Letters to the Editor for Sunday, May 22, 2005

European and Mideast editions

(EDITOR’S NOTE: These are the letters that appeared in each edition of Stripes on this publication date. Click here to jump ahead to the Pacific edition letters)

Women already in combat arms

The May 15 article “Women fight policies on road to combat roles” (Europe edition; “Women fighting policies on road to combat roles,” Mideast edition) was thought-provoking. Having served in the Army 13 years — as an enlisted soldier, a noncommissioned officer and an officer — and after serving 15 months as an artilleryman in Iraq, I believe I can rebut these proposals, which betray our female soldiers.

Current conflicts aren’t conventional and they aren’t linear. We are fighting on an asymmetrical battlefield where units must be co-located to accomplish the mission. Arguments attempting to use “geography of the battlefield” to keep females from a theoretical “front line” are not valid.

Those who attempt to prevent females from serving their nation in combat should recognize that we have a volunteer Army. Women raise their hands voluntarily to support and defend the Constitution, and they are willing to fight to protect others. Isn’t it ironic that we are willing to fight for the rights of women in other countries, while some in our nation’s capital suggest women don’t have the right to contribute to that fight?

Females are not only serving in support of combat operations (medical, transportation, etc.) but also in combat arms jobs conducting combat operations. There are female Apache and Kiowa pilots flying in combat and female artillery officers sending fire missions in combat. The argument that females should not be assigned to organizations that support combat units is bizarre. We want to contribute and fight for freedom, with our skills, just like our male counterparts.

Females have been kicking down doors of opportunity and serving in combat for some time. We are not only supporting combat arms, we are combat arms. Perhaps those debating this question should listen to those of us who have already done what they propose we not be allowed to do.

Capt. Audrey M. Pittman
Grafenwöhr, Germany

A repeat of Vietnam

On the front page of the May 7 issue of Stars and Stripes is a photo with the caption, “Innocent victim of war in Iraq.” This emotional photo surfaced memories I have of a picture taken during the Vietnam War. Readers may recall the photograph of the young Vietnamese girl running down a dusty road, naked and sobbing, trying to escape a napalm attack.

It appears history is repeating itself. Prior to Vietnam we should have learned from the French, who had experienced disasters in both Vietnam and Algeria. However, the Bush administration is plagued with poor leadership, myopic planning and botched (though very expensive) intelligence because this Iraq “war” was an invasion of a country that was never a threat to Americans. As a result, we are again responsible for the deaths, injuries, imprisonment and homelessness of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

This administration is in the process of constructing 14 “enduring bases” in Iraq and is seeking an additional $592 million for a secure diplomatic compound (new embassy) in Baghdad. What a waste of precious American resources — and why? Is it because Iraq contains the world’s second largest oil reserves? If so, for those of you choosing a career in the Army, you know your future.

The same Stripes issue contains a letter, “Myth of the ‘liberal media,’” whose last paragraph mentions speeches by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. I visited his Web page and found, among speeches opposing the Patriot Act and a national ID card, “Who’s better off?” a sobering summation of the deteriorating state of our union, and Iraq, as a result of the U.S. occupation. Paul’s perception of Americans’ casual acceptance of “a moral obligation to practice nation-building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process” parallels my view as a Vietnam veteran — that the United States is condemned to repeat a tragic mistake in the Middle East.

Maj. Ed Thornburg (retired)
Würzburg, Germany

Why we must not forget

Most of them bled for us. Most of them lived with or still live with the haunting memories for us. Many even paid the ultimate sacrifice for us. For these truths, we honor them with Memorial Day.

Yes, this holiday is drawing nearer and many of us already have a trip planned and can’t wait to enjoy a few free days of rest with friends or family. I know, because I feel the same way. And like most of us, I equate Memorial Day with a vacation. This unfortunate oversight can be attributed to human nature.

However, human nature still cannot justify neglecting the 20,308 Americans who remain unaccounted for after fighting in Europe, or the 104,119 Americans who lie in cemeteries across Europe, because they gave their lives for the life we live today.

For this reason, on Thursday, the Joint Analysis Center of RAF Molesworth in England will commemorate, as it does annually, the 5,125 missing in action and 3,812 Americans buried at the Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial in Madingley, England. The JAC views this ceremony as an obligation to temporarily put our important mission to the side and remember the ones who “gave all” and how their selfless sacrifice played a significant role in our country’s current standing in the world. Without this sacrifice, we might not even have a mission to put to the side, or something yet worse, the lack of freedom.

I have a wish for every American currently living in Europe: You have a priceless opportunity to visit one of 20 American military cemeteries located near you. I hope that you take at least one day out of your tour in Europe to see one of these breathtaking and thought-provoking memorial grounds for our fallen compatriots.

Petty Officer 1st Class Frank E. Neely
RAF Molesworth, England

Pacific edition

Compassionate warriors

I am an Iraqi police liaison officer working in Baghdad, and I saw something the other day that illustrated to me our country’s presence in Iraq.

I was going to the post exchange in the Baghdad International Zone when we passed the checkpoint to the medical area. I saw an Iraqi man who had been badly wounded. One of his legs was missing and his other was covered in bandages. Both hands were tightly wrapped in gauze. He was in a wheelchair, but was unable to move it himself. All of his extremities were either gone or useless.

The temperature was around 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and the man was sitting in the sun. As I watched, an American military policeman walked over with a bottle of cool water, but the man could not drink it unaided. This big, tough MP, in full armor and carrying his M-16, opened the bottle and very slowly and gently poured the water into the injured man’s mouth. He was careful not to let the man choke as he gulped the water. It reminded me of a mother bird feeding a helpless chick.

Why don’t we see pictures like that on the TV or in the newspapers? This reflects the U.S. soldier, not the abuses of a few idiots. This is the kind of warrior we breed in the USA: fierce in battle, compassionate in victory. Willing to die for an ideal, willing to bend down and help someone in need.

Would our enemies do the same? I don’t think so. And that makes all the difference.

Neal A. Cline
Baghdad

Combat arms troops distinct

I see that the Army has once again changed its policy on the Close Combat Badge, now the Combat Action Badge. The question I have is, what’s so wrong with recognizing combat arms soldiers?

I’m a 19D assigned to the 25th Infantry Division’s Stryker Brigade. I have seen my share of combat — from convoy escorts to building clearing to sniper missions and everything in between. I can tell you there is a difference between being in the vicinity of direct-fire combat and actually engaging in it.

Support soldiers play a critical role in the Army, there’s no denying that. But that’s what they are — support. That’s why they have to be escorted by combat arms troops every time they leave the forward operating base. I have yet to see a cook or a mechanic dismount and engage the enemy with direct fire — and that’s fine because it’s not their job. That’s my job, to destroy the enemy. And they are here to support me, hence the terms “combat support” and “combat service support.”

Just because you have the potential to be attacked is not enough. Firing your weapon once or twice in contact is not enough. If combat is not your job, and you do not train for years to take the fight to the enemy and then do it the way it should be done, you shouldn’t qualify for this recognition.

For that matter, I don’t think that all combat arms troops should qualify for identification badges just for being in country. I know a lot of 11Bs, 19Ds and others who have never left the FOB, never been in direct-fire contact or met any other criteria for this type of recognition.

The Army needs to realize it is alienating its combat arms soldiers other than infantry by lumping us in with every other military occupational specialty in the Army. There is a distinction between combat arms and other soldiers, and that’s the bottom line.

Sgt. Frank Downard
Tall Afar, Iraq

Get civilians out of BDUs

In response to “Civilians should wear civvies” (letter, May 12), I would like to point out that civilians are not merely “authorized” to wear the uniform, but are “required” to. As a Department of Defense civilian deployed to Kosovo, I am bound by the rules of employment requiring me to wear the BDU while at my place of work. The writer raised some valid points surrounding this policy but, after reading, I need to elaborate.

Often, I have found myself to be on the receiving end of stares from active-duty, National Guard and reservist counterparts. And at times, I have been mistaken for a soldier not “up to standard” appearancewise. As civilians, we must abide by AR 670-1 for wear and appearance of the uniform. But we are not held to standards such as hair style and length, facial hair, etc.

The simple fact is, U.S. Army Europe regulations state that deployed civilians must wear the uniform, so that is what I must do in order to support the mission and earn a living.

Maybe we should ask: “Who actually benefits?” Uniforms should ultimately be for the soldiers. Directing civilians to wear the BDU puts additional demand on supply, creating potential shortages to those who really need them, the soldiers. Not to mention the amount of money this costs taxpayers. (Incidentally, the only deployed personnel who are taxed are Department of Army civilians.)

A majority of deployed civilians are prior military, and I, for one, am proud of my service in the Army. But, let’s give it a rest: I am a civilian now, and I agree, leave the BDUs for the soldiers.

Jim Earnshaw
Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo