Thank You For Your Service?

The following Letter To The Editor of Military (Air Force) Times was written after having witnessed more of the same foolishness I have seen repeated time after time in the nearly 30 years since I swore an oath "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic". 

Decisions such as these are not made to save money, the are made to promote people to the next higher position and beyond. Decisions such as the one I reference are made to effect short-term savings, without concern for long-term outcomes, so that the responsible individual can claim saving $XXX,XXX,XXX on their performance report and/or award citation, not because it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

In this case, the Pentagon apparently believed that the threat in the Middle East and Russia have wained to the point of eliminating Hazardous Duty Pay and Rest and Recuperation Leave in several countries where our men and women in uniform serve and are put in harms way every day. As we have all witnessed since last winter's Olympic games, Russia and Iraq are anything but stable and the regions are more volatile than any time since the mid-1980s. So the geniuses at the Pentagon decided to save some money at the expense of service members, once again, as has been the case over and over again for as long as I can remember.

I think my letter speaks for itself ...

I understand that the "imminent threat to personnel has been significantly reduced" in numerous countries adjacent to Iraq and Russia in order to save money (June 23, 2014, page 2). My only question to the JCS is: Did you get an INTEL brief before making that ignorant decision? If so, have those individuals been relieved?
Things in Russia and Iraq have been on a steady decline for months, so where is the surprise? Maybe our leaders could have saved money by not closing bases in the region and reducing forces only to have to ramp-up again. Knee jerk "money saving" (wasting is more like it) initiatives have been going on in one form or another for the last 30 years (as I have witnessed) and it needs to stop!
Instead of focusing on military active duty, retired, and veteran benefits/entitlements as the "go to" deficit reduction strategy, try looking past your noses and focus on the big picture. And don't bother thanking us for our service until you can start treating us with dignity and respect rather than the contempt you and our government leaders have displayed for 13 years of wartime service to our country, protecting YOUR FREEDOM!
CombatCounselor ... OUT!

Letter to the Editor: Air Force Times ... Preferential Treatment and Mixed Martial Arts as Treatment for PTSD?

After reading the August 12, 2013 issue of Air Force Times, I had to respond to two columns: Volunteerism and TransitioningVeteran.com and mixed martial arts (MMA) as an alternative treatment for PTSD (Bret Moore).

Volunteerism is an important topic and I applaud Air Force Times and the author for bringing this to the attention of your readers. What I do not understand is why one individual and his "pet project" received preferential treatment and outstanding (gratis) advertising when many other very deserving organizations, non-profits serving military and Veterans for example, are routinely overlooked.

As leader of a struggling non-profit serving military and Veterans with PTSD, I have submitted numerous letters and articles to your publication (several letters having been published), but was never offered an opportunity to showcase our non-profit ... Help4VetsPTSD (http://www.Help4VetsPTSD.org). I have published numerous articles related to military and Veteran mental health, the most recent in January's De Oppresso Liber magazine entitled "The Stigma Killing American Heroes", but have never been invited to be highlighted in your publication.

Why does TransitioningVeteran.com, an apparent for-profit enterprise, receive preferential treatment? This is not the first time I have seen private organizations given special treatment in your publication and it will likely not be the last.

In regard to Dr. Moore's column touting mixed martial arts and yoga as therapeutic alternatives, providing "substantial dividends" for PTSD sufferers, I have to raise the BS flag.

Yoga has been studied in empirically supported research studies and has been shown to provide positive dividends for those suffering from PTSD and other anxiety disorders. Yoga and other meditative states are beneficial (statistically), lowering cortisol levels and improving other stress-related symptoms when compared to no treatment.

Dr. Moore provided no reference to empirically supported, published research studies for either yoga or MMA and I do not recall ever having read anything about MMA being an effective alternative treatment for ANY chronic psychiatric condition, particularly PTSD.

I believe it is irresponsible for an individual, much less such a publication with a primarily military and Veteran audience as Military Times, to claim that a sport in which people beat each other to within an inch of their lives as therapeutic. There may very well be positive physical and mental benefits to both yoga and MMA, but it is irresponsible and unprofessional to claim that either deserves such prominence in your publication without adequate supporting research or, at the very least, a reference to a published study that provides empirically supported evidence of such a benefit.

Finally, Dr. Moore clearly does not understand the processes involved in yoga/meditation and their effects on lowering anxiety. He claims that yoga helps PTSD sufferers "fend off distressing thoughts", another form of avoidance and something any reasonable clinician would NOT want to promote in our clients. Yoga, meditation, and other Buddhist practices and beliefs DO NOT promote avoiding distressing thoughts, they DO promote simply accepting those thoughts in the present moment, thereby making them less threatening and increasing the individual's tolerance to experience the thoughts and associated emotions rather than avoiding them. Do your homework or leave it to the experts next time, giving your readers the accurate, objective information we deserve.

Chris Sorrentino, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
aka CombatCounselor
Executive Director, Help4VetsPTSD
Kansas City, MO

Letter to the Editor, Air Force Times - HAGEL'S OPPORTUNITY (March 11, 2013)

I am assuming that an "editorial" is written by or for (in this case my guess would be Mr. Dorr) "the editor", Ms. Ianotta. In terms of JOINTNESS and BASE CLOSURES, I could not agree more. That is where our like-minded opinions end.

PEOPLE: Even though only 19% of the force stick around for retirement, I disagree with a strictly 401(k)-style retirement. We already have a 401(k)-style option in the Thrift Savings Plan, even if there are no matching contributions. A significant recruiting and retention tool is one of the few pensions still available in America today. Could there be a hybrid retirement, like the type proposed by several sources, where troops could qualify for reduced retirement at the ten year point, drawing the pension beginning at age 60? A combination of the two could help retention and provide a reasonable retirement for those who put their lives on the line for their country.

TOOTH TO TAIL RATIO: Are you assuming Afghanistan will end in 2014 and there will be no more war for the foreseeable future? Wishful thinking! A one-to-two ratio would never allow enough recovery time between deployments if at war, which between the instability in the Middle East, a nut at the helm in North Korea, and China spreading its wings and building aircraft carriers, is highly likely. Our forces are worn out and drastically reducing the force is a temporary solution to a long-term problem. We have seen the cycle over and over, so do not be naive.

EFFECTIVE USE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE: Most would agree, particularly the Guard and Reserve, that they have been used VERY effectively over the past 20+ years. Probably TOO effectively. There is nothing more there to give if you think they are going to make up the difference for your "tooth to tale ratio". Bless you all!

HEALTHCARE: Is Air Force Times really going to go there? Are you seriously proposing that "those who can afford to pay more" pick-up the slack? We all made the same sacrifices and were promised the same benefits, so I think it is ABSURD to expect higher wage earners pay more for a benefit we were told was "free" and "for life" during recruitment. Maybe Ex-Secretary Panetta could pay back the $1 million in plane trips home during his SECDEF tenure (and only God knows how much he wasted BEFORE becoming Secretary). Maybe we could take all the money wasted on end-of-year "spend-downs" and plow it back into the budget EVERY YEAR. Maybe we could end government and contractor fraud, waste, and abuse instead of giving it lip service. I have seen enough money wasted on just one government contract (the contractor currently has a class action lawsuit also pending against them and an IG complaint from me) to fund Tricare for at least a few months ... ONE CONTRACT!

Air Force Times loses credibility with those kinds of shortsighted suggestions. Where is your loyalty? Who do you think pays your salary? Your readers, active-duty and retired military! Do you think your "suggestions" are popular with other readers?

Maybe you should stick to reporting the news rather than telling the new SECDEF how to run the show. I think he has much smarter, military-savy people on his staff than Military Times does.

Chris Sorrentino, LtCol, USAF (Ret) aka CombatCounselor