Letters to the Editor for Monday, October 30, 2006

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)

War’s ‘armchair quarterbacks’

I would like to respond to “Some U.S. troops campaign to withdraw forces from Iraq” (article, Oct. 26).

I find it funny how 200 servicemembers could even do this. I have served proudly in the U.S. Army for 25 years and I have deployed three times for this country, and never once did it cross my mind to petition Congress.

I also find it funny how they do not tell you what units these soldiers are from and if any of these soldiers just re-enlisted and received a cash bonus. I would also like to know what job these 200 soldiers have, how many of them are on the ground every day taking fire or driving in convoys. I would also like to know what makes them experts on how to wage a war; I see that one is a seaman and another is a Marine sergeant. I am sure they have the expertise necessary to bring this conflict to a successful end.

I am getting tired of the armchair quarterbacks who think they know more than the people waging the war, and some of these people held positions of power and influence and did nothing about it, but now they have all the answers. I would like people to know that I am currently proudly serving in Afghanistan and, if called upon, I would go to Iraq and serve like I did in Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Why? Because when I raised my hand and took the oath of enlistment, I knew what I was doing and anyone who thinks the military is a free ride better wake up and smell the coffee.

First Sgt. David Holmes
Forward Operating Base Salerno, Afghanistan

Time to vote for Democrats

During President Bush’s Oct. 25 press conference, he was asked if Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had been invited to a news conference held the previous day with Gen. George Casey and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Kahlilzad, which would have indicated cooperation between the two governments. “I have no idea,” answered Bush.

Bush’s analysis of a deteriorating Iraq was no more enlightening: “It’s hard work, it’s not only tough, it’s really tough. We’re constantly adjusting our tactics to meet the threat, if the generals tell me they need more troops, I’ll send them, and we mourn every loss of life.”

Funny, how a president who has taken more vacations than any other in history, during a war he started for no good reason, fixates on “hard work.” While Bush jogs, rides bikes and golfs, he sends brigades on multiple tours of duty.

With 91 U.S. military killed so far this month, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans Gen. John Batiste and retired Gen. Paul Eaton agree on the need to change tactics. They advise Americans to vote a straight Democratic ticket in November.

More than 200 troops have launched a campaign to press Congress to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, filing “Appeals for Redress” under the Military Whistle-blower Protection Act. They want our soldiers brought home. Now. No need for tea leaves or tarot cards to predict which party they’ll be voting.

Kevin Tillman’s [online commentary] commemorating the birthday of his brother Pat on Nov. 6 is a withering excoriation of Bush’s policies of pre-emptive strike, kidnapping, torture, war profiteering, subverting the Bill of Rights/Constitution/Geneva Conventions and suspending habeas corpus. Tillman reminds readers that the U.S. is still a democracy, and that change can still take place within our government, starting the day after Pat Tillman’s birthday, Election Day.

Michele Winter
Würzburg, Germany

Pay raises and inflation

The author of “Pay raises and presidents” (letter, Oct. 24) fails to take inflation into account when attempting to prove his thesis that “Democratic (sic) presidents have a higher rate of military pay raises than Republican presidents, with Carter having the highest overall average.” This statement misleads the reader into concluding that Democratic presidents increased servicemember pay (buying power) in absolute terms. This is not the case.

When military pay raises over the last 30 years are factored for inflation, the following is apparent:

• President Carter presided over the lowest average pay raises in a four-year presidential term. The budgets he signed into law (budget years 1978-81) contained raises that consistently lagged behind inflation (-2.9 percent, on average).
• Both Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush approved the highest average pay raises in their first terms (+2.3 percent).
• Reagan’s second term was less impressive (-0.6 percent).
• President George H.W. Bush’s average during his single term was a wash (0.0 percent).
• President Clinton’s first term lagged inflation (-0.1 percent), but improved with his second term (+1.7 percent).
• George W. Bush’s second term is yet to be completed. However, the trend for the first two years of his budgets is trending negative (-1.2 percent).

The author’s statement about Republican average pay raises (+4.3 percent) versus Democratic average raises (+4.9 percent) doesn’t tell the whole story. By considering the effects of inflation, the complete data set shows the opposite. Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased military pay in absolute terms by +0.8 percent while Democratic administrations have tended to decrease military pay by -0.4 percent.

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Kenneth C. Jensen
Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan

Be thankful for pay raise

There is much to say about the pay raise servicemembers will receive and have received. We all should count our blessings because no matter how you perform, you will get a raise.

My civilian employer grants his employees pay raises based on their performance and how much they add to the company. I have seen employees who have climbed the corporate ladder and those who have remained in their current position for quite some time. Usually, those employees who remain stagnant do not end up with the company. So, in the long run, the company I work for back home gets the best employees money can buy and who are dedicated to the job.

I am not insinuating that the military has “employees” who do not perform. However, I believe all of us in the military should be happy with any pay raise that is presented to us. This should also be a wake-up to those who will someday leave the military and have to work in the private sector. More or less, once you peel off the uniform and put on a shirt and tie, don’t bank on the 2.2 percent pay raise the following year.

Sgt. 1st Class Douglas Schultz
Logistics Support Area Anaconda, Iraq

Why run article on gays?

I’ve been deployed to the U.S. Central Command Air Forces area of responsibility for a couple of months now and always enjoy my daily read of Stars and Stripes. I’ve found it has a good mix of local stories as well as those that help us keep in touch with events around the world.

However, I have to take issue with “Programs surfacing to help meet needs of aging gay population” (San Francisco Chronicle article, Oct. 24, “Groups emerge to help aging homosexuals”). Homosexual behavior is incompatible with military service and the article, which I read completely, did not address anything even remotely military.

Frankly, I am offended and view it as an attempt to push the homosexual agenda on the military population. I fail to see why such an article was included in your publication. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Capt. Ian Hester
Baghdad

Pacific edition

Don’t like military’s pay raise

The government is giving servicemembers a 2.2 percent pay raise because the civilian workers union demands the same pay raise as the military. I don’t like it, but I understand.

Social Security recipients are getting a 3.3 percent pay raise. So, those who serve their country during wartime get less of a pay raise than the retired folks who took part in the government-mandated pyramid scheme. But don’t worry because the Social Security system will be bankrupt by the time most servicemembers retire anyway.

Capt. Jason Miller
Camp Arifjan, Kuwait

Sad ‘State’ of cartoon affairs

Carl Moore, who pens the “State of the Union” cartoon, really outdid himself with his moronic and disgusting portrayal of Bill Clinton on the Oct. 24 Opinion page. To depict a president of the United States in such a manner is not only uncalled for, it is evidence of a double standard on the part of the right. If a “liberal” depicted George W. Bush that way, the right would be screaming bloody murder, and rightly so.

I am afraid this childish cartoon that appears daily in Stars and Stripes is evidence of the “dumbing down” of America in my lifetime. Such amateur work simply would not have appeared in a major newspaper a generation ago. (Moore could learn a lot from [Julie Negron], the cartoonist from Kadena Air Base who pens “Jenny,” which [appears Sundays in Scene magazine and] is funny and charming.)

Oh well, at least Stripes runs “Doonesbury” to “balance” the crud on the next page. No matter what you think of Garry Trudeau’s politics, the wit he displays in his four panels is at least indicative that he has more than the room-temperature IQ of the dolt who produces “State of the Union.”

Michael G. Arden
Kadena Air Base, Okinawa