Posted on Jan 1, 2014

Does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?

17.9K

201

112

An article focused mainly on Indian-Americans was recently published where the discussion turned to changing policies (grooming, wear of uniform, etc) to allow more folks to join without comprising their religious practices/beliefs.<div><br></div><div>Without focusing on specific religions, but focused mainly on grooming and uniform standards, does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html#kaxMGk112xXGCIbO.99">http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html#kaxMGk112xXGCIbO.99</a><br></div><div><br></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.indiawest.com/indiawest_cms/gall_content/2013/12/2013_12$largeimg229_Dec_2013_102644053.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html">Sikh Soldiers Want More Indian Americans in U.S. Army</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">The United States should change its policy to allow more Indian Americans to join the military without compromising on their religious beliefs and practices, the only three Sikh soldiers in the U.S. A...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Posted in these groups:

Posted 11 y ago

Follow this discussion

Responses: 49

Show most popular responses

SSgt (Join to see)

Posted 11 y ago

The image of Bin Laden and 9/11 has done a lot of damage. People see the facial hair as being terroristic. This is a cause and effect and political correctness would force people to utter a lie as the truth. That the images of Bin Laden did not affect us, especially after the bombings. There must be honesty here, because those guys on Duck Dynasty could claim the same. We are here acting like the SSG is the one who is the threat, when he is not.

He has a position based on his experiences and those should be respected whether we disagree or not. I think in any case, that one should be measured in how they respond to something like this. Kind of like going to another country and violating their customs. I would suggest reading the following information regarding a woman who has death threats issued by Muslim clerics. http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/

So how does this square with us changing our traditions and not getting that same respect in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan?

Now, bothering innocent civilians is without exception absolutely wrong but his rights do not exceed those of our military members. If he abused a person here for their faith or country of origin, that would be unacceptable but calling him the KKK is patently wrong and divisive. Wouldn't it be better to talk this out rather than excoriate a person who serves this country?

Standards are there for disciplinary reasons not punishment. When people stop believing in their core values they stop believing in any thing. A clean cut soldier implies uniformity and cohesiveness and we do not need to be re-educated to the whim of social antagonists.

Let them experiment on campuses if they must but not to destroy the discipline that now exists. Our leaders have to represent us and too many don't. When free speech is up for sale then so will be the respect that this generation and past generations have fought for,

No Country for Women

Humanism, Secularism, Feminism

(0)

Comment

(0)

SSgt (Join to see)

11 y

I really hope people read the site by Taslima Nareen, she is fighting the fight for the benefit of all the women around the world. She has courage!

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

Posted 11 y ago

CSM,

Honestly to tell you the truth, we do need discipline, but I think giving up individualism which is one of the four core American values as nothing to do with following orders and obedience. I've deployed with Czec soldiers, Jordanians, Canadians, Australians, Kiwi's, Fijians, And they all clearly have a military standard but are still more relaxed then the majority of U.S soldiers. What I see from them is more togetherness, happier soldiers, and more camaraderie, am I saying that we need to all grow beards be individuals etc. not really but our appearance standards whether we have a beard or not does not affect good order and discipline if it did the following mentioned fighting forces would have a problem. In current light of the new changes to the standards I don't think the length of your sideburns matter unless they are very well below the earlobe and a certain thickness. I also don't think it matters if you grow a beard off duty, or what you or your wife choose to wear off duty, as long as it would not bring discredit to yourself and I mean clearly something that should not be worn. I think standards are starting to nit-pick especially on the off duty soldier. I think were already as Army professional as we can get, without a brief case, suit and tie.

(0)

Comment

(0)

show previous comments

CSM Mike Maynard

11 y

SGT Warren - what you state is true, that we are not like a lot of other military's.

And maybe that's why we are constantly asked to train/mentor other countries Soldier's? Because of the level of discipline we exhibit and the image we present through our uniformity/professionalism?

(3)

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

11 y

I respect all of you, your all senior NCO's and trust me I enforce standards all the time and am the first to uphold them. I never said that standards were not necessary an Army without a standard would be catastrophe. I was simply giving an opinionated post like the rest of the Army here. I think some things are nit picked at, It's up to NCO's to train, lead, and mentor soldiers, and to enforce the standards. What I was trying to explain is that discipline is taught and is not compromised by individuality, obviously I could do better in my communication. I feel my post was not biased, meaning I am not for or against such a half shod ideal as removal of the Army standards, but If a soldier has no discipline then it is the fault of his leadership. To do away with uniformity in a uniformed service is a preposterous idea, there is no way that an NCO such as my self would present such a thing, I do feel however that some ways of thinking are a bit antiquated and I do feel that we as an Army are very professional otherwise as stated we would not train other contingencies.

(3)

(0)

1SG (Join to see)

11 y

I can see you missed my point. I'll let it go. But I do want to address this "discipline is taught and is not compromised by individuality ".....really? That is exactly how it is compromised. Exactly.

(0)

SSgt (Join to see)

11 y

SGT Samuel, your communication skills are as good as anyone else's. And your points about contingencies are correct but appearance matters.

(0)

SSgt (Join to see)

Posted 11 y ago

This administration is trying to squeak out as many changes to the military while downsizing it at the same. Every person should look alike, no one is special as far as that is concerned.

(0)

Comment

(0)

CSM (Join to see)

Edited 11 y ago

Posted 11 y ago

(0)

Comment

(0)

CW2 Stephen Pate

Posted 11 y ago

I think that uniformity is for the benefit of the commander, regardless of what level of command. If you know that all of your troops are uniform across the board then you can apply you forces more accurately, not having to integrate into your planning any more concessions than need be made. Plus, a group of Warriors that are uniform are more intimidating to the enemy in my opinion (with the exception of ODAs and such, I know you have your reasons and wish I could be there with ya!).

(0)

Comment

(0)

CPT (Join to see)

Posted 11 y ago

I think a good way to answer this question, CSM, is to look at the standpoint of why we have uniformity in the first place, which as some previous posters have stated, is to instill discipline and a sense of consistency within the organization.<div><br></div><div>Now, I think we have to look at exceptions to policy in the same way. What are we gaining by making such an exception. Some will look at the Sikh officer and say that if he cannot abide by the regulations we have set forth (which as someone already stated is already an arbitrary creation), that he should not be permitted to serve. But, by allowing him to serve, we are not only making the Army more representative of the United States (in regards to the Ambassadorial role), but we are also gaining a huge asset in a realm or culture that we may not have had the expertise in.</div>

(0)

Comment

(0)

show previous comments

CPT (Join to see)

11 y

CSM Maynard, I believe the Army needs uniformity. As a former infantryman, I know how important things like SOPs can be for soldiers in combat zones. So, in that sense, I don't believe that there should be a complete disregard for uniformity.

However, I do believe that the Army should continue to make exceptions as we already have done (with SF operators). I think this really strengthens our force, brings more diversity ( not just for the sake of diversity, but a tactical advantage as well), and may bring an untapped asset that may not exist without an exception. That being said, exceptions should be made in certain arenas for practical reasons. I believe the Sikh Captain above is a dentist, and when it comes to medical personnel, I think that should be one. In the infantry? Perhaps not. Such an exception, let's say for someone who has to take an hour break after every meal (made this up), could prove to be harmful to operations. However, that same soldier on the intelligence side may prove to be an incredible asset, especially as the Army goes to a globally aligned system.

(0)

CPT (Join to see)

11 y

I think it makes perfect sense. Beards, which are seen as something needed for the greater good (tactical mission) for SF operators would not be something that you would need with let's say 92Gs in the rear. Exceptions, just like they are with any Army policy, need to be carefully screened and it will always be judged on a case by case basis, which despite the current standard of uniformity, has always been in effect.

(0)

CSM Mike Maynard

11 y

Well, I agree that any of these folks that could require accommodations could definitely contribute to the mission, but maybe those that need these special accommodations should be DA Civilians instead of Uniformed Service Members?

(0)

CPT (Join to see)

11 y

That's another interesting suggestion. Again, only time will tell where and when the DA Civilians will be able to serve. I feel that there are many roles once performed by service members that are now given to DA Civilians or to contractors. I guess the question is how important it is to have that person serving in a military related role. Honestly, I can't answer that question with much precision as I haven't really thought of it in that light.

(0)

2LT (Join to see)

Posted 11 y ago

There are no individuals in the military. Uniformity is a must. How can someone in a leadership position tell someone to correct something if they aren't in uniform with the regulations either.

(0)

Comment

(0)

SFC(P) (Join to see)

Posted 11 y ago

Nope, uniformity all the way.

(0)

Comment

(0)

-5

SSG (Join to see)

Posted 11 y ago

if you want to look like the enemy, then move back to there country..if I see this is in the military that I serve, I will never wear my uniform with pride. it will have all been taken away as we begin to cater to the enemy and allow them to infiltrate our ranks. absolutely despicable.

(2)

Comment

(7)

show previous comments

SGT (Join to see)

11 y

SSG did you just really say that? You are an embarrassment to the Corps.

(2)

SSG Robert Burns

11 y

And if you want to look like a 1st grader, then continue to completely ignore the grammar rules of the English language. You seem to be all about "your country" except when it comes to your own education about it.

(3)

(1)

SSG (Join to see)

11 y

When I joined the military there was a standard. Since then it has been more about conforming to heritages and feelings. There is absolutely no sense in catering to those because it then promotes individuality and people will begin to push other issues to the limits. Since 1991, our military has gotten weaker and weaker due to those standards being altered. No discipline or respect for NCOs or any authority. If you can say that you have seen no change, it's because you are part of the problem. Counselings don't work, UCMJ doesn't work, Article 15's don't work and neither does extra duty. Sagging your uniform pants, allowing messy braids because it is heritage is not working. They are dirty and look faddish. One standard for all is the only way to go. If not, you will lose control as people will push even further for change. There is to many people looking the other way and allowing things to slide to the point it becomes the norm and eventually allowed by all. Not the standards I swore I uphold.

(1)

(0)

CH (CPT) Heather Davis

11 y

To fully be able to hear other's views it is imperative to hear them out. Reminder that not everyone has the ability to articulate especially when your sacred ground is being walked on.

When I came in the Military in 1984, I had a fellow NCO cut the back of the strands of hair that were on my collar. I didn't say anything, I was always in trouble for my hair that would hit my collar.

Today I still lock up when a CSM comes in, and I still embrace the wall when a full bird walks by. This was because of the self-discipline that was drilled into me.

I acknowledge SSG Thompson's passion to serve his Country especially due to his Semper FI background.

Please Rally Point let us be respectful and remember for some of us every generation in our family has served.

(1)

(0)

Does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.