For every Snowden there is a Manning. I don’t think properly-vetted contractors are inherently any less-trustworthy than .mil types, and they may be cheaper in the long run.
Retention and Recruitment Crisis
- Thread starter RackMaster
- Start date
JedisonsDad
Verified SOF
Hot take. I think @amlove21 is actually Chief Colon-Lopez.
“Beards don’t help us be more lethal.”
I disagree. Do beards make us more lethal? Not necessarily. Do they make us safer? Possibly. Currently, a large portion of our population is running around with longer hair and facial hair. Being able to more closely resemble the people we serve allows us to be less of a target. Spend ten minutes in an airport, and you can tell exactly who is military.
Additionally, when you have some units or personnel running around with relaxed grooming standards, it now draws them out as different, and puts them on the radar. This is only amplified while deployed if they are known as military but now have non regulation grooming. What makes them special? What are they doing that justifies the hair and beard?
Beards in the Military Don't Help with 'Kicking the Enemy's Ass,' Top Enlisted Adviser Says
“Beards don’t help us be more lethal.”
I disagree. Do beards make us more lethal? Not necessarily. Do they make us safer? Possibly. Currently, a large portion of our population is running around with longer hair and facial hair. Being able to more closely resemble the people we serve allows us to be less of a target. Spend ten minutes in an airport, and you can tell exactly who is military.
Additionally, when you have some units or personnel running around with relaxed grooming standards, it now draws them out as different, and puts them on the radar. This is only amplified while deployed if they are known as military but now have non regulation grooming. What makes them special? What are they doing that justifies the hair and beard?
Beards in the Military Don't Help with 'Kicking the Enemy's Ass,' Top Enlisted Adviser Says
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,594
SEAC really said “fuck your religion” huh?
That’s a bold move cotton, let’s see how it affects morale.
Devildoc
Verified Military
Put your personality aside vis-a-vis faith/religion? Really?? Damn. Talk about offensive and pissing off a segment of not only your men and women in uniform but potential enlistees.
Topkick
Verified Military
Yeah, the exemptions were not there in the past and we were fine. But, the toothpaste has left the tube on that issue and I don't think you can put it back in. Especially with recruiting woes. The population has changed and probably gotta change with it.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I am mildly curious as to how many people might have joined at any time in the past but decided not to because of no exemptions. I would imagine a very small number, maybe even insignificant. Rightly or wrongly the court opened Pandora's Box on this, so it's not going to go away.
I think the bigger issue of what he implied was linking personality to religion. That tells me he really doesn't value me or what I can bring to 'the team' as long as I keep my mouth shut and look like him.
Allowing beards neither increases nor decreases our lethality, so what is he going on about?
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,594
I think a Sikh should be able to grow a beard. I think anyone willing to go kill for their country should be able to follow their religion as best they can.
Do we get rid of Halal and Kosher MREs? I mean isn’t it easier to have everyone eat the same meals?
Anyone who still gets riled up about haircuts and beards in 2023 is immediately suspect to me, because your priorities are not aligned correctly.
I guess it goes to show that nobody, regardless of background, is immune to the senor-service-itis that takes over once you reach that level, where you suddenly develop a care about the dumbest things.
This isn't any hate on the SEAC, because by all accounts he sounds like a pretty set-straight dude; it's more so about how these senior enlisted positions inevitably get suckered into the bullshit of issues like this.
Topkick
Verified Military
I just don't think he's looking at the bigger picture. He's the one who probably needs to put his personal feelings aside and evolve with the changing times.
I agree. One of the reasons I retired when I did. The Army Sergeants Major Academy is fantastic at lobotomy. Not all CSMs buy it but the majority go all in.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I try to think back on 'intent'. What was the intent of a high and tight and no facial hair? Originally, hygiene and lice; secondarily years, decades, later, safety re: PPE (gas masks, fire fighting). The first issue continues to be taken care of in boot/basic, the second has been proven a myth (the navy has on-and-off-again allowed beards for > 200 years aboard ship).
I agree; let's not let facial hair stand in the way of someone who wants to slit throats for (their) God and country. We're in the middle of an historic recruiting/retention crisis of epic proportion facing significant peer/near-peer threats, and this is what they want to hang their hats on??
Topkick
Verified Military
My son has helped me evolve on this issue. As a white Christian at West Point, he has to shave everyday and gets inspected daily. But, The cadet of a different religion next to him might have a beard. You can't have double standards, and you need these folks to accomplish the mission so just allow the neatly trimmed beard for all. Its about mission accomplishment, not your personal feelings.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I will say the lack of allowing regular joes to grow beards when they get smeared with all the SOF celebrity shit going full native in all the movies certainly gives them a lot to bitch about. However, I will say that I've seen neatly trimmed beards in other Armies and it doesn't seem to stop them from being able to put rounds down range.
I will say though, with the big changes for women under the latest version of AR-670-1 Big Army is losing people with their idea of standards.
I will say though, with the big changes for women under the latest version of AR-670-1 Big Army is losing people with their idea of standards.
Lots of interesting perspectives given in this thread, very few, if any, I totally disagree with.
However, pertinent to assertion of SEAC "So, if you want to look cute with your skinny jeans and your beard, by all means do it someplace else. But quit wasting our time on something that doesn't have anything to do with kicking the enemy's ass," My perspective interpretation is the comment was more about attitude of being military more focused on looking cool than readiness to perform duties. If so, I would have presented the concern slightly differently.
As far as difficulties of military to acquire sufficient numbers of people into active (regular) military service and retain sufficient numbers in active (regular) military service, this has been problematic since 1950 which corresponds with conceptual policy implementation of the Total Force. This concept is an appropriate mix of active (regular) military force structure, reserve components force structure, supplemented with a civilian work force and contracted work force is the most cost effective and efficient mean to have a military force capable of winning the next war.
Concurrently, the technology of weaponry and armaments introduced concepts of mutual self-destruction and push button warfare of using missiles, UAVs, tactical nuclear weapons. This means those in power can hide away safely in their bunkers and push buttons rather than actually having to confront enemy forces in direct close combat.
Just finished listened to a bunch of talking heads discussing the military difficulty in obtaining volunteers for military service and decreasing numbers of ships and aircraft in the fleet and numbers and size of combat units. The assertion was buildup of military forces wasn't necessary as our weaponry and armaments are more effective and efficient than what our enemies have. Presuming this is both correct and accurate and with the Chinese in particular increasing their conventional military force structure the next war will not be won through conventional means as we are not building up our conventional force structure to counter their buildup.
Considering recent political decision to deplete our oil reserves combined with the industrial and manufacturing capability driven overseas, the retention and recruitment crisis is just a distracting inconvenience to distract the public from how much our politicians have sold out those who are not members of the political elite for their own personal gain.
However, pertinent to assertion of SEAC "So, if you want to look cute with your skinny jeans and your beard, by all means do it someplace else. But quit wasting our time on something that doesn't have anything to do with kicking the enemy's ass," My perspective interpretation is the comment was more about attitude of being military more focused on looking cool than readiness to perform duties. If so, I would have presented the concern slightly differently.
As far as difficulties of military to acquire sufficient numbers of people into active (regular) military service and retain sufficient numbers in active (regular) military service, this has been problematic since 1950 which corresponds with conceptual policy implementation of the Total Force. This concept is an appropriate mix of active (regular) military force structure, reserve components force structure, supplemented with a civilian work force and contracted work force is the most cost effective and efficient mean to have a military force capable of winning the next war.
Concurrently, the technology of weaponry and armaments introduced concepts of mutual self-destruction and push button warfare of using missiles, UAVs, tactical nuclear weapons. This means those in power can hide away safely in their bunkers and push buttons rather than actually having to confront enemy forces in direct close combat.
Just finished listened to a bunch of talking heads discussing the military difficulty in obtaining volunteers for military service and decreasing numbers of ships and aircraft in the fleet and numbers and size of combat units. The assertion was buildup of military forces wasn't necessary as our weaponry and armaments are more effective and efficient than what our enemies have. Presuming this is both correct and accurate and with the Chinese in particular increasing their conventional military force structure the next war will not be won through conventional means as we are not building up our conventional force structure to counter their buildup.
Considering recent political decision to deplete our oil reserves combined with the industrial and manufacturing capability driven overseas, the retention and recruitment crisis is just a distracting inconvenience to distract the public from how much our politicians have sold out those who are not members of the political elite for their own personal gain.
You have to stop. Minus 2 internet points.
My only opinion here- what an absolutely meta occurrence to try and explain to someone.
"The 2 highest ranking enlisted folks in the Air Force (CMSAF) and the DoD (SEAC) have been accused a couple times of having their focus on frivolous things that aren't laser focused on readiness, recruting and retention. So, during a Facebook Live, talking about recruiting and retention, they took time out to share their opinions on things that many consider frivolous and not something that is going to make this more lethal in the end. Their opinions were that the frivolous things they were talking about weren't worth talking about, because in the end, they don't make us more lethal."
Only in the military...
We pushed hair and mustache regs to the limit in the fleet post-nam...because we felt we'd have better luck getting laid if we didn't look like drug-addled, baby-killing war-monger Nazis.
It didn't help.
It didn't help.
Well, I did like the cowboy boot thing the Navy allowed during the 1970s. I still have fantasies about this cute Navy Flight Surgeon at NAS Keflavik Iceland who wore cowboy boots with her uniform. I was 18 years old and she had the looks. Unfortunately, I was a nobody enlisted aircrew, so I have nothing else to add to this.
Throw grooming standards out the window, like Canada. It's not going to help recruiting but at least you can braid and dye your beard.
Dress instructions | Section 2 Appearance - Canada.ca
Dress instructions | Section 2 Appearance - Canada.ca
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
We learned in Iraq and Afghanistan that is not the case. That a some sodbusting farmer would be more than willing to put a bullet in one our dudes heads with a Martini-Henry from the 1880s.
We have also seen from the Ukrainian War that quantity remains a quality of its own. Air and Missiles don't hold ground. Ground forces, hold ground. The combined arms team takes ground.
I'm presuming you're just telling us what the policy honks are saying, which I hear the stuff they're saying to. It's just not "correct" in the sense that we still need to have some type of numbers if we want to invade any sort of nation and rotate forces forward and homeward on the deployment structure we had. And still need adequates forces to replicate the WWII model of you stay until your enlistment is up or its over.
