(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)

Written complaints preferred

Recent media reports have highlighted that the Army has a troubling number of soldiers coping with serious marital, disciplinary and psychological issues, including suicides. These numbers have persisted despite the numerous Army programs available to help soldiers. The primary causes deemed responsible for this situation include a protracted war with long deployments, and the diluted quality of personnel volunteering and being retained in the Army. I respectfully suggest that another issue to be considered as a contributing factor is the Army’s Chain of Command (COC) policy.

My concern about the Army’s method of resolving soldiers’ problems and complaints through the COC is that the process is initiated and resolved orally. As a “verbal record” goes up the COC, ambiguities as to what was originally said or done at the lower level are inevitable. Senior leaders confront the dilemma of whose memory or version to believe. Superiors tend to support the senior ranking individual, which can induce the junior soldier to believe that he failed to receive a fair hearing. That soldier will become disillusioned and intimidated by the COC results and, consequently, the soldier is unlikely to seek help for future problems through the COC.

The current COC procedure adequately settles most soldiers’ issues, but the verbal process also creates a lack of accountability. A written (or electronic) complaint/problem form should be authorized for soldiers to initiate a problem resolution request. The regulations for use of this form must be simpler than those for an Equal Opportunity (EO) written complaint. The form would be utilized to allow a soldier to articulate the problem, the superior’s response, and whether the soldier concurs with the decision or prefers the issue to proceed up the COC. The form should be placed in the soldier’s file and a copy provided to the soldier.

Military cons outweigh pros?

It was very disheartening for me to read that the Department of Defense is not in favor of increasing the benefits of the G.I. Bill because they are afraid it will hurt retention (Military Update column, March 8).

The benefits of joining today’s military are few and far between, with educational opportunities being among the top draws. Since joining the Army four years ago, I have spent a year in South Korea and two years in Iraq. That is three out of four years that I have been on a dependent restricted assignment. I have 3½ years remaining on my contract and I know that means at least one more deployment — if not two — before I get out.

Maybe this is the reason that retention is hurting, or maybe it’s the fact that when I deploy I only make $40,000 a year and less than $30,000 per year if I get to stay at home with my family. I know if I was working in the civilian sector for four years, and getting such low wages for my 60-to-72-hour workweeks, I would probably be looking elsewhere for employment.

Perhaps it’s the fact that they increased our already-too-long deployments from 12 months to 15 months, or maybe it’s that they feel one year of “rest” is a treat in between tours, especially when that rest time includes weeks in the field or a month or so away training at Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JRTC).

These are the few of many factors that I could fit in 300 words or less as to why retention may go down, but I highly doubt that better educational opportunities are going send people fleeing from the Army.

On a side note, I find it funny that the same people who entrust me to make life-and-death decisions every day don’t feel I can make the decision on which of my family members can use my educational benefits.

Aiming to tweak slogan

Regarding “Mixed reviews for Air Force slogan” (article, Feb. 29, Mideast edition; “New Air Force slogan gets mixed reviews,” Europe edition): Make everybody happy, use “Above All, Aim High.”

It combines the slogans, gives the impression of lofty goals, and keeps in the forefront the admonition to do your best. Also, it makes a pretty good motto.

Change is not always good, but improvement is.

Words are not inherently bad

Regarding the article “Town adopts 14-year-old’s petition for cuss-free zone” (March 8, Mideast edition; March 9, European edition): While I can respect young McKay Hatch’s beliefs and political activism, the political application of his No Cussing Club is wholly unconstitutional. Liberty is in jeopardy anytime some people think that they can inhibit words that they don’t like. It should be obvious that immoral actions are what make society less civil, not “cuss” words.

The notion that certain words are unacceptable has its roots in misplaced moral judgments and a misapprehension of words and meaning. A spoken or written word is, in and of itself, an amoral article used to convey meaning. It is only the use of a word in a given context that ascribes it meaning. Words may anger and offend us, but they are not moral or immoral; our actions are.

A word is not a moral action; it is only sound or pictograms on a page that communicate meaning. The way in which a word is used is the representation of a thought within a language. Thus, any effort to suppress certain words is tantamount to hindering the ability for people to express their thoughts.

But such banal thought-control attempts through the suppression of words in language are ultimately futile. In the end, people will always find ways to express what they mean and potentially say or write something that someone will find offensive. But this is what constitutes liberty, a value that is the cornerstone of our Constitution.

Not protected by Constitution

The writers of “Don’t forget due process” (letter, March 4) and “What Scalia really said” (letter, Feb. 27) would do well to study the 14th Amendment.

The amendment provides a definition as to who is a U.S. citizen and thus protected under our Bill of Rights. This amendment is important to the argument the readers were having about the waterboarding of suspected terrorists, because, technically, they are not protected under our Constitution. Not being citizens, or within the defined jurisdiction of any particular state, they are neither guaranteed due process by our government nor protected against cruel and unusual punishment. This is part of the reason we hold most suspected terrorists in Cuba and will not move them to a U.S.-governed state or territory. Also, since they are not defined as uniformed combatants, they are not permitted prisoner-of-war-status protection.

I do not condone cruel and unusual punishment. I believe engaging in such behavior would make us lose our moral high ground in this war. The suspected terrorists in Cuba were caught either in the act of, or preparing to commit, terrorist actions. They are afforded three hot meals a day and other amenities that many of our own countrymen cannot afford (i.e. health care).

Waterboarding, while not very nice, is a nonpermanently injuring way to obtain information that can save soldiers’ and civilians’ lives. The men we interrogate knew the risk they were putting themselves under when they decided to pick up a rifle, plant a bomb or plan a terrorist attack — just as we know we risk being killed, beheaded and mutilated if we are captured by our enemy. That we don’t engage in such terrorist actions ourselves should speak volumes about our behavior.

Pacific edition

Research the performers

I would like to thank MySpace, Armed Forces Entertainment and America Supports You for the outstanding and successful Operation MySpace concert at Camp Buehring, Kuwait. It certainly is nice to have a bit of home brought to you when you are so far from home.

To address “Kuwait concert was vulgar” (letter, March 13), I chuckled out loud as I read the letter in its full moral superiority. There are a couple of things I would like to point out, the first being, thank God for the First Amendment, entitling people such as the lieutenant and me to have opinions and to state those opinions. It also entitles the performers to say what they want and to express themselves how they see fit artistically.

Now the lieutenant was quite critical of the artists and their individual style, to which I say he clearly had no idea what he was in for. That could have been rectified by a simple Internet search of the performing artists, giving someone ignorant to their genre or style an idea of what the concert would have in store.

I know the enormity of this event and everyone’s desire to be on television, but if he found the content to be personally offensive or “vulgar,” wouldn’t the simplest thing to have done be to leave?

You can argue where culture has gone or is heading, particularly pop culture, but again, we can pick and choose what kind of music we listen to, which movies we watch and most certainly which concerts we attend.

To ignorantly summarize an entire event base on one’s own personal moral objection along with lambasting the people who gave of their time is absurd. I simply say next time, educate yourself, and if you don’t like the content, leave.

Show was for the troops

Someone would have to be living in a cave to not know what kind of comedy Carlos Mencia has been made famous for. How was it that the writer of “Kuwait concert was vulgar” was so offended and yet he stuck around for the six-hour show?

It was stressed that the show was for the troops. It wasn’t for the Middle East, even though there were several Kuwaiti citizens in place and they very much seemed to enjoy the show with their enthusiastic head bobbing. Every audience member was an adult. We have freedom of speech. We also have the freedom to turn the channel or leave a concert if we don’t like what we are seeing. It’s the main reason most people love the U.S.

I applaud everyone who made this concert happen. I know dozens of people who would have gladly traded spots with our offended reader. It was a welcome relief from a deployment, and we were all treated to an adult concert.

As for the glowing remarks for Jessica Simpson, perhaps the reader should do some research into what it cost to get her to come over and show her “patriotism.” My hat is off to her because she still performed even though she was sick, but when the cameras were off, she seemed to have little interest in the troops. I can only think there were other motivating factors for her to come to Kuwait. Mencia might have been rough around the edges, but he was always out there during the breaks entertaining the troops during the “dead” times.

To the bands and everyone who made this possible, I say please come back soon. Thanks for taking our minds off our deployment.

To the writer, maybe there is a Kenny G/New Kids on the Block concert in the future for you.

Find alternate entertainment

For most of us in attendance for the Operation MySpace concert, all enjoyed it and the evidence was laughter and cheers for all those involved. If some people found it too vulgar, they could have simply left the area and not participated in an awesome event.

The writer of “Kuwait concert was vulgar” complained that it was offensive and vulgar. As pointed out by one entertainer, we are the defenders of the freedoms they enjoy. I highly doubt that anyone who follows Carlos Mencia, Disturbed or other entertainers would have been shocked by any part of their performances. Mencia, Disturbed and Filter did more on Camp Buehring, Kuwait, to hang out with troops and enjoy themselves than any of the other entertainers. One entertainer in particular made it very difficult to be approached, for example, by having a camp coffee establishment cleared out before she entered to get coffee. I would like to say that her support of the troops is very plastic and fake.

We all enjoy the freedoms we defend and those who were offended should have found their way to another Morale, Welfare and Recreation site to entertain themselves. Those watching via MySpace could have very easily surfed onto something else.

Thank you to MySpace and everyone involved for providing one of the best shows I have seen while deployed.

Was Robin Williams vulgar too?

I am frankly surprised at the response to the Operation MySpace concert. Did the writer of “Kuwait concert was vulgar” not know anything about any of the acts? Had he never heard of Carlos Mencia, the Pussycat Dolls, or any of the others? Had he ever listened to any of these performers, he would have known that what he heard at Camp Buehring that night was relatively normal for these folks. Did the writer happen to catch Robin Williams on his holiday tour in December? If so, where was his indignation then? Or is Williams somehow less vulnerable to criticism than these performers?

What did the letter writer expect, a gospel concert? And is the writer so in tune with how every single person in the armed forces feels that he can make the blanket statement that “90 percent of Monday night’s concert … did not reflect the values of American armed forces”?

If the writer was insulted or disturbed by the content of the concert, that’s fine. No performer will ever please 100 percent of his audience. Just don’t insinuate that everyone around him shares his values.

Learn what troops listen to

I would ask that the letter writer who complained about the vulgarity of the Operation MySpace concert at Camp Buehring do two things:

First, talk to his soldiers. See what is on their iPods and in their DVD players. Ask them what they think of Carlos Mencia.

Second, ask himself who these events should be geared toward, the brave men and women putting their lives on the line in the Central Command area of responsibility defending freedom, or civilians back in the U.S. enjoying those provided freedoms?

Servicemembers need a way to take their minds off of what is happening downrange and blow off some steam. If the Pussycat Dolls and Disturbed are willing to travel to a combat zone to perform for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and allies, then God bless them. Those who find them objectionable, or just don’t enjoy their act, may choose not to attend.

Cultural differences abound in our military; always have, always will. The writer should not make the mistake of trying to forcibly purify his soldiers. No one earns respect that way. He has a duty to enforce and inculcate his service’s values and creed, but that does not mean trying to restrict soldiers’ choices for entertainment to that which he deems wholesome.

• Email
• Print
• More...