Voice of the Veteran
A friend of mine in St. Louis is a Navy veteran, and he occasionally sends me articles or emails concerning veterans' affairs that he thinks I might be interested in. This morning he sent me a letter from a vet to Duncan Hunter, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, concerning some recent remarks by the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu. Below is the letter in its entirety.
January 31, 2005
The Honorable Duncan Hunter
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee
The Honorable John McHugh
Chairman, HASC Subcommittee for Military Personnel
Sirs:
I call to your attention to the very disgraceful and reprehensible conduct of our Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu. He will be presenting testimony before the Military Personnel this Wednesday, February 2nd.
In the January 25, 2005, Wall Street Journal, Greg Jaffe highlights the Pentagon modus operandi of pitting retired career veteran against active duty warrior.
Over the years, the DOD and the President have declared military retirees' medical care and other earned/promised benefits as areas of low priority. Funds are diverted to other programs. Now Dr. Chu claims the funding ox is in jeopardy of being gored because military retirees have finally had enough of the "use and abuse" attitude of DOD and many in Congress and are demanding restoration of earned benefits.
Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness is well known for his mouth and his opposition to military retiree benefits as wasteful and detrimental to current DOD efforts. His recent statements reported by Jaffe's article regarding funding in support of military retiree benefits are beyond the pale. "The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself," says Undersecretary Chu. To read a statement from an upper level Pentagon policy maker describing past warriors as hurtful to our nation should send a chill from President Bush to the lowest private in the most forward of remote foxholes . Does Dr. Chu represent your position? His statements should send a chill up your spine. It certainly sends a chill up my spine. Do our widows and the general public think our past warriors are "hurtful" to our nation? I don't think so. We both know that recently restored benefits, which you had some influence in bringing about, are funded not from the DOD budget but from the Treasury General Fund. This makes Dr. Chu a liar, because he knows the truth.
Dr. Chu makes another slur: "I'd like to believe 19-year-olds paid attention to their annuity package." But they don't. "Nineteen-year-olds want cash to buy a pickup truck," he says. This is yet another example of a highly placed bureaucrat who does not understand the (needs of) today's warriors (vs.) those of yesterday. How many of these young warriors are working credits toward the completing their education? How many of these young warriors are making a career of service to country based on empty promises and pushing uphill against the negativity of the likes of David Chu? What does Dr. Chu know? He only served two years on active duty and has no active reserve time. What all warriors want is leadership that understands DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY and what it means to fulfill obligations and commitments the warriors after the smoke disappears. They also want honesty from their chain of command. Dr. Chu runs counter to this philosophy.
Those on active duty are not stupid. I do not consider my 15 years of active duty as being stupid. By the way, I bought my first pickup 5 years after leaving active duty. But those on active duty do look at their retirement benefits. Those about to enlist do look at those retirement benefits. Yes, the War on Terror and in Iraq have something to do with it, but the real reason the Army and Marine Corps can not make enlistment goals is the perception that the current benefits are not going to be there when today's enlistees reach retirement eligibility. Thank you Dr. Chu for your negativity. After all, these young warriors only need to look at recent history as to the erosion of health benefits, the fights over concurrent receipt, survivors' benefits, VA funding, exclusion of Chapter 61 retirees from benefits, and the like.
Military retirees, spouses and widows of the WWII/Korea eras were promised and earned government-funded medical care for life. The law changed in 1956. Those of the Viet Nam era were made "the promise" notwithstanding that the law had been changed years before. Dr. Chu would have us believe we "paid no attention to our annuity package." Rather, we were promised one thing when the opposite was true; the annuity package and "earned benefits" were different from what we were told and they are now being told. This situational ethics and shallow thinking is dishonorable at best; it is betrayal of the warrior at worst.
I am personally offended and disgusted that a DOD official would pit active duty warriors against past warriors in such an egregious and distorted manner, particularly while our nation is engaged in war. Dr. Chu must apologize and resign! Regardless of his apology, he must go or be removed! He does not serve the war fighter.
I would appreciate receiving your assessment and what you believe the Congress should do in this matter.
Respectfully,
Charles D. Revie, LTC, USAR, Retired
720 Sundown Court, Las Cruces, NM 88011
Phone 505-522-3317
Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, it should be an area of agreement acrosss all political lines that our military men and women should receive the best in health care and benefits for serving their country. That they aren't -- and that bureaucrats and hypocrites like Dr. Chu are in position to denigrate and deny them -- is a national shame.
January 31, 2005
The Honorable Duncan Hunter
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee
The Honorable John McHugh
Chairman, HASC Subcommittee for Military Personnel
Sirs:
I call to your attention to the very disgraceful and reprehensible conduct of our Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu. He will be presenting testimony before the Military Personnel this Wednesday, February 2nd.
In the January 25, 2005, Wall Street Journal, Greg Jaffe highlights the Pentagon modus operandi of pitting retired career veteran against active duty warrior.
Over the years, the DOD and the President have declared military retirees' medical care and other earned/promised benefits as areas of low priority. Funds are diverted to other programs. Now Dr. Chu claims the funding ox is in jeopardy of being gored because military retirees have finally had enough of the "use and abuse" attitude of DOD and many in Congress and are demanding restoration of earned benefits.
Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness is well known for his mouth and his opposition to military retiree benefits as wasteful and detrimental to current DOD efforts. His recent statements reported by Jaffe's article regarding funding in support of military retiree benefits are beyond the pale. "The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself," says Undersecretary Chu. To read a statement from an upper level Pentagon policy maker describing past warriors as hurtful to our nation should send a chill from President Bush to the lowest private in the most forward of remote foxholes . Does Dr. Chu represent your position? His statements should send a chill up your spine. It certainly sends a chill up my spine. Do our widows and the general public think our past warriors are "hurtful" to our nation? I don't think so. We both know that recently restored benefits, which you had some influence in bringing about, are funded not from the DOD budget but from the Treasury General Fund. This makes Dr. Chu a liar, because he knows the truth.
Dr. Chu makes another slur: "I'd like to believe 19-year-olds paid attention to their annuity package." But they don't. "Nineteen-year-olds want cash to buy a pickup truck," he says. This is yet another example of a highly placed bureaucrat who does not understand the (needs of) today's warriors (vs.) those of yesterday. How many of these young warriors are working credits toward the completing their education? How many of these young warriors are making a career of service to country based on empty promises and pushing uphill against the negativity of the likes of David Chu? What does Dr. Chu know? He only served two years on active duty and has no active reserve time. What all warriors want is leadership that understands DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY and what it means to fulfill obligations and commitments the warriors after the smoke disappears. They also want honesty from their chain of command. Dr. Chu runs counter to this philosophy.
Those on active duty are not stupid. I do not consider my 15 years of active duty as being stupid. By the way, I bought my first pickup 5 years after leaving active duty. But those on active duty do look at their retirement benefits. Those about to enlist do look at those retirement benefits. Yes, the War on Terror and in Iraq have something to do with it, but the real reason the Army and Marine Corps can not make enlistment goals is the perception that the current benefits are not going to be there when today's enlistees reach retirement eligibility. Thank you Dr. Chu for your negativity. After all, these young warriors only need to look at recent history as to the erosion of health benefits, the fights over concurrent receipt, survivors' benefits, VA funding, exclusion of Chapter 61 retirees from benefits, and the like.
Military retirees, spouses and widows of the WWII/Korea eras were promised and earned government-funded medical care for life. The law changed in 1956. Those of the Viet Nam era were made "the promise" notwithstanding that the law had been changed years before. Dr. Chu would have us believe we "paid no attention to our annuity package." Rather, we were promised one thing when the opposite was true; the annuity package and "earned benefits" were different from what we were told and they are now being told. This situational ethics and shallow thinking is dishonorable at best; it is betrayal of the warrior at worst.
I am personally offended and disgusted that a DOD official would pit active duty warriors against past warriors in such an egregious and distorted manner, particularly while our nation is engaged in war. Dr. Chu must apologize and resign! Regardless of his apology, he must go or be removed! He does not serve the war fighter.
I would appreciate receiving your assessment and what you believe the Congress should do in this matter.
Respectfully,
Charles D. Revie, LTC, USAR, Retired
720 Sundown Court, Las Cruces, NM 88011
Phone 505-522-3317
Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, it should be an area of agreement acrosss all political lines that our military men and women should receive the best in health care and benefits for serving their country. That they aren't -- and that bureaucrats and hypocrites like Dr. Chu are in position to denigrate and deny them -- is a national shame.
posted by Generik at 2:44 PM
<< Home