Memorial Day and America as a global policeman; the ‘casualty gap’ in America’s wars; veterans who are suffering

Folly and sacrifice

Re “The freedom to remember,” Opinion, May 31

As the mother of a son who was killed in Iraq, it was with a mixture of sadness and relief that I read Andrew J. Bacevich’s article. Finally someone is willing to directly address the “half-truth” that on Memorial Day we are honoring those who gave their lives so that we may enjoy freedom. This was most certainly not true in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Too many times lives have been lost because of the folly and hubris of those in power in this country.

It is very easy and fashionable to be critical of latte-sipping liberals, but until those who are so willing to send other people’s children off to war are willing to make sacrifices themselves, their arguments carry little to no weight with those like me who have sacrificed for the mistakes of others.

Kathleen Martin

Brea

Those who have walked the walk

Re “America in decline? Not in today’s world,” Opinion, May 31

The juxtaposition of the Op-Ed articles by Bacevich and Max Boot was thick with irony. Bacevich’s military career and the tragic loss of his son during the Iraq war clearly inform his belief in the critical role diplomacy should play in American foreign policy. Bacevich has walked the walk.

Then we have Boot, whose article celebrates his stubborn perception of the United States as still No. 1 by virtue of its military presence alone.

As the saying goes, “When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” Boot’s slavish devotion to this version of American exceptionalism is not born out of military service or personal loss from combat; it is from the safety and comfort of his ivory tower.

On Memorial Day, when we honor the sacrifice of our military sons and daughters, Boot’s jingoism only trivializes their loss.

Jerry Weil

Seal Beach

Leave it to Boot to equate U.S. well-being with our financing and staffing of more than 700 overseas military bases to protect developed countries who can afford to defend themselves.

Why is protecting South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Arab nations more essential than reducing our national debt and reuniting our troops with their families?

Does America require a military larger and more expensive than the rest of the world combined to defend itself against a band of pseudo-religious fanatics possessing no bombers, fighters, helicopters, warships, missiles or tanks?

When we no longer need to borrow money from China to finance our global generosity, perhaps then we can justify continuing to be the world’s policeman.

Howard Hurlbut

Redlands

The meaning of Memorial Day

Re “Remembering,” Opinion, May 30

I visited graves this past weekend: that of my father who died at age 75, and those of thousands of soldiers who died before their allotted three score years and 10. My father, a combat veteran of World War II, lived a full, active life. Unlike The Times, he would have never compared his pending death to that of the death of the soldiers, sailors and Marines whose lives were cut short by war.

By including in its Memorial Day feature the personal stories of the deaths of family or friends, The Times fails to understand the commitment unique to combat — sacrifice of self for the benefit of others. That commitment is what differentiates a death in war from someone who died after watching his children and grandchildren grow up on the family farm, or a victim of AIDS, or of another deadly disease or an accident.

These (mostly) young men and women who died in war assumed a duty to a mission they acknowledged as more important than themselves or their personal interest. In other wars they may have been drafted, or enlisted to avoid the draft, but they likewise assumed this duty.

By including the purely personal reminisces of those who have lost a loved one to causes other than war, The Times negates the meaning of Memorial Day. The editor need only spend an hour or two at the Vietnam Wall to hopefully understand that difference.

Daniel M. Shapiro

Altadena

The writer was a lieutenant in the U.S. Naval Reserves from 1968 to 1972.

Examining the ‘casualty gap’

Re “America’s ‘casualty gap,’ ” Opinion, May 28

On my first day in Navy boot camp, it became quite obvious who was serving and who wasn’t. As an upper-middle-class white kid, I was certainly not in the majority.

Now, almost 40 years later, as a member of the Patriot Guard Riders, I have attended more than a dozen funerals of those killed in the current conflicts, and the ratio is virtually the same.

The fact is that young men and women whose families are in the upper income brackets are pushed toward college, and the emphasis is on personal success. Those in lower economic brackets don’t have the same opportunities and usually have relatives who are veterans — with whom they have open discussions on the value of military service.

Closing the “casualty gap” will only occur when those in the upper income brackets realize what it takes to protect and defend our way of life. Perhaps with greater media attention to the role of the military in maintaining our freedom, we can raise awareness among young men and women at all income levels of the value of serving their country.

Derek B. Lovett

Torrance

The writer served in the Navy from 1973 to 1979.

Douglas L. Kriner and Francis X. Shen present their “casualty gap” as if it were some sort of profound revelation.

It should be common knowledge that lower-income communities will experience higher casualties than higher-income communities. Why? Because higher-income communities, whose youth are better educated, produce more officers, and lower-income communities produce more enlisted personnel.

Numerically, enlisted personnel far exceed officer personnel in the military. Hence, more casualties. This is nothing new. In wars of old, far more vassals died than did lords.

Kriner and Shen write that “the burden of war deaths in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq has not been shouldered equally.” Well then, let’s see to it that more lieutenants, captains and majors get killed in future conflicts so we can close that casualty gap.

If Kriner and Shen are referencing a military draft and possible unfairness therein, then come right out and say so instead of beating around the bush.

Allan Orth

Fallbrook

Different views of the VA

Re “Battlefield of red tape,” June 1

I would like to thank The Times for its fine reporting on the abuse of our nation’s veterans.

We are suffering like you can’t imagine, and the bottom line is that no one really cares. I have been mistreated at the hands of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the last eight years, and I have lost everything. I just put an ad on Craigslist for a place to live. Perhaps someone has a car they could give me.

Maybe one day your words might touch someone who can help us. Right now, a place to live and some transportation would be nice.

Jerry Kelley

Los Angeles

Your VA piece was timely and no doubt accurate, but it was not the whole story.

The VA has been severely underfunded for decades. Moreover, until President Obama’s appointment of Secretary Eric K. Shinseki, a former U.S. Army Chief of Staff, the VA was run by a succession of politically-connected mediocrities.

My experiences with the VA’s Brentwood facility have been mixed. There are too many patients for too few caregivers, but this ratio has lately improved. There are a few incompetent physicians but many more highly qualified and motivated ones.

Thanks to an alliance with UCLA, most VA clinics are staffed by a corps of excellent residents. The nonmedical staff includes many veterans, and I have always been treated with respect and consideration.

Marvin J. Wolf

Mar Vista Heights

The writer is a Vietnam veteran.