Crea comments

The article “On Guard” [March 2005], which highlighted the command of Coast Guard Vice Adm. [Vivian S.] Crea, overlooked one important statistic. Crea’s command includes about the same number of uniformed Coast Guard Auxiliary volunteers as it does uniformed Coast Guard personnel. Over 20 million Americans don’t have a meaningful reason to get out of bed in the morning. The auxiliary provides that reason, and it’s a great feeling to work side-by-side with the gold-side and continue serving our country.

— CWO Stuart Soffer, USA-Ret.
via e-mail

I just wanted to let [Tom Philpott] know that I read [his] article on Vice Adm. Crea in Military Officer. It is the finest article I have read on the Coast Guard.

I retired in May 2004 with 23 years of service. In all my years of service, you did the best job of portraying what the Coast Guard is all about.

— Cmdr. Ken Sherwood, USCG-Ret.
via e-mail

JAGs in the field

The article “The Real JAG” [March 2005] hit home on the expertise and demands required of our JAGs. After the invasion of Afghanistan … I worked with [a] JAG office, and even though they were heavily tasked, I received excellent support on critical issues such as rules of engagement.

— Lt. Col. Sid Howard, USAF-Ret.
Niceville, Fla.

I cannot believe what I read in your article “The Real JAG.” Lawyers advising commanders in the field on rules of engagement, collateral damage, and Geneva Conventions?

What kind of officers are leading our troops when they must be cautioned or advised about “a legal way for the commander to accomplish his mission?” I read that attorneys and paralegals are on convoys and assigned at battalion level instead of back in the rear and out of the way. What have we come to? … The only part of the article I can relate to is the [sentence]: “Commanders haven’t fallen in love with lawyers.” I am glad I retired when I did.

— Maj. Thomas R. Boulton, USA-Ret.
via e-mail

Talking nepotism

I’m truly disappointed with your backslapping article on race [“Talking Race,” February 2005]. All it truly showed me was one of the true benefits of nepotism. It’s not about mentors or performance but sponsors and sponsorship. It would be nice to believe that your performance alone can set you apart in gaining a sponsor, but that is simply not the truth. Minorities hit a glass ceiling long ago. Finding a few that were lucky is what we call “tokens.” The military is too busy patting itself on the back, claiming to be at least better than the rest of American society, that it simply fails to acknowledge that it too continues to have such problems as nepotism and good old fashioned discrimination.

— Maj. Rese Farrish, USAF
via e-mail

Debating benefits

I would like to respond to the letter submitted by Col. Lee R. Pitzer, USAF-Ret. [“Your Views,” March 2005]. … During retirement processing in 1973, it was strongly suggested I [enroll] in the Survivor Benefit Plan. There was no mention of a Social Security offset later on. …

Due to a 30-percent disability, I could only get a flying job as a corporate-charter pilot. … When I compare my benefits with those of a federal employee flying a dangerous desk for 25 years in air-conditioned comfort, mine look pretty limited. The fact that the military is being asked to suffer injury or death due to, as the colonel stated, “fighting an unnecessary war,” is even more reason for adequate compensation. May I suggest that if [Pitzer] feels his benefits are too liberal, he can submit a request in writing that his retirement benefits be terminated. I strongly object to the colonel’s suggesting that mine be curtailed. In the meantime, I want to thank MOAA for the representation [it has] given me.

— Maj. Charles R. Harper, USAF-Ret.
via e-mai

I was shocked to read Col. Pitzer’s letter where he stated his disappointment that MOAA was devoting too much attention to obtain the “many and varied benefits at the expense of the American taxpayer.” ... If Pitzer feels that he receives too many benefits, he certainly could refund them. I fund my own disability payment, which is patently unfair.

— Col. Robert B. Evans, USA-Ret.
via e-mail

My thanks to Col. Lee R. Pitzer, USAF-Ret., for his letter. … Retiree organizations of all sorts are out for what they can get, and military retiree organizations are no exception. I see them as a bunch of piglets squealing and grunting to get at the sow’s teat, so that they don’t get left out of the feeding frenzy. I appreciate many of the benefits that have come to me with help from [MOAA], such as TRICARE For Life. But [MOAA] should not think it exists to get more and more government benefits for retirees.

— Maj. Carl R. Gregory, USAF-Ret.
Merced, Calif.

Worry MOAA!

I am somewhat disappointed in the MOAA rebuttal to the [Wall Street Journal] article on the cost of enhanced personnel benefits. To take the position that there is no need to [worry] about the costs of these programs … is less than forthcoming. If, as [“Washington Scene,” March 2005] seems to infer, OMB requires these costs to be scored to the DoD account, such a practice is only consistent with honest accounting that requires expenses be assigned to the appropriate cost center. [Transferring] DoD personnel expenses to an amorphous general treasury account would make accurate accounting and fiscal responsibility even more of a challenge than they already are.

Vice Adm. Ryan’s note [“President’s Page,” March 2005] at least argues that the decision of the distribution of funding between personnel and weapons accounts should be made with the recognition that both are deserving and important and that there are risks associated with underfunding either. … He probably recognized that the logical extension of such a position is that, because these costs are borne by the taxpayers of the country, they are not something MOAA and its members need to worry about. I am not aware that MOAA members have been made exempt from paying taxes.

— Capt. John Fearnow, USCG-Ret.
via e-mail

Editor’s note: We didn’t mean to imply there’s no need to worry about the cost of benefits, just that the intent of Congress in shifting the TRICARE For Life trust fund deposit to the treasury was to ensure those benefits are paid for without impinging on other parts of DoD’s budget. The government needs to find ways to pay for personnel and weapons without doing one at the expense of the other.