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

Letters

Range officers reach thousands

I want to clear up a misunderstanding about the range officer military occupational specialty (marksmanship trainer 0930) merging with the 0306 gunner MOS [“Gunners, range officers merge into single MOS,” May 18]. The article makes it sound like us lazy range officers who never deploy are getting over on the system, and that gunners who do more and deploy all the time need a break. Well, there are a couple of problems with this:

First, every 0930 has deployed multiple times — just maybe not as an 0930.

Second, I just returned from a seven-month tour in Iraq’s Anbar province with 2nd Battalion, 25th Marines, and another chief warrant officer 3 in the 0930 MOS just returned from Baghdad.

We 0930s have been providing an important service to the Corps for years — and that is to train every Marine, regardless of MOS, to be a basic rifleman, to help develop all institutional level training facilities in the Corps, to train all new combat marksmanship trainers, to help sustain every Marine’s marksmanship skills and to run competition marksmanship programs.

When I deployed with 2/25 as their battalion gunner, I was a force multiplier, and I am proud of what I accomplished. I helped around 2,000 personnel, including Marines, soldiers and sailors. Not bad, huh?

But how many Marines can I reach in a year by training in an institutional-level facility? Approximately 22,000. So what is more important, the fact that I deployed for seven months to Iraq and helped 2,000 personnel while I was there, or that I could help 22,000 get ready to go?

I am not against the merger. However, there are 30 outstanding Marines who have passionately provided an important service to the Marine Corps who just got looked down on by your newspaper.

CWO 3 Wesley A. Turner

San Clemente, Calif.

Americans should be aware of sacrifices

We, as a nation, need to see the cost of these conflicts that were so easily gotten into and so devastatingly hard to extract from [“Photos of flag-draped coffins are unnecessary,” Back Talk, April 13]. We need to see the caskets and recount their sacrifices simply because many Americans still do not grasp the sacrifices made on their behalf. Please remember that we were told after the attack on Sept. 11 to “go shopping.”

Staff Sgt. Joseph Fernandez states that “the Defense Department releases the names of the fallen once their families have been informed. Additionally, several media outlets, including Marine Corps Times, maintain casualty lists and comprehensive Web pages that show photos of the dead along with other biographical information. That should be sufficient.”

Wrong. Today’s headline is tomorrow’s forgotten story. Although Iraq and Afghanistan are still news stories, we are only getting less than five minutes of information on the evening news. The economy has taken front and center.

He also states that “those who do not know anyone in the military, who have not been personally affected by these wars, have no right to vicariously participate in the anguish of a family who has.”

Wrong again. How do you think the protest against the Vietnam War grew? Part of that was seeing the war coming to your living room, to see what is really involved and not take the Pentagon’s word for it.

I dare say that the citizens of this nation have a responsibility to see these things. This is a way we can stop some politician from getting us involved in something that we do not have a need to get involved in.

Coast Guard CWO2 Nicholas Pusloskie (ret.)

Topeka, Kan.

Vests do not guarantee safety

In reference to the article “Streamlining biker rules” [April 27], I’m glad to see someone is looking at motorcycle safety from a different direction.

I have been riding motorcycles since 1966 when I bought my first — a 1948 Harley-Davidson 74. Safety on a motorcycle is a top priority, for sure. But some of the ideas the Corps comes up with leaves questions as to the expertise of those making those decisions.

The requirement to wear a fluorescent vest is one rule that has not proven any value. A number of Marines and sailors remove the vest as soon as they get off base and put it back on only just before they go back.

Here is another thought. Any terrorist worth his salt knows that around any major military installation all those motorcycle riders flying up and down highways wearing fluorescent vests are most likely military personnel.

They can follow them to work and follow them home, putting the military member and his family at risk.

I hope the Marine Corps Executive Safety Board puts some thought into the issue and develops a reasonable plan. If it does, Marines will be onboard with it.

Sgt. Maj. Craig W. Fairbanks (ret.)

Murrieta, Calif.