Once upon a time there was a fairly senior Sergeant First Class. Let's call him "Drang", just for argument. He was in a detachment that was part of a Battalion headquartered in Hawaii, which was part of a Brigade headquartered in Japan, which was part of Pacific Command--but the detachment was assigned to Ft. Lewis, in support of I Corps, which is not part of PACOM. (Although it supports same, or did. Please understand, also, that this was ten years ago--how time flies!--and much has changed.)
This made some people unhappy.
One day "Drang" attended an NCO Call with the Command Sergeant Major of the battalion his detachment was attached to for administrative purposes--things like shuffling paper, and barracks and rations for those few soldiers junior enough to need such.
This Command Sergeant Major hated "Drang's" detachment. He said so, publicly, on numerous occasions.
The purpose of this particular NCO Call was so that the CSM could brief the NCOs on some very important, nay, vital, critical, even, changes to Army policy that they would be responsible for enforcing.
To wit: The Army's new tattoo and body piercing policies.
Obviously critical for the National Defense.
Now, Ft. Lewis had already implemented a "tattoo inspection" for arriving personnel, Staff Sergeant and below, looking for "gang affiliated" body art. If they found something questionable, though, they would simply "counsel" the individual on possible criminal associations, or something of that sort.
The new tattoo policy was that "nothing can show when in Class A (Dress Green) uniform", i.e., nothing below the wrists or above the neck; females have to cover (or get rid of) anything above the foot and below the knee. (By the time I retired, they had still not arrived at a procedure or policy regarding existing tattoos.)
The body piercing policy said that, basically, male soldiers are (or were) not allowed to have piercings "in" on any government property; females could have one hole in their ear lobes filled, and nothing else. The way I explained it to my troops was, you can have extra holes in your body, but Joe can't have anything in them, and Josephine can only have something in one in each ear lobe, anytime on any government property.
That's ANY government property.
Stop at the post office, go up to Mt. Rainier, drive through a National Forest, they have to come out.
"Drang" asked the CSM what's the point, why are we doing this?
"Well, SFC Drang, that's what the American People expect of their soldiers."
Dropping the narrative gimmick, I honestly don't recall my reply to that, but it ran heavily toward incredulity as to the idea that the American People gave two hoots as to whether Snuffy had a tat', or a piercing.
Now, I guess I can see them wanting to say "As of now, no tat's that would show."
The policy that really got my goat was the "Even if you are off-duty hundreds of miles from post, once you enter Federal Property you must remove your piercings."
Honestly, I never had any interest in getting any extra holes poked in my body, nor in getting tattoos, but this policy seemed, well, egregious.
If the CSM had said "I don't know why The Brass feel they have to set that particular appearance policy off-post SFC Drang, but there it is" I would have had a heckuvalot more respect for him than I did; as it was, he had to get all condescending, and what little respect I had for him was gone.
That was probably the day I sealed my fate vis a vis not making Master Sergeant/E8.
Not coincidently, that was also about the time I decided that it was going to be "20 and out" for me.
I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Amurrcan People really do care if Snuffy has tattoos that show when he's in Class A's, or a pierced navel--or a pierced whatever--maybe I'm the one who's out of step here.
I just really believe that, even in the middle of The Clinton Years, the American people expected their military to concentrate on more important things.
So, what's the point? Assuming you made it this far, why did I bother?
Well, every time I see or read about a silly policy in any organization, I ask myself, did the guy who thought this one up really believe he was serving the public good?
But what if it really is the best policy under the circumstances, but a vocal element Just Can't Understand? Here's an example: When the Clinton Administration's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was first being briefed there was a young man in my company who just could not fathom the fact the the Army was serious in telling him that he did not,in fact, have the right to beat the crap out of his roommate if said roomie was gay.
There is not a single MOS in the military where one's gender preference matters to one's ability to perform one's duties, but (at the time, at least) it was felt that "in the interest of good order and discipline", not to mention not having gay soldiers beat up regularly, Don't Ask Don't Tell was a workable alternative to allowing openly gay people to serve. (I keep waiting to hear that, with the pressures of the Global War on Terror, that Don't Ask Don't Tell will be replaced with Who Gives A Damn?)
On the other hand, what about when attempts to fix a stupid policy really do fall afoul of Public Opinion?
A few years back, I recall reading about the guy in charge of the Transportation Security Administration announcing that the TSA was going to stop wasting it's time with pen knives and box cutters, and concentrate on real threats, like bombs; after all, we have plenty of evidence that anyone who whips out a Swiss Army knife and tries to take over an airliner these days will be a bloody pulp on landing.
Nevertheless, the Flight Attendants' Union threw a hissy fit, so Congress countermanded the change.
Because, of course, what gets Congressmen re-elected is obviously In The Public Interest...
No comments:
Post a Comment