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

Letters

IRAQ MISSION NOT OVER

I am writing in response to the letter “War is for fighting” [Dec. 7].

There are several reasons why we cannot simply shift troops from Iraq to relieve stress and fatigue among Marines in Afghanistan.

First, the mission in Iraq is not complete. U.S. armed forces are still working to establish the legitimacy of the Iraqi security forces and assist them in taking control of their own country.

Following Germany’s surrender in early May of 1945, the U.S. maintained forces in place to re-establish basic services and provide security for the transitional government. Even though Japan did not surrender until September that year, very few large units were moved to the Pacific theater from Europe. There was still a job to be done in Germany, which, unlike Iraq, wasn’t even plagued by a well-coordinated and resourceful insurgency working to undermine the new government.

Second and more importantly, is the hazard that would face troops specially trained for the Iraqi desert environment and not Afghanistan’s harsh climate. Many Marines lack the specialized gear and training to operate in a high-altitude mountain environment. The difference in culture is also tremendous, meaning Marines who serve in Iraq may lack cultural knowledge specific to Afghanistan. They would need additional training on all fronts before they are shifted from one country to the other.

Any military in the world can topple a country, but few can transition to nation building and humanitarian assistance. Ours is one of the few, and we must not abandon that mission in Iraq, even if combat operations are over.

Sgt. Kyle M. Lefever

Al Asad, Iraq

EISENHOWER’S WARNING

Your Nov. 30 article “One foot in both camps,” about retired generals working as military mentors while receiving pay from defense contractors, shows that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Decades ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of the growing military-industrial complex. Your article addresses an instance that is the epitome of what Eisenhower feared. Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler voiced similar concerns even earlier in his book, “War is a Racket,” where he castigated the role of business interests in warfare. He clearly saw, in an earlier era, the same dangers that Eisenhower warned us about.

I agree with Maj. Gen. Waldo Freeman, an analyst at the nonprofit Institute for Defense Analyses, when he said, “I think it is absolutely wrong for somebody to have one foot in both camps.”

President Eisenhower and Maj. Gen. Butler would applaud his statement.

Lt. Col. Michael W. Reilly (ret.)

Medford, N.J.

DROP THE CHARGES

I can’t believe three SEALs are being tried for allegedly abusing a suspected terrorist [“Standing up for SEALs,” Dec. 14 and “Seals allegedly punch detainee, face charges,” Dec. 7]. The Navy has captured an alleged terrorist, who may have masterminded the 2004 Fallujah ambush in which four security contractors were hanged and burned, but they are more concerned about whether a Navy SEAL may have assaulted him with a punch.

I am all about honor, courage and commitment, but this is truly asinine.

Chief Master-at-Arms (AW) James Wilk (ret.)

Chesterfield, Mich.

REVISE VFW ELIGIBILITY

Present-day Veterans of Foreign Wars posts are slowly dying.

This is because the restrictive requirements to become a VFW member prevent many Cold War veterans from joining. This is unfortunate because they also served their country.

Current rules mandate that a veteran must have received a campaign medal for overseas service, have served for at least 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days in South Korea, or have received hostile fire or imminent danger pay to join. This excludes tens of thousands of veterans who served during the Cold War at stations and posts all over the world. Some of the veterans fought in small skirmishes — not campaigns.

A lack of new members is resulting in the deterioration of many posts. There is no strong influx of young veterans to take over the organization’s reins. They are dissuaded by their perception of the VFW as an organization of old men drinking beer and telling old war stories.

How do we possibly fix the problem?

It will require a big revision to the standards. They must be amended and revised. I, as a lifetime member of the VFW and as a retired Air Force master sergeant, would be glad to welcome all my fellow veteran brothers and sisters who have served and been honorably discharged, even if they don’t qualify for membership under current standards. This would not degrade the VFW, but rather it would help it stay healthy and grow into the future.

Air Force Master Sgt. William P. Johnson (ret.)

Waseca, Minn.