Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
CIB = Combat Infantry Badge = earned in direct engagement with the enemy = is not the same as a EIB = Expert Infantry Badge = Series of tasks passed on first time go to earn the EIB

CAB and CAR are the same. Orders are written and the Badge/award is entered into an 201 file.

If the hijab was a religious garment then changes will be made. Hijab is a cultural item and not view as the same way as a Shik turbin. That individual wears a under piece under his Kevlar which is the same as the one he wears under his turbin.

Is the Hijab being viewed as a Religious piece?

The revised not regulations aren't restricted to things you think are religious.

More information on this point can be found in the revised not regulations.

Alrighty then

I mention ETP which means Exception to Policy better yet waivers but



Edit

KK since I was refered to as an individual of "you" I cannot be the individual to go against the AR670-1. Unless revisions are MADE to update the AR670-1. If your not fimiliar with AR's to current update can be seen bottom of the actual AR itself as shown in the piture.

 Ahtman wrote:
How often do we make exceptions? Is there a point where a line is drawn or does a military or military academy have to allow for any ones individual belief system to be represented physically? I don't really know the answer but it seems to be coming down to every thing is ok versus nothing is ok and I don't think it is that simple.

Since anecdotal evidence is being tossed around my cousin and his wife are Muslim but she (and their daughter) never wear a hijab.

Speaking for myself, I'm certainly not arguing for everything is okay or nothing is okay. I certainly agree with you that it's not that simple, and it's certainly not a black and white issue. The argument that if we allow Hijabs, we have to allow everything has pretty obviously already been demonstrated to be untrue if we examine the issue of the Sikhs. Just because Sikhs have been allowed the wear of some religious items, it does not follow that now everything is allowed and there are no longer any rules. Just as it doesn't follow that lesbian and gay service members can now serve openly, and black service members can now serve in any branch and in any job - there are still rules and regulations and the military hasn't descended into anarchy, as some people suggested would happen beforehand.

Every time someone considers a change in some regulation, there is usually someone who comes along and says "Well, if we allow this thing, we have to allow [/i]everything,[/i] and that is very blatantly, obviously not the case.


Now, how we determine what will be allowed or not is certainly an issue with some complexity and a variety of factors, and I'm certainly not taking that lightly, but the idea that one change will lead to infinite changes or the removal of all regulations is quite frankly just silly and not helpful to the argument in either direction.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

That might be true as time passes. But the military and military academies (private or otherwise) are not proper venues for "social experiments".

Care to explain to me then, how it is that the military tends to be the first place for social experiments??? The Civil Rights movement sprang in part because of military service of African-Americans and the abolishment of segregated units. The Army, and then baseball were the first two institutions in the US to fully de-segregate (officially).

The reason why the Truman was able to pull off desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces with minimum fuss, was because blacks served with distinction in World War II. Plus, you had a fair number of blacks serving in the officer corps and several high-profile decorations of black servicemen. In other words, black people proved themselves in large numbers, and most whites in the Service saw and respected them for it. From then on, there was no color but O.D. Green. However, there was still some bigotry and the military didn't fully desegregate until 1954.

As for the Civil Rights Movement, it goes back long before Jackie Robinson and military desegregation. Back to the 1890's, in fact. The desegregation of Major League Baseball and the Armed Forces were just two more major milestones in a whole list of watershed events relating to Civil Rights in the United States.



Which is typical of civilian "entertainment" from Hollyweird that tries to shove their views down the throats of their viewers, and refuses to look at the long view/big picture.Contrary to popular belief, the entertainment industry (like other media organs) isn't on the pulse of American majority attitudes. They're in their own little world. While what that Admiral character said is true to an extent, military desegregation wasn't as disruptive to unit cohesion as the writers of that episode make it out to be (see my point above). And attitudes toward homosexuals in society had changed greatly by the time this episode had aired, which had more to do with homosexuals now serving openly than Hollyweird propaganda like this episode. This is just more half-factual nonsense from self-congratulatory, white liberals in entertainment who want to pat themselves on the back for being so "progressive" and "tolerant", and to hell with gradually changing long held beliefs, good social cohesion and order, and smooth change that benefits all.

Both of your arguments (About Blacks and Homosexuals) were that they had to be shown to serve well in order to serve. (In other words, the whole 'You have to have experience to get experience dilemma'). Without the military being forced to allow them to serve, they would have never been able to serve at all because of the 'morale hit'.

Might as well throw this in. Those individuals who received waivers to wear their Turbin of the Sikh faith. Has to carry those waiver on them at all times IIRC. Copy on them and the original in their 201 file. Digitized form on AKO in case either get lost. Since they are well known in the US military I doubt anyone will call them out of reg's

 Hordini wrote:
One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.

TIL. Do you happen to know if he got his approval before or after?

Seaward wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.

TIL. Do you happen to know if he got his approval before or after?

From the article I saw on him specifically, I'm pretty sure it was after. But he's still a Combat Engineer and I doubt the Army would retain him if the waiver would make him effectively non-deployable in his primary MOS.

Seaward wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.

TIL. Do you happen to know if he got his approval before or after?

After. He got his CAB as a route clearance company commander if I remember correctly. He is also Ranger qualified.

 Ahtman wrote:
How often do we make exceptions? Is there a point where a line is drawn or does a military or military academy have to allow for any ones individual belief system to be represented physically? I don't really know the answer but it seems to be coming down to every thing is ok versus nothing is ok and I don't think it is that simple.

I think in general, the military academies themselves are taking the "no exceptions" route (though to be fair, I don't know WP, AFA, or NA policy) similar to the Citadel.

As for the regular military, it does seem to be that exceptions will only be granted in the situation where there is ability for the exception to not interfere with wear of protective gear (as someone... Jihadin maybe, noted... the Sikhs, when they put kevlar on, take off their bulky turban, but still retain the tight fitting garment under it).

This is why they've made it a policy that troops can wear a simple cross (unit dependent, because most of my units wouldn't allow it) beneath the uniform. Native Americans are authorized to partake in their religious ceremony once per year, which violates drug policy (and if they do this, they are rigorously tested afterward to ensure compliance).

In other times, units are forced to "force" military people to violate tenets of their beliefs. The Jewish dude on my second deployment had deployed with the unit on their previous rotation. When they were flying home, the flight was slated to take off on a Saturday, in the middle of the Sabbath for him. He went to plt sgt, and 1sg... and 1sg basically said "well, you can travel on a saturday, in which you aren't working anyway, or you can stay here and hope you can find another flight... I'm not keeping 200 of my troops in the desert for one person. We all want to see our families" Long story short, he flew home on Saturday, and then later consulted his local Rabbi who confirmed that the "no travel" restriction on holy days was malleable, due to his position in defending his country. Since then, he'd consulted the Rabbi on a bunch of other issues that may have come up, so that the deployment we were on together went a lot smoother for everyone, because he knew which rules he could bend religiously, and when he should bend them.

 skyth wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

That might be true as time passes. But the military and military academies (private or otherwise) are not proper venues for "social experiments".

Care to explain to me then, how it is that the military tends to be the first place for social experiments??? The Civil Rights movement sprang in part because of military service of African-Americans and the abolishment of segregated units. The Army, and then baseball were the first two institutions in the US to fully de-segregate (officially).

The reason why the Truman was able to pull off desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces with minimum fuss, was because blacks served with distinction in World War II. Plus, you had a fair number of blacks serving in the officer corps and several high-profile decorations of black servicemen. In other words, black people proved themselves in large numbers, and most whites in the Service saw and respected them for it. From then on, there was no color but O.D. Green. However, there was still some bigotry and the military didn't fully desegregate until 1954.

As for the Civil Rights Movement, it goes back long before Jackie Robinson and military desegregation. Back to the 1890's, in fact. The desegregation of Major League Baseball and the Armed Forces were just two more major milestones in a whole list of watershed events relating to Civil Rights in the United States.



Which is typical of civilian "entertainment" from Hollyweird that tries to shove their views down the throats of their viewers, and refuses to look at the long view/big picture.Contrary to popular belief, the entertainment industry (like other media organs) isn't on the pulse of American majority attitudes. They're in their own little world. While what that Admiral character said is true to an extent, military desegregation wasn't as disruptive to unit cohesion as the writers of that episode make it out to be (see my point above). And attitudes toward homosexuals in society had changed greatly by the time this episode had aired, which had more to do with homosexuals now serving openly than Hollyweird propaganda like this episode. This is just more half-factual nonsense from self-congratulatory, white liberals in entertainment who want to pat themselves on the back for being so "progressive" and "tolerant", and to hell with gradually changing long held beliefs, good social cohesion and order, and smooth change that benefits all.

Both of your arguments (About Blacks and Homosexuals) were that they had to be shown to serve well in order to serve. (In other words, the whole 'You have to have experience to get experience dilemma'). Without the military being forced to allow them to serve, they would have never been able to serve at all because of the 'morale hit'.

That's because respect isn't given. It's earned. Regardless of the abuse of the word "respect" nowadays, and the sense of entitlement that comes with that.


And there is no higher respect than that earned in the forge of war. After such shared experiences, a man isn't black, white, straight, or gay. That man is your brother.


The Second World War necessitated the use of large number of black troops, whether elements in the Armed Forces wanted it or not. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was necessary as a policy compromise to keep the hard-liners among "progressives", and vote-hungry/opinion poll junkie politicos, from throwing the current (at the time) military culture into chaos (the Cold War demonstrated that politicians are just as much the enemy of the fighting man as the guy trying to kill you). You didn't need forced legislation, or politically inspired forced policies, to give such groups the chance to prove themselves and gradually change the military's culture, with little to no disruption. World War Two hammered home (finally) that blacks are just a capable of serving their country with distinction, thus changing people's minds in that regard. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise allowed homosexuals to more confidently enlist, and slowly changed the military cultural norms toward homosexuals openly serving from within. Thus, homosexuals could prove themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no issues from within the ranks, and showing the brass that change is overdue.

The problem with "progressives" is the same as those on the "hard right". It's "all or nothing" and "we want it NOW". Gradual change, and gradually changing people's attitudes (sometimes by treading a middle ground for a time), is the way to go when trying to enact positive change, even in supposedly free societies. Using nothing but threats of government power, and overbearing social pressure to infringe on freedom of opinion, will do nothing but generate ill will and backlash. And that is counter-productive.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

The problem with "progressives" is the same as those on the "hard right". It's "all or nothing" and "we want it NOW". Gradual change, and gradually changing people's attitudes (sometimes by treading a middle ground for a time), is the way to go when trying to enact positive change, even in supposedly free societies. Using nothing but threats of government power, and overbearing social pressure to infringe on freedom of opinion, will do nothing but generate ill will and backlash. And that is counter-productive.

What's a more gradual change for our armed forces than having a woman wearing a head scarf at a public school with mandatory ROTC participation?

Blacks weren't integrated into the service because of respect, nor were gays. It is better information and abolishing ignorance of "the other" that does that, and even then at the time there was still much resistance. They were considered sub human an unequal which was horse apples and trying to revise the levels of ignorance to simply being a lack of respect isn't any better.

d-usa wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

The problem with "progressives" is the same as those on the "hard right". It's "all or nothing" and "we want it NOW". Gradual change, and gradually changing people's attitudes (sometimes by treading a middle ground for a time), is the way to go when trying to enact positive change, even in supposedly free societies. Using nothing but threats of government power, and overbearing social pressure to infringe on freedom of opinion, will do nothing but generate ill will and backlash. And that is counter-productive.

What's a more gradual change for our armed forces than having a woman wearing a head scarf at a public school with mandatory ROTC participation?

Indeed. A trial period wouldn't be that big of a big deal, and would (in all likelyhood) result in a permanent change in regulations.

Ahtman wrote:Blacks weren't integrated into the service because of respect, nor were gays. It is better information and abolishing ignorance of "the other" that does that, and even then at the time there was still much resistance. They were considered sub human an unequal which was horse apples and trying to revise the levels of ignorance to simply being a lack of respect isn't any better.

That's where you are wrong. How the hell do you think that "better information" came about and "ignorance of the other" was eliminated?


It was because the people in question set an example


And that did far more for a change in military culture than any real influence from civilian quarters or civilian activism.


And I revise nothing. I just know actual history, and I don't accept the crap shoveled by modern social sciences professors as the "new fact". If anybody is preaching historical revisionism here, it's you. Not me.

The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.

The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...

 skyth wrote:
The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.

The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...

Of course there was. The complaints at the time were that soldiers lived in close quarters, and that would be uncomfortable and distracting if one of the 'guys' was trying to hit on you.


I can't even express how much I wish that was hyperbolic satire...

I don't see that that as a legitimate complaint as it wasn't going to happen. Just the the argument that transexuals are going to assault children if allowed to pee in the bathroom they are comfortable in.

Whether or not it was a 'legitimate' complaint, it was the common one being made at the time, and as you say, things only changed in the military in that case because change was pushed on them and they just had to live with it.


The simple fact is that regardless of their reason for existence, the military doesn't get a free pass on ignoring social change. It might happen slower in the military due to the highly structured institutionalised nature of the beast, but sooner or later the military has to adjust just like the rest of us.

 skyth wrote:
The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.

The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...

The problem is though.... there were homosexuals in the military before, during, and after DADT. I think part of the reason for the repeal of that policy, was pressure from within as well as without.

 skyth wrote:
The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.

The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...

There were plenty of homosexuals in the military before DADT was repealed. Hell, Manning was actively trying to get kicked out, floating around a FOB in a tiara and sending his first sergeant selfies of himself in drag and they still didn't separate him.

Judge me all you want, I support this decision.
By attending a Military College, you sign your arse to the goverment and they can do whatever the hell with it they want.

On a sidenote: Congrats on actually getting accepted into the Citadel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yaraton wrote:
In the Canadian army (and I presume in our Royal Military College of Canada) the male Sikhs are allowed to wear their military-issue green turbans and not shave their beards even in the units that don't have beard-wearing tradition, providing they always have a small container with Vaseline on them at all times while in uniform to apply it on their beards before putting a gas mask. Obviously all the military standards of putting on a gas mask and a helmet apply to them too.

Our first Sikh-Canadian Minister of Defense:





P.S. By the look of it, US has it too:

Those cammo combat turbans look pretty rad, actually.

 insaniak wrote:
Of course there was. The complaints at the time were that soldiers lived in close quarters, and that would be uncomfortable and distracting if one of the 'guys' was trying to hit on you.


I can't even express how much I wish that was hyperbolic satire...

If I had a nickel for every editorial from that time period I read that argued integrating gays would destroy the military because it would break unit cohesion, I bet I could buy a burrito, at least.

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.

The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...

There were plenty of homosexuals in the military before DADT was repealed. Hell, Manning was actively trying to get kicked out, floating around a FOB in a tiara and sending his first sergeant selfies of himself in drag and they still didn't separate him.

That's a problem then if they choose which rules to follow or not follow.

 skyth wrote:
That's a problem then if they choose which rules to follow or not follow.

Yet it's a system that generally worked, despite the disdain from outsiders to it.

Sorry, but from what I can read your argument is that 'it's okay to keep certain people out because they won't actually keep them out...'

The Don't Ask Don't Tell system was a good compromise for the time but it had the drawback that revealed homosexuals still were punished and therefore were liable to blackmail and other evils, not to mention that it actively encouraged people to be dishonest which isn't basically desierable.

 skyth wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.

The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...

There were plenty of homosexuals in the military before DADT was repealed. Hell, Manning was actively trying to get kicked out, floating around a FOB in a tiara and sending his first sergeant selfies of himself in drag and they still didn't separate him.

That's a problem then if they choose which rules to follow or not follow.

By the time of Manning, and the end of DADT, the units that I was in, the command structure, from brigade down to company were instructed to no longer initiate chapters for that reason, if it was the sole reason. I know others, such as Jihadin have pointed out differently. But most of the time, I had very open commanders, who informed the soldiers of policy and policy changes. So the commanders I had in Germany had a company briefing and said rather bluntly, "The current unit policy is that we will not initiate chapters for violations of DADT. However, if we initiate chapter for other reasons, and you mention it, that will simply be added on."


a number of months later, when the announcement was made that DADT would be repealed, he had to brief us that it was going to happen, but had not, so don't be coming out just yet.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.

The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...

There were plenty of homosexuals in the military before DADT was repealed. Hell, Manning was actively trying to get kicked out, floating around a FOB in a tiara and sending his first sergeant selfies of himself in drag and they still didn't separate him.

That's a problem then if they choose which rules to follow or not follow.

By the time of Manning, and the end of DADT, the units that I was in, the command structure, from brigade down to company were instructed to no longer initiate chapters for that reason, if it was the sole reason. I know others, such as Jihadin have pointed out differently. But most of the time, I had very open commanders, who informed the soldiers of policy and policy changes. So the commanders I had in Germany had a company briefing and said rather bluntly, "The current unit policy is that we will not initiate chapters for violations of DADT. However, if we initiate chapter for other reasons, and you mention it, that will simply be added on."


a number of months later, when the announcement was made that DADT would be repealed, he had to brief us that it was going to happen, but had not, so don't be coming out just yet.

actually a concern for a bit depending on who the soldier announce/claim he/she was a homosexual. Within the unit there were so many "Okay......where do you WANT to go with this?"

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That's a problem then if they choose which rules to follow or not follow.

Yet it's a system that generally worked, despite the disdain from outsiders to it.

Of course, whether or not it worked, and whether or not it was actually the best way of dealing with the issue are not the same thing...

 Nurgle wrote:
Judge me all you want, I support this decision.

Starting with a "come at me bro" sort of attitude isn't really necessary at all. If you read the thread people are all over the board on this but discussion =/= judgement.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Nurgle wrote:
Judge me all you want, I support this decision.

Starting with a "come at me bro" sort of attitude isn't really necessary at all. If you read the thread people are all over the board on this but discussion =/= judgement.

Actually. The Chain of Command gets pissed when the S/M wants UCMJ actions started to process them out. Granted it was at the time a Chapter for the Good of the Army. It leaves a tarnish on our unit (mostly those of us in leadership positions) in a sense we couldn't protect them.