JMA,
My comments were in response to a statement you quoted that in turn was a response to Lind's article. So,(1) I'm on topic and (2) you created the 'race issue'. And given that race is one of the major defining social issues in the United States with an inverse proportional amount of attention actually dedicated to it, and as an Army officer myself, I think it's highly important to discuss in regards to the quality and capabilities of the officer corps. Clearly since some see it as necessary to target minorities or programs and/or policies affecting them as explanations for why the officer corps is failing, it is absolutely essential to address questions of race. Apparently racism IS one of the issues that needs addressing because there are still service-members out there (officers included) that do not have the intellectual or moral fortitude to eliminate racism from the ranks.AmericanPride, I'm sorry you see fit to create a race issue out of the comment made posted from another discussion group. I would really like to stay on the issues arising from Lind's article in relation to the US Officer Corps.
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?Originally Posted by slap
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.
Bookmarks