Should the Army do away with Patches and go to one universal Symbol like the Marines EGA?

Call me old school,(I guess you can been out since 1968) but my 4th Division patch was something I wore with pride back in the day,and if I spot one now on a service member it causes me to stand a little straighter a little prouder so I say stay with the patch I really don't care if civilians are impressed with Marines they have their traditions we have ours " steadfast and loyal"

It seems like from a recruiting standpoint civilians asking questions about different patches and parts of uniform (i.e. tanker boots, or combat badges) would be a positive aspect. This not only gives a recruiter a great foot in the door, but also shows pride in their service. I believe this also gives a new recruit an early taste of army traditions and culture.

I don't want to be "that guy", and perhaps I am being overly touchy on this subject, but here goes anyway.

The United States military as a whole is under assault. Military budget cuts with a sustained and increased optempo along with what appears to be constant assaults on the traditions of our military are decreasing morale on a daily basis. Our soldiers and leaders are punished for making split second decisions in life or death situations by politicians with nothing but time whose only tangible sacrifices for this Country, with the exception of a select few, have been having to occasionally stand for long periods of time to philibuster a bill they do not like.

Our Country's leadership seems to desire to seek alliances with historic enemies while simultaneously distancing us from our trusted allies.

Russia is constantly infringing into our airspace via Alaska, and doing it on a very routine basis, and our leaders have done more to promote racism internally (solely my opinion) and violence across the Middle East by destabilizing Arabic governments under the guise of ousting dictators, thereby encouraging violence.

Our troops are asked to go into combat, which is by nature a dirty, gritty and violent animal, by politicians who try to push highly restrictive ROE's and RUF's which only further endanger our troops.

Our Country has left our own high and dry in foreign lands because of "political concern" about a false narrative drummed up to cover the mistakes which were made by those who were entrusted with their lives.

Our Nations colors are being trampled on because some people feel that they have been wronged or who have been "offended" by our leaders, while we lose soldiers in combat fighting for that very flag, along with countless Veterans who commit suicide due to the experiences from defending the very concept that flag represents.

Strong leaders who have been proven in combat either voluntarily or forcibly leave the military, while being replaced by those who seemingly appear to agree with an administration which would rather have a "political consultant" than a military leader.

Our chances of full out winning a war decreases proportionally in regards to how much the politicians want to control said wars, which also places our troops in more danger than necessary.

We are training soldiers in BCT that, should they become too stressed, they need only inform the right people and things will "slack off" a bit. We're more interested in making sure a soldier is not too stressed in training, which only sets that soldier up for failure in combat.

I understand that your question was asked with the best intentions, but are we so concerned with image that we are looking past the content?

If our Army wants to try to bring our image up to that portrayed by the Marines, the patch is the last place we need to look.

How about we stop passing soldiers on their APFT and weight if they do not meet the standards? How about we start trying to make the majority of our force wear their uniforms like the marines, without buttons, Velcro and stitches ripping at the seems?

How about we let drill sergeants do their jobs without talks of stress cards and hurt feelings?

My last tour in Iraq, our ROE's and RUF's were so restrictive, some non-combat soldiers which we provided security for were actually told not to put a mag in their weapons because they were in 915's and they had us, the security escorts, to fight for them, and they did not want to take the chance of a negligent discharge. in the meantime, Marines were told by their chain that any actions done to preserve their lives would be defended by their chain without question. Maybe we should work on getting our chain to start standing up like theirs?

What makes the Marine's image better than ours in the eyes of the public has nothing to do with patches, yet everything to do with content. There is an esprit de cor in the Marines that is often times only seen in the combat arms MOS's of the Army.

The desire for others to seek out a Marine Recruiter instead of an Army, Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard recruiter is based on challenge. The Marines have a battle hardened and tested reputation of being the most difficult challenge of all to endure. That's right, my fellow soldiers, I said it. There were never any talks of stress cards and those who fail standards are actually permitted to fail standards, and forced to improve or make room for the next Marine.

SSG Winkler, I understand you are a recruiter and that is what is within your lane, and public image is a very important tool in recruiting. However, trying to make a less stressful and more inviting Army will only steer more of the type soldiers we need to actually restore our image away from us and towards the Marine Recruiters (just an opinion). I also know that some soldiers have been asked not to wear their combat patches because "new soldiers" felt as if they were being singled out by not having one. I dare say that 85% of US Army soldiers would agree with me, but stripping units of the heraldry and history of their patches to improve our image in the eyes of a civilian is not only demeaning, but will further decrease the morale inside the organization.

So the big question is this; are so interested in something as simple as removing a patch to bring in a few extra soldiers that we are willing to land yet another blow to the morale of those who have already sacrificed? When I joined the U.S. Army in 1990, I didn't join because of patches or branding, I joined because I saw an organization that was tough and hard, much as I thought the Marines were, and also saw an opportunity to gain skills with those tough requirements.

I understand that the U.S. Army does studies on branding, but all of my friends and I knew the different patches in the Army denoted certain units before we even got into high school. We also recognized that the U.S.M.C. had no such patches. Our desire to join the Army was not based upon research other than our own research conducted to find which branch was right for us.

When speaking of branding, recruiting and advertising, I am reminded of a mistake made by the Army some years back when failed marketing and branding led them to the motto "An Army Of One." An Army that had been about camaraderie and teamwork was given that jewel by individuals conducting this type research, and they found that it did not have the effect it sought after. Recruiters, drill sergeants, CO's, XO's, and many other acronyms called and complained, as well as potential soldiers who sought teamwork immediately went to other recruiters because of a simple campaign mistake.

They tried to correct it by inserting the tagline, "Composed of Several", but it was too late, the damage was done. Eventually, after millions of dollars funneled into the research and marketing of the new slogan, it was dropped, and the only thing which remained was the logo associated with it.

It's just an opinion, and may be completely off base, but it's just my feeling.

Stay safe brother,

SCOUTS OUT