Leaderboard

I think this is probably the heart of this argument. It's the whole "God, Family, Country" thing-different people will put those three things in different orders, and because of that, there will always be debate. For some that are considered religious, it may be more of a tradition than a deeply seated belief, so the sacrifice is easy. For others, religion may be more important than patriotism, and it may be enough to force them out of the service or skip volunteering in the first place; they believe they are already a part of something bigger, and more important, than their country. It's in the same vein is the BAH argument: why should someone with dependents get paid more than a single person of the same rank for the same work? Same with family separation pay. Not saying those should go away, but it's definitely not the same standard across the board for everyone of the same rank, so it's not "fair" to all service members (particularly the single people). As much as people like to say "country first," it's never that easy. We've all signed up for something bigger than just ourselves, but that doesn't mean it's our number one priority (at least not all the time). Just look at the healthy contingent of guardsmen and reservists in this forum. There are some AD folks that look down on the part timers as less patriotic, who are not able to fully commit themselves to their country (thankfully that attitude has been dying off, probably because retention isn't where it needs to be). However, it's great that we have a way for people to serve on a part time basis-it allows us to recruit and retain people in the service that are unable or unwilling to commit to full time active duty service. It works out to be a win-win: the AF retains trained people it can call up for way at a fraction of the cost of maintaining them on active duty, and the individual gets the flexibility to pursue other goals/priorities (personal, family, etc). BL is that it's easy to tell others to make personal sacrifices when our own personal values don't see those sacrifices as hard choices or important. Institutionally, the AF is now saying it will make reasonable accommodations where it can, because it sees value in retaining those people requesting the accommodations, and that the benefit out weighs the cost. Don't like it? Well, call your congressman to change the law.

1

Already done... https://www.duffelblog.com/2020/02/commander-of-forceymcspaceface-deeply-regrets-crowdsourcing-branch-name/

All the Sikhs I’ve worked with on international exercises are badass. They are a warrior class. I would be honored to have more of them working directly on the US side. We need a little more warrior, little less snowflake marshmallow as a crew force. Removing a religious barrier to get these guys working with us is a win. And if others get beards down the road, also neat. Not expected tho.

Great post. I don’t disagree, nor have any issue with beards, cranium covers, etc., but I also don’t see a problem with everyone being able to have a beard if they choose to. It’s a fine line separating sensible allowances for specific reasons and being (at least perceived) to cater to an individual or demographic while implying everyone else can go fuck themselves. The latter can erode cohesion, culture, morale, etc., which absolutely does negatively affect the mission. Sometimes the right answer is to help the individual, and other times they have to be told no because it truly is for the greater good of the unit. To circle back to my example, should the AF allow every Jewish member to never work from fri sundown to sat sundown, including while deployed? Imagine the implications if that was to occur...all of the sudden everyone is Jewish because the hell if any of us like working weekends. Second and third order effects are a real thing...

That was mean and I’m ashamed of myself. I love you Tank. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Are those pictures from your “private” hard drive? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I don’t get the issue here. When you are in uniform you represent the organization you chose of your own free will to work for. If you aren’t a chaplain, you don’t represent religious, personal, political, or any other beliefs while wearing it. If X individual can have a beard without tarnishing the uniform then everyone serving should be permitted as well.

1) Valid for implication of false dichotomy here as a third party. But! 2) For many, the dichotomy isn’t false. For some it’s a choice between piety and service. Agree that banning display and denying service aren’t the same. However, what if practice and display happen to be the same? Sikh hair (thus turban) is a great example. That’s the intent these exemptions are designed around. (Not to mention, the number of times I’ve heard people say “In Jesus’s name we pray” on others’ behalf at an AF function makes me feel like wearing a different hat is pretty innocuous. 3) Those people already serve. It just so happens that they’re Christians (including Mormons), Jews, Vegans, and Pastafarians. They just don’t have to wear things that are outwardly visible. 4) Here’s the crux of this: they irritate because they seem invalid. That’s fine and good. The dirtbag with the ‘hurt’ knee is a dirtbag and we should all be frustrated. The person who just had ACL surgery is not a dirtbag; I don’t think you’d express the same frustration towards them. Is a religious requirement a valid reason to grant exemption? I think so; if it gets me a more diverse force. (I’m a firm believer that diversity increases problem solving ability, and a larger talent pool doesn’t ever hurt). But... you’re right, people will rankle at “their rights are more important than my rights” arguments... So!.. 5) Totally agree. Change the rules for everyone. If you’re a dude who wants to wear a turban to work, do it. Not going to check up on your religious beliefs. Don’t be a douche. It’s just a hat (unless it’s not), who cares! 6) Not going to touch it. Believe what you want.

I’m from the south so I can’t really put into words well what I’m trying to say. I think if anyone makes us a better fighting force then we need to make a way for them the be a part of the team. If they need exceptions to make that happen then we need to look at the reg and ask “why was this an issue to not wear headgear or have beards?” If we come to the conclusion that it was just a rule we made up for the sake of uniformity, maybe we just eliminate the rule altogether. Then woila, no exception is needed because now a well groomed beard is uniformly acceptable (i.e. the German military). But the military is not a social experiment and if it comes to the conclusion that someone being in the military is not in the military’s best interest (a paraplegic fighter pilot), then I would say, thank you for your offer of service, let’s find somewhere better suited for that service. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I could be wrong, but I think they'd probably call everyone who got an interview within a day or two of each other to give people time to start making plans to come up there. Again, hoping to be wrong! Did anybody interview in Phoenix a week or so ago?

I say if they let them wear beards, we should all be allowed to wear beards. I also believe in one standard PFT for men and women. Special jobs can set their own standards that fit with their requirements. Blanket minimum standard across the service. No more catering to special interest groups, either it meets standards or not. If the standards aren’t applicable anymore then don’t make exceptions to policy, just change the fcvking standard. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I'm a former EF-111A EWO, I can easily envision a digital jamming system being carried by an unmanned air vehicle. In the Raven, which used something like an intel 8080 processor for most of its life, we could program the jammers to work automatically. If nothing broke all I had to do is turn on the master radiate switch, hold a banana in front of my chauffeur with one hand, while keeping an eye on the ALQ-99, an eye on the generators, an eye on the nav system, an eye on our paper chart, and an eye out the window. 😁 A jamming drone large enough to accommodate VHF/UHF jamming antennas would seem a logical idea in the modern age.

Totally with you for applying across the board. But! If for some dumb reason we’re unable to do that, I think it is better to accommodate (and consider headgear and hair ‘reasonable’) than not to in the name of “standards”; we’re (mostly) all saying allowing those things wouldn’t detract from the mission in and of themselves as we argue for allowing them across the board. That argument means it isn’t the beard that’s the problem. Somebody not working on the sabbath may be reasonable; it may not. For the same person it may be reasonable at some times and not at others. Depends on the situation. Same for beards. Reasonable accommodation is the name of the game, and I don’t think fear of the masses complaining renders something unreasonable. That’s just a leadership challenge.

Speaking of low flyovers, eyeballs, and middle fingers. LOL.

Talk about shitting in your own nest!

"The Air Force says it will not divest its fleet of U-2 Dragon Lady planes in fiscal 2025, despite language to the contrary in the service’s 2021 budget request."

I don’t like beards in uniform, and that’s my personal opinion. If we are changing the policy to allow beards for religious purposes, then we should allow everyone to have beards. Reason being; equality across the board while in uniform is key. While it’s for ‘religious purposes’, it gives someone an extra benefit not available to everyone else, and it’s not a function of their job or duty position. At the end of the day, I’m still against the idea of beards not because of the dudes that can grow a full beard but because of those dudes that can’t. I don’t wanna see guys walking around in uniform that haven’t shaved in three weeks and have the white-trash trailer park style beard going on.

Seventh Day Adventist and Jews shouldn’t work on saturdays because it’s a day of rest. How many of those people are working on saturdays because that’s what they signed up for and see it as something bigger than themselves, and in a part, bigger than their religion? I bet the answer is a lot. But you don’t see them complaining or asking to take every sat off. Shack.

I feel lucky that I flew on these for awhile. The Fulton pickups were a hoot even though i didn't do any live ones.

Found them on your Moms personal hard drive...

I’ll buy that for a $2 bill (for the sake of argument). So then the question is what do we value most? [which detriment are we most willing to accept?] Do we want the Muslim in uniform with accommodation or do we want him to stay home? Thinking about it for a minute: Under conscription, I’d be all for absolute minimization of other-than-service identity. With an all volunteer force, we’re a team of people whose motivations should (in theory) be roughly aligned at entry. The uniforms at Lexington and Concord probably looked like shit.

The implication here is that certain sexes or minorities are a detriment to the military mission, which I fundamentally disagree with. To tie your thought into the current discussion, you're implying that allowing a Sikh to wear a beard and turban makes our military a less lethal force on a large scale, which I also fundamentally disagree with. I understand the general thought here, which (I believe) is that the military should have one standard for every military member, and if you can't/don't meet that standard then the individual should be forced out of the service. I simply think this is an unreasonable bar to meet in a country that is as diverse as ours. We make exceptions to policy for lots of things (which is part of Duck's disagreement), from physical, to dress/appearance, to length of service commitment. I just disagree that these exceptions are "largely [a] detriment of the Military and its mission." But I'm open to facts that show otherwise.

Substitute SARS for COVID-19. Some super virus.

Then I think you’re really overblowing the number of exceptions we’re talking about. What are they? Pregnancy, religion, and what else? 99/100 are meeting your uniform and PT standard without exceptions. To think this is some pinky liberal plot to destroy the elite military machine we’ve created is just overreaction. Which is par for base ops.

"Ask not what accommodation you can make for your country. Ask what accommodation your country can make for you." This is only one minor issue that few people care about. We can shrug it off. But it is yet another incremental step and an overall trend indicator that the population is willing to make fewer sacrifices. Therefore, fewer sacrifices must be required. How much uniformity is required for an effective military force? It's been so long since that concept has been tested that no one remembers.

Most people know how the test was designed. This does not support your argument that we have the "same" standard. We have different standards, literally generated by discriminating based on gender averages. As long as a woman can score an "excellent" for a run time that would end a man's career, we are damaging esprit de corp. But, sure, we have bigger problems.

VO2 max makes up for lack of equality? So if a chick is breathing harder that means it’s ok that she can’t run as fast or do as much physical work? That’s a bunch of crap if ive ever heard it. The PT is the exact sexist example why the military is forced to be politically correct to the detriment of the mission

This might be the most asinine, political BS, mental-gymastics justification I have ever heard. But it could be the whiskey.