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

Letters

EFV failure not an option

Our Corps’ position remains unequivocal: The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is essential to what we do and is our top acquisition priority [“Dump the EFV now,” Editorials, March 2]. It is a mistake to let past technical difficulties shape the future of the program.

Operational experience has repeatedly demonstrated that the rapid projection of Marine combat power ashore is the key to success in amphibious missions across the range of military operations. The tremendous flexibility and utility, across the littorals and deep inland, make it a significant addition to joint commanders’ employment options. Even if the landing force could avoid fixed defenses, comparative analysis has shown that shuttling personnel carriers on landing craft air-cushioned would delay the buildup of combat power ashore to the extent that the landing force would incur significant casualties from an enemy counterattack.

Additionally, anti-ship cruise missiles are lethal ship-killers, as demonstrated when Hezbollah struck an Israeli warship during the Lebanon crisis in 2006, but neutralizing these weapons is facilitated by keeping ships over the horizon. The Navy and Marine Corps have therefore pursued a complementary mix of over-the-horizon capabilities, to include rotary-wing and tilt-rotor aircraft, LCACs, and the EFV.

A surface amphibious fighting vehicle that self-deploys from a ship at high speed provides a joint commander the ability to quickly mass combat power ashore while overcoming projected anti-access threats. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated the requirement for the EFV, which is to provide rapid combat-power buildup ashore from over the horizon.

It’s important to understand that when Defense Department programs exceed planned cost and schedule, Congress requires the defense secretary to make certain certifications. The EFV underwent a review in spring 2007, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense certified, among other things, that “the EFV program is essential to national security and there are no alternatives which will provide equal or greater military capability at a reduced cost.”

The EFV continues to make significant progress. A recent major design review assessed the predicted reliability as 61½ hours “mean time between operational mission failures,” exceeding the established criteria of 43½ hours. Further developmental and operational tests will be conducted on seven prototypes currently in fabrication to validate the EFV’s reliability.

This nation requires the ability to rapidly project combat power ashore from Navy ships to ensure our security against international threats.

The EFV remains a vital capability to accomplish that amphibious mission and is the commandant’s top ground-combat priority.

Lt. Gen. George J. Flynn, Deputy Commandant Combat Development and Integration

Quantico, Va.

No ‘media spectacle’

Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates lifted the 18-year-old ban on media coverage of fallen troops’ caskets as they return to Dover Air Force Base, Del. [“Gates reverses Dover policy,” Frontlines, March 9]

AMVETS opposes that decision.

When our nation’s heroes fall in battle, their safe return to the U.S. is not designed to be a media spectacle. Since the ban was called into question in 2004, journalists have clamored for access to the returning coffins. As a leader in serving the interests of our veterans, I must question these motives.

When the ban was enacted during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon hoped to avoid the exploitation of our fallen troops. With the scars of Vietnam fresh in the minds of many veterans, we must ensure these images will not be used to misrepresent our brave men and women, and their sacrifice is not cheapened in the pursuit of political gain.

Advocates for the policy change have accused the Pentagon of hiding the horrors of war. Yet on today’s battlefield, journalists enjoy unprecedented access to the military during operations.

The real story behind each of the men and women who have lost their lives in battle does not lie on a C-17 bound for Dover; it lies in the cities and towns where these brave Americans made their homes. It lies with the parents and children left to grieve, or the spouse who clutches the American flag as taps sounds. The transit process of the fallen from the battlefield is somber and it is respectful, but it is not a media event.

In the past, the decision to cover funeral proceedings of our fallen troops has rested with the surviving family members. The Pentagon insists families will still be given the opportunity to deny media coverage. But the new policy does not outline whether the Pentagon will allow the media to cover the return of anonymous flag-draped coffins, compromising the only safeguard for a mournful family.

The Pentagon should not invite this kind of intrusion upon families in mourning. It is our hope that Secretary Gates will reconsider this policy change and respect the privacy of families grieving the loss of their loved ones.

John “Chad” Hapner, national commander, AMVETS

Lanham, Md.

TUBE WITH A HELMET

I was disappointed when I read the article about snow tubing that there was no mention of wearing a helmet, especially for children [“Tube time,” Lifelines, Feb. 16].

The importance of layering clothing to stay warm is mentioned, but what about the importance of a helmet? Even in a designated area groomed for snow tubing, accidents can occur. Wearing a helmet should be encouraged in any activity that may result in a head-trauma injury.

Susan Rios

El Paso, Texas