Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off.

Prospect of Joint Bases Stirs old Service Biases

I just read that the Air Force and Army are having issues about jointly sharing bases. They need to take a look at how Lajes Field in the Azores, Portugal, works with Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine personnel there. Somehow, a little base in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean works with all kinds of military personnel, American and foreign. Why can't installations here do the same?

Some of these bases are so near each other, it’s a wonder they are not already working together on different issues for their communities. Let's put the petty issues behind us and share bases as U.S. military forces should do.

Just think about what each service offers and what they can do if they team together.

SHERRY HINSON
Colorado Springs, Colo.

I served in the Marine Corps and later joined the Air Force. I have been on both Army and Navy bases and they do not maintain facilities like the USAF. With joint basing, not only will facilities deteriorate but so will morale unless all services adopt the Air Force policies.

JAMES L. FOX
Madison, Ala.

The Air Force always has spent much more per person than any other service. I was in the Navy but spent two-and-a-half years at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii where I was able to compare the two services.

As an aircraft electrician I saw that it took five Air Force people to do the same job on their aircraft. Now that I am retired, I would like to use the perks I have earned by traveling on military aircraft a space-available basis. With the Navy it is very easy: if a seat is open, I can go. With the Air Force, it is near impossible to get any information about any flight and with so many of their flights they don't want to put up with passengers.

The less control the Air Force has, the better for us taxpayers.

RICHARD SPURGEON
USN-Ret.
Via e-mail

I absolutely agree with the stance the Air Force is taking in resisting joint bases. As an Air Force officer working on an Army base right now, I can tell you the differences are many and disturbing. The aesthetics of Army facilities is the least of our worries.

Discipline among soldiers is severely lacking and the quality of personnel is ridiculous. The Army has lowered its standards to the point they have gangs among their active duty population. I can't tell you the number of times I’ve not been saluted when I walk into buildings. Even though I correct soldiers, it happens over and over. They seem not care about good order and discipline. This is not a problem unique to Fort Carson. Friends stationed with the Army throughout the world -- in Korea, Guam and Europe -- report the same issues.

I breathe a sigh of relief when I visit nearby Peterson AFB or the Air Force Academy. The bases are cleaner, the buildings are better kept, and the airmen are sharp and interested in assisting you.

The Army has a lot of problems which I hope the Air Force won’t have to deal with. If we had wanted to be in the Army or the Navy, we would have joined those services. We are proud members of the Air Force and want to stay that way!

I'm glad I can retire in two years and hopefully won’t have to deal with this craziness.

P. R.
Colorado Springs, Colo.

So, the Air Force doesn't want to give up their “quality of life” bases? They must be afraid the fairways will be allowed to get shaggy.

This isn't the first time the Air Force hasn’t played well with others, and the solution is very simple. Re-integrate them with the Army. Turn them back into actual military people with a real boot camps and discipline.

MICHAEL N.
Via e-mail

I wholeheartedly agree with William C. Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics. Joint basing should be tested at two bases before 12 sites experience the upheaval.

PAUL N.
Via e-mail

I served in joint Army-Navy weather stations on several Aleutian Islands in 1943 and there were no problems at the base level. My group headquarters was at Elmendorf-Fort Richardson. Also in Guam 1966-68.

I think joint bases are a good idea. We all serve the same country.

By the way, there are least three Air Force bases commonly misspelled: Hickam, Andersen and Eglin. Twice in your column Hickham and Anderson appeared.....tsk, tsk! But I still enjoy your column every week.

JACK HILLMAN
Chief Warrant Officer 4
USAF-Ret.

You indicated the Navy would command both Pearl Harbor Naval Station and Hickam AFB. I worked on both installations for over 19 years and I would hate to see the Navy commanding Hickam. It is a clean and well maintained base, more so than Pearl Harbor NB.

JOHN BOST
Via e-mail

I served in the Navy from 1947 to 1977, retiring as an E-7. The Air Force has always treated their members with respect. Their food was better, quarters were better, tours of duty were better. But their promotion schedule was pure rotten.

Before deciding to reenlist in 1956, for the second time, I went to the Air Force recruiter the day of my discharge. I was an E-5. I was told it would be nine to 10 years before I would qualify for E-6 in the Air Force. I remained in the Navy and made both E-6 and E-7 in that 10-year period.

During my career I was stationed on three Air Force bases and served temporary duty on two others. I really enjoyed their facilities and clubs. However, when I retired, the average pay grade for an Air Force enlisted retiree was E-5 while for the Navy it was E-6.

I endorse the way the Air Force thinks. They should be in charge of all bases they now control. But my first love was the Navy and is to this day.

JIM MCCORMICK
Via e-mail

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com