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

Letters

Trust? Hardly

Recently, reports of Marines pointing guns at other Marines and pulling the triggers to validate their trust for one another have surfaced [“Trust on trial,” Sept. 21, and “The Trust game,” Sept. 7].

Where did this come from? How can any Marine confuse such a dishonorable act with trust? Our trust as Marines derives from the training and indoctrination we receive from day one at boot camp or Officer Candidate School. That trust is cemented by our ethos that no Marine will ever be betrayed or left behind.

Retired Marine and author T. Grady Gallant best described trust among Marines when he said that each Marine is taught that he, individually, bears the honor of the Corps. To bear that honor is a sacred trust not lightly given.

If we continue to allow our proud traditions and heritage to fade, we run the risk of spreading blind, misguided, dishonorable behavior seen in deadly games like Trust.

— Sgt. Maj. Christopher Harper, Indian Head, Md.

RESPECT THE PRESIDENT

I would like to make a statement about the political discourse within our military. The military has traditionally been a nonpolitical entity, but that is changing.

During the past three to four years — and particularly in the last six months — I have observed service members expressing strong feelings about former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama.

While I am not one to limit intelligent debate or stifle free speech, I think it is important for troops to remember that when it comes to politics, we are held to a different standard. That standard is defined in Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Contempt Toward Officials. The article says, “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Obama seems to have given rise to such strong feelings within the military community that many officers have forgotten the tenants of Article 88. I think it is our duty as officers to remember that regardless of the political party we support or the policies we may disagree with, we are held to a higher standard. We must conduct ourselves appropriately.

— Army Maj. Santel H. Powell II, Lansing, Kan.

give support or pull out

I am writing to share my thoughts about the Sept. 21 article “Ambush kills Marine trainers, raises questions.” The new rules of engagement in Afghanistan really put our boys at risk. We should not lose troops just to save some civilian lives. It is bull.

The U.S. has the best equipment and weaponry. Why then are the president and the secretary of defense so against using that weaponry to save American lives? I’m very pro-military, but if we have to kill our troops to save a few civilians, let’s pull the troops out.

If this was the rule of engagement during World War II, we’d still be fighting.

Provide our troops support and protection, or pull them out.

— Air Force Sgt. Robert D. Jones (ret.), Tuscon, Ariz.

Heroes No More

The U.S. military’s highest award for heroism and valor is the Medal of Honor, often mistakenly referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor. The second-highest awards are the service crosses. These medals are reserved for those who risk their lives in combat by going above and beyond what is expected. Unfortunately, today’s military no longer rewards heroism and valor as it once did.

During World War II, approximately 464 Medals of Honor were awarded.

During the Vietnam War, 246 Medals of Honor were awarded.

Since the War on Terrorism began in 2001, the U.S. has awarded just six Medals of Honor — all posthumously.

The most treacherous act of our military is that it no longer properly recognizes its personnel’s valor and heroism. It is time that we change this.

— Gunnery Sgt. Mathew W. Chitwood, North Chicago, Ill.

CORRECT DoD AUTISM PLAN

This week, more than 19,000 military dependents living with autism and their families received a difficult blow from the inaccurate statements made by the Defense Department as recounted in Marine Corps Times [“DoD: Congress’ autism care plan could jeopardize patients’ safety,” Sept. 28].

As an advocate for families with disabilities, a military spouse and the parent of a child with autism, I feel compelled to speak out.

Currently, Tricare segregates applied behavior analysis therapy — an effective intervention for autism and many other disabilities — into a separate arm of the Tricare basic program, called the Extended Care Health Option, as a special education service. ECHO is available only to active-duty family members, denying treatment to dependents of retirees, and places a financial cap on a child’s treatment program of $36,000 per year.

Unfortunately, most military families do not have the resources to pay additional costs out of pocket and go without the therapy.

[The Defense Department’s] uninformed argument that ABA is “special education” flies directly against public policy — 15 states mandate coverage of ABA therapy as medically necessary under their respective state insurance laws — and consensus among the national medical policy organizations.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Mental Health all recognize ABA therapy as an effective intervention for the treatment of autism. While it is correct that the American Academy of Pediatrics refers to ABA therapy as an “educational intervention,” the AAP goes further to define “educational” as “the fostering of acquisition of skills and knowledge to assist a child to develop independence and personal responsibility.”

In short, ABA is educational in the sense that it teaches a child skills to function independently. [The Defense Department’s] classification of ABA as “special education” is in error, and does our military families a disservice.

Further action is needed, and I request the leadership and support of Congress to intervene on behalf of our special kids.

— Karen Driscoll, San Diego