Fort Bragg, N.C. The segment was the only part of the show that was replaced by breaking news. The news was CNN covering a press conference about the arrests of terrorist suspects in New York. The subject of the news conference was never provided, and AFN returned to "20/20" as soon as the next segment began. Are the powers that be afraid to bring up the subject of domestic violence in public?
For the last four years, I’ve served on the case review committee for spouse and child abuse at Fort Lewis, Wash. We met six times each month. Information and awareness does much to end domestic/family violence. Too often commanders’ opinions of their soldiers are formed only through seeing the soldiers at work. Often a report was that "Soldier X" was one of the best soldiers in the unit, and why were we harassing him? It was the rare commander who would seek treatment and help for his soldiers and help protect family members from further violence.
We need to bring domestic violence out of the closet. It is through secrecy and shame that family violence is allowed to exist. If there are problems, let’s seek solutions before any more deaths occur. Censoring a program that addresses domestic violence will only allow domestic violence to continue. We will not make domestic violence in the Army go away by burying our heads in the sand. This program concerning the slayings at Fort Bragg needs to be shown on AFN TV.
Chaplain (Maj.) Stephen Fry
Marriage and family therapist
Darmstadt, Germany
Special Ops policy
I’m writing in response to the article "Close shave the order of the day" (Sept. 13), which said Special Operations soldiers in theater must now shave their beards and cut their hair. I’m not in the Special Operations community, but I felt obligated to write.
This brought back memories of the story "Land mine takes soldier’s foot, not his cool" (June 28, 2001) about a GI who stepped on a land mine in Bosnia. It was against policy in Bosnia for a medic on a rescue mission to administer any type of medication to ease the soldier’s pain, despite the fact that the GI had just had his foot blown off by a land mine. The policy put that soldier’s life at risk. He may possibly have gone into shock from the pain.
How does this relate to the shaving story? The policies and regulations in both scenarios could needlessly cost GIs their lives. The policy requiring GIs to shave may have even more dire consequences than in the above scenario. If policymakers take away our Special Operations soldiers’ ability to blend in with the native culture, they are needlessly put in danger. Some people may be screaming, "These guys aren’t special. They should have the same standards as the rest of the Army." But I’d reply, "Put down your excuses outlining why you can’t do it. Call your local Special Forces recruiter and go try it yourself. Maybe in a couple of years, if you make the assessment and if you make the school, you can grow a beard, too."
I’ve also heard the argument that a protective mask won’t seal with facial hair. That may be true, but these are not first-term GIs. These are lifelong GIs (whose lives may now be shorter than anticipated) who can make the decision and know the risks. Let them decide which is more secure — blending in or being able to don a protective mask. If they blend in well enough, then logically they won’t need the masks. These are special situations for soldiers doing special jobs. I’d like to give them all the tools and advantages possible to do their work successfully so we never have a repeat of the attacks on America.
1st Sgt. Steven Day
Vicenza, Italy
Relations with Germany
A lot has been written recently about Army Secretary Thomas White’s announcement that the status of accompanied tours in Europe is being reviewed and may be changed. Though there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I have not noticed anyone pointing out that this could be a purely political move that has nothing to do with the Army family and a lot to do with the United States’ current relationship with Germany.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has said that Germany will not support military action against Iraq under any circumstances. Germany has also refused to extradite a suspected terrorist apprehended in Hamburg to the United States because of our laws allowing the death penalty. Further, there was a great deal of what could only be described as foot-dragging by the German polizei in acting on the tip relayed by the U.S. military police regarding the two terror suspects recently arrested in Heidelberg. These are only a few reasons for the U.S. government to be irritated with and disappointed in the German government. These may be reasons for the United States to give a gentle political warning to Germany without jeopardizing the United States’ ability to be so prominently forward deployed.
Making Europe an unaccompanied tour would undoubtedly hurt the German economy. Think of all the German nationals who work on the various installations throughout the country. If family members were not allowed to accompany soldiers to Germany, many facilities and activities — everything from exchanges to maintenance shops — would close or be greatly downsized. This would result in many lost jobs. Fewer Americans living in Germany would also mean less money spent on the German economy. Could Germany really afford this? This would be a drop in the bucket when compared with the contempt of the United States.
Naturally, I have no hard information to suggest that the U.S. government is toying with our emotions when it is only concerned with making the German government nervous. Obviously, no government official would admit to it if it were the case. Certainly we would not want to risk being unable to use our strategically important bases here in the war on terror. But could this all be a political maneuver to make Chancellor Schroeder think about the consequences of being less than supportive of U.S. interests? Maybe so.
Kristil Little
Mannheim, Germany
Accompanied tours
I’m a spouse in Europe with my husband. I’m also an educational aid at an elementary school. Several of my co-workers and I were discussing the military’s proposal to change all overseas tours to dependent free. There are more people who will get out of the military if this change is made. My husband is making plans to retire from the military. If this change is made, he has said that he’ll get out.
The military needs a lot more men and women than it has now. There will be a lot fewer people who will enlist or re-enlist if the change is made. The military may save money, but it would be hurting its forces.
We love our family members who are stateside very much. But I’d rather be with my husband for three years in Europe than be stateside waiting for him to come home. Even if this change happens, there’s no guarantee that we’ll be stationed close enough to go see family while our servicemembers are gone.
I’m happier here in Europe than I ever was stateside. Since we’ve been here, many things have improved a lot. There’s nothing in the world that would ever make me regret being here. I know I can’t see my family whenever I want, but there are so many other ways to stay in touch. Even if people don’t have a phone or a computer, Army Community Services and the military libraries can provide Internet access.
My opinion is that if the military makes this change, not only will it be hurting the forces that the military needs, it will also be hurting the families of enlisted soldiers.
Holly Northrup
Hanau, Germany
Church service
While at a conference in Garmisch, Germany, I contacted the chaplain on Sheridan Barracks to find out if there was going to be a memorial service on Sept. 11.
I was told a service would be held at the chapel at 1 p.m. Several conference attendees expressed a desire to go to the service. So that day’s conference agenda was changed and a bus took us there.
There was extra security at Sheridan Barracks, so when we arrived we were asked to get out of the bus at the gate and walk to the chapel. Just inside the gate, we were stopped by a soldier who explained that the chapel is very small and a lot of people were invited to the service, so there would not be room for us. But he agreed that we could stand in the back.
A little farther along, a woman who did not identify herself stopped us and emphatically said that we couldn’t just turn up at the service. She also said that we would not be allowed into the chapel, not even to stand in the back. She even asked me to go in and ask a few people from our group to leave who were already sitting in the chapel. When she asked the chaplain standing outside if he had invited us, he said he hadn’t invited anyone. He didn’t even ask what was going on. I was just devastated.
Never have I been told that I can’t turn up to a church service, and never have I been turned away from a house of our Lord. Certainly our Lord never turned people away, however great the crowd.
Is this the way they witness to people down in the chapel community of Garmisch? If so, then despite the beautiful area and facilities they have down there, I would rather be here in Mannheim, where I’m made welcome in each and every chapel and at every service I attend.
If this was an "invitation only" service, which seems so ridiculous to me, why didn’t the chaplain tell me that when I spoke to him the previous day?
Sue Nistl
Mannheim, Germany
Recent Opinion Articles
Blog: The Right to Know
Instant updates from the Pentagon, Capitol Hill and our DC newsroom.
Latest post: Morning Reading (Afternoon Edition), Feb. 9: Frustration and elation in Haiti
Most Popular Stripes Headlines
|
Advertisement
|
Advertisement
Tools
Win with Stripes! |