"In a decision by the U.S. Army Thursday, Capt. Simratpal Singh, a decorated Sikh-American officer and combat veteran, has received a long-term religious accommodation to serve with long hair, a beard, and turban in accordance with his Sikh faith."
But the turban has to be digital camo, I see.
Interesting, in that given the Sikh tradition of military service and the U.S. Army's need for warm bodies I'd have thought this one would be pretty much a slam dunk a long time ago.
But, then again, peacetime armies tend to be kinda anal about uniform regulations. Frankly, I'd have loved to see AR 670-1 updated to include something like this as Sikh dress blue headgear:
Ain't gonna happen, sadly.
Anyway, consider this an open thread about the minutiae of military dress.
I've read about a surprising amount of opposition to this - to me it seems like a no-brainer, especially considering several services want to ease tatoo restrictions.
ReplyDeleteNot surprised at all, sadly. First, because I suspect a lot of it is just sour grapes - "if he gets to wear this why don't I get to wear my AC/DC t-shirt..?" - while even more is just ingrained "I hate it when somebody gets to do something I can't" jealousy.
DeleteSadly, I suspect some of it is "Why does this raghead get to wear his raghead clothes because Jesus?" prejudice; he looks "Muslim" and I'm betting that there's a ton of fatheads who couldn't tell you the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh if you hit them over the head with a kirpan.
And, of course, there's the Default Sergeant Major Attitude; all GIs should look exactly alike at all times because I said so. Unlike Ael's Canadians (and the Brits, or French, or Briths- and French-influenced services) the US Army has (except in genuine wartimes) often had a problem with distinctions for individuals or units.
From the day after 9-11, through 2016, many Sikhs have been killed, here in Murica for the reason you specified. Wasted by droolers, natch.
DeleteI read that as well, and it made me wonder how many actual Muslim homicide victims went by unnoticed, not highlighted by the media.
DeleteCanada has permitted turbans in its official dress code for decades.
ReplyDeleteOur Minister of Defense is a baptised Sikh. Also a reserve colonel. Got a commendation in Afghanistan as the best single intelligence asset Canada had. His mother tongue (Panjab) is intelligible to Urdu speakers, thus allowing him to speak to the locals. It turns out that being able to speak to the locals is really useful. Plus, him being a detective in civilian life, gave him skills to track down how the Taliban were exploiting corrupt officials.
Of course, Canada has inherited its regimental system from the British Empire, so we have all sorts of goofy hats, bright colors, strange instruments and even men wearing skirts. It makes for strange mess events where the officers can out-shine the women in their formal gowns.
I'm a big fan of the headscarves that many of the female Kurdish YPJ wear.
ReplyDeletehttps://zivmagazinedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/a-kurdish-ypj-fighter-by-delil-souleiman.jpg
I assume they take them off if ever in actual combat situation as they would make a fine target for the Daesh. But then again maybe some leave them on just to antagonize the liver-eaters knowing that they may get waxed by a woman.
Back in 66, when I transferred from the Corps to the Army for flight school, the first thing I was amazed by was that the "uniform" was anything but. "Essayons (Engineer) buttons", anodized vs brass insignia, a variety of collar brass styles, different styles of the khaki short sleeve shirt and the like.
ReplyDeleteAs graduation from flight school approached, and we were all ordering the required assortment of "officer uniforms", the khaki (and optional tropical worsted) uniform was scheduled to be phased out in 18 - 24 months. Rather than spend $30 per set for short sleeved TWs for such a short use period, I simply brought my long sleeved USMC TWs to the tailor shop outside Ft Rucker. She cut the sleeves down to short sleeve length, used the fabric to add epaulets and took the modest bell bottom out of the trousers. All for $4.50 per set. While the USMC TWs were a slightly different shade and had different shirt pocket flaps and rear pants pocket flaps from any of the Army designs, it all fit in just fine with all the Army variations.
P.S. - turns out the Army kept extending the khaki uniform for a bit over 10 years past that 18 - 24 month "wear out date".
Wearing turban and beard should be no problem most of the time, even the dagger and also the arm ring should be no issues.
ReplyDeleteThey should still be required to wear head fragmentation protection and NBC mask in a warzone if the comrades do, though. Both are simply indispensable. I suppose it should be possible to design a (customised) helmet that simply fits on the turban, and a NBC mask that can be airtight at least with moderate beards as the one in the photo (difficult to pull off with the truly uncut beards,as those may be over one metre long - and faith actually requires them not to trim the beard AT ALL since about 1700).
Same with airport security and the dagger problem; simply hand the Sikhs a locked sheath. This way they can still wear the dagger, but not use it. That's safe enough.
Since we're talking about uniforms...the one thing I was pleased to see happen recently was the final death of the Army Green Class A bus driver uniform. Always hated that thing, both for color, cut, and feel (the AG344 polyester leisure-suit one, anyway...).
ReplyDeleteThe Army color was always blue. So, IMO, when we dress up we should be in blue, and it has the added benefit that the "Army Blue" uniform is much sharper looking and wears better than the old green sack.
Now we just need to dump the goddamn beret except for the special units. The regulars joes can go back to the bus driver hat, which was always a better looking and more practical piece of headgear, anyway...
And I was issued the khakis when I went through Ft. Dix back in 1980, Al. The wearout date at the point was something like 1985. I loved that uniform (tho I went down Yadkin Road later on and bought a pair of the really old cotton "Army Shade 1" set instead of the cotton-poly one I was issued); it was cool and comfortable and sharp-looking. I hated having to swap out to the AG-344-and-green-shirt flight attendant outfit.
Bhagat Singh Thind at Camp Lewis Washington, 1918
ReplyDeletehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Bhagat_Singh_Thind_at_Camp_Lewis.jpg
Chief,
ReplyDeleteWhy should special units wear berets?
Isn't that poor opsec? Aren't special troops supposed to be under the radar?
jim hruska
Chief,
ReplyDeleteWhy should special units wear berets?
Isn't that poor opsec? Aren't special troops supposed to be under the radar?
jim hruska
I don't really have a dog in the hat fight, personally. I guess I've gotten so used to the idea that "paras wear red rags, rangers wear black, SF wear green" that I just naturally assume that they'd keep those hats if everyone else went back to the p-cap for fatigues and a bus driver hat for Class A's. But if you wanted to shove the heee-roes into regular hats I wouldn't have a hissy.
ReplyDeleteBut I guess my argument would be that if you're in garrison, Jim, OPSEC is pretty notional, isn't it? It's not like the Russians don't know that there's about a gajillion paratroops hanging around FBNC, right?
And, anyway, what's the fun of being in high-speed, low-drag outfits if you can't prance around in high-speed, low-drag uniforms in garrison?
There was a period in the 70s where the rules were relaxed for Sikhs. It didn't last long.
ReplyDeleteIn the Army - any military, really - there are often two reasons for the rules, the real reason and the reason for public consumption. Occasionally, these mesh. For example, we don't use umbrellas. The original reason / mythical reason was because "it scares horses." The real reason is we think it looks wimpy. On the other hand, we don't permit beards because they tend to look sloppy AND because they make it impossible to get a decent seal with a protective mask. Both reasons are more or less valid, even though it's the latter one that really matters.
It's as an individual integrated into the mass where, by calling the whole uniformity thing into question, he'll tend to undermine uniformity even if he desperately intends not to, hence call into question some things that actually matter in their own right, rather than derivatively. Conversely, there are probably enough Sikhs around - and if we cared to, we could really have as many as we want from India - to field at least a battalion and possibly a brigade which would be uniform and separate enough not to undermine uniformity.
Whether as an individual or as a member of an all Sikh regiment, though, there are some real problems, like sealing his protective mask and fitting a helmet, that won't go away because we want to be inclusive.
Tom K -
ReplyDeleteA Sikh Colonel in the Canadian Army reportedly designed his own gas mask that seals well despite the beard and turban.