I’ve been a member for a number of years and thoroughly enjoy the magazine you folks provide. I read the January issue cover to cover, as usual, and it was quite interesting to me. I’m sure some missed it, but I read between the lines and found several topics that, in combination, may be telling a story within a story.

Specifically: “Army Aviation—Modernization Continues,” “Soldier Armed: CH-47F/MH-47G Update” and the review of The Past As Prologue: The Importance of History to the Military Profession. There were also several references to Army recruiting and membership. Now, you might think, how are these related and what’s the story between the lines?

Well, it occurred to me that, as a former Aviation soldier, recruiter, retired member of the Army, current AUSA member and a long-standing appreciator of military history, we might be missing an opportunity here to do some good relationship building for our Army.

In the article about aviation modernization, and especially the article about the CH-47 Chinook improvement program, there were no apparent references to the past and how aviation has improved because of the efforts and sacrifices of past generations of Army Aviation soldiers and past Aviation units. That the “Chinook has been in U.S. Army service since 1962” was about as close as the writer came to mentioning/praising history and the veterans. There are several units flying the “Hook” that still have historic unit call signs, and the young folks are proud of the traditions and history in units like the “Muleskinners,” the “Blackcats” and “Guns-a-go-go.” Mentioning history and the contributions of veterans, aircraft and units fosters and encourages pride, retention and recruiting.

Often I see mention of the referral bonus program, which is often focused on the veteran/retired community and a money-for-referrals concept. I’ve always thought this a little odd and probably unnecessary. I make referrals all the time by being proud of my service and talking it up at any opportunity (most recently to a poor unwitting door-to-door “sales kid”). There’s another veteran community that isn’t often thought of: the two- or three- (or more) year guy, who passed through our ranks and didn’t make a long service commitment. These guys read also, and this is another reason why history, the veteran and unit association/recognition should always be present in any articles, stories or books written about our Army.

These folks only remember their Army, and when it’s mentioned in a positive light they take pride in the Army of today, because they see, by extension, that they made it so. As parents and as other influential members of society, they are an untapped resource whose service should be recognized and praised.

I like “Army Strong.” An Army with strong character, history, tradition and a place where a person can make a lasting contribution in a storied unit will sell itself. We should equally emphasize who we were and what we did, along with who we are and where we’re going.

1ST SGT. ROGER G. MONTGOMERY, USA RET.
Spring, Texas


REMEMBERING GEN. ABRAMS
I’m sure that any officer who was privileged to be in contact with Gen. Creighton W. Abrams has fond remembrances comparable to those of Brig. Gen. Robert Dilworth (“Front & Center,” January). I know I do.

For the first part of my tour in Vietnam, I was an assistant secretary of the Joint Staff. I was to attend all meetings where decisions were likely to be made and to ensure that Deputy Commander Abrams’ decisions were assigned to the appropriate action element. He was an impressive decision maker. His orders were as clear as they were concise, and I had no problem reducing them to writing—doesn’t sound like a big deal, but the truth is not all commanders or staff officers serving there had that talent.

I also remember an incident that showed his clear concern for the troops. An Engineer colonel was briefing him about the holdup of distributing concertina wire. The general patiently waited for the colonel to mouth myriad excuses, and then he growled at him as only the general could—of course he also used the ubiquitous cigar as a pointer for emphasis.

“Colonel,” he said, “get out of here now and get the wire to the field now. Our soldiers are dying while you make excuses.”

In some mysterious way, the wire seemed to fly off of the docks and got to the field.

COL. ARION (PAT) PATTAKOS, USA RET.
Kensington, Md.


“UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES”
Thank you for publishing Maj. Gen. Guy Meloy’s article “Fixing the Unintended Consequences of Micromanagement” (“Front & Center,” January). What at first seems a simple, entertaining story becomes a rather profound statement on the disengagement of policymakers from the practical effects of their policy.

But the story hits home, too. While serving in Hawaii, I had the opportunity to meet a few Samoan-American soldiers. These men had arms that reminded me of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel depiction of Adam reaching up to God. They certainly deserve accommodations made to the Army height/weight standards.

ERIK JOHNSON
Indianapolis, Ind.


“MODERN SEVEN PILLARS”
My congratulations to Lt. Col.(P) Craig T. Trebilcock for his analysis contained in “The Modern Seven Pillars of Iraq” (February).

I have long thought that the U.S. military was more appreciative of foreign cultures than our foreign policy experts. My impression is that our foreign policy has been shaped by the “ugly American” for many years. Very few people around the world can relate to our definition of democracy and democratic government.

My own experience in Korea and Vietnam was sharpened by my final tour of duty as Army attaché to Chile, where I was able to closely observe my (misguided, as I often thought) State Department colleagues in operation. Even many of those diplomats in close contact with the locals either ignored the locals, or refused to listen when they spoke. I can remember asking a senior diplomat, “What happened to tact as a part of diplomacy?” At best, I would describe many of the State Department folks as arrogant.

COL. JAMES R. BROKENSHIRE JR., USA RET.
Middletown, Pa.


THE ARMY UNIFORM
Kudos to the many letter writers concerned with the transition from green to blue service uniforms (February). They made many cogent points why this would be unwise. The fact emerges that the Army service uniform has already been marginalized. As the writers point out, the Army combat uniform (ACU) is often inappropriately worn in lieu of the green service uniform for many duty and public occasions. The ACU may project a warrior ethos in some circumstances, but in many settings it does little to enhance the prestige of the Army or the speaker and disrespects an audience often in coat and tie. This is a policy matter, not the fault of the green service uniform.

It’s highly probable that the current reluctance to “suit up” will be even greater when it involves the dressier and more conspicuous Army blue uniform. Given no alternative, the soldier (from general officer on down) would rather look “combat” than as if en route to a military ball. The probable result is that the blue service/dress uniform may be so seldom worn by the Army at large in public that it will result in less recognition of the Army uniform, not more.

The Army needs to do two things: reverse the decision to convert the Army blue dress uniform to a service/dress uniform and revamp policies regarding wear of the ACU to restore dignity and professionalism in how the Army is seen.

COL. WILLIAM E. FLORENCE, USA RET.
Springfield, Va.