Share This Page

Magazine misses mark

| Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Magazine misses mark

I am a military veteran with eight years of active duty, including part of the Vietnam era (1971-79). I feel some clarification needs to be offered concerning the former Navy SEAL who recently broke his silence. The Esquire magazine article “The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden ... is Screwed,” along with numerous talking heads on the cable news channels, paint an unflattering picture of both the Navy and our nation.

Even the lowliest buck private knows you must have 20 years of service to qualify for a pension and health insurance. This individual now bemoans that, as if something to which he was entitled was taken from him. He simply elected not to re-enlist in the Navy for an additional four years to qualify.

Even his claim to have “retired” from the military is fallacious. When you stay in the service for 20 years, you retire. Those who leave after fulfilling whatever obligations they have incurred are referred to as having “gotten out.”

Before the flurry of sympathy fades, I suspect you will see his name on a book that a ghostwriter will quickly pen. That will likely coincide with a lecture tour for a high fee.

William Northy

Moon

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.