Army's new tattoo policy

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah. They already do that.

The main reason is because the army has to reduce its numbers.

And the way to do that is to screen out people based on nothing more than appearance as opposed to making the entrance requirements actually relevant to the job tougher.

I'm sure it will be comforting to a soldier to know that the guy watching his back may have been selected because some better qualified candidate had a tattoo on his forearm.

 

[Koldo]

This topic reminds me of Moneyball, a particular quote actually:

"Peter Brand: Billy, this is Chad Bradford. He's a relief pitcher. He is one of the most undervalued players in baseball. His defect is that he throws funny. Nobody in the big leagues cares about him because he looks funny. This guy could be not just the best pitcher in our bullpen, but one of the most effective relief pitchers in all of baseball. This guy should cost $3 million a year. We can get him for $237,000."

 

[Aquitaine]

And the way to do that is to screen out people based on nothing more than appearance as opposed to making the entrance requirements actually relevant to the job tougher.

I'm sure it will be comforting to a soldier to know that the guy watching his back may have been selected because some better qualified candidate had a tattoo on his forearm.

Aye, when push comes to shove, is it really a big deal if an infantry soldier has some ink on his skin?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

When I was in the army 1950's UK.
No unhealed Tats were allowed.
some people had them done on leave.
The reason given was that they could become infected on active service.

I do not know if this was just my regiment.

 

[esmith]

Also to elaborate some more, I am thinking more infantry that should not be banned from having visible tattoos. I can agree to nothing visible for those who are working in offices, meeting with international diplomats on a regular basis, and so on. But if your duty is to be sent into the front lines, I think they need to allow some (visible/below elbow/above neck) rather than none at all for no other reason than to help identify an otherwise unidentifiable corpse.

There is no need for visible markings on the body of anyone in the military to help identify them in case of death. All service members have their DNA on file. Therefore there are no unidentifiable corps even if there is nothing left but bits and pieces.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I think as long as the tattoos are coverable (and not entirely too vulgar), then I don't see a reason for such a policy. Surely the ink someone has should have no real affect on their performance as a soldier?

Then again, I'm not in the military, and the military is not a democracy, so I think arguing is kind of moot.

 

[esmith]

I think as long as the tattoos are coverable (and not entirely too vulgar), then I don't see a reason for such a policy. Surely the ink someone has should have no real affect on their performance as a soldier?

Then again, I'm not in the military, and the military is not a democracy, so I think arguing is kind of moot.

No, it does not have or should not have any affect on their performance. However, they represent the country and there are those that view tattoos differently than others and to be "fair" should not our military take in consideration how those that pay for the military feel about appearance? And as you pointed out the military is not a democracy.

 

[Koldo]

However, they represent the country and there are those that view tattoos differently than others and to be "fair" should not our military take in consideration how those that pay for the military feel about appearance?

No. Not to that extent at least.

What is next? Ugly people can't join the army ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it does not have or should not have any affect on their performance. However, they represent the country and there are those that view tattoos differently than others and to be "fair" should not our military take in consideration how those that pay for the military feel about appearance? And as you pointed out the military is not a democracy.

If the military is concerned with how it appears to foreign nations, then its program of extra-judicial killings by drone strikes within "allied" countries should be more of a priority than tattoos on soldiers.

 

[Falvlun]

Restrictions on tattoos are common in many private occupations as well. For instance, working in healthcare, I cannot have any visible tattoos.

Personally, I find such restrictions unnecessary. However, just pointing out that it's not like tattoo restrictions are unprecedented.

 

[esmith]

If the military is concerned with how it appears to foreign nations, then its program of extra-judicial killings by drone strikes within "allied" countries should be more of a priority than tattoos on soldiers.

Look you can argue the use of the military at any time but it has no bearing on the current discussion at hand, which is directed at personal appearance. If you want to discuss the use of the military go start another topic and FYI it is politicians not the military that authorizes its use.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Personally I've always wondered what effect someone's tattoos has on their ability to do their job effectively and efficiently...

Who'd have thought that killing someone would require you to not have a tattoo on your arm. I thought this was common place in those lower socio-economic areas

 

[averageJOE]

Also to elaborate some more, I am thinking more infantry that should not be banned from having visible tattoos. I can agree to nothing visible for those who are working in offices, meeting with international diplomats on a regular basis, and so on. But if your duty is to be sent into the front lines, I think they need to allow some (visible/below elbow/above neck) rather than none at all for no other reason than to help identify an otherwise unidentifiable corpse.

However, more and more soldiers are have more than one MOS. I met one soldier with four.

 

[averageJOE]

Personally I've always wondered what effect someone's tattoos has on their ability to do their job effectively and efficiently...

Who'd have thought that killing someone would require you to not have a tattoo on your arm. I thought this was common place in those lower socio-economic areas

Read esmith's comment right above yours.

 

[Koldo]

Read esmith's comment right above yours.

Why is personal appearance relevant to this degree on army?
What is the point exactly?

 

[averageJOE]

I think as long as the tattoos are coverable (and not entirely too vulgar), then I don't see a reason for such a policy. Surely the ink someone has should have no real affect on their performance as a soldier?

Then again, I'm not in the military, and the military is not a democracy, so I think arguing is kind of moot.

This is exactly what the policy covers though. The army is saying you can have all the tattoos you want as long as they can be covered, and not racist, sexist, etc. Tattoos below the elbow, knee, and above the neck cannot be covered by all Army uniforms.

 

[averageJOE]

Why is personal appearance relevant to this degree on army?
What is the point exactly?

If personal appearance was irrelevant in the Army then there would be no regulations on haircut, facial hair, weight, the uniform itself.

 

[Koldo]

If personal appearance was irrelevant in the Army then there would be no regulations on haircut, facial hair, weight, the uniform itself.

Read again what i said: Why is personal appearance relevant to this degree on army?

Now, are you going to answer the question?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look you can argue the use of the military at any time but it has no bearing on the current discussion at hand, which is directed at personal appearance. If you want to discuss the use of the military go start another topic and FYI it is politicians not the military that authorizes its use.

Hey - you were the one who justified your position on personal appearance based on perception of the military. And I'd say that things like extra-judicial killing, exploiting resources of invaded nations, and proselytizing to civilians by soldiers are going to have much more of an effect on how the military is perceived than tattoos.

Imagine you were a Muslim citizen in, say, Saudi Arabia. Which would you find the most offensive:

- a tattoo on the arm of a soldier
- a clerical collar on a Christian chaplain
- the fact that the US military is in your country in the first place

 

[averageJOE]

Read again what i said: Why is personal appearance relevant to this degree on army?

Now, are you going to answer the question?

Please rephrase your question.