Army's new tattoo policy

[averageJOE]

The army doesn't have to offer a justification to a soldier. However, it does have to offer a justification to the president when required. Which in turn has to offer a justification to the citizens when required.

In a democracy ( and in a republic ), all power emanates from people.

And the president is asking for no such justification.

 

[averageJOE]

I'm not sure what you read there, but in THAT post, I was addressing an issue that was brought up earlier in the thread: that tattoos are taboo in some cultures, so soldiers with visible tattoos who are deployed to those sorts of places could inadvertently offend the locals.

Gotcha. Thanks.

I'm not talking about justifying military decisions to the recruits themselves; I'm talking about the military - as an arm of the government - justifying itself to The people of the country. IMO, a free society demands that the government be held to account for itself and for why it does what it does on ANY issue unless there is a very compelling reason to withhold the justification from the people of the country. No national secrets would be compromised by the Army providing the justification for its policy on tattoos, so it would be contrary to the principles of freedom and democracy for the Army to withhold this... of to implement the policy without a proper justification. There are worse infringements of freedom I the world, but it's a very dangerous road to go down when a country decides that its military doesn't need to be accountable to the people of that nation.

And if you want a simple justification: Because the Army is downsizing. And the tattoo policy is one more tool they are using to control its numbers.
Army to stay strong while downsizing | Article | The United States Army
Army to cut nearly 50,000 soldiers over 5 years | Army Times | armytimes.com

 

[Aquitaine]

It's already been covered that this has absolutely nothing to do with how the Army is viewed by citizens of other countries. If you want to argue the politics of war fine, start a thread. Otherwise this can be chalked up as a red herring.

Forgive me. One of the earlier posters gave the impression that it was, but since he's left the thread now, I guess it's not required for me to continue this argument.

Out of curiosity, do you think it has anything to do with how the US military is perceived inside the USA?

 

[Koldo]

And the president is asking for no such justification.

Correct. And the citizens can pressure the president into requesting one.

 

[Koldo]

Gotcha. Thanks.

And if you want a simple justification: Because the Army is downsizing. And the tattoo policy is one more tool they are using to control its numbers.
Army to stay strong while downsizing | Article | The United States Army
Army to cut nearly 50,000 soldiers over 5 years | Army Times | armytimes.com

We have gone over that one already.
It is an arbitrary tool if that is what it is intended for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And if you want a simple justification: Because the Army is downsizing. And the tattoo policy is one more tool they are using to control its numbers.
Army to stay strong while downsizing | Article | The United States Army
Army to cut nearly 50,000 soldiers over 5 years | Army Times | armytimes.com

But that's not the whole story. There are many ways to downsize. So far, I haven't seen any reason to accomplish it by screening out people with visible tattoos and, say, only accepting the most qualified applicants (tattoed or not).

When I talk about justification, I don't just mean justifying that the goal they're trying to accomplish is legitimate; I also mean justifying that the method they've chosen to achieve that goal is the best one available.

 

[averageJOE]

But that's not the whole story. There are many ways to downsize. So far, I haven't seen any reason to accomplish it by screening out people with visible tattoos and, say, only accepting the most qualified applicants (tattoed or not).

When I talk about justification, I don't just mean justifying that the goal they're trying to accomplish is legitimate; I also mean justifying that the method they've chosen to achieve that goal is the best one available.

It's just ONE more tool they are using. From the link: "As in the 1990s, the Army may need to conduct involuntary separations to meet mandated end-strength, but we will do everything we can to shape the force through competitive promotions, reclassifications and voluntary separations before we take harsher measures," the official said.

Things like this happen when people say "Bring the troops home!" and "Cut military spending!"

 

[averageJOE]

We have gone over that one already.
It is an arbitrary tool if that is what it is intended for.

Yeah, but it's going to work though.

 

[esmith]

OK then. Off the top of my head, I'll use the example already mentioned in this thread: the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Now, to the average non-American, what do you think is perceived as far worse, and more a threat to the "image" of the US Military (and by extension, the US Government) overseas:

1. The Abu Ghraib prison abuses, or...
2. US Military personnel with their hands in their pockets?

Let me refresh your memory. You do realize that those military members involved were punished. I was requesting that you provide examples where punitive action was not taken against military personnel for violations against the UCMJ.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah, but it's going to work though.

Just like many other arbitrary tools would.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's just ONE more tool they are using. From the link: "As in the 1990s, the Army may need to conduct involuntary separations to meet mandated end-strength, but we will do everything we can to shape the force through competitive promotions, reclassifications and voluntary separations before we take harsher measures," the official said.

Things like this happen when people say "Bring the troops home!" and "Cut military spending!"

But what you're saying still makes no sense. The Army doesn't just hire every eligible recruit regardless of whether they have a job for them, do they?

Going from "we need (number) of enlistees, so we'll enlist the top (number) of applicants" to "we need (number) of enlistees, so we'll screen out all the poeple with tattoos and enlist (number) of the remaining eligible applicants" doesn't actually change the number of new recruits that the Army accepts.

The only way to properly justify it would be to give a rationale for why tattoo-free soldiers are better soldiers.

 

[averageJOE]

But what you're saying still makes no sense. The Army doesn't just hire every eligible recruit regardless of whether they have a job for them, do they?

That's pretty much how it works though. After they take their ASVAP, the enlistee is shown a list of MOS's that their score qualifies them for. Some of those MOS's will be filled up and other won't, others require deeper background tests. There are always jobs. As long as they meet all of the entry requirements. Just those entry requirements are getting a little tighter.

Going from "we need (number) of enlistees, so we'll enlist the top (number) of applicants" to "we need (number) of enlistees, so we'll screen out all the poeple with tattoos and enlist (number) of the remaining eligible applicants" doesn't actually change the number of new recruits that the Army accepts.

The only way to properly justify it would be to give a rationale for why tattoo-free soldiers are better soldiers.

I'm afraid you will never get the explanation you are seeking. As the policy has nothing to do with "people with no tattoo will be better soldiers."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's pretty much how it works though. After they take their ASVAP, the enlistee is shown a list of MOS's that their score qualifies them for. Some of those MOS's will be filled up and other won't, others require deeper background tests. There are always jobs. As long as they meet all of the entry requirements. Just those entry requirements are getting a little tighter.

If there are jobs to fill - even if they're less desirable ones - then why limit the pool of candidates? You made it sound like the Army was going to have to turn people away (hence why it would turn people with tattoos away).

I'm afraid you will never get the explanation you are seeking. As the policy has nothing to do with "people with no tattoo will be better soldiers."

Then I don't see how it's justified.

 

[averageJOE]

Then I don't see how it's justified.

In the eyes of the Army that's where it ends, and they are 100% fine with that. There are still 4 other branches of the military a person with arm and neck tattoos can try for.

 

[Koldo]

In the eyes of the Army that's where it ends, and they are 100% fine with that. There are still 4 other branches of the military a person with arm and neck tattoos can try for.

Until people start contesting it, and given enough pressure it is no longer used...

 

[averageJOE]

Until people start contesting it, and given enough pressure it is no longer used...

I would love to see people outside of the White House protesting this policy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the eyes of the Army that's where it ends, and they are 100% fine with that.

And that's an issue, IMO.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I work for government myself (though not federal, and not in the US). I work on transportation projects and policies, and I spend probably MORE time working on public consultation and justification for our proposed solutions than I do on coming up with the solutions themselves.

I see this sort of accountability and transparency as a very important part of empowering the electorate, and therefore necessary to the principles of democracy. When it's missing, I see it as a problem.

 

[Aquitaine]

Let me refresh your memory. You do realize that those military members involved were punished. I was requesting that you provide examples where punitive action was not taken against military personnel for violations against the UCMJ.

But it still happened, that's what I'm saying. Regardless of who got punished, it still happened, and the atrocity will remain in people's memories for as long as they live.

Not to mention the fact the Iraq was illegally invaded in the first place. Yeah, those Abu Ghraib abusers were punished, but it still doesn't change the fact that:

a) It shouldn't have happened, and...
b) The US and others should not have even been in Iraq in the first place.

Stuff like this is what non-Americans focus on, Hell even plenty of Americans focus on it and are irritated by it all.

No-one is going to give a damn if US soldiers are picking their noses, or have their hands in their pockets etc, instead they're going to more be concerned with things like the My Lai massacre, or the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655.

 

[averageJOE]

In order to enlist, now, you must reject Jesus saying to not kill. When applying to be an enlist in the Air Force, you must not have religious convictions to not kill. if you have religious convictions to not kill, you will be rejected from the air force. Apply and test me.

Ummm...what?

 

[Aquitaine]

In order to enlist, now, you must reject Jesus saying to not kill. When applying to be an enlist in the Air Force, you must not have religious convictions to not kill. if you have religious convictions to not kill, you will be rejected from the air force. Apply and test me.

Which is funny, right - y' know because the military has Chaplains n' all that jazz. So depending on your interpretation of Jesus and his teachings, many Christians serving in the military may in fact be rejecting part of Jesus' teachings, which would bring the validity of their "luv for JESUS" into question.