Air Force Community - Air Force Times

Letters

Air Medal controversy

In the recent article about the medals disparity between the officer corps and the enlisted corps, many interesting facts and figures were presented along with supporting documentation [“Who merits medals?” Feb. 16].

On the subject of a medal recognizing ground combat missions in a similar manner to the Air Medal, Rick Dean, head of the Air Force Sergeants Association, came out against it, saying in reference to aircrews, “You may not be shot at this minute, but knowing that you could be, your senses are heightened and ... you are literally beat to death and wrung out by the time you get back, because you know it could happen.”

Forgive me, but from 2003 to 2006, it was far more dangerous to be on the ground than in the air. Even today, the likelihood of being shot at, or otherwise engaged by the enemy, is far greater on the ground than in the air. If anything, the heightened senses he describes are more necessary on the ground than in the air.

While I am by no means trivializing the dangers of flying (especially in a combat zone), I do take great exception to the thought that the challenges faced on the ground outside the protection of an established base are somehow less than the challenges of flight.

Until the challenges airmen on the ground face are understood and the dangers the Air Force volunteered us for are recognized, there will be a deep divide. The last year or two has seen changes, but I don’t believe that the airmen who are called upon to fill positions that expose them to the enemy will ever have their incredible professional efforts fully recognized as long as the attitudes reflected in Mr. Dean’s quote pervade upper echelons of leadership.

Staff Sgt. Ethan N. Moritz

Andrews Air Force Base, Md.

As we were all talking in preparation for the article, many things were discussed and one of those items was why crewmembers should get Air Medals for a certain number of missions when the dangers are not there as they were in Vietnam. My point was that even though they may not be in danger at the moment, the stress of performing a flying mission is taxing and they are always subject to being attacked — maybe not from the air. We know there are rocket attacks against our aircraft that are not being reported publicly.

The Air Force Sergeants Association understands what it is like being on the ground in the areas of responsibility. We continue to educate Congress on the expanded missions of our enlisted personnel on the ground, the dangers they face, and the challenges of their missions. AFSA was instrumental in arguing that the special pays and tax breaks for all personnel (ground personnel as well as crew members) in the AOR be continued.

I was a not a flyer in the Air Force — as a matter of fact, all the Air Force retirees on our AFSA staff were ground personnel. Please take the comment in the context it was meant. We are very aware of the dangers on the ground and work hard to explain what you and all our airmen are up against to members of Congress and the administration.

I absolutely do not oppose any recognition efforts for our ground airmen.

Chief Master Sgt. Richard M. Dean (ret.)

Suitland, Md.

Rethink new photo rule

On Feb. 26, 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.

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 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 that these images will not be used to misrepresent our brave men and women and that 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.

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.

Listen before making cuts

The March 2 editorial, “Right-size the Air Force,” discussing the addition of 10,000 airmen to offset earlier force cuts, identified the future lesson learned as “Don’t cut too much too fast.”

While that’s certainly true, the real lesson senior leaders should learn is to listen to their squadron, group and wing commanders in the field, many of whom told the chain of command that the force reductions implemented by former Chief of Staff T. Michael Moseley and former Secretary Michael Wynne were cutting through the fat, beyond the muscle and deep into the bone and were not sustainable. This is a situation that absolutely should have been avoided.

Col. Kenneth O. Lynn (ret.)

Fleetwood, N.C.

PT points pointers

Finally, the Air Force (or is it the Air Force Times?) is addressing the abdominal measurement [“Waste case,” Feb. 9].

The best suggestion was to reduce the point impact of this measurement.

We spend so much time on sit-ups and push-ups in our PT sessions — why do we only get 10 points for each? Make the waste measurement 10 points and give our sit-ups and push-ups 20 points each or even better.

Here’s what I suggest:

å A run or 3-mile walk with 20 to 40 pounds of gear: 30 points for the run or 40 points for the walk with gear.

å Sit-ups and push-ups: 30 points each if done with the run, 25 points each if done with the walk with gear.

å Waist: 10 points.

Staff Sgt. James Baylis hit it right on the head [“Get PT leader manual into shape and airmen will follow,” Backtalk, Feb. 9]. Sprinting with gear is more important than running with shorts. This focuses on people who can leg press 400 pounds rather than those who can run a marathon. The area of responsibility requires heavy lifting, not marathoners.

We can’t blame people for wanting to just pass the PT exam, because there is no incentive to get higher than 75. And to make matters worse, we run people into the ground. Running is a debilitating exercise that will ruin vital knee joints over time.

We have to make the program more realistic and the point system more equitable, and induce members to participate in the least debilitating type of training we can give them. Maybe then we will have people who are more concerned about maxing out on their scores.

Lt. Col. Eric Johnson

Burlington, N.J.