That is failing to look at the cost-benefit ratio here. Think about what Emerson said about “Foolish consistency”.
Lets put it this way - just from the point of view of public image - Sikhs in turbans as US soldiers and officers would have a wonderfully -er- “complex” effect on the perceptions in much of the world, and on political opponents of the US military. Sikhs are particularly interesting BECAUSE of their turbans.
Just as a for instance, if such a person retired and showed up as a JROTC officer in San Francisco, turban and all, the local leftoids would be tearing their hair out. I can just imagine the next school board meeting.
Think of this too - hardly anything would be as powerful a PR statement in India in favor of a US alliance than the sight of an obvious Indian officer of high rank in the US armed forces; its a statement that “we think you guys are great. Great enough to entrust our men to men like you”.
A regular and obvious Indian would be a good thing, but there is no way to miss a Sikh. Thats the messaging equivalent of a Las Vegas casino sign in animated neon.
And so forth.
Think of this—every little group with every little foible wants to wear their little group’s foible on their sleeve. From turbans and beards, to being overweight, to being a practicing homosexual, to being an open drug user, to being....whatever.
Our standards are clearly written out (uniform and appearance standards are outlined in AR 670-1). The military is like any other large organization—if you relax standards for one special interest group, then you’re gonna have to do it for all of them.