Letters

Picture Imperfect

I take issue with January's feature concerning the National Guard and Army Reserve ("Breaking Ranks"). There is no conclusive evidence that reservists are breaking ranks within the U. S. military, and their performance is contrary to the picture you paint.

These men and women represent the best trained, best equipped, best compensated, best led and most physically fit National Guard and Reserve forces ever fielded by our country.

There are some shortfalls in equipment for both active-duty and Reserve forces. But we are making every effort to provide them with what they need. No enterprise, government or private, ever has unlimited resources to cover every contingency.

It is encouraging that you noted that the mission refused on that October day was executed within hours by a similarly trained and equipped unit from the Montana National Guard. To highlight the actions of a few does a disservice to the men and women in uniform who sacrifice daily.

Your January 2005 cover gives the distinct impression that our reserve forces crack under pressure. Your picture with the headline,"Breaking Ranks: Part-time soldiers begin to crack under full-time pressure in Iraq," is misleading. That soldier isn't cracking under pressure, he is covering his ears from the explosion in the background.

The article contains only minor reference to the combat quality of our reservists. The quote from retired Army Col. Jeffrey McCausland is not sufficient to support your premise. I wasn't the dean of a War College, but I've worked with our reserve forces extensively over the years, and I object to the inference that they are inferior under pressure. Not only is your position poorly supported, the rest of your article consists largely of warmed-over news that we have seen numerous times in the press.

You owe our reserve forces a strong and public apology. You should devote an entire issue to their real capabilities and their personal devotion to duty, bravery and performance under fire.

Distinct Difference

"The Plight of Reservists" (Editor's Notebook, January) indicated that "part-time" soldiers have never had first call on training and equipment. I understand the point you were attempting to make, but I take exception to your use of the term "reservist."

Many components comprise reserve forces. The term "part-time soldier" (or airman) was abandoned several years ago for the more appropriate term, "traditional." We refer to assigned personnel as full time or traditional, because in today's high-task environment few fit into a part-time category.

I am the commander of an Air National Guard C-130 wing, and our organization is considered an integral part of the Air Reserve Component. ARC has possessed factory fresh, first line aircraft since 1987. They are almost 20 years old, but are considered newer in the USAF C-130 fleet. Our wing has been deployed twice since 1990, each time under presidential authority and each time as first responders. As such, your indication that part-time soldiers have never had first call on training and equipment is incorrect when using the term "reservist."