Re: “Military benefits cuts don’t go far enough” (TNT, 12-23).
The Washington Post editorial appears to have been written by someone who never served his/her country in the military for 20 or more years of active duty.
Benefits that are awarded to military personal are based on the country’s need to obtain and maintain an active-duty military force and to maintain experienced military personal for future conflicts. Reducing earned military benefits and entitlements by those who served 20 or more years of active duty, in my opinion, is not what I would considered sensible, especially since those in political occupation far exceed wages and retirement benefits of those we often refer to as heroes.
One must remember: Freedom is not free. Some just give more then others.
(Pugh is a retired Air Force chief master sergeant.)