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

Letters

Infantry needs help to win

I have some thoughts about Sgt. Aaron Denning’s recent letter, “No, We’re not all riflemen” [May 11]. First, while it is true that we are not all riflemen in the strictest sense of the word, we are all Marines, and we are all on the same team and in the same fight.

True, we are not fighting in the same manner or risking our lives in the same way — but we are all in the fight nonetheless. I would never dream of taking away anything from the infantry, where the only thing that stands between Marines and the enemy is the weapon in their hands. However, it is important for Marines to realize that it takes a whole team to win.

I think Denning’s statement, “if you are not in the infantry, you exist solely to support it,” is a myopic view that unfairly suggests the infantry are the only members of the team who matter. It is no different than the star center on a basketball team beating his chest, saying the whole team revolves around him. Let the rest of the team walk off the court and see how far he gets on his own.

The truth is, teams have many players, and all have a position to play. In order to succeed, every player must do his part. This often means making incredible sacrifices so others can get all the glory and recognition. This is often the case in the so-called “support” military occupational specialties. I know many Marines in these MOSs who somehow feel like they are less of a Marine because they are not out in the field carrying a rifle and facing the enemy one-on-one. Nothing could be further from the truth. It takes all of us, playing the positions the Marine Corps has assigned us, in order for the Marine Corps team to win.

-- CWO5 John M. Adams, Kansas City, Mo.

Allow Fallujah video game

I think the Marines interested in producing their video game, [“Game over: Company pulls plug on ‘Six Days in Fallujah,’” Frontlines, May 11] should be allowed to as long as it doesn’t interfere with their first obligation: the Marine Corps. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to develop this game as long as it is tasteful and doesn’t disrespect an individual or unit?

If the Corps has a concern that might keep them from pursuing this gaming venture, then I would ask why a sergeant major was allowed to sign a book deal after his ordeal in the same battle. If the issue is that these Marines have a second source of income while they are on active duty, then all the Marines holding down part-time jobs in their off-duty time are just as much at fault as these individuals. Besides, it isn’t the first time money has been made by military-types after participating in a major engagement.

-- Capt. K.F. Blaske (ret.), Murrieta, Calif.

memos raise questions

I agree with the theory that appeal attorney Charles Gittins has filed on behalf of former Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. who was convicted along with several others for abusing prisoners in Iraq [“Torture memos spark Abu Ghraib appeal,” May 18].

At the time the trials were going on, I marveled that these very junior enlisted personnel, with little training in the proper care of prisoners, were being court-martialed for abusing prisoners while at the same time others were using even harsher “legally sanctioned” tactics.

None of the court-martialed guards was a lawyer. How can they be expected to know the law when there is still a raging debate by experts as to whether waterboarding and other techniques are torture or otherwise violate the Geneva Conventions? What the convicted guards did pales in comparison to what certain Justice Department attorneys approved.

If the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces does not reverse the convictions of those who were convicted for actions at Abu Ghraib, then President Barack Obama should give them full pardons.

-- Navy Cmdr. Wayne L. Johnson (ret.), Alexandria, Va.

‘Don’t ask’ a tired debate

I am sick and tired of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy being reviewed and criticized by studies, polls and now, “fact-based” books [“Evidence, not emotion, fuels new ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ debate,” April 13]. The author, Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the University of California at Santa Barbara and a history professor at New York University, claims to have research supporting his new book, “Unfriendly Fire.” Much of the input, however, is from retired generals who didn’t address the issue while they were serving. Does anyone trust these so-called “objective” critics anyway?

Reading the author’s claims, one would think that half the country is gay and wants to serve in the military just to help out. This book claims that from 1998 to 2004, 6,416 troops had been discharged for being gay. That’s 1,069 discharges per year — a small percentage of the total Army.

When then-President Bill Clinton instituted the policy, it removed a hurdle for homosexuals to join. Kudos to that, I say. You don’t tell me, I don’t tell you ... and military business doesn’t get mired in trivialities. Why change something that has worked all along, while in the midst of two wars?

Does this author think so little of us that he paints us as prejudiced, undisciplined service members undermining the military and weakening this great nation?

Bottom line is, I don’t care if anyone is gay or straight, so long as they can do their job well, shoot straight and save my life if necessary. But I don’t need or want to know anyone’s sexual orientation.

-- Army Sgt. Anthony Vera, Miami