Category: Army News

Iknoor Singh, a Sikh ROTC student has successfully sued the Army so that he can continue to wear his turban and remain unshaven when he enters the service according to the Long Island Press;

Iknoor Singh, a sophomore, sued the U.S. Army last year for racial discrimination after the military agency refused his admittance into Hofstra’s Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program and later denied a religious accommodation request. The Army had previously notified him that he would not be allowed to enlist until he complied with their grooming and uniform policies. Singh’s attorneys argued that forcing the student to cut his hair, shave his beard and forgo his turban violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The federal court agreed.

“Given the tens of thousands of exceptions the Army has already made to its grooming and uniform policies, its successful accommodation of observant Sikhs in the past, and the fact that, at this time, [Singh] is seeking only to enroll in the ROTC program, the Army’s refusal to permit him to do so while adhering to his faith cannot survive the strict scrutiny that RFRA demands,” U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in the court’s decision.

I have nothing against Sikhs, they have a proud and courageous warrior tradition, but I think the first time that young Iknoor Singh experiences the gas chamber, he might question his victory when he can’t get a good seal on his mask.

Yeah, I know it was popular during this war for unconventional troopers to grow beards to blend in with their environment, but there is a reason that most of us prefer to be reasonably clean shaven – that being personal hygiene. I grew one for the first time a few years ago until I got tired of smelling my last meal all of the time.

The court cited the Army’s own internal examination of the effect one such soldier’s religious accommodation had on his service and found that it “did not have a significant impact on unit morale, cohesion, good order and discipline.”

Four service members identified in the court’s decision had received an accommodation permitting them to serve despite maintaining beards and [unshorn] hair covered by turbans, the court found.

OK, fine. It’s not a big deal, well, until it is. Personal hygiene is different in the office than personal hygiene in the field. I’m just not sure that I like the courts telling the military how to conduct their business. Yeah, that’s probably my biggest gripe about this.

240 years young. The first time I celebrated the Army’s birthday, it was it’s 200th year. From the Army;

In the spring of 1775, this “army” was about to confront British troops near Boston, Massachusetts. The revolutionaries had to re-organize their forces quickly if they were to stand a chance against Britain’s seasoned professionals. Recognizing the need to enlist the support of all of the American seaboard colonies, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress appealed to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia to assume authority for the New England army. Reportedly, at John Adams’ request, Congress voted to “adopt” the Boston troops on June 14, although there is no written record of this decision. Also on this day, Congress resolved to form a committee “to bring in a draft of rules and regulations for the government of the Army,” and voted $2,000,000 to support the forces around Boston, and those at New York City. Moreover, Congress authorized the formation of ten companies of expert riflemen from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, which were directed to march to Boston to support the New England militia.

George Washington received his appointment as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army the next day, and formally took command at Boston on July 3, 1775.

Resolved, That six companies of expert riflemen, be immediately raised in Pen[n]sylvania, two in Maryland, and two in Virginia; that each company consist of a captain, three lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, a drummer or trumpeter, and sixty-eight privates.

That each company, as soon as compleated, shall march and join the army near Boston, to be there employed as light infantry, under the command of the chief Officer in that army.

That the pay of the Officers and privates be as follows, viz. a captain @ 20 dollars per month; a lieutenant @ 13 1/3 dollars; a serjeant @ 8 dollars; a corporal @ 7 1/3 dollars;

By the way, as an aside, George Washington was last promoted in Oct. 1976;

The Army celebrated it’s birthday on Friday, couldn’t wait to open it’s presents, I guess. I’m more of a traditionalist, though.

You may have missed the controversy about Staff Sergeant Thomas Florich who was killed along with ten other Guardsmen in a helicopter crash during a training accident near Pensacola. Arlington Cemetery officials wouldn’t approve his burial there because of the circumstances of his death. Well, the Army Secretary, John McHugh overrode their decision yesterday and approved his interment at the national cemetery. According to a press release from the Army;

“As the nation’s premiere military cemetery, Arlington National Cemetery holds a unique place in the history and hearts of the United States,” said McHugh. “Because of the overwhelming number of requests for burials – and the limited space available – stringent criteria for in-ground burials were enacted to ensure that an otherwise eligible veteran or service member would not be denied their right to be buried at Arlington. ”

After reviewing the Florich family’s request, McHugh agreed that there was a “compelling justification for granting this request for an exception to ANC’s interment eligibility criteria.” McHugh specifically noted that while Florich was training in his capacity as a member of the National Guard, others who were killed were considered to be on active duty and were therefore eligible for burial at Arlington without an exception to policy. That anomaly led McHugh to reverse the Army’s earlier decision.

[…]

McHugh has since ordered a review of the Code of Federal Regulations – which governs eligibility for interment and inurnment at Arlington – to see if changes may be needed.

With Martin Dempsey stepping down as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ray Odierno leaving the post of the Army Chief of Staff, the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh announced that he’s leaving that post in the Fall according to the Washington Post.

McHugh, a former Republican congressman, has been the Army’s top civilian since 2009. He expressed a wish to leave his post several weeks ago, the Pentagon said in a statement, and has told the president that he would step down by Nov. 1. The Pentagon did not say why McHugh was leaving, and McHugh’s office declined to elaborate.

I was against McHugh accepting the position six years ago, and so I’m glad to see him leave. I predicted back then that he was only selected to put a bi-partisan face on the Obama Administration’s planned deep cuts in defense spending (McHugh is a Republican) and that prediction has proved true.

My experience with McHugh was as one of his constituents in Jefferson County, New York. All he knew about the Army was that the presence of Fort Drum in his district meant jobs and way for him to win elections if he could beat back the BRAC assaults on the brand new base.

Although I’m pleased to see McHugh leave, I’m more worried about which hatchet man will replace him.

We can be reasonably sure that the President will name yet another executioner, not a reformer.

The Kansas City Star reports that the Army, the 1st Division specifically, at Fort Riley, has begun training for the next war by getting back to the business of fighting traditional enemies like the Russians or the North Koreans.

“You hope it wouldn’t be World War III, but you have to prepare for the worst,” said Lt. Gen. Robert B. Brown, commanding general of the Army’s Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth. “We need to be ready to play against the pro teams, not just the amateurs.”

[…]

“It’s a paradigm shift for the Army,” Livsey said. “With Iraq and Afghanistan, it was all about COIN — counterinsurgency. We still need to train for that. But we also have to get back to bread-and-butter skills such as precise artillery, precise gunnery.”

Fort Riley officials say decisive-action training blends yesterday’s emphasis on battlefield prowess with the people skills required of troops more recently focused on counterinsurgency.

Personally, I wish the Army would finish this war, while they’re preparing for the next war. Ronald Reagan was able to fight the “low intensity conflicts” of the 80s while preparing for the Soviet hordes simultaneously, but I have my doubts that this crowd can do it the way that they’re slashing training funds and compensation packages while staffing their social programs.

When I went to Desert Storm in 1991, my immediate subordinates, the four squad leaders in my platoon, were all Black. My immediate supervisor, the platoon leader, was Black. Of course, you all know that I’m a pale white guy. There was no discussion of race in the platoon. We had no need to discuss the subject because we all knew that our success depended on working together and protecting each other from forces outside the platoon. We played, fought and worked together as a team of equals. We didn’t have time for such superficial bullshit as our differences in our skin colors. Not only did we all come back in one piece from Iraq, we went on a few months later to win the “Best Infantry Squad in US Army-Europe” competition.

I said all of that to establish my practical creds in this discussion of “white privilege” in the Army. Apparently, some renegade Equal Opportunity instructor ran off the rails in Fort Gordon, Georgia and turned a briefing about “equal” opportunity into a lecture on “White Privilege” whatever the F*** that is. Here’s the slide;

From The Daily Caller;

The slide, titled, “the luxury of obliviousness,” states, “[R]ace privilege gives whites little reason to pay a lot of attention to African Americans or to how white privilege affects them.” It adds, quoting, “To be white in American [sic] means not having to think about it.”

The quote appears to be from James Baldwin, as referenced in sociologist Allan G. Johnson’s book, “Privilege, Power, and Difference.” The popular book teaches readers how to examine the implications of their privilege.

Cpt. Lindsay Roman, a spokesperson for the Army, told USA Today the presentation material was not authorized and not part of the standard presentation. The Equal Opportunity instructor, instead, chose to incorporate the topic of white privilege into the presentation.

Actually, “the luxury of obliviousness” is what the little dork who thought it was a good idea to add this slide to his/her presentation enjoys. The only problems I’ve ever seen that involved race happened right after one of these ill-considered attempts at “education” was attempted. The Army can drop these controversial briefings and depend on unit leaders to deal with these issues. Good race relations is a leadership issue so teach unit leaders how to deal with problems, don’t bring in these intellectual midgets to lecture the troops directly.

It’s like those idiot sexual harassment counselors who are committing those acts themselves – it all makes the situation worse, sometimes even creates situations where none existed. Get back to training for war and scrap this ancillary social engineering bullshit.

Yeah, see this is why I was so happy that the new Sergeant Major of the Army was of the same caliber of SMA Dan Dailey – a warrior, not a garri-commando like his predecessor. The Army Times reports that SMA Dailey has announced a new policy on tattoos. I saw it yesterday, but I thought that I’d wait a day to write about it, you know because yesterday was April Fool’s Day;

In a Q&A session with soldiers at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, one solder stood up and argued that tattoos should be allowed, so long as they are not visible when a soldier is in his dress uniform.

“How many of you agree with that?” Dailey asked the group of about 100 soldiers. Almost all of them immediately raised their hands.

After his session with the soldiers, Dailey told Army Times he was surprised by the soldiers’ almost overwhelming opposition to the tattoo policy.

So you have a sergeant major who listens to your concerns instead of dictating his personal prejudices.

Under the new policy, there are no longer limits on the size or number of tattoos soldiers can have on their arms and legs, Dailey said.

Soldiers are still not allowed to have tattoos on their neck, head, face, wrists or hands. The exception is a ring tattoo on each hand, Dailey said.

Also banned are tattoos that are sexist, racist, extremist and derogatory, he said.

“Those have not changed, regardless of position or location,” he said

See, how easy that is? No need for annual inspections and inventory of tattoos. I had high hopes for this leadership change at the Department of the Army and it looks like SMA Dailey has his head screwed on correctly.