Radical Reforms to Uniforms/Grooming Standards

[Just_A_Mom]

I can sort of get the reasoning for regulating civilian attire. I mean, I get that the service wants to project a positive image all the time. I also don't question the ability or the right of the service to regulate it. The military is a 24/7 gig and there are certain freedoms you give up when you join. I think most people understand that.

Still, isn't this a little too Orwellian? At least on that point. Isn't there also the possibility of harm that can, at least potentially, come from this?

I can spot an off-duty Marine from a mile. High and tight haircut, khakis and collared shirt tucked in (young, physically fit guy). I live in Annapolis and work in DC, so I'm confident that when I see this off-duty "uniform," I'm looking at a member of our Marine Corps. If I can spot them, anyone can. Right? Isn't blending in a better thing? At least maybe?

That's just what crossed my mind....

I get what you and others are saying about regulations and civilian attire. But honestly - someone tell me - can the military dictate what you wear when you are mowing the lawn at your house off base? Can they dictate your attire when you go out to a nightclub?
Nothing in what I read says anything about beach wear. The regs talk about cleavage and bare midriffs etc.

If a female soldier is on a dinner date with her intended at an expensive restaurant wearing a LBD - if her superior officer is dining there as well can she be expected to be 'counseled' on Monday morning?

This further brings me to my point - I don't really care what the regs are - ban tatoo's and fingernail polish. But the regs need to be clear and concise and and able to be enforced. Then they must be enforced consistently.

 

[bruno]

I get what you and others are saying about regulations and civilian attire. But honestly - someone tell me - can the military dictate what you wear when you are mowing the lawn at your house off base? Can they dictate your attire when you go out to a nightclub?
Nothing in what I read says anything about beach wear. The regs talk about cleavage and bare midriffs etc.

If a female soldier is on a dinner date with her intended at an expensive restaurant wearing a LBD - if her superior officer is dining there as well can she be expected to be 'counseled' on Monday morning?

This further brings me to my point - I don't really care what the regs are - ban tatoo's and fingernail polish. But the regs need to be clear and concise and and able to be enforced. Then they must be enforced consistently.

I would agree with you that the lack of clarity is going to be the problem with enforcing some of these things and there seems like a lot of ambiguity - but then again this is the Army Times so there probably is a fair amount left out of the story as to how to enforce some of these.

What somewhat sticks in my craw is that the Army seems to go thru cycles- it's ok today to be overweight or have Tattoos down your arm and up your neck today because we are desperate for soldiers to fight the war. But tomorrow: "meh- we don't need soldiers for the war anymore so hit the street chubby". If it's important than they should make sure it's important when the circumstances really matter, and not just at their convenience. Otherwise it seems pretty cynical to me- sort of like Audie Murphy was good enough to be a MOH holding 2d Lt during World War II, but yet wasn't good enough to be kept on AD nor offered a slot at USMA once the war was over.

I'm all in favor of them holding tough standards- I just think they ought to be tough all of the time. IMHO the Marines do this far better than the Army- they don't go thru enforcement of standards depending on the status of this months recruiting mission.

 

[scoutpilot]

What somewhat sticks in my craw is that the Army seems to go thru cycles- it's ok today to be overweight or have Tattoos down your arm and up your neck today because we are desperate for soldiers to fight the war. But tomorrow: "meh- we don't need soldiers for the war anymore so hit the street chubby". If it's important than they should make sure it's important when the circumstances really matter, and not just at their convenience. Otherwise it seems pretty cynical to me- sort of like Audie Murphy was good enough to be a MOH holding 2d Lt during World War II, but yet wasn't good enough to be kept on AD nor offered a slot at USMA once the war was over.

I'm all in favor of them holding tough standards- I just think they ought to be tough all of the time. IMHO the Marines do this far better than the Army- they don't go thru enforcement of standards depending on the status of this months recruiting mission.

Agree 100%. To a degree, that's cultural. To another degree, it's structural. I think both are a function of the fact that our Army is just plain too big.