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

Letters

TWO TAKES ON SWIM QUALS

I’m writing about a July 27 letter to the editor by Sgt. Harold Nance, which he wrote in response to the story “Tough new swim quals” [July 20]. Nance’s letter suggests that better swim training would not have saved the lives of a tank crew who died when their tank flipped into the Euphrates River in Iraq. In my opinion, that crew died because of a design flaw in the M1 Abrams tank.

There are only three ways to escape an M1 Abrams: through the two hatches on top of the turret and through the driver’s hatch. That makes it nearly impossible to escape when upside down in water. The tanks we fought with in Vietnam had an escape hatch under the driver’s seat. If the M1 had the same, the crew might have survived.

Former Sgt. John Wear

New Hope, Pa.

I enjoyed the article “Tough new swim quals.”

The Naval Survival Training Institute successfully trains all Navy and Marine aviation personnel as survival swimmers using a proven method. It only takes about six hours to train nonswimmers to be survival swimmers. We are ready and able to assist the Marine Corps with improving its swim program.

Former Cpl. Ray Smith

Pensacola, Fla.

EDUCATE PET OWNERS

I read the Aug. 3 story “Doggone strict” with great interest, but I am disappointed to see that the Corps’ has not addressed a more pervasive issue — the abandonment of animals by military personnel. There are far too many stories of military families relinquishing their pets to animal shelters because they take ownership of a pet without first understanding the responsibility it entails while on active duty.

In the local community around Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C., shelters report an influx of more than 150 animals per week. Estimates indicate that more than 50 percent of them are from military families. Sadly, there are not enough adoptive homes for the vast majority of these animals.

Some of the reasons behind these pet surrenders include the inability to care for a pet during a deployment, a permanent change-of-station move, a lack of awareness regarding the protocol for moving an animal outside the continental United States, or just failing to plan for long-term commitment to an animal’s life and the added requirements of incorporating a pet into a military lifestyle.

Pet regulations have their place on base, but the Corps needs to proactively educate Marines and their families about pet ownership. That includes how to care for an animal’s well-being. Currently, education and resources on military pet ownership are extremely limited. Welcome Aboard events, predeployment briefs and family readiness programs would be excellent avenues to educate military families about pet ownership.

A pet can be a very positive addition to military families, but Marines and their families need to be taught how to properly and humanely care for one.

Maj. Geoff McKeel

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C.

LESSONS LEARNED

The Corps has an excellent model that should be employed to pacify Afghanistan. During the Vietnam War, I worked for III Marine Amphibious Force, 2nd Combined Action Group, Combined Action Platoon 243. The Combined Action Program would station a squad of Marines and an equal number of local, friendly forces in a village.

The Marines led assaults on insurgents and trained local forces. Our losses were heavy, but the Viet Cong’s were heavier. Against a dedicated group of Marines, the enemy has little chance of succeeding. This is especially the case when locals know Marines possess unlimited firepower and live among them, providing security every day. This strategy should be applied in Afghanistan.

Cpl. R. A. Clark (ret.)

North Branch, Minn.

BULLET-STOPPING HEADGEAR

This letter is in response to the new plastic helmets replacing the Kevlar ones currently being used by the Army and Marine Corps [“Corps plans move to tough new plastic helmets,” Aug. 31]. As a former soldier, I am very happy to hear that the Army and Marine Corps are adopting a lighter, yet safer helmet system.

The one concern I have is that Army officials have acknowledged that wearing a helmet capable of preventing penetration by rifle rounds could save lives, but would also increase risk of head and neck trauma because of the force of a bullet hitting the headgear.

How absurd is that? I don’t mean to speak for all troops, but given the choice of neck trauma or a bullet penetrating the helmet, I think troops would choose the trauma.

Former Army Sgt. Matt Shuler

Concord, N.C.