Military Community, Marine Corps Community, military installations, discussions, blogs, photos, videos - Marine Corps Times

Letters

Handgun dÉjÀ vu

I was disappointed in the May 21 article about the Air Force wanting to change to a .45-caliber handgun [“In pursuit of stopping power”]. Many of the debated issues have already been weighed and measured on multiple occasions, and we are simply repeating history. We should have never changed from a .45-caliber pistol.

In 1901, Col. John Thompson and Maj. Louis LaGarde conducted testing of several calibers for the Army. Although not as scientific as today’s testing criteria, the results were a contributing factor in the development of the criteria for the Army’s next combat pistol. There were two significant conclusions: “[T]he board was of the opinion that a bullet, which will have the shock effect and stopping effect at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver, should have a caliber not less than .45” and “soldiers armed with pistols or revolvers should be drilled unremittingly in the accuracy of fire due to there being no hope of stopping an adversary by shock or other immediate results.”

The second time we learned this lesson was after the lethal firefight between the FBI and two bank robbers in Miami on April 11, 1986. One robber, Michael Platt, was shot by a 9mm Luger round early in the firefight. The round entered his right arm (missing the bone), passed between two ribs (missing the bone) through the right lung and stopped about an inch from his heart. The wound was terminal, but not as immediately terminal as it might have been if it reached his heart. Before Platt died, he continued fighting, killing two agents and seriously wounding a third. This sparked a round of testing by the FBI in 1989 for better handgun ballistics. Essentially, the results corroborated the 1901 testing: Bigger is better. The FBI ultimately changed to the .40 caliber, a shortened, less recoiling version of a newly designed 10mm cartridge.

I was saddened to hear of our initial conversion to the M9 in the late 1980s. Many of us so-called “gun nuts” saw this change back to the .45 caliber coming. So did history. Do I really need to have that much stopping power? I would rather have it and not need it than the other way around. As for those who believe shot placement is more important, accuracy comes only with practice (that’s the “drilled unremittingly” part of the Thompson-LaGarde Test findings in 1901).

You can’t fake knockdown power, though. It took the Army 10 years to get its new Colt 1911 pistol approved and into soldiers’ hands. I hope history doesn’t continue to repeat itself.

Special Agent Sean Myhre

Air Force Office of Special Investigations

Peterson Air Force Base, Colo.

The Springfield XD45 is the perfect pistol to replace our current model M9. It has a magazine capacity of 14 rounds and closed slide design, and Surefire flashlights are easily mounted to the rail. True, the “punch” of the .45 is stronger but the change from the 9mm to the .45 can be easily fixed: more shooting. Put more money into buying ammunition for airmen to shoot. The majority of airmen don’t even carry firearms on a regular basis. In fact, the only career field that does, both at home station and downrange, is security forces, which I am proud to say I am part of. We should upgrade to the .45 — the sheer power would be a great advantage to have in a circumstance that requires a firearm.

Senior Airman William P. White

Ali Air Base, Iraq

Too many uniform changes

I wish that I had kept all of the uniforms that the Air Force has had since my graduation from ROTC in 1952. I’d have a pretty good museum.

Now, it seems that every few years the chief of staff thinks he can leave his mark on the Air Force with a new uniform. Don’t worry about the money, trouble of getting tailored, installation of rank and so on.

We seem to be taken with the idea of jointness. The Army and Air Force have joint commands and staff.

I have an idea. The Army plans to use only its dress blues. We plan to adopt yet another uniform, belted, and who knows what will be next?

So let’s both Army and Air Force go back to the most beautiful uniform that I can recall: the “pinks and greens” with 50 mission crush hats, Ike jackets optional. That would be jointness, and it would do more for the heritage of both services than the present plan.

I never got to wear that uniform; how about now? Even though retired, I would gladly update.

Maj. Gen. Bobby E. Walls (ret.)

Drumright, Okla.

Base gay ban in reason

Retired Maj. Richard Crandall writes that we are a Christian nation [“A new look at ‘don’t ask,’” Letters, June 11]. I disagree and so did the first two presidents. That the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation was stated in the Treaty with Tripoli, drafted under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797: “As the government of the U.S. is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ...”

More disturbing is the major’s point that “we must conform ourselves to the objective truth that God has set down.” Do we want to use the Bible as a moral compass? Declaring homosexuality a sin ought to be as morally outmoded as the biblical prescription to keep slaves or to stone your wife on your wedding night if she is not a virgin. If you choose to accept some of the biblical law as sacred dogma, you must accept it all. Be careful what you wish for.

Master Sgt. Edward Onny (ret.)

Closter, N.J.

I write regarding the letters in the June 11 issue dealing with Robert F. Dorr’s column that disclosed his change of mind about “don’t ask, don’t tell.” None of the writers have it right, exactly. One writer faulted Dorr for siding with a majority opinion in society that no longer is concerned with the morality of homosexuality. Another writer faulted the policy as being out of step with the progressive militaries of NATO allies. That writer failed to mention those NATO countries have that policy especially for conscripted enlistees but differ in applying it to career enlisted and officers. The Netherlands is the only nation with general application of approving openly practicing gays.

Another writer faulted Dorr for characterizing off-duty behavior as not affecting duty performance or that character doesn’t matter to leadership roles.

Perhaps the last writer caught the corner of an argument against Dorr’s recommendation for dropping don’t ask. Certain behaviors, whether by heterosexuals or homosexuals, lead to relationships that harm unit integrity.

The recent World Bank controversy demonstrated how intimate relationships can affect the workplace.

In a military organization, homosexual relationships could fester and eat at the faith in the chain of command, or cause fears that peers might put a partner’s interests ahead of the unit’s mission. Behavior, not orientation, would be the basis of Uniform Code of Military Justice actions. Only a small percentage of such issues reach the courts, but are dealt with below the radar, with low efficiency reports or administrative actions. How long before the growth of behavior disciplinary problems would destroy organizations?

How long before homosexually oriented clusters would infiltrate military organizations, dominate the chain of command and ward off straights from certain occupations or certain units? How long until 10 percent of the population at large becomes 20 percent or 30 percent of the military?

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs is wrong to defend the policy on moral grounds. He and Congress are right to base a policy on what works for the efficiency of the nation’s military at a time when long deployments shed the structure of single room quarters in stateside garrisons.

Lt. Col. Robert C. Brenzel Sr. (ret.)

Louisville, Ky.

Death by paperwork

In late May, I was notified by a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs that the staff had extended their condolences about my reported demise and asked my estate to reimburse VA for two months of overpayment of disability benefits.

I called VA and talked to a nice gentleman who said he could fix it. He also said this kind of thing happens periodically.

“It’s as easy as something like a widow calling to give us a name and a Social Security number and either the widow gives us the wrong number or we input it incorrectly,” he said.

He told me it could take a few weeks to bring me back to life.

My wife then got a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service informing her about procedures for collecting death benefits. This immediately made me suspicious that my death had been reported to DFAS and that my retired pay had stopped.

When I called DFAS, I was indeed dead. VA apparently had notified DFAS of my untimely demise. I convinced a nice lady at DFAS that I was indeed alive, and she restarted my retired pay.

A few days later, Navy Federal Credit Union called to tell me it had heard from DFAS that I was dead. DFAS was apparently reclaiming two months of retired pay I had collected while I was supposedly dead.

The bank thought my death was unusual, as there had been significant activity in my account during the two months I was dead. I got DFAS and Navy Federal on the phone at the same time so we could establish the fact that my heart is still beating.

Then on June 1, no retired pay arrived from DFAS. I called to find that when I was brought to life again, the paperwork to get me paid for June was not done. Another nice lady helped me with that.

And for one last insult, all my DFAS allotments stopped and I had to call DFAS to restart them, and work with Delta Dental to restart my dental insurance.

While I hope you can see some humor in this, I’d like my fellow retirees and career military members to be aware of this potential snakebite out there. I have written VA to ask how a veteran can be killed with a phone call without any additional verification, but to date I have received no response.

I’m waiting to see if my death notice shows up in the Marine Corps retiree newsletter.

Marine Corps Col. Dirk Ahle (ret.)

Alexandria, Va.