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

Letters

MAKE CORPORALS COURSE MANDATORY

We owe it to our young noncommissioned officers to provide them with the best tools and knowledge available to get the job done [(Sgts. major priorities, Oct. 5]. Some corporals who only plan to stay in the Corps a few years may resist a new directive making the Corporals Course mandatory. However, those who plan to stay will be able to use the training as a building block for their military careers and later as civilian leaders.

Making the Corporals Course mandatory will have the advantage of preventing section heads with selfish motivations from stopping corporals who want to attend the course. Some of the senior leadership is hesitant to approve the change because they worry the Marines they rely so heavily upon will be at the course when they need them most. They should remember that the Marine Corps is about quality, not quantity. I would rather have one or two excellent corporals than an entire squad of mediocre corporals who haven’t been provided proper training or the tools to succeed.

Some young Marines will succeed no matter what because they are of an exceptional caliber. But some need more training and guidance which the Corporals Course can provide. If we don’t give them the training they need, it will be very difficult to hold them responsible when they fail to complete a mission or meet expectations.

If the Corporals Course is to become mandatory, the most important question becomes whether or not its curriculum teaches Marines what they need to know? There had better be some long and hard consideration about what corporals are coming away with when it is all said and done.

Every leader wants better trained Marines and every Marine wants better training. What nobody wants is a broad brushstroke of policy that adversely affects the mission by taking Marines away for training that yields no practical benefit when a Marine returns to his unit.

Make the course mandatory, but make it useful.

— Gunnery Sgt. Chad D. Kelly, Dakar, Senegal

Post-DEPLOYMENT SCREENING must get better

I am disgusted by the subject of the Oct. 12 article “Former Marine on trial in hammer-attack case.”

That an innocent woman was allegedly attacked by her husband breaks my heart. What gives someone the right to beat another human being with a hammer? That is sick.

On a broader scale, this story highlights an ongoing problem in our beloved Corps. Marines, sailors, and soldiers come home from battle and are given post-deployment health assessments. The problem is that troops can easily lie during that assessment, which is a simple series of yes and no questions.

This means psychological trauma can go undetected and untreated.

The problem stems from Marines who are not addressing their problems and are eventually released from active duty, like the aforementioned former corporal. We need to tackle this problem or we will continue to see sad stories of this nature.

— Sgt. Jade N. Long, Fredericksburg, Va.

It’s right to CALL thEM RPVs, NOT UAVs

The Sept. 14 editorial, “UAVs aren’t ‘unmanned’,” discussed changing the name of unmanned aerial vehicles to remotely piloted vehicles, with the assumption that the latter term is a new one. Between about 1986 and 1987 the Pioneer aircraft became the first of its kind in the modern Marine Corps. The Corps then stood up within a short period 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RPV Companies at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Twentynine Palms, Calif. Yep, RPV companies. So, the RPV title is not new.

The editorial also mentioned the Corps stood up a 3rd UAV squadron last year. This too is not entirely new to the Corps. We had three RPV companies for many years, but in the ’80s and ’90s they were not with an air wing. They were with a division, which is why they carried the designation of company rather than squadron. The UAV designation didn’t happen until around the time of the Persian Gulf War.

I happen to agree with the Air Force general. RPV does more accurately describe the remote aircraft we fly. It acknowledges the men and women behind it. As we expand the role and numbers of these aircraft in today’s military, it is about time we correct the misnomer.

— Maj. Greg Herring (ret.), Twentynine Palms, Calif.

SAILORS SHOULDN’T LOOK LIKE MARINES

All I have to say is that I am glad that I retired before I had to put on the awful, new camouflaged Navy Working Uniform. Sailors should look like sailors, not blue copies of Marines.

And young sailors are complaining because it cannot be worn in town. Shipmates: if not being able to wear the uniform in town is your biggest problem, you really need to step back and take a round turn.

— Navy OSC(SW) Mario T. Majors (ret.), Virginia Beach, Va.