Letters - Marine Corps Community, discussions, blogs, photos & video - Marine Corps Times

Letters

TAN BELTS AND LIFE ADVICE

Regarding the article “New martial arts standard” in the March 8 issue:

There is the insinuation that a good portion of Marines are purposely sitting at the tan belt level with no intent to further their Marine Corps Martial Arts Program training.

“If you had hoped to skate by with a tan belt for the rest of your enlistment, think again,” the article states. While there certainly is a portion of our population doing exactly this, [it is not] the majority of our tan belts.

Coming up in the Corps, I had the opportunity as a lance corporal to attend a gray belt course, and counted myself lucky. It wasn’t until during my second enlistment that I was fortunate enough to have MCMAP instructors within my command at the company level and the support from the command to pursue the training to obtain a brown belt. As a sergeant, and in previous units as a corporal, I have fended off numerous requests from junior Marines to attend MCMAP training, which was often unavailable, due to lack of instructors, courses or time. First Lt. Kristin Dalton, who trains black belt instructors, was spot-on in her assessment that it will require command support to ensure the time is made available to the Marines in order to complete this training.

What aggravates me most, though, are the proposed character attributes added to the testing at each belt level. This kind of shoehorning of character traits onto individual moves will not ensure better understanding of life lessons, but will detract from what is most important — learning to fight. These life lessons are better taught from the Marines’ mentors, who have a far stronger personal connection with them.

Spend less time on the emotional side of the house, opting instead to push that responsibility to the mentor level, and incorporate more time during MCMAP courses for physical training and sparring.

— Sgt. Joseph Benson, Okinawa, Japan

REALITY-TV RECRUITING

The Corps had reason for concern when deciding whether to allow Sgt. George Lockhart to participate as a contestant on “The Ultimate Fighter” reality TV show [“UFC dream delayed,” Feb. 22].

I cannot help, however, to question whether Marine leaders made the effort to explore the [positive] possibilities.

They had an opportunity to use what may be the poster boy for the Corps as a spokesman for Marine Corps Recruiting Command. Lockhart exemplifies Marine values. I question whether he is even a real person, or a G.I. Joe action figure complete with karate-chop action.

The Corps has a multimillion dollar recruiting budget. This budget could include using service members as spokespersons through permissive temporary assigned duty.

— Former Sgt. Ben Wynkoop, Newport Beach, Calif.

CHANGE NAVY NAME

I agree with the March 8 editorial “Recognizing the Corps,” [which called for renaming the Department of the Navy]. As Marines, it is far better to be termed a member of “The Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.”

The resolution being proposed by Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., is, as the editorial points out, “a symbolic gesture, not a devious one.” We will still be part of the Navy establishment under this legislation but will be recognized as a unique service arm with a long and storied history.

Opponents argue that this change would be costly at a time when the federal government needs to exercise restraint. This is coming from a Congress and an administration that is spending money like a drunken sailor on liberty.

Some may ask, “What’s in a name?” If you enjoy your freedom, you need to know the roles each of the services plays in ensuring that freedom.

— Lt. Col. Everett L. Tunget (ret.), Freeland, Wash.

‘WARRANT’-ED PARKING

In response to retired Master Gunnery Sgt. Tommy C. Thompson’s letter “Parking perks earned” [March 8]: He is right on target that those parking spaces [at post exchanges and commissaries] are earned.

Through a career that will see permanent change of station moves, long deployments and family hardships, those parking spaces are a small pittance of repayment. By the time you reach colonel you have been in the Marine Corps for at least 20 years. Same goes for sergeants major and master gunnery sergeants in most cases.

But why aren’t there any parking spaces at the PXs or commissaries for chief warrant officer 4s and 5s? For the same reasons mentioned above, our chief warrant officer ranks have endured hardships, yet there are no parking spaces set aside for them. I would like to see a change in which we set aside a few parking spaces for chief warrant officer 4s and 5s. I believe that this is only fair and, as mentioned above, would be a small pittance of repayment for a career spent in the trenches.

— Chief Warrant Officer Stacy D. Jeambert (ret.), San Marcos, Calif.

MORE AMPHIBS NEEDED

Reporter Philip Ewing’s piece “Corps loses out in latest round of amphib battle” [March 15] is on target.

It accurately and artfully states the challenge of fencing monies within the Department of the Navy for the gator navy.

Amid the fog of conflicting requirements, it correctly articulates the Corps’ requirement for 38 amphibious ships. Each Marine should have the ‘38’ requirement tattooed on his brain housing group. Without amphibs, we can’t fulfill our forcible entry mandate and assure access for the nation. We look more and more like an Army brigade. We need — the nation needs — 38 gators.

— Lt. Col. Matthew McLaughlin, deputy director, Marine Corps Public Affairs, The Pentagon