Get Task & Purpose in your inbox
It's Time For Us To Stop Making Up Uniform Regulations
“Hey there, Debbildawg! Why’s your t-shirt hangin’ out!”
Many a Marine, soldier, sailor, or airman has heard similar words about a uniform issue from; well, let’s be honest; probably a sergeant major or chief.
The military has enough rules without making up new ones. For example, my service, the Marine Corps, has several rules that exist only in the minds of senior leaders.
In the Marine Corps, there’s no requirement listed in the uniform regulations to tuck one’s t-shirt in while wearing the physical training uniform, unless the local commander requires it. Try going untucked in the company of a staff sergeant or higher, though, and you will feel their wrath, be that an ass-chewing for enlisted, or eyeball lasers that could burn through titanium for officers.
The same applies for putting things in pockets. Now, obviously one has to use common sense. Even if the rules don’t say something explicitly, you still have to look respectable. Even in the civilian world, people will look askance at you if you keep a utility belt’s worth of items in the pockets of your dress trousers.
But, wallets, cellphones, and keys are supposed to go in pockets. That’s what pockets are for. If you listen to some leaders, you’re supposed to stick your personal items in your sock. No, really, your sock. Because having your wallet bulge in your back pocket is unprofessional, but doing a calf striptease at the PX check-out is perfectly normal.
While we’re discussing that, no service has a written requirement to wear shirt stays or patent leather shoes, yet that’s become the standard. If you want to have a long day at work, try to show up at some units with a low-regulation haircut. Servicemembers are often stuck in a uniform arms race, trying to out square-away each other, even though there’s no actual rule telling them to. These “rules” are in no regulation, yet everyone comes to believe they’re required. Why do we create imaginary rules when we already have plenty of actual ones?
At least permanent press camouflage uniforms have eliminated at least a little stupidity — I remember when I joined, I was told to iron Elmer’s Glue inside the creases of my “combat” utility uniform to get a crease that you could cut your finger on. Even with the new “no-iron” uniforms, though, sometimes leaders bring back the stupid by turning them into de facto dress uniforms again. Today a servicemember could obey every line of his or her service’s uniform regulations and yet fail a uniform inspection, solely on unwritten rules.
That’s bizarre. Truth be told, though, look at any picture or service members from the 1960s or earlier. Just look at their haircuts alone, if nothing else. How many of them would survive first contact with a sergeant major or chief today?
At the same time, who are the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines we’re told to remember and look up to? They’re the “Old Corps,” “Old Army,” or whatever other name, but universally “old” is regarded as a synonym for “better,” be that in uniforms or anything else.
Maybe they really were better and maybe they weren’t, but the point is that adherence to imaginary rules isn’t what made the difference. Performance in battle did. Rules are rules, not personal preferences. One’s motivation is not inversely proportional to hair length. If one needs proof of that, just look at the official photos of Medal of Honor recipients prior to Vietnam to see glorious examples of moustaches, Brylcreemed hair, and cocked covers.
Making up rules, whether in uniform regulations or in conduct, only breeds disrespect for the idea of rules in general. You want to know why your people gaff off the important stuff? It’s because they’ve been harassed so often on imaginary violations they don’t know the difference.
By all means, insist on professionalism from your people. Uphold high standards. But, you need to pick your battles. You can and should strictly enforce rules. Good order and discipline depend on it. Just make sure they’re actually rules, not just your personal preferences.
Former Marine Commandant tells Trump that pardoning troops accused of war crimes 'relinquishes the moral high ground'
Former Marine Commandant Gen. Charles Krulak has issued a statement urging President Donald Trump and members of Congress to oppose pardons for those accused or convicted of war crimes since, he argued, it would "relinquish the United States' moral high ground."
"If President Trump follows through on reports that he will mark Memorial Day by pardoning individuals accused or convicted of war crimes, he will betray these ideals and undermine decades of precedent in American military justice that has contributed to making our country's fighting forces the envy of the world," said Krulak, who served in the Marine Corps for more than three decades before retiring in 1999 as the 31st Commandant.
President Donald Trump will nominate Barbara Barrett to serve as the next Air Force secretary, the president announced on Tuesday.
"I am pleased to announce my nomination of Barbara Barrett of Arizona, and former Chairman of the Aerospace Corporation, to be the next Secretary of the Air Force," Trump tweeted. "She will be an outstanding Secretary! #FlyFightWin"
The Trump administration is trying to assure Congress that it does not want to start a war with Iran, but some lawmakers who fought in Iraq are not so sure.
Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford both briefed Congress on Tuesday about Iran. Shanahan told reporters earlier on Tuesday that the U.S. military buildup in the region has stopped Iran and its proxies from attacking U.S. forces, but the crisis is not yet over.
"We've put on hold the potential for attacks on Americans," Shanahan said. "That doesn't mean that the threats that we've previously identified have gone away. Our prudent response, I think, has given the Iranians time to recalculate. I think our response was a measure of our will and our resolve that we will protect our people and our interests in the region."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump warned on Monday Iran would be met with "great force" if it attacked U.S. interests in the Middle East, and government sources said Washington strongly suspects Shi'ite militias with ties to Tehran were behind a rocket attack in Baghdad's Green Zone.
"I think Iran would be making a very big mistake if they did anything," Trump told reporters as he left the White House on Monday evening for an event in Pennsylvania. "If they do something, it will be met with great force but we have no indication that they will."
After a year and a half since the Army took delivery on the first of its souped-up new version of the M1 Abrams main battle tank, the Pentagon's Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio is ramping up to deliver the service's first full brigade of upgraded warhorses to bring the pain downrange.