Letters to the Editor re: Ralph Peters

The New York Post received a number of letters regarding Ralph Peters article last week (see previous post). 

I checked the NY Post yesterday and saw only what they had posted in Wednesday's edition.  In the interest of time and space I elected not to post these letters. 

The following letters were published in Monday's New York Post and are very good responses...they speak for themselves.  I was especially moved by the letter from Nicole Das, an Air Force veteran and widow.  Here are the letters (HT: Aim Points):

New York Post letters to the editor: Responses to Apr 13 "Clashing Military Cultures"

BY: Letters to the Editor, New York Post
04/20/2005

I am an Air Force veteran and a widow who lost my husband over the skies of Iraq while we were both deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Ralph Peter's venomous article ("Clashing Military Cultures," Opinion, April 13) incorrectly stated, "Not a single Air Force fighter pilot has lost his life in combat in Iraq."

Lest we forget, Capt. Eric Das and his crewmate, Lt. Col. Bill Watkins were killed in action April 7, 2003.

The sacrifices of all services — whether Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard or Coalition — should be recognized and remembered.

Our forces were on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam and World War II calling in air support.

We are on the same team. We fight and die together.

Peters denigrated the Air Force, which has taken care of me and my family during our darkest days.

He breeds in-fighting among the ranks and wears a facade as champion for Marine causes.

As the daughter of a Marine helicopter pilot from Vietnam, as an Air Force veteran and a widow, I am deeply offended by the ignorance Peters displayed toward the families of the fallen.

And why? Is it because of some baffling agenda?

So far, American military forces have seen 1,544 in Iraq and 173 in Afghanistan make the ultimate sacrifice.

Our branch of service doesn't much matter.

We are in a family of service that has seen tragic loss.

The loss is tremendous, no matter what the total number.

Nicole Das

Alexandria, Va.

**********************************************************************************

I am writing from Iraq, in regard to a column written by Ralph Peters.

I would say I am curious about the rationale behind such a venomous diatribe, but that would lend it credibility.

Whatever Peters thinks of the F/A-22, to indict an entire service as "morally bankrupt," because its view on what it requires to fight differs from his, is disgusting.

Marine aircrew have flown for years in their "aging jets and ancient helicopters" under the blanket of air superiority that's provided, in part, by the "fighter-jock Air Force."

They don't steal money from the Marines. They state their needs, and we taxpayers cough it up.

As a Marine aviator on my third combat tour, I can find the general Air Force attitude a little un-martial — to say the least.

But I will never question their patriotism, valor or professionalism as aviators.

Peters should keep his acidic rants and cliché "go Marines" chants to himself.

Capt. Jeffrey Bauer

U.S. Marine Corps

Anbar Province, Iraq 

**********************************************************************************

Peters' venom against the Air Force could hurt the Marines by portraying them as a bunch of gripers (being equipped with old and decrepit equipment).

President Truman became so exasperated by complaining Marine brass, he lost his temper and dubbed the officers the "Police Force for the Navy."

The military is a team, and all the services need the support of one another.

Anthony Lembo
Mastic Beach

Ralph Peters sure did open a can of worms (as Major Mike points out).  Maybe that was his intent all along.  If it was, then putting institutional bias ahead of one's professional reputation to spark interservice "debate" or settle an old score is truly unfortunate and sad to see. 

One thing is certain, we should no longer be protecting our "rice bowls" and learn to work and fight as a joint team.  At least that is what everybody keeps preaching. 

Noting the rank of the writers above leaves me with some hope for this vision.  Perhaps we will truly see real jointness in a generation or two.  Until then...

Comments

[Mike]

Mrs. Das' letter is the most poignant, I think. I immediately thought back to that Echo crew that was shot down when I read LtC Peter's comment that "not a single Air Force pilot has lost his life in Iraq."

Anyway, good roundup of the letters.

[Mixed Humor]

Good followup on the original story

[Todo]

At Ease Colonel Peters. In your zeal to blast the Air Force you've obviously forgotten since the Korean War no American ground troop has come under attack by enemy air. The reason for this is simple; Blue Suit Air Force Leadership insured we had better equipment and better trained aircrew . We've controlled the skies over the battlefield for 50 plus years. While you are venting your spleen on the acquisition process, you might want to address the current field modification of the Humvee (Armor? Why would a combat vehicle ever need armor?) or Army insistence on buying new weapon systems already outdated like Paladin self propelled artillery. How many R&D dollars did that dinosaur cost the US taxpayer? While you're at it, how about asking why Army leadership allowed the Clinton administration to "right size" our military to the point we must press our Reserve and National Guard units into full time service? An Army snake eater was on watch as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for eight years while VP Gore bragged about "cutting the size of government ". The reduction numbers came at the expense of our military. Army recruiting goals for Reserve and Guard units are now dismal back home. Thank you General Sheldon.
The real reason for your outburst is nothing more than immature jealousy. While it is true we still need an Army for occupation, security and nation building, we will not use a conventional Army to win the next conventional war. America's refusal to absorb casualties will forever prevent the use of our soldiers as cannon folder on a foreign field. We must count on air power now more than ever. The first Gulf War was won by air power. Kosovo (Operation Allied Force) was won by air power. Afghanistan was won by air power and Operation Iraqi Freedom was, again, won by airpower. Even with this great success the Army learned nothing and Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan proves it. Army planners underestimated the strength of the enemy and only late stage close air support planning prevented disaster. While Army and Special Ops snipers picked off the enemy one at a time in the Shahi Kot Valley, it was Airmen on the ground calling in air strikes that saved the day. Even today, in urban environments like Fallujah, air power is number one killer on the battlefield; not artillery, not armor--AIR POWER. It can be argued that the Army lost the war of security and occupation in Somalia, but to its credit, is holding it's own as it occupies, rebuilds and secures Baghdad. I'll give you Panama, but the assault on Grenada was a lesson in Army parochialism still taught at National War college today.
In April 2003, the slow slog up Basra Highway on the road to Baghdad can be attributed the US Army still reeling from the devastating role that Air Power played in the first Gulf War. "It's a risk I'm willing to take" was heard by senior Army leadership at CFLCC HQ, Camp Doha, Kuwait during the planning stages of OIF...the Army shrunk the air campaign timeline from six weeks to two days despite embedded air power advice ...Army brass simply refused to let airpower prep the battlefield. They could not accept the winning role Air Power played in past wars and wasn't about to let the air power win another one! Still hurting from Gen Schwarzkopf's comments that there wasn't much left for the Army to do after a six week bombing campaign in Gulf War I, the army pressed with a near simultaneous air and ground assault of Iraq. As for your previous claim that our "Shock and Awe " tactics failed in Operation Iraqi Freedom, I bet the Republican Guard had a different opinion. The air plan accomplished everything we intended. We eliminated the enemy airfields, established air supremacy, destroyed their conventional army as an effective fighting force and drove their national leadership underground. Literally. Causalities would have been fewer had the grads from the Hudson delayed the ground assault until the air assault was finished. I believe you will find the Army boys wanted to go in as soon as they could because they couldn't stand the heat if the Air Force won another one. So, Mr Peters, As a recently retired Airman with four years experience as an airpower advisor to the Army, I conclude by saying that your lack of knowledge on air power capability is matched only by your lack of knowledge on our military history and vision for future conflicts.

"Todo"