On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:04:31 GMT, "C Knowles"
wrote:

Basically the Air Force has axed the last of General McPeaks crap,
and is back online to the days before his social engineering (and
uniform engineering).

It's not the last- we still have composite wings and a business suit for a
uniform.

Composite wings serve a purpose; but they should be *rare* exceptions
to the rule.

As for the "business suit", I have no problem with it. Airmen
shouldn't be wearing it in most jobs anyway; the Army has already
shown that the BDU is a good all-around uniform, and does not look out
of place in an office including a wing commander's office.

For places where the BDU might be unsuitable, there are other uniform
choices that will serve -- everything from the traditional Class A for
office work to work uniforms including flight suits and medical
whites.

If another 400 people are pushed out the gate
for being too fat, then at least 400 people will have failed in their
duties as leaders (and all that entails career-wise).

I'll speak to this as someone who was "pushed out the gate for being
too fat"; turned out I was developing Type 2 diabetes, but that's
beside the point.

The armed forces need people who are physically fit. Each service has
its own requirements and testing methods, but in general every person
in uniform has to be physically capable of doing most jobs in any
environment -- that includes traveling on foot and engaging in (or
evading) an enemy on the ground. Physical standards can be measured
on a pass/fail basis simply and with improvised or simple-to-build
equipment.

I went through basic training with the Army, not the Air Force; every
training company had a horizontal ladder and a few other pieces of
equipment in its company area, and every training cadre member knew
one or more measured routes for the morning run. The training center
(mine was Fort Campbell) had ranges for proficiency (as opposed to
mere physical conditioning), and a central physical testing site for
the final "graduation" test.

Oh, each battalion had a building set up as a sort of gymnasium -- the
inclined ramps were built from lumber and painted olive drab, the mats
were old cot mattresses, the weights were various sized cans filled
with measured amounts of concrete or gravel. But we trainees only
used this "battalion gym" when weather prevented the usual pushups,
situps, low-crawling and other normal fitness activities outdoors.
(The cadre could use it anytime, of course.)

I didn't pass the "graduation" PT test the first time, or even the
second; I wound up in Special Training Company working on my running
until I could bring up my speed. Even in Special Training Company we
didn't use specialized gear for workouts or testing; mostly we ran and
did pushups, same as before.

The post gymnasium (and those at every post or base where I served)
was nicely equipped with specialized equipment, of course. But the
point is, the services don't need high-tech gear to measure basic
physical fitness, or even to correct most deficiencies. Lay out a
cinder track, mark off every road in one-mile increments, make sure
every barracks has at least one horizontal ladder in back.

Something else that might be beneficial would be optional uniforms
like the Air Force's old Combination 6 (I think that's what it was
called) -- Class A dress slacks and an Air Force Blue long-sleeved
shirt (worn with a necktie) that was tailored to look good only on
those with very little body fat. Fatties like me need not bother.
Neither should bodybuilders for that matter, since too much upper-body
development looked a bit grotesque in that particular uniform. (Those
with really wide shoulders or bulging biceps should probably stick
with either blues or some variety of work uniform.) Eliminate,
redesign or ban from everyday wear any uniform that conceals more than
an acceptably low amount of fat around the middle, so that overweight
is noticed (and corrected) before it exceeds standards.

Granted, some people are actually physically fit but don't fit the
stereotypical image. I knew a few guys (mostly wrestlers and weight
lifters) in both the Army and Air Force whose "fat look" was actually
powerful muscles under a thin layer of fat; as long as they could meet
standards in the annual physical fitness tests (which I suppose the
services still require) they stayed off the "fat lists". Soldiers in
combat units didn't have much of a problem anyway, since they proved
their physical prowess through routine training; it was big guys in
"soft" jobs who usually attracted (or deserved) fitness-scrutiny from
commanders.

So, if someone cannot meet the standards it's the leader's fault and the
leader should be punished? Ridiculous. That's what leads to "leaders"
covering up for their failed troops, or pushing them off on others. Some
people simply will not or cannot maintain standards, whether weight,
drinking, performance, etc. While leaders should make every attempt
practical to bring these folks up to speed, at some point they become more
trouble than they are worth. At that point it's time to boot them out. If
someone is overweight and no one is taking action, that's a failed leader.

I couldn't say it any better myself ... I know because i tried.

None of this means that service members who fail to maintain military
standards can't continue to be effective as clerks, mechanics, or most
other jobs (excepting combat). But if they can't, or won't, meet
military standards it's time for them to leave the military.

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer