Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off

Air Force Drawdown Again Means Airmen Work Harder

The Air Force is making a big mistake with its drawdown – again.

I spent more than 20 years in the Air Force, retiring in 1977.  I also worked as a civilian at McGuire AFB, N.J., on C-141s, from 1984 until 1993. I realize that is “eons ago” but some things never seem to change.

When the first Gulf War ended in 1991, Bill Clinton said we should reduce our forces by approximately 30 percent, officer and enlisted. So each evening when I came to work, I saw fewer and fewer of the “usual” troops. The long list of planes departing McGuire for Europe and elsewhere didn't change, even with far fewer troops getting them ready for launch.

So here was the scenario at roll call: “Listen up. We have a heavy flying schedule in the morning so there’s a possibility of a four-hour holdover.” What that actually meant: “You will be working 12 hours today.”

This wasn't the exception; it became the norm. The 438th Organizational Maintenance Squadron at McGuire worked 12-hour shifts for more than 18 months. As a civilian worker, I headed out the door at 2400 hours while my G.I. colleagues were getting ready for another four hours.

Then the Air Force had the nerve to ask these kids to reenlist!

I read your article about the current drawdown and I see the same thing happening again: full flying schedules with far fewer folks getting planes ready to launch.  Doesn't anyone study history?

I used to be a really good conservative. Not any longer. We have spent billions of dollars on this ill-conceived war in Iraq. Mr. Bush was taken hostage by the neo-cons and, along with the GOP, really stepped in it.

In the mid-1960s I spent a tour at Lackland AFB in San Antonio as a military training instructor. Today, I wouldn't have the heart to work with these new airmen, knowing they soon will be doing the “12-hour shift polka.”

MIKE DONAVON
Master Sergeant, USAF-Ret.
Hopewell, Va.

Reading your article on the Air Force drawdown, I couldn't help but wonder:  Instead of lowering “recruiting targets” why doesn’t the Air Force simply set higher standards for new recruits? I mean higher Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery scores, tighter age restrictions, tougher criminal background checks, tighter weight restrictions and so forth.

That way, even if the Air Force recruits the same number of youth, they would be able to keep the best. The service should make basic training more demanding too. It should ‘chapter out’ disciplinary problems as well as airmen who can't pass a PT test and airmen who are overweight.

Instead of forcing out good airmen who don't want to leave, kick out the ones the Air Force would be better off without. I bet they could find enough who needed the boot to meet their drawdown goals.

AMANDA ROLLINS
Sergeant, U.S. Army

I work in an Air Force hospital and we’ve been greatly affected by the drawdown. However, the total force is not getting smaller. Military members are being replaced by civilians and contractors. So where are the cost savings?

Last Friday we had “Wingman Day” to make sure we take of our own. The contractors were not allowed to participate. That really worked to strengthen the Wingman concept.

If the Air Force doesn’t start making smart, logical decisions, they’re going force themselves out of existence.

THERESA MITCHELL
Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

EX-SPOUSES’ HEALTHCARE

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act was passed to provide some form of retirement income for ex-spouses that they could not earn themselves.

A second reason it for its passage, in my opinion, was to keep off the healthcare rolls as many ex-spouses as possible. Congress did this by tying benefits to the date of divorce and not to the condition of the marriage on the day of retirement.

Some former spouses have been married for a quarter of a century or more and yet they lose health care and shopping privileges because they spent a day less than 20 years married to the member while the member was on active duty. Yet the spouse has no say in when their service spouse retirees.

In the case of marriages that lasted 20 years, the retiree gets half his retirement check plus base privileges and full medical benefits. It’s a lot more than the ex-spouse gets should the overlap of marriage and service time fall below 20 years.

Civilian retirement pay is considered property in divorce settlements too, so there is no discrimination against military retirees. Marriage is a financial contract, according to the law. But military marriages are the least likely to survive; the lifestyle is just too hard.

KATHLEEN SHULLER
Panama City, Fla.

NO DISABILITY PAY DISPARITIES

I am wholly opposed to an unequal adjustment of disability pay for those injured during wartime today and those injured in past wars, including in Vietnam. Anyone shot or injured in the service of country should not be discriminated against based on when they served.

An injury is no less traumatic if it suffered in World War II, Korea, Vietnam or in Iraq and Afghanistan. I spent 13 months in the hospital.  My injuries deserve the same upgrade in disability pay as service members being injured today.

SCOTT D. EVANS
Via e-mail

Healthcare for wounded military members who are discharged for medical reasons should always be provided under TRICARE and for the lifetime of the wounded veteran.

We need to recognize the sacrifices our military members have made.  Continuing health care after military discharge is a must.

MARVIN BRESLER
USAF-Ret.
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