(09-17-2025, 08:17 PM)EXETER Wrote: What's magic about 1 year?
If there is some military related purpose to this decision that will improve military readiness/effectiveness, then why not implement it now, and improve readiness/effectiveness immediately? And if there is, then why not state what that purpose is and what the cost-effectiveness calculation was that supports that decision, as compared to just leaving the same policy in place that has apparently been working fine up to now? And why not figure out what the effect of this will be on the already poor ability of the military to attract and retain recruits and then release the results of that study?
And if none of this happens, then I guess we will have to admit that this is a blatantly racist action.
I should have put a link to the original August 20,2025 MEMORANDUM FOR SENIOR PENTAGON LEADERSHIP
Quote:SUBJECT: Grooming Standards for Facial Hair
The grooming standard set by the U.S. military is to be clean shaven and neat in presentation for a proper military appearance. When authorizing individual exceptions, commanders must apply consistent criteria and appropriately consider the Department's interests in safety and uniformity.
Effective immediately, I am directing all the Military Departments to implement the following minimum requirements concerning medical exceptions to the grooming standards requiring Service members to be clean shaven:
• Military medical officers will provide a written recommendation concerning a shaving waiver to the commander who is the final approval authority.
• Service members with an approved shaving waiver will participate in a medical treatment plan.
• Unit commanders will initiate separation of Service members who require a shaving waiver after more than 1 year of medical treatment. I have full confidence in our leaders at all levels to provide an accurate assessment of whether retention is appropriate.
As I stated when directing the Rapid Force-Wide Review of Military Standards, the strength of the military is our unity and our shared purpose. The Department must remain vigilant in maintaining the grooming standards which underpin the warrior ethos.
The 1 year is for medical officers to experiment upon the subjects.
The purpose is keeping "the warrior ethos" intact.
Calling it "blatantly racist" is generous.
------
Sinister theory:*
It may seem that less loss of troop morale, and refusals to deploy, and AWOLs will occur if non-black troops are called upon to patrol cities with Black Mayors and predominantly black residents.
*Just a wild thought.
----------- Addendum from OP link -----
Quote:It is also unclear if policies like broad exemptions from shaving for special forces troops who are in operational settings or soldiers stationed in the Arctic climates of Alaska where shaving can pose a medical hazard in the extreme cold will be affected by the change.
From movies and such the Special Forces are often depicted with a weeks worth of beard. Just saying. I don't know how real that is.
There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. - Commander William Adama
