Air mail - Letter to the Editor

The hammering taken for your outstanding pictorial "Enduring Images" [February 2002] is uncalled for. Is it possible the title of this particular feature got past some readers? The images presented are a thumbnail representation of the events occurring overseas and here at home during Operation Enduring Freedom. The photo of the four airmen resting has tremendous impact and speaks volumes across all specialties, capturing the spirit, determination and work ethic of all our deployed troops. The caption was far from being disturbing, and in fact was only an explanation of the image. I have yet to meet a single person who took away a bad impression of site surveyors from the caption of the photo. Most are fascinated by the photo, and several are professionals in the field. This is an excellent pictorial of images that will endure in my mindl

Airman 1st Class Lynne Neveu Vance Air Force Base, 0kla.

I'm responding to the letter from Tech. Sgt. Susan Parker [AirMail, April 2002] regarding a photo in the February 2002 issue. She claimed the photo of four airmen resting and the caption gave the wrong impression and a bad rap to surveyors. I think this lady needs to give the readers a bit more credit and not assume too much about their intelligence levels. When I saw that photo, I immediately understood what the photographer was trying to portray. It portrayed four young men, obviously worn out from a busy day, taking a much needed break. You can tell this by their body postures and facial expressions.

"We work until the last tent is laid out and erected." Well, I was deployed to All Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait, in 1998 for Operation Desert Thunder, and It was those of us from the 20th Special Operations Squadron who built many of the tents, including our own. Ours were the last tents built. Her statement makes it sound as though surveyors are the only ones building tents, and the deployed locations would collapse without her people.

Let's get off the high horse and simply enjoy the photo of our people, supporting the war against terrorism.

Staff Sgt. Jeff Stoermer

Ramstein Air Base, Germany

What's in a name?

I have a question regarding your March 2002 issue. I am curious why you used a call sign name to identify a Guard pilot flying homeland defense missions ["Homeland Patrol," March 2002]. Is it following the practice of not identifying pilots by full name in case they are captured? If that's so, then why did you use the full rank and name of every special tactics squadron combat controller and pararescueman you interviewed or photographed in the same issue ["Shoot, Move, Communicate"]? If you're protecting the pilot, then why not the special tactics personnel?

If there's a double standard, then it's appalling. Let's look at Operation Enduring Freedom -- so far, no fighter pilot has been shot down. I'd even say none have had any serious threat against them over Afghanistan. Meanwhile, at least two special tactics operators have died in battle, while others face combat nearly every day. So who's more at risk?

We need to break out of the mindset that only pilots face danger and capture. Controllers and PJs are at great risk in the conflict we face. Let's protect them with the same vigor we protect the pilots flying homeland defense over the United States.

Master Sgt. John Walters

Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash.

Editor's note: Use of call signs or actual names is left to the people being interviewed and their commanders, and whether they are in an operational setting. Airman doesn't have the mindset that only pilots face danger and capture. PJs have one of the toughest, and some say the toughest. training of any of the services. Only the best survive the training, and many outstanding PJs have been injured or have lost their lives in service to their country.

Backing the bombers.

In response to Maj. David Geesey's B-52 AirMail contribution [April 2002], I have to set the facts straight. As of March 18, according to a Pentagon press release, the B-52 dropped just 29 percent of the weapons in Afghanistan, not more than 50 percent as Geesey states, compared to 40 percent for the B-1. In fact, the B-1 dropped twice as many GBU-31s -- the weapon of choice in Afghanistan - as all the rest of the military aircraft combined. He says the B-52 "does all of the work and receives none of the credit." Well again he's wrong on both accounts.

Has he forgotten the core value of "service before self?" If he really needs recognition. I'll say, "Good job making contrails on CNN, now pat a maintainer on the back and get back to work."

He also says that commanders want the B-52, not the B-1 or B-2. Commanders want the best aircraft for the job. If the job is to sneak in and knock down the door, they want the B-2. If they want cruise missile capability, or to scare the enemy with leaflets and contrails, they want the B-52. If the job is putting warheads on foreheads, they want the B-1.

It's great to have pride in your aircraft, but get the facts straight, don't compromise your integrity and embarrass your community, and let's start working together. We still have a war to win. Capt. Chad Rubino Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.