Army's new tattoo policy

[Koldo]

And the scoring system will go away, it will just be pass or fail.

This makes think that what I suggested is not happening already.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes. It could be argued that keeping your uniform in good conditions involves the discipline that is required on army. The same goes for the haircut.

While discipline may be a part of the reason for these personal appearance requirements, it's unlikely to be the sole reason. I suspect that it's pretty basic: the higher ups want our military to look good-- clean, neat, professional, etc.

 

[Koldo]

While discipline may be a part of the reason for these personal appearance requirements, it's unlikely to be the sole reason. I suspect that it's pretty basic: the higher ups want our military to look good-- clean, neat, professional, etc.

I suspect the higher ups want the military to be a symbol of the conservative values.

 

[Tarheeler]

While discipline may be a part of the reason for these personal appearance requirements, it's unlikely to be the sole reason. I suspect that it's pretty basic: the higher ups want our military to look good-- clean, neat, professional, etc.

I'd say that's the gist of it. They've been trying to reign in the image of the tattooed soldiers and Marines wreaking havoc in the local bars for years. Soldiers serve as the face of military, and often the US government by extension, both at home and oversees. They're trying to get the military in line with the image they want to put forward.

 

[Koldo]

I'd say that's the gist of it. They've been trying to reign in the image of the tattooed soldiers and Marines wreaking havoc in the local bars for years. Soldiers serve as the face of military, and often the US government by extension, both at home and oversees. They're trying to get the military in line with the image they want to put forward.

Let me tell you though that the appearance of your soldiers is way down on the list of things that influence the way we see the USA government.

It is how it behaves at international and domestic affairs that we care about.

 

[Tarheeler]

Let me tell you though that the appearance of your soldiers is way down on the list of things that influence the way we see the USA government.

It is how you behave at international and domestic affairs that we care about.

That's nice, but most likely fairly irrelevant in the military's way of looking at it.

 

[Koldo]

That's nice, but most likely fairly irrelevant in the military's way of looking at it.

Perhaps. It is always nice to be in touch with reality though.

 

[Tarheeler]

Perhaps. It is always nice to be in touch with reality though.

You could always write a letter to the Secretary of the Army if you'd like to remind him of what reality looks like.

 

[Falvlun]

I suspect the higher ups want the military to be a symbol of the conservative values.

Possibly. But then again, if looking neat and professional is promoting conservative values, then the vast majority of employers are doing the same.

Let me tell you though that the appearance of your soldiers is way down on the list of things that influence the way we see the USA government.

It is how it behaves at international and domestic affairs that we care about.

Again, you could say this about any employee in any sort of employment. But I don't see dress codes going out the window any time soon.

 

[Koldo]

You could always write a letter to the Secretary of the Army if you'd like to remind him of what reality looks like.

I doubt he doesn't know what it is like already.
Sometimes people just give too much attention to the smallest of things.

 

[Koldo]

Possibly. But then again, if looking neat and professional is promoting conservative values, then the vast majority of employers are doing the same.

Not just looking neat and professional.

You can still look neat and professional with a visible tattoo. It really depends on the tattoo.

Again, you could say this about any employee in any sort of employment. But I don't see dress codes going out the window any time soon.

That's right.
However, there is a large difference between employment done by the government and the ones done by private businesses.

 

[Aquitaine]

I'd say that's the gist of it. They've been trying to reign in the image of the tattooed soldiers and Marines wreaking havoc in the local bars for years. Soldiers serve as the face of military, and often the US government by extension, both at home and oversees. They're trying to get the military in line with the image they want to put forward.

To be perfectly honest, if the higher-ups in the US Military want to improve the "image" of the military (and by extension, the US Government) overseas, then the focus needs to be with how and where the military is deployed, rather than grooming standards and tattoos.

In other words, an average Iraqi (for example) won't give a damn if foreign soldiers in his/her country have tattoos or not, instead s/he's more concerned with the fact that they're even there in the first place - somewhere they shouldn't be.

Which boils down to the fundamental problem that the US Military is being deployed to areas it doesn't belong in. That's not a cheap shot at the military by the way, but rather the jingoistic foreign policies of it's government.

 

[Tarheeler]

To be perfectly honest, if the higher-ups in the US Military want to improve the "image" of the military (and by extension, the US Government) overseas, then the focus needs to be with how and where the military is deployed, rather than grooming standards and tattoos.

In other words, an average Iraqi (for example) won't give a damn if foreign soldiers in his/her country have tattoos or not, instead s/he's more concerned with the fact that they're even there in the first place - somewhere they shouldn't be.

Which boils down to the fundamental problem that the US Military is being deployed to areas it doesn't belong in. That's not a cheap shot at the military by the way, but rather the jingoistic foreign policies of it's government.

I'll offer the same response I gave to Koldo: Feel free to write to the Secretary of the Army and explain it to him.

 

[Aquitaine]

I'll offer the same response I gave to Koldo: Feel free to write to the Secretary of the Army and explain it to him.

I doubt he'll listen to the opinion of a civilian who isn't even American. ^_^

I'm speaking as an outsider: I'm not American. If the higher-ups think better grooming and no tattoos are going to improve the "image" of the US Military abroad.... then boy-oh-boy are they in for a huge surprise.

 

[Tarheeler]

Let me tell you though that the appearance of your soldiers is way down on the list of things that influence the way we see the USA government.

It is how it behaves at international and domestic affairs that we care about.

To be perfectly honest, if the higher-ups in the US Military want to improve the "image" of the military (and by extension, the US Government) overseas, then the focus needs to be with how and where the military is deployed, rather than grooming standards and tattoos.

In other words, an average Iraqi (for example) won't give a damn if foreign soldiers in his/her country have tattoos or not, instead s/he's more concerned with the fact that they're even there in the first place - somewhere they shouldn't be.

Which boils down to the fundamental problem that the US Military is being deployed to areas it doesn't belong in. That's not a cheap shot at the military by the way, but rather the jingoistic foreign policies of it's government.

One thing to keep in mind is that our military isn't just overseas in war zones. We have bases all over the globe, and foreigners interact with our servicemen in peacetime as well. How they look and act as individuals does have an impact on how they, the military, and Americans as a whole are perceived by the host nations. I grew up on military bases overseas, and you wouldn't believe how much the idea that we were all ambassadors was stressed; a soldier (or one of his dependents) giving a bad impression can turn into a diplomatic nightmare.

I doubt he doesn't know what it is like already.
Sometimes people just give too much attention to the smallest of things.

You're right, sometimes they do. But small things can add up and can contribute towards a much larger change over time. Today they increase the limits on tattoos. Then they increase the physical requirements, and then the required test scores. Eventually they've redefined the pool they draw recruits from, and are getting a different type of enlistee.

It isn't anything new; as the military reassesses its needs and how it wants to proceed going forwards, it modifies policies and requirements to achieve that new goal.

 

[Koldo]

You're right, sometimes they do. But small things can add up and can contribute towards a much larger change over time. Today they increase the limits on tattoos. Then they increase the physical requirements, and then the required test scores. Eventually they've redefined the pool they draw recruits from, and are getting a different type of enlistee.

These are separated issues though.
You can't really compare allowing people to join if they have a tattoo ( that won't have any effect on their capability to perform their job ) with lowering the physical requirements and required test scores.

It isn't anything new; as the military reassesses its needs and how it wants to proceed going forwards, it modifies policies and requirements to achieve that new goal.

Why does it need only people without tattoos?
This strikes me as a rather odd goal.

 

[Aquitaine]

One thing to keep in mind is that our military isn't just overseas in war zones. We have bases all over the globe, and foreigners interact with our servicemen in peacetime as well. How they look and act as individuals does have an impact on how they, the military, and Americans as a whole are perceived by the host nations. I grew up on military bases overseas, and you wouldn't believe how much the idea that we were all ambassadors was stressed; a soldier (or one of his dependents) giving a bad impression can turn into a diplomatic nightmare.

Which is why the emphasis should be on behavior.

At least she didn't have any tattoos visible! Phew!

Oh no! Tattoos visible! US Military's image ruined!

 

[Tarheeler]

These are separated issues though.
You can't really compare allowing people to join if they have a tattoo ( that won't have any effect on their capability to perform their job ) with lowering the physical requirements and required test scores.



Why does it need only people without tattoos?
This strikes me as a rather odd goal.

First, people don't have to be "without tattoos"; they have to be tattoos free in areas visible while in uniform. And I'm not sure where lowing anything came in?

Either way, they aren't separated issues; collectively they make up the entrance requirements for the US Army, and a potential recruit must meet all of them.

What you have to understand is that the military is an all-or-nothing outfit. It sets out requirements that cover just about everything: height, weight, grooming, intelligence, mental stability, physical fitness, criminal history, contact with certain classification of foreigners, etc. If you want in, you meet all of the requirements.

It isn't anything like a civilian job; you literally become a government asset while in service and can (and sometimes are) treated like their property. And I admit that many of the restrictions seem ridiculous to people who have never served; we advocate individualism and free expression in just about everything in the civilian world. But military service is about conformity, cohesion, and following orders; you have to fit the mold, so to speak, or you're cut.

 

[Tarheeler]

Which is why the emphasis should be on behavior.

Behavior is emphasized, along with appearance. How we look can be just as impressionable as how we act.

 

[Tarheeler]

Which is why the emphasis should be on behavior.

At least she didn't have any tattoos visible! Phew!

Oh no! Tattoos visible! US Military's image ruined!

If you want to discuss the Army's new restrictions on tattoos, I'm game.

If you want to bash the military (particularly when the soldiers were tried and found guilty), you can talk to yourself.