Tag Archives: uniforms

Current Events, Recent Posts

The Corps VIII

Image 2 Comments

I served under 13 Commandants. First was Pate #17, and the last was Mundy #30. Of course  there have been 8 since my retirement leaving us with you know who  at #38. I had my favorites and my not so favorites. I did have one  who isn’t on either list.  Who might that be you ask? David M. Shoup. He did something that I doubt many of you know about.  He did give us the short sleeved shirt, which was a good thing, but then he did something I cannot forgive him for even to this day. He took away my EGA from our khaki and tropical uniforms. Yes, that is a fact.  Here is a photo of me at MB Yokosuka Japan in 1960. Note the collar emblems.

And here I am a year later on the same tour sporting our new short sleeved shirt, sans the EGA’s.This move sent shock waves throughout the Corps; every enlisted Marine from Pvt to SgtMaj was pissed. It caused such an outburst that  CMC came out with an explanation why he removed the EGA from enlisted uniforms. It seems the illustrious Uniform Board recommended the move due to complaints from Marines about the emblem punching holes in the collars of khaki and tropical shirts. Of course, that did not go over very well, since even to this day officers wear their rank insignia on their collars, and they have the same small pins the EGA had. Bad move CMC Shoup!

The result of Shoup’s move was, a private in khakis or tropicals without his cover was a nobody.  You know we were all taught to take our covers off inside! Therefore nothing on his uniform let the uninformed civilian know who or what he was. Hell, he could be a baggage boy at the airport or a bellhop.

So, why are you telling us this Jim, you ask? Well, as I said there were some FAVS and not so FAVS. I personally knew a few who made CMC and none of them are on my FAV list. There are three, however, who are most FAVS. They are Mundy, Wilson, and my most FAV is Robert H. Barrow. Those three understood the Corps’ values, traditions, and the true meaning of Semper Fidelis. They alone had more to do with saving our Corps than any of the rest during my time served.

We all know what is going on in our Corps today, which point to total and complete destruction of the Corps we knew. Here is a letter CMC Barrow wrote to the Les Aspin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee back in 1992. I ask you to carefully read what General Barrow was saying 29years ago, and listen to what the Woke Flag officers imbedded in our Corps are saying today about needed changes. Remember, General Barrow fought in WW II, Korea, and Vietnam; all three of those wars were different. Were he alive today, I am certain he would send a similar letter to the Senate today.

If I could communicate with my FAV CMC’s today, my only question would be why did you not give the enlisted back their well deserved EGA’s?

CMC Green Letter No. 1-92-1

I am sure my FAV three CMC’s are screaming from their graves. God bless the three of them!

Current Events, Recent Posts

Is This The Plan?

6 Comments

For those unfamiliar, the Proceedings is a monthly journal published by the U.S. Naval Institute, which is a non-profit membership association serving a community of individuals who participate in an open forum to debate key issues in the Sea Services. There is no government support and they do not lobby for special interests. It is an  independent, professional military association with a mission, goals, and objectives that transcend political affiliations. In other words it “ain’t” woke  or non-woke. Every essay published in the Proceedings is very well documented and researched; they are strictly opinion pieces, but oh so interesting.

Please read this well thought-out and thoroughly documented essay that could very well be “The Plan.” Pay special attention to paragraph I have highlighted in blue. God help us!

Welcome to the U.S. Naval Institute

The home of influential debate since 1873

The U.S. Naval Institute provides an independent forum for those who seek to advance and strengthen the naval profession.

By Commander Norman R. Denny, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired)
December 2021

Vol. 147/12/1426

COMMENTARY
For decades, the U.S. Marine Corps has attempted to tweak its force structure to enhance performance within a constrained funding environment. Rather than continuing to make changes around the margins, we would be better off revisiting a debate started following World War II and prematurely truncated during the Korean War. Does the United States need a light infantry force specializing in amphibious operations as a separate service, or should the Marine Corps be resized to the small police force it was prior to World War I and the amphibious organization incorporated into the Army?
The discussion after World War II was primarily prompted by President Harry S. Truman, along with General of the Army George C. Marshall (who later served as a Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense) and General of the Army and future President Dwight D. Eisenhower. While admittedly all three were Army (President Truman was a captain in World War I and rose to colonel and regimental commander in the reserves), they were clearly knowledgeable about the U.S. defense requirements. Although the discussion ceased with Korea, the question was effectively answered in 1957 by Brigadier General Victor Krulak in a letter to then Marine Corps Commandant General Randolph Pate, “The United States does not need a Marine Corps. However, for good reasons which completely transcend cold logic, the United States wants a Marine Corps.”
Krulak was right in 1957, and what he said is even more true today. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are fully capable of performing the Marine Corps’ missions. The Army can assume the light infantry and amphibious assault responsibilities. The 1944 invasion at Normandy, the largest invasion in history, was solely an Army effort for the United States. As far as Marine Corps air, the Navy and Air Force are fully capable of close air support, while the Army can also execute the needed rotary and tilt wing missions. The nation wants the Marines. The question may be how to keep the aspects the nation wants, while eliminating the Marines as a separate branch and reaping the benefits of a simplified chain of command, smaller overall force, and another base realignment and closure (BRAC) evolution.

Deconstructing the Marine Corps

So, what aspects does the nation want? If the Marine Corps answers that question, the answer will probably be what it currently has, but with better funding. The informal Marine Corps propaganda apparatus, which President Truman begrudgingly complimented as second in the world only to Joseph Stalin’s, will demand the status quo. For the first time in a generation, the lack of significant numbers of former service members in Congress—coupled with national fatigue after fighting an unsuccessful, two-decade-long war—may allow this topic to be discussed seriously.

Perhaps the easiest part of the current Marine Corps to remove is aviation. There is unlikely to be a huge support community with the nation for Marine aviation, especially the fixed-wing aspects. For most Americans, their knowledge of Marine aviation is likely limited to watching Flying Leathernecks (1951) and The Great Santini (1979). Likewise, the average citizen may see no difference between Marine rotary and tilt-wing aviation and its Army equivalents. The average citizen likely sees no difference because the differences that do exist—primarily the ability to fly from ships—are minor. The nation does not need a separate Marine Corps aviation force and few in the nation likely know enough about it to want it. Eliminating Marine aviation by incorporating it into the Army and Navy would halve the size of the service, which currently is around 184,000 active-duty members.

The U.S. public is far less likely to accept the complete disappearance of the Fleet Marine Forces, the ubiquitous “Mud Marine.” Stripped of aviation, the Marine Corps would resemble the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps, both in size (approximately 88,000 troops) and capabilities—both are light infantry, both are air-mobile, and both are capable of airborne and amphibious operations. Both consider themselves to be “elite” forces with strong esprit de corps. Transition of the Fleet Marine Forces into the Army’s yet-to-be created XIX Marine Amphibious Corps would retain the needed amphibious expertise, simplify the chain of command, and could be done in a way that retains many of the unique elements that make a Marine a Marine.

Establishing the Army’s XIX Marine Amphibious Corps at Camp Pendleton on the west coast would give the nation a light infantry “center of excellence” on each coast. Reducing the Marine Corps Commandant to a three-star general, mirroring the XVIII Corps commander, would help reduce the gradual increase in rank structure seen over the past 50 years across the Department of Defense (DoD). Army traditions are likely flexible enough to retain many of the cherished Marine Corps’ accoutrement, like the dress blues and the eagle, globe and anchor emblem. The Army airborne troops currently have their maroon berets and cavalry units have their cowboy hats and spurs. Also, if the XVIII Corps can informally use the term “top” for the command first sergeant, the XIX Corps might well use “gunny” for E-7s. Likewise, young men and women could enlist to be Marines and continue to go through Parris Island for boot camp.

Incorporating the Marine Corps into the Army would significantly simplify the DoD chain of command and eliminate the need for the Commandant to go to the Army and beg for future armor and artillery support. Likewise, the Marines of the XIX Corps would have an equal chance of obtaining any new capabilities integrated into the Army, while potentially allowing Army leaders to reduce the operational tempo of both Corps, although both will still be rapid-deployment units.

To say that Marines would resist incorporation into the Army and Navy is a gross understatement. However, there are concessions that might make it slightly less toxic for the Marines and less objectionable to the public and Congress. Allowing Marine fixed-wing pilots inducted into the Navy to finish out their career using Marine Corps ranks and uniforms would likely help and given the Navy’s history of mixed uniforms, would probably go unnoticed by the public. Similar concessions for the generation of current Marines incorporated into the Army could potentially ease their transition. But regardless of how successful these mitigation efforts are, the DoD would likely be looking at a decade of angst and occasional confusion. The key will be Congress, which will have to rewrite legislation, including U.S. Title 10. As mentioned previously, there are fewer Marines in Congress today than at any time since the early 1950s (there are 15 Marine Corps veterans in the 117th Congress). This, coupled with the inevitable savings from another round of base closures, might be enough to see the initiative championed by President Truman and advocated by Generals Eisenhower and Marshall completed.

General Krulak correctly stated the United States does not need but wants the Marine Corps. For the best interests of the nation, the DoD should at least learn if the U.S. public and Congress will accept a XIX Marine Amphibious Corps. If the answer is yes, then a myriad of questions will have to be answered: Does the nation need two separate light infantry corps? Which Marine Corps installations will be closed or reduced? How many Marine Corps military and civilian personnel, made redundant by the changes, will be discharged? And what, if anything, will remain as a Navy police force? If the topic is given a fair hearing, the answers may surprise us all.

Commander Norman R. Denny, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired)

Commander Denny is a retired reserve naval intelligence officer with service beginning in Vietnam in 1972 as an aviation electrician’s mate and retiring in 2010 as a commander. In addition to his reserve service, he was a civilian electronics engineer for the Army Missile Command and an intelligence analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), with four deployments to Iraq. After retiring from DIA, he served as a senior intelligence analyst for U.S. Central Command with one additional Iraq tour.

Current Events

The Corps Part IV

15 Comments

Okay Marines, don’t know if you picked up on this back in September when it happened. I did but I saved it for this series on “The Corps.”

A Sikh Marine is now allowed to wear a turban in uniform

From The Marine Times

By Philip Athey

The new headgear for Sikh Marines.

On Sept. 23, 1st Lt. Sukhbir Toor possibly became the first Marine lawfully wear a turban in a Marine Corps uniform.

The Marine Corps granted Toor the ability to wear his turban, uncut hair and a beard in uniform, in accordance with his Sikh faith, unless he deploys to a combat zone or while he is wearing a dress uniform in a ceremonial unit, The New York Times first reported.

The young Marine and the lawyers who represent him said the accommodations mark progress, but do not go nearly far enough accommodate the Marine in his Sikh faith.

The accommodations he was granted, “effectively amounts to a denial … it’s almost asking someone to compartmentalize their identity,” said Giselle Klapper, his lawyer from the Sikh Coalition advocacy group.

After several requests and lawsuits the Army changed policy in 2017 and now allows Sikh soldiers to wear articles of their faith and turbans with minimal restrictions.

Toor, the son of Indian immigrants, joined the Corps in 2017 and is serving as an artillery officer in 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines, at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center Twenty nine Palms, California.

The Marine told The New York Times that when he first joined he was willing to cut his hair, shave his beard and wear the traditional Marine Corps covers, believing it was wrong to ask for something from the Marine Corps before he gave anything back.

But when he was selected for promotion to captain in the spring, he decided it was time to ask.

“I finally don’t have to pick which life I want to commit to, my faith or my country,” Toor told the Times. “I can be who I am and honor both sides.”

Sikhs traditionally wear five articles of faith that signify commitment to their religion. The articles include a small wooden comb known as the “kanga,” a small knife or ceremonial sword called “kirpan,” cotton “soldier shorts” or slightly longer underwear called the “kachera,” a small steel bracelet known as a “kara,” along with going without cutting their hair or beard, known as “kesh.”

The turban, or dastaar, over the centuries became closely linked to the Sikh religion. It is in the code of conduct and bears nearly the same amount of importance as the other articles, according to Learn Religions.

In June Lt. Gen. David Ottignon, the head of Manpower and Reserve Affairs wrote a letter granting Toor the ability to wear the turban and unshorn hair, but only in limiting circumstances.

“The real world consequences of the failure of a forward deployed Marine unit, such as the one you lead, could jeopardize the lives of Marines and those relying on them to complete their mission,” the general added. “The Corps cannot experiment with the components of mission accomplishment in forward units without assuming the risk of mission failure.”

Under the initial restrictions Toor was prevented from wearing his articles of faith while he was assigned to units that may deploy on short notice, like 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines, where he currently serves.

“Look, I’m on the ground level with the trigger-pullers every day,” Toor told the Times. “To them, I don’t think it makes a difference. We have men, women, people of all races in my platoon. We all wear green, we all bleed red. My Marines didn’t respect me because of what I had on my head.”

Toor also was banned from wearing a turban or beard in dress uniform in any ceremonial position, arguing it would hurt recruitment along with the Corps’ ability to convince the American people that it was “cohesive group of warriors capable of defending the nation’s interest.”

Toor immediately appealed the decision and received slightly greater accommodations that allowed him to wear a turban and beard while in garrison.

But he says the deployment restrictions and the restrictions on ceremonial units that remained were still unacceptable.

Klapper argued the deployment restrictions might put Toor’s career at risk if the Corps forced him to choose between a deployment and his beard.

She was also appalled by the reasoning by the Marine Corps when it came to ceremonial units.

“We’re saying the reason you can’t serve, or you can’t maintain your religious identity, the reason we have to erase essentially your religious identity is because you are in a public facing role” the lawyer said. “That to me is problematic because in reality it’s not under the law a reasonable argument and it’s also just extremely outdated in my view.”

The Marine Corps has not yet responded to questions about Toor or the branch’s decision to limit his accommodations.

Klapper and the other lawyers representing Toor have since sent a letter to the Marine Corps asking it to reconsider its decision in this case with the hopes that the Corps will either follow the Army’s precedent or at least work with Toor’s representatives to come to an agreeable solution.

But, if the Marine Corps does not come to the bargaining table or accept greater accommodations, the lawyer is prepared to sue the Corps in federal court, she said.

Appears no one in authority within the military is capable of uttering the word: “NO”. What about Women Marine Sikh’s. Can they wear that diaper on their head and cover their face? Of course, CMC Berger can’t say no, SECDEF will chew him out. Plus, we have to follow the U.S. Army’s lead. I mean hell we are no longer a separate and distinct service. Check out the Army’s story. Copy and paste the link below; you won’t believe it! If it wasn’t so tragic it would be laughable. I’m sure this uniform change will really help the poor recruiting issue.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-army/2017/01/05/new-army-policy-oks-soldiers-to-wear-hijabs-turbans-and-religious-beards/