Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
That's nice in abstract. But that does nothing to address the issues raised in the New York Times article. If the only thing the leadership should be concerned about is "to fight and win our Nations battles and wars" then why bother having restrictions on hairstyle in the first place? I don't think a war was ever won by the size of someone's beard or the way in which they braided their hair. So to be ideologically consistent, your recommendation shouldn't be to condemn the soldiers who are advocating for a change in the hair policy but supporting them in abolishing it totally. That applies to the new tatoo policy as well - the only difference is that tatoos are optional. Your genetically-determined hair type is not[/B][/B].
Now your talking. The side with the shortest hair always looses

The Supreme court made a ruling about things of this nature (cannot remember the court decision, maybe somebody can) but basically it ruled that the Military is a separate and special closed society and cannot be expected to follow what would be considered regular social and cultural norms, behavior,etc. The reason was/is because of it's very special "combat" mission to protect America. And combat was the key distinction between how the made the ruling. The point being all this social normalization/justice stuff has no business in the military IMO and it is probably even illegal per the Supreme court.

My Platoon Sergeant was right then and he is right now. "Everybody should be OD Green and everybody is going to bleed red, so you have to learn to work together"