Posted on 01/27/2014 5:42:54 AM PST by C19fan
An epidemic of pogonophobia is upon the land – pogonophobia being the irrational fear of beards. It comes in response to a Pentagon directive that gives some latitude to U.S. troops who wear beards — and turbans, and yarmulkes — for religious reasons. The usual rabble was out in force, complaining that the military is knuckling under to liberal sensibilities: “PC gone mad,” one conservative blogger put it, arguing that the change comes “thanks to Obama’s love of Muslims.” The sentiment was repeated elsewhere. With apologies to Willi Schlamm, sometimes the problem with conservatism is conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Duuuhhhhhhhhh...........
Ever hear of the “gas mask”?
This is doubling down on “stupid”—but there’s a lot of that going around these days.
When is the last time a US soldier had to actually use a gas mask for anything but training?
The US Navy allowed beards for may years in the 70s and early 80s without much problem. And even more time if in Antarctica.
So what’s the big deal?
This will be allowed on a case by case basis
How many will be allowed to wear crosses?
How many will be allowed to wear a yarmulke ?
I have seen multiple examples of US military members blending in with facial hair in Afghanistan. The horror!
Good point. My brother had lots of facial hair while in Antarctica.
Was Mr. Williamson in the military? The reason I was given that the gas mask needed a seal. I was instructed to put my hand on the canister and exhale then inhale to seal the mask. I asked because in the navy beards were allowed.
Iraq
“fundamentally change the US”
fitting a helmet over a turban could be a problem unless the solder wants to look like Marge Simpson
I don’t remember Moochelle being in the Navy...
CC
“Beards” are being allowed only to appease the muzzies. Yes, there have been beards allowed in the Navy but they are rare (submariners yes).
We personally had to use them in 1990 in Kuwait. Or detectors kept picking up nerve agents.
First off, I don’t like Mr. Williamson’s characterization of people who don’t like this as “rabble”. Keep in mind National Review also thinks John Derbyshire is rabble, too.
Secondly, one of the reasons for not allowing facial hair is not just for practical reasons, but to make everyone as close to being the same as possible. That’s why there are regulations for hair and uniforms. Yes, someone with dreadlocks or a punk-rock mohawk can fire a gun. You want everybody to look like a unified force.
Can you imagine an officer with a beard inspecting troops, and telling a soldier with some beard stubble that he’s a mess, and needs to shave?
If having a beard is ok, then anyone should be allowed to have one no matter their religious beliefs.
What’s next, female Muslim soldiers with Burkas?
CC
I guess you did not read the article. Mr. Williamson was talking about Sikhs, not Muslims. Sikhs being a sect that’s reason to exist is to fight Muslims. It is what they do. They are a warrior race. It is pointed out that the military of Jack Pershing had no problem allowing Sikhs keep their beards and turbins. Ask the Japanese how it felt fighting against beards and turbins at Imphal and Kohima.
I was there for years and never used mine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.