Although early in my career I served in the 1-37th Armor, 4th Armored Division—the lineal descendant of Gen. Creighton Abrams’ battalion in the Battle of the Bulge, where I was immersed in his legend—I met him only twice. The meetings, as with those of Brig. Gen. Robert L. Dilworth, U.S. Army retired, (“Front & Center,” January) have stayed with me until this day.

Gen. Abrams came to visit my cavalry squadron in his old 3rd Armored Division during his tenure as Chief. He arrived with my somewhat nervous brigade commander and we headed out to the local training area to look at Sheridan gunnery training. He went into the debriefing tent while a very weak lieutenant was being debriefed on a poor mock Table VIII run (the stressful tank crew proficiency table). Abrams came out shaking his head, asking me what I was going to do about the lieutenant. I said we would continue to train him and see what happened at Grafenwoehr.

On the way back to the kaserne, he asked if the local battery factory was still raising Cain about our tracks leaving mud on the road in front of its building. He remarked that when he had been assistant division commander he had always picked up a cavalry troop and moved to a critical forward position during alerts—something no commander in my memory had ever thought of—because he knew that was where the battle would be fought. And then he was gone, but not before he signed my Girl Scout daughter’s autograph book, to the dismay of my brigade commander.

Three months later he accompanied Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger on a trip to Europe and escorted him to Grafenwoehr. They came to my range because Schlesinger wanted to fire a Sheridan. While the Secretary of Defense went to a Sheridan, Abrams took me aside to ask me how the lieutenant was doing. Fortunately he had improved, and I could show the scores to prove it. I never forgot that without any aide taking notes, the Chief, with all his responsibilities, had been interested enough to follow up on his previous visit.

His like may not come again.

COL. MICHAEL D. MAHLER, USA RET.
Bozeman, Mont.


“UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES”
Maj. Gen. Meloy’s article on balancing regulations with common sense when dealing with the Army weight standard regulation (“Front & Center,” January) was a great example of overcoming a rigid mind-set and strict obedience to the dogma of the day. I, too, faced a similar situation in the late 1960s as the commander of a National Guard MP unit in the coal regions of Pennsylvania. Our unit had just been transformed from a tank outfit into MPs—from grease to glitter. Part of our “transformation dogma” was holding formations on each day of our weekend drills, during which our former tankers stood inspection for, among other things, spit-shined boots and clean hands.

As the months since our switch wore on, I noticed that one of our older-looking members was not wearing any stripes. My first sergeant told me that he couldn’t pass our inspections—his boots were always polished poorly and his hands were always dirty, thus no promotion, even for time in grade. If he didn’t clean up his act, I was told, we would have to muster him out.

I had the private report to my office. After telling me he couldn’t shine his boots any better and that his hands were clean (they were severely blackened), I took out my shoeshine kit from my bottom desk drawer, told him to put a boot on a nearby chair and I went to work. After 10 minutes of dabbing, buffing and the like, his boots appeared no better. Then we went into the latrine where I asked him to wash his hands. He scrubbed and scrubbed to no effect. His hands were still dirty looking.

Then I asked him two questions. “What did you do when you were a tanker?”

“A mechanic,” he said. He added that his two pair of Army-issued boots had become impregnated with oil and grease. Then I asked him what he did for a living. “I’m a coal miner,” he answered. He told me his hands, especially his fingers, had become permanently stained with coal dust from years of laboring underground. I dismissed him and called in my first sergeant. I instructed him to get the private new boots and to cut orders promoting him immediately. In a few months we had a new PFC with shiny boots. White gloves took care of his hands when he performed MP duties. As in Gen. Meloy’s case, common sense overcame rigidity and a good soldier stayed in uniform.

COL. WILLIAM HARRIS, AUS RET.
Bethlehem, Pa.


THE ARMY UNIFORM
While attending the AUSA Annual Meeting, I was in front of my hotel when a young couple politely asked if I’d hail them a cab. I told them I was waiting for one, too. Only then did it dawn on the man that I was in the U.S. Army, that I was not the doorman.

So much for the Army blue uniform. It’s attractive, flashy and gets attention; but it’s not suitable for, as they say, your day job. But that’s the current, misguided plan, although AR 670-1 has yet to be rewritten to make the switch from green to blue for general use, and it will take a few years and millions of tax dollars to implement the proposed changes.

After reading Col. William F. Muhlenfeld’s “The Green Uniform—Don’t Kill It” (November 2006), I was ready to add my 10 cents worth to what seems to be yet another misstep by whoever is currently deciding weighty things, like what the troops will look like. Then I read Capt. Stephen K. Trynosky’s well thought-out and bull’s-eye letter in ARMY Magazine (December 2006). Now I feel even more compelled to speak up while the rank and file stay silent and admire the “emperor’s new clothes.”

I would strongly suggest that before anyone votes for the green-to-blue changes, they read the army uniform history document—Technical Report 68-41-CM, The Army Green Uniform—at www.qmfound.com/Army_Green_Uniform.htm. This excellent report points out that the Army has never been able to establish a truly traditional uniform and has bounced around from one design and color to another.

We are in yet another go-round with what is and isn’t fashionable and PC. This is a command problem. At one end of the spectrum we have commanders, ever seeking to set their troops apart, approving variations of the uniform standard to suit their own whims. At the other end are those who, as Capt. Trynosky aptly points out, want us all to look exactly alike. Both concepts are flawed. Both are extreme.

Part of the problem is the inability of top Army staff to hold firm to established uniform designs and resist the temptation to change for the sake of change alone, the Shinseki beret being the most recent and glaring shift. The idea of taking a symbol that sets soldiers apart by virtue of their achievements and giving that symbol to everyone still frustrates and enrages many Rangers who sweated and struggled to earn their black berets. History will record that there were those in Washington who casually said, “It’s only a hat.” Perhaps the same people will now say of the Army green uniform, “It’s only a piece of cloth.” How naive. How narrow the thought.

Our sister services do not seem as inclined to change what history sets down. Few Americans can readily identify an American soldier in anything except the present Army green uniform, which is only about 40 years old. Add to this identity problem the new Velcro-encrusted Army combat uniform (ACU), with almost no visible rank and looking much like the Marine Corps’ digital field uniform, and it is no wonder that most Americans have little idea what their Army troops are wearing or why.

Old school or not, most people over 15 tend to look for familiar rank stripes, bars or leaves on sleeves or collar. After all, that’s the way our four other services do it. But not our Army. Officers’ rank on dress blues is buried in a horizontal bar on top of the shoulders, surrounded with branch colors and gold braid. The actual rank faces up, so to read it, the best location is overhead.

Like Col. Muhlenfeld, I wonder why anyone who has actually worn the green, blue, white or other dress uniforms over a long period of time would even consider dumping green and replacing it with blue. This reminds me of former President Nixon’s short and unpopular attempt to refit his White House guards with a uniform that looked like something out of “The Nutcracker Suite” with plumed hat and lots of gold braid.

Going back to just blue has been tried before; as the aforementioned report states, the reason green was finally adopted in 1954 was because the Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard already had pretty much exhausted the options on blue uniforms. In public places, I have been asked if I was in the Air Force, Navy or Coast Guard. Blue, in most people’s minds, equals Navy or Air Force, the questionable historical basis for the Army blue notwithstanding.

News reports thus far seem to argue that this is an economic measure—fewer uniforms, less maintenance, lower costs; key Army leaders have been quoted as saying this is a money-saving move. I doubt it. And I doubt that they actually said that. They know better. Only field grades, special troops and general officers opt for anything beyond blues for special-occasion wear anyway, so dropping the uniforms worn to embassy affairs of state is not a savings of any consequence. Rather, I suspect a PR staffer put those words in their mouths, because anyone who has purchased an Army blue uniform knows that it is expensive to buy, equip and maintain—about $400 for the basics at this time. As Col. Muhlenfeld said quite well in his article, the Army blue is “high maintenance.” For example, a branch change means new gold sleeve braid, new shoulder boards and a new braid and color band for the service cap (if we are still going to wear a cap with the blues). Rank changes mean new shoulder boards.

Blues for formal evening events presently require a white shirt. A new gray shirt is being tested for general use. If worn in garrison without the jacket, the new shirt will need to accommodate insignia, probably new and different. Maybe the solution to that will be no recognition insignia at all. That follows the ACU philosophy of making it as difficult as possible to identify rank and achievements.

Virtually every officer I know has his blue trousers in the high-rise style, held up with braces, not a belt, in order to adapt the trousers to wear with the mess uniform. In an office, classroom or garrison situation these trousers are not going to look so great, and phasing out the mess uniforms will not help. One uniform supplier is already offering to refit trousers with belt loops, for a price.

Then there’s the hat. Many officers and soldiers who currently own blues have not spent the $55-$100 for the blue service cap (with or without braid) because they only wear the uniform to dress events, where no cap is required. Observe the hat check room at AUSA Annual Meetings and you will see almost no Army blue caps. Mine was the only blue service cap checked for the Marshall Dinner last year. Everyone else apparently came and went without cover, which is OK under current Army regulations.

At a minimum, once we dispose of the greens, we need at least two new sets of blues, new shirts, insignia and some sort of cover. The ballpark cost is $1,000 per member. Where are the savings? In dry cleaning bills? Hardly. Cleaning blues costs considerably more than cleaning greens. This is just one more totally unnecessary expense for the soldier and the taxpayer. It’s tough to explain to a taxpayer or member of Congress why, when the Army is bleeding for funds, multiple millions should be spent on new blues for everyone.

Col. Muhlenfeld accurately traced several of the Army’s previous gaffes with uniform changes. He left out many others, perhaps out of respect. My own closet and attic trunks have no less than four different—now obsolete—field uniforms gathering dust and dozens of obsolete Class A combinations, including cotton khakis, TWs, shorts and wash-and-wear atrocities, each of which I paid for out of personal funds and each of which, after trial and error, was replaced by something new and, usually, equally crazy. That doesn’t include the headgear that has come and gone, from the Ridgway “coffee can” fatigue cap to the easy-to-store-and-wear overseas cap (you could put it on with one hand, something no one seems to be able to do with a beret) with its distinctive airborne insignia. Probably most memorable is the original, chocolate chip desert battle dress uniform (BDU). It worked fine in our western deserts, but was highly unsatisfactory in Southwest Asia. Thus troops in Desert Storm sported a mix of woodland pattern, three- and six-color desert BDUs, all because no one thought out the real needs and changes.

When we first went into Vietnam, rolling up the sleeves of our starched, OG 107 cotton fatigues was prohibited, whatever the temperature. We went into combat wearing brightly colored insignia and white name tags. We made excellent targets. Only after a lot of casualties, violations and discomfort did logic and common sense prevail and new, lightweight ripstop BDUs with subdued insignia appear. Now we have the ACU that is hot because of the multilayer synthetic fabric, but can’t have sleeves rolled up.

Years ago the use of Velcro on battle dress uniforms was ruled out because of the noise, stiffness and tendency to pick up lint and burrs. The ACU is awash in Velcro. If you are covert and want to open an ACU pocket, you not only give away your position but everyone knows it’s the U.S. Velcro Army. I recently challenged a key Army staff NCO to open an ACU breast pocket silently, in a prone position, with one hand. Sheepishly, this old soldier grinned and admitted that it was nearly impossible, even standing up. Doesn’t anyone learn from the past?

Here’s my suggestion: Keep the green and blue uniforms as they are now. Allow mess and whites to continue for those who need or have them. Save a bundle of money and annoyance. Blues in garrison can remain a commander’s option, but leave well enough alone. Save a lot of money by not having to outfit the entire Army with new blues and help keep the Army identifiable. If we are going to be seen in blue, then we should get the upscale U.S. Air Force facilities and fast movers to go with it.

J. J. STIVES
Vero Beach, Fla.

*********
Capt. Stephen Trynosky’s letter in response to Col. William Muhlenfeld’s piece about the Army green uniform was right on the mark. I would just like to add a couple of thoughts about our Army’s propensity to fix things that are not broken.

In 1945 the Army had the best looking officer’s uniform in the world, better even than the U.S. Marines which, we all must admit, are hard to beat when it comes to looking good. It would have been a quick fix to upgrade the enlisted uniform to the same high standards of the officer’s “pinks and greens.” Instead, the Army went to the gray/green business suit showing total ambivalence for our mission and our traditions, as if we were somehow ashamed to be fighting men and women who had just won the biggest war in history.

Nowadays, you rarely see an officer in anything but the Army combat uniform (ACU), even at a Lions Club or Rotary meeting, where all the civilian members have on suits or at least coats and ties. I have seen a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in Fayetteville, N.C., in battle dress uniform at a meeting with well-dressed business leaders of the community and the commander of Central Command on C-Span speaking at a college forum in ACUs, the equivalent of a farmer’s bib overalls. Are our general officers now ashamed to dress appropriately and to look distinguished? I worked on a dairy farm during college, but my employer didn’t go to civic meetings or church in his bib overalls; he put on a coat and tie.

Now we are going to do away with greens. While I don’t think they come anywhere close to the standards of our World War II uniforms, at least they look better than ACUs. But if our soldiers at all levels are reluctant to put on greens, I would suggest that you will never see them in the new blue service uniform. Don’t get me wrong, I like dress blues but not on the street during daylight hours unless you are in the 3rd Infantry at a ceremony. They look great at formal functions, not on a bus riding from Fort Bragg to Fort Benning or on an airplane. So while our Marine counterparts look great, our Army will be in ACUs no matter what the occasion.
When I was a young Infantry officer at Fort Benning, you could not even get out of your car in fatigues in Columbus except to buy gas. You could go from your residence to the post, but if you went to town it was either in greens or civilian dress.

In my opinion the blue service uniform will not raise the standards of dress; it will lower them because no one will wear blues before 1800 hours. And while ACUs are a great combat uniform, for the love of all our traditions, put the rank back on the collar and let officers wear subdued branch insignia. If you want to give our great soldiers a dress blue uniform to wear home on leave, issue them one along with their greens.

KELLY MILTON MORGAN, USA RET.
Florence, S.C.

********
Capt. Stephen K. Trynosky’s letter is right on target, as is Col. William Muhlenfeld’s November article on saving the green uniform.

Brickbats to those misguided thinkers who are persuading Army brass to abandon the green uniform, eliminate outward marks of distinction, drop branch insignia from officer Army combat uniforms and ban full color shoulder patches. Each of those proposed changes will be a blow against both individual and unit morale, a destructive spike skewering esprit.

Just imagine the 1st Infantry Division being known in the future, not as the famed Big Red One, but as Big Drab One. Colorless, drab patches are fine on combat camouflage uniforms, where a bright color would be counterproductive, but it’s his full color patch of the unit in which he served that has a home in each soldier’s heart, and he wears it proudly, in part because it is colorful.

This one-Army trend to make all soldiers look alike reminds one of the disastrous experiments in our children’s education system that urged elimination of grades and competition in order to protect the kids’ tender psyches, but resulted in reducing all to a lowest common denominator, ending the challenge for the dedicated student, stifling the urge of all to achieve and excel and generally lowering educational standards.

Finally, it is entirely appropriate for senior officers to make their public speaking appearances in combat uniform while in the combat zone, but in any public appearances in the continental United States, they should be in the green uniform, as a mark of their pride in the Army and of their respect for their audience.

As to the blue uniform, drop it, it’s no loss. Do not, under any circumstances, ever allow it to replace the green uniform.

LT. COL. FIELDING L. GREAVES, USA RET.
San Rafael, Calif.

********
Capt. Trynosky is dead right in his analysis and conclusions on the current misguided effort of the Army’s leadership to overhaul our uniform and the reprehensible practice of all ranks wearing ACUs “no matter how inappropriate the occasion.”

Today our senior officers appear on duty and in public looking scruffy and unkempt compared to their peers in the other services. Why? They’re not on the battlefield. Pretensions like this are phony. And the troops know it.

Moreover, as Capt. Trynosky suggests, there seems to be a program under way to homogenize the Army, erasing many of the most recognizable and traditional distinctions of the uniform. When I made buck sergeant in World War II, the stripes were big and you could see them a long way off. I wore my captain’s bars in Korea on my fatigue shirt as well as on my field jacket. In Vietnam, in accordance with the tradition of the 11th Cavalry, I wore my lieutenant colonel’s leaves and crossed sabers, along with the regimental insignia and green tabs of a combat leader, on my jungle fatigues. In all three wars I was proud to wear the patch of my outfit on my left shoulder, as well as the patch of my previous combat unit on my right shoulder. Apparently, one way or another, these traditional marks of honor will be modified into oblivion.

I hope that someone in authority will pay attention to Col. Muhlenfeld and Capt. Trynosky. Apparently, that old-fashioned phrase “pride in the uniform” means a lot to them, as it does to many of us.

COL. JAMES H. AARESTAD, USA RET.
Carlisle, Penn.


“HIDDEN WOUNDS" OF WAR
I enjoyed the CompanyCommand article about taking care of our soldiers’ mental health at the unit level (January), but I do have some comments.

First, it left the chaplain almost completely out of the process. As the article stated, we need to talk about the effects of killing well before we deploy, and continue to do so during deployment. But those discussions will, I believe, always bring up issues of guilt, fear, maybe shame—all of which are often couched in spiritual language of some sort. Chaplains need to be involved in any discussion of moral duties and obligations.

Second, I totally affirm the need for combat stress teams and other mental health professionals. But again, the unit ministry team is also well trained and well equipped to assist in the mitigation of combat stress.

Recently we experienced the death of five soldiers from one unit, caused by an IED (improvised explosive device). This unit, part of our BCT, is posted at a nearby FOB (forward operating base), next to the most restive city in our area of responsibility. The FOB contains only this battalion. After the incident, I traveled to the FOB to participate in a critical event debriefing (CED) with the unit chaplain. However, there is also a combat stress team on the FOB and the mental health professional joined us for the CED. Here’s the reality in this situation: the chaplain is with his soldiers daily, on and off the FOB. He spends time with them every day, everywhere, doing his “ministry of presence.” In addition, he provides religious services, counseling and friendship.

When a catastrophic event occurs, the first person people go to for help is usually not the mental health officer, who sits in his office waiting for customers, but the chaplain.

During the CED, which I believe should be a bit more structured than Capt. Moon described, those same issues of guilt, fear, shame and so on come up, and the chaplain is in a better position to deal with those issues than most mental health professionals. We have instituted the policy at our FOB that in the event of a CED, there would be both mental health staff and chaplains present, in order to cover all the bases.

I completely agree that units should be rotated in and out of difficult places. After one incident, again involving an IED that took the legs off two soldiers, the rest of the convoy was told to go into the nearby village and search it. There was a lot of anger and a strong desire for revenge on that trip into town. Then, they were sent out the very next day, on the same route, before they were able to defuse through a CED. They were mad and scared, and their religious beliefs were being expressed in various ways, such as fatalism, superstition and a little bit of faith. How would a mental health professional handle all that without the assistance of a chaplain?

There is a possible downside to having the chaplain involved in the “moral duties and obligations” piece, which is the possibility of expressing a particular religious viewpoint vis-à-vis war. But good chaplains can and do handle that issue in ways that avoid the extremes of talking the language of either “holy war” or pacifism.

Thanks for an excellent article on an important issue, and for this opportunity to emphasize the important role that the unit ministry teams can play in mitigating combat stress and post-traumatic stress.

CH. (MAJ.) SCOTT A. STERLING
3 IBCT, 25th Infantry Division
Brigade Chaplain

********
I enjoyed Capt. Jerry Moon’s CompanyCommand article, “Taking Care of Your Soldiers’ Mental and Emotional Health—Before, During and After a Combat Deployment.” I’m glad to see fellow officers and AUSA start talking about combat stress and its prevention and treatment in an open and challenging forum.

A central point that Capt. Moon did not mention in his article is the role of unit officers and NCOs in helping soldiers understand, constructively deal with and overcome the challenges of combat stress.

Individual soldiers can be thought of as weapon systems. As Army leaders, we train soldiers to become optimized weapon systems in their MOS skills, weapons proficiency and physical fitness. To prevent and treat combat stress, we as leaders have to undertake the care and maintenance of the minds and bodies of our soldiers to help them learn to rest, recover and refit following combat engagements so they can maintain a high level of combat proficiency over multiple combat deployments. The tasks of helping soldiers reduce the effects of combat stress are best accomplished by the leaders who train soldiers for combat.

Combat stress symptoms in soldiers are only minimally explained by soldiers’ opinions and attitudes concerning killing. Combat stress symptoms occur in soldiers because their minds and bodies have largely “forgotten” how to recover to a more relaxed state, which then forces their bodies and minds into constantly living in a “combat mind” state. While initially positive for the soldier because it provides mental focus, physical responsiveness and optimum combat performance, it eventually leads to combat stress and other symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder because the human body cannot maintain this constant “on” status without some type of recovery from combat. A useful analogy is that we would never expect a Humvee to run 100,000 miles in the desert without maintenance. Similarly, we cannot expect a soldier to operate for 365 days in combat without some physical and mental maintenance.

The sympathetic nervous system (“fight or flight”) and the parasympathetic nervous system (“rest and digest”) must be in balance or the soldier basically “burns out” by being constantly in a “fight” response. The symptoms of advanced startle reaction, sleep disturbance and avoidance that Capt. Moon discussed are all caused by the human body and human mind being in a constant fight state and not having the ability to recover. The human body and mind must recover, if only for a short time, to be able to maintain sustained combat proficiency.

The real question for Army leaders is: How can we help soldiers rest and recover from the effects of combat while still maintaining and sustaining a high level of combat proficiency? One of the challenges for officers and NCOs is that the combat mind state is something that military training is designed to establish and maintain. The constant mantra of “Stay Alert, Stay Alive,” precombat checks, no-notice drills and individual/unit battle drills are all designed to push soldiers immediately into a fight state so they can accomplish their wartime mission with proficiency, speed and optimum results. These aspects of military training are what preserve soldiers in combat; they must be maintained.

What interferes with the normal human fight and rest cycling of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems is sustained combat exposure, which “tricks” the human mind-body connection. The human mind and human body learn after combat exposure that being in this fight state has kept them safe, so, if they constantly stay in this fight state, then they will be safe. It is impossible, however, to maintain this level of vigilance for any sustained period of time; again, this leads to reduced combat effectiveness and the appearance of combat stress symptoms, including avoidance, hypervigilance and advanced startle response. Soldiers require a way to temporarily recover from the effects of combat.

What soldiers require to maintain an optimum and constant level of combat proficiency over sustained combat exposure is training on how to “force” their bodies out of a fight state and into a recovery state. Just as a soldier performs preventive maintenance, checks and services on a Humvee or M240B in order to sustain optimum operation over the long term, soldiers also require exercises and training to help them maintain proper minds and physical states for combat proficiency.

Soldiers can use a variety of simple techniques to help them temporarily recover from a combat event. They can use breathing exercises similar to those that help them relax during rifle marksmanship, visualization of a calm response to a combat event (similar to a basketball player visualizing 100 perfect free throws and then performing them in a game) and recognition of a combat response to a noncombat event (for instance, a loud bang caused by a door slamming) and then redirecting the combat energy into recovery and calm.

Combat stress teams (CST) play a vital and important role working with soldiers who are in dire need of assistance. In Iraq, Afghanistan and the larger global war on terrorism, however, there are tens of thousands more soldiers who are exposed daily to sustained combat than available CST personnel. Likewise, once soldiers return from deployment, their combat responses do not just turn off, even though they are in a noncombat location. A soldier’s mind and physical response to stressful events remain in a combat mind setting even though he is physically removed from combat. Training soldiers in restful breathing, positive visualizations and other techniques to mitigate their stress responses is a more positive, long-term solution than a soldier seeking alcohol or a fast car to achieve the same level of recovery.

MAJ. CHAD STORLIE
Special Forces, OIF Veteran
Omaha, Neb.