Ummm Uniform Changes

After all the discussions on here about equipment carried in Afghanistan this little change left me a bit speechless.

Link

Quote:

---

Taking on the Taliban in pink boxer shorts, t-shirt and flip-flops is not regarded as conventional military uniform.
Especially when the shorts declare 'I love New York'.
However when Zachary Boyd, 19, was woken up by a Taliban assault on his platoon he only had time to grab his weapon, helmet and body armour before springing into action.

---

I'm sure many others could come up with cheekier responses.

Thought about putting this under the "Social Club" so Mods move if you see fit.

Thanks for the color version. Stars and Gripes only had black and white.

Some will undoubtedly find fault with the Non-regulation bvds in a war zone but I thought it captured the best in our troops. The young man was up with his weapon and his IBA and ACH on the line rather than holding back till he was dressed.

Get some!

Tom

Agree totally Tom!

I greatly agree with Tom and have nearly gotten into fist fights with some of my peers over this photo.

First, the only reason this photo came to be is because that Soldier was out doing his job. How do you think the other two would feel if he WASN'T there? What do you think his leaders would say if he decided to stay in his rack rather than go to his position because the enemy picked an inconvenient time to attack?

Second, if wearing pink boxers makes this guy feel a little more at home out in a remote hellhole in the mountains of Afghanistan, more power to him. I get disgusted with individuals who look down on the methods others use to cope (often while flaunting their own). Obviously the only way to cope with the stress of a deployment is what THEY do, not what someone else chooses to do. So long as its not unethical, illegal, immoral or unsafe, then there isn't a problem.

Third, take a close look at the picture. The Soldier next to him is wearing sneakers. The one on the far right might be as well (can't really tell from the dirt). None of them are wearing a uniform top. I highly doubt that they're wearing whatever the SOP says to wear. So if you feel that this "uniform violation" is the real crime, you need to hold all three Soldiers feet to the uniform standard fire. If he's a horrible monster endangering his entire platoon, then the other two are as well.

And just my own $0.02....

I'd rather have a company full of pink boxered fighters who know their role, know the battle drills, and will go out on the line instead of rolling over in their cot.

I'll take "mission first" over "mission right after I ask the enemy to hold on while I get some pants on" any day.

I wish that I had the photos to prove it, but in 2005 I was in a similar situation. Not having time to don all mandated gear, I was clearing an alleyway and some houses outside of our patrol base in flip-flops, t-shirt, DCU pants rolled up to my knees, ACH, interceptor, RACK, weapon, and a bunch of grenades. Unfortunately, the only photo documentation was deleted because I was standing next to a severed arm and leg and we were careful to not let such photos get released.

Most of the company on that day was dressed in some mix-and-match variety of civilian, IPFU, and DCU items, to include one private wearing ONLY boxers, flip-flops, and interceptor (all of his other gear was buried under a pile of sandbags).

I'm with Courtney and Tom. If his unit doesn't want him, he's welcome in mine.

those who like to take issue with these occasional odd combat attire events typically have never ever been in combat themselves. :cool:

totally transcends common sense. Clean and pretty don't usually like to fight, messes up their image -- and image will not keep you from getting killed; generally quite the opposite.

Great for all those kids in that picture; doing their thing. Pity some of the carpers likely are not doing nearly as much good.

Specialist Boyd did exactly the right thing. Still, my sympathies to him. He's going to catch tons of crap from the other troops over this. I'd suggest likely nicknames, but I will not add fuel to that fire. :D

he will catch more than his fair share of it from his peers...as it should be.

"Uniformity fetish" jeees Ken, I almost made an unexpected head call in my skivvy drawers reading that...

They are often the same folks whose pictures are included with the definition of REMF.

The greatest thing about ACUs is that for a brief moment, they totaly turned the "uniform fetish" crowd's world upside down.

I can't tell you the number of times some "squared away" Soldier got caught up in some serious misconduct and everyone was stunned because "oh his boots were always so shiny and his uniform was always squared away".

As if the ability to polish boots and take your BDUs to the Koreans who use the most starch has anything to do with your compliance with Army Values.

Perception is reality. I always say that depends on the perspective and mine is usually from an alternate reality when I'm getting that saying shoveled down my throat.

At least they can't pin this one on us SF uniform infractioneer types! ;)

I have to admit I like the way the thread has been headed. Positive reinforcement for doing the right thing, not additional ridicule. Wonder if he knows about the old SWJ? Might have to do some AKO searching and put a little birdie in his ear.

Multiple priceless jokes come to mind.......:D

if the kid slept without underwear ? ;)

I watched a little discussion about this on one of the cable news channels. "During WWII the press never depicted our soldiers like this". I was speechless. This guy is actually very well dressed and equipped compared to many photos I have seen from WWII. The best thing about this is I suspect the NYT was "perhaps" trying to humiliate or degregate the military in general by putting this on the front page. It sort of blew up in their faces if true. I mean the young man is from Texas and he's got I Love NY all over his rump.:wry:

Grunts will be grunts and I would expect to see some stubble on their jaws as well but I have to say, that guy in the middle has damn skinny ankles - he's been humping too big of a combat load.

Good call!

Quote:

---

Gates Hails Soldier Snapped in Pink Boxer Shorts

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday praised an Army soldier in eastern Afghanistan who drew media attention this month after rushing to defend his post from attack while wearing pink boxer shorts and flip-flops, Reuters reported.

Gates said in prepared remarks that he wants to meet the soldier and shake his hand the next time he visits Afghanistan.

"Any soldier who goes into battle against the Taliban in pink boxers and flip-flops has a special kind of courage," Gates said in a speech to be delivered in New York.

"I can only wonder about the impact on the Taliban. Just imagine seeing that: a guy in pink boxers and flip-flops has you in his cross-hairs. What an incredible innovation in psychological warfare," he said.

---

The outrage would have been vicious and vile from the Public had this young man experienced any retribution of any kind for his rapid response to enemy aggression. I like to think a politician or two would have had their necks stretched somewhere in the nation had this occured.

I'm amazed that anyone would expect anything other than kudos for a Soldier who has his priorities straight. Get dressed or react to contact?

It is baffling to me that this is anything more than a funny photo on the internet - that people in the NYT and the SECDEF have actually taken the time to comment on it. The only thing odd about this photo is that there aren't more photos like this from Iraq/Afghanistan. I can't count the number of times that I've seen Soldiers jump off their cot half dressed, don their protective gear, and head to the nearest fighting position.

This is like taking a photo of a Soldier eating an MRE and expressing surprise at what he's doing.

And to think I had a rough time in high school :eek:

Quote:

---

"I was always telling him to pull up his pants," Sheree Boyd recalls. "I would give him a wedgie to make him do it. As a mom, you want your son to look nice. But he has always been one to run around in his boxers."

A young soldier in pink boxers may never be cast in bronze. But at the age of 19, Zachary Boyd has already been in at least 200 firefights in Afghanistan.

If he wants to — he can wear a thong.

---

He should ebay them skivvies. In the civilian world, set and rigid stereotypes abound regarding our military forces and this picture breaks them and that's its draw, putting a very human face on those assigned horrific tasks under extreme conditions.

Not to take this in a different direction, but goesh has a great point.

One of the things that surprised me the most after my first deployment is how people reacted when you would tell them about "un-horrible" things.

There really is an expectation that war is horrible, therefore YOU should be miserable, depressed, suicidal and hate every last second that you're deployed.

Not to downplay the ugly, horrible, bad parts of it, but anyone who has been in combat knows that there are amazing moments where you get to see people at their best. You get to build relationships that last a lifetime. Some of the funniest things happen under the worst conditions. And there is down time where you’re doing silly things to make the best out of a bad situation.

Goesh is right – this is only an issue because the American people don’t expect anything human – even at the individual level – to come out of armed conflict.

What a sad state of affairs.

Home and happy about it! That's a good thing!

Quote:

---

Soldier Who Fought in Pink Boxers Home for 4th of July

FORT WORTH, Texas — The soldier who was photographed fighting the Taliban in his pink boxer shorts said Saturday he was glad to be back home in Texas after his yearlong deployment to Afghanistan — especially for the Fourth of July.

Specialist Zachary Boyd said he initially thought he'd get in trouble after an Associated Press photo first transmitted in May showed him with other soldiers behind sandbags wearing his "I love NY" boxers — plus flip-flops, a helmet and a bulletproof vest.

The Fort Worth soldier jumped up from a nap when his unit came under fire and didn't want to waste time putting on his uniform.

---

Tom,

I read in the paper this morning that his boxers will be displayed at the museum in Ft. Riley!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entropy

Tom,

I read in the paper this morning that his boxers will be displayed at the museum in Ft. Riley!

---

Now that is classic! The Little Apple--Manhattan, KS is just down the road

Best
Tom

I wonder just how many CSM's were forced to bite their tongues over this? Considering that in some locations lack of a reflective belt is a capitol offense, pink boxers must have caused at least one aneurysm somewhere. :D

SFC W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

I wonder just how many CSM's were forced to bite their tongues over this? Considering that in some locations lack of a reflective belt is a capitol offense, pink boxers must have caused at least one aneurysm somewhere. :D

SFC W

---

After all pink is fairly "reflective":p

And more importantly CSM's should be known for being much more function than form oriented

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

... CSM's were forced to bite their tongues ... pink boxers must have caused at least one aneurysm somewhere.

---

Please let it be. Nothing is more useless than a CSM who thinks that sort of peacetime, garrison fertilizer is more important than clean weapons and crew drills.

The Army should make this a mandatory stop for the SGM's Academy. Anyone who get's upset about the "uniform violation", gets cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entropy

Tom,

I read in the paper this morning that his boxers will be displayed at the museum in Ft. Riley!

---

Which one? The Cav Museum or (wait for it...) the Big Red One Museum?:D

In all seriousness, there is/was a First Infantry Division museum on Ft. Riley. There was some talk of changing it into something of a generic fort museum, but I don't think that ever happened.

Well, IMO he ought to be allowed to auction them off and keep the cash for himself as a bonus of some kind

I don't understand any of this. In one of my units, I had one of the most by-the-book, linear-thinking, hard-headed CSMs in the Army (now that is really saying something). Yet he did not care at all when every Soldier in our company jumped into action with whatever they were wearing - boxers, shorts, tank-top, etc - when our patrol base was hit by suicide bombers, mortars, RPGs, and machine gun fire. As much as a stickler as he was for details that were unimportant or stupid, I never knew him to care all that much about whether Soldiers were wearing boxers, briefs, boxer-briefs, about the color of any of those garments, or whether Soldiers were going commando. Now if a Soldier did not take the extra 5 seconds to throw on his interceptor and helmet, then that might have rubbed his ulcer the wrong way.

The only thing unique about this situation, imo, is that it was printed in a newspaper. It's kind of an amusing photo that captures the absurdity and insanity that often becomes the norm in combat. Other than that, I don't understand why this is getting so much attention or why anyone would think that a CSM would care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Other than that, I don't understand why this is getting so much attention or why anyone would think that a CSM would care.

---

Because I have known many who would. It is no accident that many of them inhabited the FOBs.

SFC W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

Because I have known many who would. It is no accident that many of them inhabited the FOBs.

SFC W

---

and still do...

If they're doing stupid stuff and staying in the rear -- and many have always done so while many more do their jobs and get out -- then someone above them is tolerating the stupidity and the laziness.

That's what happens when you have a promotion system that rewards risk avoidance and times in service. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

Because I have known many who would.

---

Damn. Never again will I gripe about any CSM that I've had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

If they're doing stupid stuff and staying in the rear -- and many have always done so while many more do their jobs and get out -- then someone above them is tolerating the stupidity and the laziness.

---

The problem is that there are too many leaders who cannot distinguish between the ability to parrot regs and policy letters and actual competence.

SFC W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

The problem is that there are too many leaders who cannot distinguish between the ability to parrot regs and policy letters and actual competence.

---

It's always been true, far as I know. Some used to get that high on their BS quotient; in the last 50 years or so, they didn't even have to get that much exercise. All they had to do with centralized promotion was just not get in trouble and wait... :mad:

You see that 'Kill company' Thread? Or read the article it refers to? One of the big screwups there was a new LT -- that happens, they slip through and first combat, they can't hack it. Very few of 'em slip through but a few are bound to.

The other was a SSG. No excuse for him. He'd been around long enough to be a known quantity (and he was), bad enough he shouldn't have been where he was, not bad enough to court martial. No doubt some people wanted to nail him with killer EERs but were deterred from doing that in an Army that pays more attention to 'Army Values and Consideration of Others' than to tactical and technical competence much less leadership capability, an Army where Platoon Sergeants are ordered to send incompetent Specialists to a promotion board...

The 'system' forced his promotion to a rank he couldn't handle, then he directs the murders of people and gets an entire Brigade that did a good -- if over enthusiastic -- job tarred as a bad unit. The processes of up or out and TIG / TIS counting the most for promotion are criminal. Really.

That's what leads to too many in high places with badly skewed ideas of what's important. What's not important are nitpicking uniforms, haircuts and similar stupidity. What's important is competent soldiers who know all the little things involved in their jobs. That's what senior NCOs are for.

Commanders who tolerate the martinets and hangers back are part of the problem. So are other senior NCOs who tolerate less than good performance from their peers. No idiot gets in the wrong place all by himself...