Retention and Recruitment Crisis

ThunderHorse said:
Uniforms and Standards are proponents of the SMA role...
Click to expand...

Here is my issue with "standards" - there is no such animal.
Real standards simply don't exist.

Grooming standards?
...not me; I'm on a shaving profile

Wrong shoes while wearing a service uniform?
...its ok, I'm on profile

Working in a "cool" unit?
...grow a beard
...becasue nothing says, "hey look how I fit in with the locals - I used to look like a well muscled guy with blonde hair, blue eyes, and sleeve tattoos - but now I have a beard so that I look JUST like the Afghans - that dont all wear beards."
...I just wish I knew what they were saying because I don't speak Pashtu

Clear finger nail polish
Ear rings
Wild looking hair cuts
An infinite amount of non-issued boots, shoes, socks, belts, t-shirts, and baseball hats worn while in uniform
A floating, gender normed PT scoring system
...all things that point to "no real standard"

Oh - so you say half of the 'G-Staff' failed to show up for the briefing once they heard the CG wasn't taking the brief?
...no consequence

Whats that - Half of the units on post failed to send a rep to the "post clean up" IPR ??
...no consequence

Two field grade officers with their sleeves rolled up the wrong way
...no consequence


Smoking a privates fucking ballz because he showed up 5 minutes before formation instead of 15 is NOT what I call "focusing on discipline and standards"
PT'ing the platoon until their assholes are sucking buttermilk isn't discipline and standards - its just government sanctioned tyranny against folks that lack the requisite amount of rank to tell you to fuck right off.

When we start throwing fat field grades and chubby GO's out of the service I'll start to believe that we give a shit about discipline.
When we adopt a single PT standard across ALL genders, grades, job skills, and service component - and EVERYONE is held equally accountable for their performance - not just E4's and below - I'll start to believe that we care about standards.


Until then - I simply accuse everyone above the rank of E5 (including myself) of paying lip service to this crazy little thing called standards.
...oddly enough - those folks most likely to get butt fucked by the big green dildo of "higher standards and tighter discipline" are the very ones that are learning to see through the bullshit and leave the service - or not join in the first pace

Hell - they let me stay for 30 years and I probably should have been run out of town on a rail sometime back in the mid-1990's

That is all
 
Box said:
Here is my issue with "standards" - there is no such animal.
Real standards simply don't exist.

Grooming standards?
...not me; I'm on a shaving profile

Wrong shoes while wearing a service uniform?
...its ok, I'm on profile

Working in a "cool" unit?
...grow a beard
...becasue nothing says, "hey look how I fit in with the locals - I used to look like a well muscled guy with blonde hair, blue eyes, and sleeve tattoos - but now I have a beard so that I look JUST like the Afghans - that dont all wear beards."
...I just wish I knew what they were saying because I don't speak Pashtu

Clear finger nail polish
Ear rings
Wild looking hair cuts
An infinite amount of non-issued boots, shoes, socks, belts, t-shirts, and baseball hats worn while in uniform
A floating, gender normed PT scoring system
...all things that point to "no real standard"

Oh - so you say half of the 'G-Staff' failed to show up for the briefing once they heard the CG wasn't taking the brief?
...no consequence

Whats that - Half of the units on post failed to send a rep to the "post clean up" IPR ??
...no consequence

Two field grade officers with their sleeves rolled up the wrong way
...no consequence


Smoking a privates fucking ballz because he showed up 5 minutes before formation instead of 15 is NOT what I call "focusing on discipline and standards"
PT'ing the platoon until their assholes are sucking buttermilk isn't discipline and standards - its just government sanctioned tyranny against folks that lack the requisite amount of rank to tell you to fuck right off.

When we start throwing fat field grades and chubby GO's out of the service I'll start to believe that we give a shit about discipline.
When we adopt a single PT standard across ALL genders, grades, job skills, and service component - and EVERYONE is held equally accountable for their performance - not just E4's and below - I'll start to believe that we care about standards.


Until then - I simply accuse everyone above the rank of E5 (including myself) of paying lip service to this crazy little thing called standards.
...oddly enough - those folks most likely to get butt fucked by the big green dildo of "higher standards and tighter discipline" are the very ones that are learning to see through the bullshit and leave the service - or not join in the first pace

Hell - they let me stay for 30 years and I probably should have been run out of town on a rail sometime back in the mid-1990's

That is all
Click to expand...
The standard is what you're willing to accept in your presence....
 
Like I say, the Army pisses on its traditions. Allowing SOF to muck about and be different means what exactly? The only thing that should be different about them is the skills they have, not the uniforms or the beards or the hair down to their bums. Unless they're in deep cover or something, but don't they have spooks for that?

I know, I talk about parades and stuff. About sports and stuff. Maybe even a unit choir. Eh-Spirit de Corpse type stuff.

But if you can get a profile for everything or the SMA can go "the Army is looking into it" while wearing Chelsea Boots. Just bring back Sam Brown belts and Cav boots while we're at it. Oh, you officer folk that forgot how to shine your shoes? I have news for oh boy! I better see my face on your toe caps!

However, none of this matters if the commissary is so underfunded that it is 10% cheaper to go to WalMart for Joe to buy groceries for his family. Or that the 3rd BDE DFAC is closed because DCSM and DCG think that kiosks are a better way (when they run out in 2 minutes and there is no restock) No, General and Sergeant Major, they are additive solutions to the issue.

But als, let's just rid of bennies.
 
Last edited:
Waaaay back in 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote a concurring opinion in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio - his comments b.e.a.u.tifully encapsulates my feelings on "miL!tary $tandArDs"

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it"

I know it when I see it

Is it ok for me to have relaxed grooming standards during deployment?
well - under one Commander it was - then it wasn't
Then under another command it was
again
then it wasn't
again
Then it was - but only for certain people - at certain outstations...
...until support folks from Bagram showed up at my AOB with well grown beards while my fucking team guys living with the Afghans were being told, "no beards"
I can't explain what an unnacceptable beards looks like - but I know it when I see it.

So - what exactly was the standard? A veritable boatload of O6 level Green Berets and their CSM counterparts clearly failed to ever agree on a consistent and achievable standard for "Operators" wearing beards in Iraq and Afghanistan - so where do we draw the line?
...just asking for a friend

SWC instructors wear baseball hats - units buy unit baseball hats - then the CG and CSM yell at team guys for wearing...
...you guessed it
...baseball hats

I can't explain the chaos going through my head when people start talking about standards. I can't define low standards and poor discipline - but for the love of peace and midnight basketball, I know it when I see it.

All I know for sure is that talking about standards and discipline as though it is something that can be solved with a few motivational speeches and ANOTHER new uniform is like trying to watch a one legged hermaphrodite in a butt fucking contest...
...and I may not know exactly what that would look like should I ever walk in on it, but I'll know it when I see it.
 
Last edited:
AWP said:
Sanity check for those willing to dig. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

In 20 years the Army had 3 dress uniforms, 3 field uniforms, and 3 uniforms.

I don't think soldiers are receptive to this idea, but I could me wrong.
Click to expand...

Field Uniforms
  1. Woodland/Desert BDU (Phase out start, 2005)
  2. UCP ACU (Phase out start 2015)
  3. OCP ACU (Field start 2015)
PT Uniforms
  1. ?
  2. IPFU (Phase out start 2013)
  3. APFU (Field start 2014?)
Service Uniform
  1. Army Greens (Phase out Start 2006)
  2. ASU - Blues (Field Start 2006, still fielded)
  3. ASU - Greens (Field Start 2020)

While I was in the Army I had to purchase two different field uniforms and two different pt uniforms. You know what would be shit? If you were in the Army during this overlapping period of 15 years and had to purchase 9 different uniform types...
 
so...
In the process of posting long winded sarcastic rants - I forgot to ask:

Is there a real story behind the Chelsea boots as a footgear choice with the dress uniform?
Or is everyone else just as surprised to see them as I am?
 
ThunderHorse said:
Field Uniforms
  1. Woodland/Desert BDU (Phase out start, 2005)
  2. UCP ACU (Phase out start 2015)
  3. OCP ACU (Field start 2015)
PT Uniforms
  1. ?
  2. IPFU (Phase out start 2013)
  3. APFU (Field start 2014?)
Service Uniform
  1. Army Greens (Phase out Start 2006)
  2. ASU - Blues (Field Start 2006, still fielded)
  3. ASU - Greens (Field Start 2020)

While I was in the Army I had to purchase two different field uniforms and two different pt uniforms. You know what would be shit? If you were in the Army during this overlapping period of 15 years and had to purchase 9 different uniform types...
Click to expand...

The PT uniform I'm thinking of was the all grey get up with lighter grey sweatpants and a hoodie. Even that morphed into the thing with the stylized black A on the back.
 
Box said:
so...
In the process of posting long winded sarcastic rants - I forgot to ask:

Is there a real story behind the Chelsea boots as a footgear choice with the dress uniform?
Or is everyone else just as surprised to see them as I am?
Click to expand...
My French professor was an old school Company SGM who retired in the 90s. Taught Montagnards in the 'Nam and all that stuff. Because it was VMI, he wore his uniform to work, he wore Chelseas with clackers. However they were spit shined and I had no idea he wore Chelseas until I saw them in his office. The only other person I knew who wore Chelseas on the reg was him, so I just figure this is some SF thing, or was before beards became the resistance de jour.
 
Even though the Navy uniform doesn't change often, I'm not sure the Army has as many variations of uniforms. I was able to skimp when I was enlisted, but I had to purchase my officer seabag, that was $1,500 bucks. I think they've done a better job since I've been out of consolidating.
 
Box said:
so...
In the process of posting long winded sarcastic rants - I forgot to ask:

Is there a real story behind the Chelsea boots as a footgear choice with the dress uniform?
Or is everyone else just as surprised to see them as I am?
Click to expand...

At best, it's a misunderstanding of the Regs and nobody had the heart to correct the SMA.
BLUF: It's only authorized for the Blues, not the Pinks and Greens.

20-27b. Allows for "black oxford shoes" and b.(2)(b) allows for the commander to authorize a jodhpur style boots "in the same color as the authorized footwear."

b.(b)(3) states this is applicable only for the ASU, ASU dress variations, and Culinary Uniforms.


1000004561.png
 
Cookie_ said:
At best, it's a misunderstanding of the Regs and nobody had the heart to correct the SMA.
BLUF: It's only authorized for the Blues, not the Pinks and Greens.

20-27b. Allows for "black oxford shoes" and b.(2)(b) allows for the commander to authorize a jodhpur style boots "in the same color as the authorized footwear."

b.(b)(3) states this is applicable only for the ASU, ASU dress variations, and Culinary Uniforms.


View attachment 46033
Click to expand...
Wasn't the ASU what he was wearing in that pic? I've been out a while and don't know all the acronyms. If so, it seems like he's covered by the reg you posted.
 
Marauder06 said:
Wasn't the ASU what he was wearing in that pic? I've been out a while and don't know all the acronyms. If so, it seems like he's covered by the reg you posted.
Click to expand...

I had to double check myself, because we're so used to Army Combat Uniform (ACU)=Uniform Camouflage Pattern(UCP), but ACU now doctrinally refers to the Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) because the UCP has reached its wearout date.

The ASU (blues) remain as such in doctrine, as they are still an authorized uniform until 2027 (?); after that, they will remain in AR670-1 as an additional, purely ceremonial/formal, uniform. The Pinks and Greens are the "Army Green Service Uniform" (AGSU) will replace/then remain as the daily dress uniform.

TLDR: AGSU=Green & ASU=Blue in doctrine.
 
Join us in 2032 when we welcome some other shit for the Army uniform. Multicam? Never heard of her. Integrated reflective belt? Take Hims for the best 4 hours of your life. Dress uniform? Probably some Waffen SS knock off shit.

Enjoy your worm-ridden, no food DFAC kiosks before you return to your mold infested hovels, peasant.

Field problems make you free.
 

Similar threads

Ravage
In Afghanistan, A U.S. Special Forces Major's Meteoric Rise And Humiliating Fall
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
22K
Poccington
Poccington
QC
Al-Qaida faces recruitment crisis
Replies
1
Views
1K
JBS
JBS
B
Counterinsurgency Redux
Replies
4
Views
4K
CQB
CQB
Back
Top