In the “Letters” column in the July issue, Maj. James Centric, U.S. Army retired, opined that we should not wear battle dress uniforms (BDUs) or Army combat uniforms (ACUs) in public and that the problem “will not be resolved until the leadership remembers to set standards and lead by example.” Respectfully, Major, our leadership has set standards and is leading by example.

First, we have very clear guidance in Army Regulation (AR) 670-1 Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia (specifically, section 1-10). Nothing in that regulation prohibits wearing the ACU in the way our leadership is currently wearing it. Second, current policy from senior Army leadership in the Pentagon enhances the policies in that regulation: the policy states that soldiers should (emphasis added) wear the ACU while traveling, especially while traveling home on leave from theater. The reason given is that wearing the ACU will enhance the public’s image of the Army while we are at war. Finally, most unit commanders also set policies on the proper times to wear the uniform, which supplements what AR 670-1 has to say. As a soldier in a ceremonial unit that is often in the public eye, I would say that the ACU is approaching the same level of recognition that the BDU once enjoyed and is therefore entirely appropriate for wear in public. The green Class A uniform might be more comfortable, but if our fellow soldiers in theater can’t be comfortable, why should we here in the States? Besides, isn’t that “theater thinking” also part of the reason that we are no longer allowed to roll up our sleeves? With regard to the green-versus-blue debate, I find myself in two apparent minorities: We should change uniforms, and we should make a return to the World War II service uniform. That uniform would benefit our image far more than the cavalry-influenced blues.

It is my experience that Americans viewing a movie about the Army from the 1941-1946 era have a viscerally positive reaction to soldiers wearing that uniform. That reaction is perhaps even true for citizens of the countries we supported and/or liberated during that conflict. By updating the material with lighter modern synthetics, it could be our new standard. The differences between officer and enlisted uniforms are minor and would promote mass production of few variants. Also, we could continue to use today’s Class A and Class B styles for more formal versus less formal situations. Finally, we could use service stripes similar to today’s years-of-service and “combat hash marks,” leave the shoulder sleeve insignia as it is and leave decorations regulations as is, and we would have the problem solved.

If we accept that any army’s dress uniform is not based on the necessities of war, but rather on the desire to project competence, sophistication and professionalism, then I think we can all agree that our current green uniform was a bad idea. Through the use of the classic World War II uniform, we would regain the look of a serious at-war Army and revisit an era in which the world understood that the Army of the United States was fighting for peace not just for ourselves, but for all mankind. (No offense meant to our veterans who fought in Korea and Vietnam.)

Ultimately, to address Maj. Centric’s final point, the Army doesn’t want people who join our service because our commercials and/or uniforms are spiffier than the Marines’ (even I admit that the Marines win the “best-looking uniform” contest). If applicants’ decisions are based on the clothing they get to wear, let the Marines have them; they can spend the additional time needed to make warriors out of them.

SSgt. Mark Racicot, NMARNG
Santa Clara, Calif.


U.S. Flag Sleeve Display

Congratulations on the great cover to your July issue. It is an outstanding tribute to our nation on Independence Day. It gave me cause to reflect on the benefits of being a free and legal member of the society in which we live. It also encouraged me to think about our flag.

As on your cover, and almost without exception, when I see the flag of our nation, the blue field is up and to the left. I see it this way when it is flown on staffs and poles; when it is pictured in magazines, newspapers and on the screen; and when it is displayed in auditoriums and other locations where Americans gather. I have noticed this in the drawings of children. The blue field is almost invariably up and to the left as seen by a viewer; this is the way it is done in America.

This is not to suggest that the blue field up and to the right is incorrect. It depends on where you are standing and the direction of the wind. I have an exceptional picture displayed on a wall in my home showing the 3rd Infantry’s Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps in colonial uniform and positioned in front of the mansion at Mount Vernon, Va. The wind is blowing from the color team’s left. Our national color is flying at about sixty degrees with the blue field up and to the right. It is customary, however, for the flag to be positioned or shown with the blue field up and to the left.

Army decision makers departed from this tradition when they adopted the flag for use on battle dress. The flag used for this purpose is shown with blue field up and to the right. The photographs on page 69 of the July issue are an excellent example. In one photograph, soldiers are holding up an American flag with the blue field up and to the left. The sleeve insignia of soldiers in the same photograph show the reverse side of the flag.

Perhaps someone in authority can explain this break from tradition.

Col. Charles P. Murray, USA Ret.
Columbia, S.C.

Editor’s Note

The sleeve display of the U.S. flag by American soldiers is incorrect according to practice and law, but it is an error that has become institutionalized.

There is no official record of the reason; however, it is commonly determined that the practice began with the Bosnia deployment some 12 years ago when a commanding general (unknown) thought the sleeve flag would “look better” if the blue field was facing forward. The usual rationale—which is still used today—is that the flag should appear as if it is flying forward when troops are going into battle, and there are no plans to change it.


Kudos

I have belonged to AUSA for more than 40 years and, hence, have received ARMY Magazine for at least that long. This is my first “fan letter” to anybody.

Of all the magazines I subscribe to, including The New Yorker (self-proclaimed literary leader), National Geographic, Discover and yes, even National Review, Army Magazine is among the best, if not the best of all of the above.

The writers are top caliber, especially the old timers like retired generals Frederick J. Kroesen and Edward B. Atkeson. They fill in the breach between the modern Army and the old one, with which I was long and happily involved. The younger writers are similarly qualified.

The June issue is particularly outstanding.

Col. John D. Ashby, USA Ret.
Chambersburg, Pa.


Hooah Guide to COIN

I enjoyed “The ARMY Magazine Hooah Guide to Counterinsurgency” by Dennis Steele in the July issue. As a newer AUSA life member, I find Army Magazine a welcome addition to my reading materials.

As I read through the guide, I was struck by the observations about the Spanish-American War and the Geronimo campaign. In 1998, I completed a limited edition biography of Maj. Gen. Henry W. Lawton, a family relation who served during that era.

He was a proponent of unconventional methods in the Philippines and was, to a degree, frustrated by his senior officer, a conventional-warfare general.

Gen. Lawton also headed the mission into Mexico in pursuit of Geronimo in 1886. He seemed throughout his career to be very versatile and adaptive to his situation, with a great deal of success.

When the Iraq war got under way and the insurgency began rolling full steam, it was as though I was rereading much of the material I had written about Gen. Lawton in the Philippines, except the time and place had changed.

I wonder what Lawton would have to say about the situation in Iraq—deja vu?

Thanks for the article and for a great magazine.

Rudy Rau
Colorado Springs, Colo.