Stars and Stripes’ letters page has been spiced by a couple of interlocking controversies lately. The umbrella theme: interservice pride — or rivalry, if you prefer. In the end, Stripes itself came in for criticism.

It all started with a letter from Army Sgt. Erik Wacker, from Illesheim, Germany. He was irked by an American Forces Network TV spot about the Air Force’s Airman’s Creed, specifically a passage in the creed that states, “I will never leave a fallen airman behind.” To the sergeant, that sounded as if the Air Force was being too stingy with its rescue operations. He argued that the Army’s Soldier’s Creed is less restrictive. It says, “I will never leave a fallen comrade.” (Emphasis added.)

Three Air Force members quickly wrote in to assure readers that all members of their service — among them Jolly Greens, USAF combat search and rescue (CSAR) helicopter crews and para-rescue — would rescue anyone. Air Force Staff Sgt. Travis Peterson, writing from Iraq, said that “not only do the members of the Air Force take care of their own by not leaving anyone behind, we also will not allow any of our sister services or civilians to be left behind, either.”

Striking the same note, Tech. Sgt. Marlene Booth of Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, wrote: “We are all soldiers no matter what branch of the service we are in.” That set off another argument. Two retired Marines wrote to remind readers: Never call a Marine a soldier. Staff Sgt. Richard Rutledge (retired) from Camp Taji, Iraq, said: “Calling a Marine a soldier is telling that Marine he is not Marine material and is an insult to that Marine.”

That statement smacked of an “elitist mentality,” wrote an Air Force man from Kabul, Afghanistan, Senior Master Sgt. Robert B. Jackson. “When your loyalty to your service exceeds your loyalty to your nation, it’s time to evaluate your priorities,” he said.

Then came the knock on Stripes — from letter writer 1st Lt. Carlos De Castro Pretelt, from Camp Speicher, Iraq. He took the Air Force members’ side, accusing the retired Marines of “insulting or demeaning” other services. But he reserved his strongest criticism for Stripes. He said the paper was irresponsible for having printed “such blatant exclamations.” He said if a better letters page was desired, “please choose different subjects” and “do not let your newspaper become the idiots blog.”

Newspapers don’t choose the subjects for their letters pages, of course; the letter writers do. But the lieutenant’s criticism points to a question worth examining: When do the editors decide to edit or reject a letter?

Brooks E. Bowers, who puts together the opinion pages for Stripes in Washington, cites the paper’s letters policy, which is on Stripes’ Web site and is published occasionally. It says: “We reserve the right to edit for taste, clarity and length. … If a letter is potentially libelous, slanderous or appears to have been written with malice or harmful intent, it will be edited or rejected.” The policy says it will allow letters that are “valid without malice.” (Letters could also be rejected if they are among piles coming in on a given subject, and are repetitive, though Pary Smith, who processes letters in Europe, tries to give voice to as many writers as possible.)

Bowers’ assessment of the battle of the creeds and of the soldier vs. Marine titles: “To me, the initial letters met this criterion of ‘valid without malice’ and he (Lt. De Castro Pretelt) has my assurance that Stripes will uphold those standards.”

I would have come to the same conclusion, chiefly because the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps members who wrote in were outspoken in their views but stopped short of flinging real mud.