Turbans In the Army?
Marcia Coyle in Legal Times reports that the U.S. Army is waiving uniform regulations to allow Sikhs to serve while wearing beards and turbans:
“We have been unwavering in our assertions that Mr. Lamba’s religious requirements in no way hinder his ability to effectively serve the United States,” said Amandeep Sidhu, McDermott’s lead counsel on the case in a statement. “We remain deeply impressed with the Army’s forward-thinking approach in allowing Mr. Lamba to serve with his turban and beard, and reaffirm our call for the Army to consider amendments to its uniform policy that continues to close the door to other Sikh Americans wanting to serve in the U.S. Army.”
The two legal teams won one-time exceptions last year for two Sikh Army officers—a medical doctor and a dentist. Lamba is the first enlisted man to win the accommodation.
I live in an area of central California with thousands of Sikh immigrants, all hard working who put a premium on education. But this is a terrible decision for two reasons. The most obvious is the precedent it sets for all sorts of exemptions to be granted to all sorts of groups, insidiously eroding the shared whole of the military that each soldier adopts by giving up something of himself.
Second, it is entirely unnecessary; by the second generation the vast majority of Sikhs is wholly integrated by appearance within American society. That is, they voluntarily, by both taste and custom, choose not to wear turban, full beard, ceremonial knife, etc., apparently on the supposition that they wish to blend in with America rather than symbolically resonate with their past culture. I am sure that there are thousands of second and third generation Sikhs who have entered the military and did not demand to wear the dress and adopt the appearance of their home country.
In a larger sense, all this is fine and good in theory. But over the last thirty years—the Black Caucus, La Raza, the Ground Zero Mosque, the right to wear particular ethnic clothes that entail hardship of identification and violate standard public service dress codes, etc.—we have insidiously chipped away at the notion of a shared, majority culture, one that transcends race and tribal affiliation. Neither history nor the contemporary scene abroad suggests that is wise; the road down that path only leads eventually to perdition, with ethnic strife, constant sectarian demands on the commonwealth, and balkanization taking quite a toll.
There is no carved tablet somewhere that says "America shall stay united as one nation". It is a difficult concept that has to be renewed and worked at each generation; our self-absorbed, con-artist generation did not do that, and we are reaping the whirlwind.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Well said. We are one nation only so long as we are one culture. Diversity can exist within a set of shared principles and traditions.
I take it this means combat helmets are no longer mandatory. Maybe someone will design bulletproof turbans.
Aug '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Theodore Dalrymple has observed that in England, Sikhs are permitted to wear a modified turban in the armed services and government work, and yet Sikhs are immigrants unusually loyal to the Queen and also quite adept at integrating and bettering themselves in British society. So it does not seem that permitting some sort of turban for Sikhs necessarily causes ethnic strife.
However, if the Sikhs demanding turbans are those who had previously forsworn them, that is a little odd... perhaps worrying...
And I suppose it's possible that permitting Sikhs (who if I may stereotype, tend to be assimilable, hard-working, and loyal to their new country) this accommodation may give other, more problematic groups an excuse to make less reasonable demands...
Edited on Sep 10, 2010 at 11:21amJul '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Dr. Hanson, while shared identity has been key to making the US the world's success story for mutli-ethnic integration, acceptance and accommodation, rather than forced sameness (as can be seen in French anti-headscarf laws), are important factors in creating this shared identity.
While your point that the Sikh turban is not a religious necessity is a subjective, case-specific argument, I'd like to make the subjective point that Sikhs also have a long military tradition (in the form of opposition to Muslims in the Punjab, then opposition to the British) that continued into and through the British Era. Sikhs have been strongly represented and have integrated their turbans and beards into their uniforms and military dress codes in the army of the Raj, as well as the modern militaries of India and the United Kingdom. There is thus certainly room in Western military tradition to accommodate turbans and beards for Sikh soldiers.
Edited on Sep 10, 2010 at 11:20amAug '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Humza Ahmad: Dr. Hanson, while shared identity has been key to making the US the world's success story for mutli-ethnic integration, acceptance and accommodation, rather than forced sameness (as can be seen in French anti-headscarf laws), are important factors in creating this shared identity.
...I'd like to make the subjective point that Sikhs also have a long military tradition (in the form of opposition to Muslims in the Punjab, then opposition to the British) that continued into and through the British Era. Sikhs have been strongly represented and have integrated their turbans and beards into their uniforms and military dress codes in the army of the Raj, as well as the modern militaries of India and the United Kingdom. There is thus certainly room in Western military tradition to accommodate turbans and beards for Sikh soldiers. · Sep 10 at 11:18am
Edited on Sep 10 at 11:20 am
Good points, Mr Ahmad.
Perhaps wearing some important token of religion or heritage is a privilege that ought to be granted to those who are not inclined to make trouble with them, as a sign that good behavior is rewarded.
What's the policy on the kippah?
Edited on Sep 10, 2010 at 11:27amMay '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
When the Army chose to make the beret the standard cover there was grumbling from those elite units that had previously used the beret as their special badge of membership. Perhaps some special forces unit, aware of the Sikhs' fine reputation as fighters, will develop a Kevlar lined turban and petition to make it their distinguishing mark.
That would be an interesting turn. And if one think that's unlikely, do a Google search on Zouaves in the Civil War.
May '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
The US Army is a voluntary organization where its members sign a contract to join. Part of that contract means we have to follow the Army's rules and regulations including uniform policy which means I can't grow a beard because I want to.
Why should the US Army be forced to make an exception in this case? If the Sikh in question wants to remain true to his religion, perhaps joining the Army isn't the best way to do that.
Jul '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
I am awaiting now America schools to wave their (ridiculous but that's another story) Zero Tolerance Policies and make exceptions for kirpans, the Sikh ceremonial knives, in their rush to affirm their multiculti bona fides. After all, students, unlike soldiers, have not joined up but have been forced to enroll.
Aug '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
I think Victor has a very valid point. Maybe the turban thing isn't such a big deal but who knows what accomodations the next group demands of the military? Anyone who doesn't think there is a slippery slope need only look around at our society - there are all kinds of slopes that are slicker than a frozen waterfall covered in whale snot!
Mormons wear special underwear called garments that have significant religious significance. The garment didn't meet military regs so the church made a special garment for military members that fit the regs - problem solved. This is an example of how accomodation can go both ways; if we focus on solving problems instead of rigidly maintaining our position they'll be a lot less friction in this world. Our country - and our military - need standards or we're toast.
Jul '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Arrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
This makes me crazy. There is no right to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. We have also come to the understanding as a society that it ought not to be a duty of citizenship. Therefore there is no reasonable rationale for permitting culture-specific variations from military standards. No one is being forced to serve. If you find that serving in the military does not allow you to fulfill your personal cultural or religious imperatives, then by all means find another way to make a difference.
The overtaking of the military by the diversity cult and the multi-culti mindset is profoundly disturbing.
Aug '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Another example of the Balkanization of our nation into smaller and smaller special interest groups. It could be exhaustion from of the obligations of being part of a great and epic country, and a yearning to retreat into the tribe, or cave.
If we can't find a way to set aside petty differences, and learn to agree on our purpose as a nation, we're bound to go the way of Rome. Lincoln said in his Lyceum speech:
"...If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide...
The pillars of the temple of liberty... have crumbled away, [the] temple must fall, unless we... supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason... Reason... must furnish... materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality... a reverence for the constitution and laws: [that it be said] we remained free to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that...we permitted no hostile foot to... desecrate his resting place; [this] shall awaken our WASHINGTON. "
May '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Our military justly demands a higher degree of unity than is expected in civil society. Arguments for diversity should bear the burden of proof. But Mr. Ahmad's point is worth considering.
I would distinguish between the needs of training and the needs of combat. No soldier can expect any kind of individual accomodation during basic training, correct?
May '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Practically speaking, is it now necessary to redesign military NBC(Nuclear, Biological, Chemical)gear including protective or "gas" masks to accommodate a turban or beard? A good seal on your mask in a chemical or biological attack is a great reason, along with uniformity and discipline, for a clean shaven soldier.
Aug '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
No, I don't think it would be.
Taking the kippah as precedent seems the natural thing to do. The kippah is apparently permitted only when it doesn't interfere with the health, safety, or efficacy of the combatant, and permitted in formal dress only in ways that do not interfere with the rest of formal dress.
I have no authority on these things, but I would expect that, if they're going to be reasonable about it, they'd impose similar restrictions on Sikh accommodations.
Jul '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Exactly. Military grooming standards aren't just about appearance. They do this stuff for a reason.
Of course, that's the great thing about being a judge: it's a license to be an expert in matters you don't know a thing about.
May '10
Re: Turbans In the Army?
As a former US Army Infantry officer, I think this is a terrible decision. In addition to all the other excellent points already cited, another reason for a UNIFORM is that it is uniform. And that uniformity produces a number of intangible benefits to the unit as well as to the individual soldier. It instills camaraderie and esprit de corps, it fosters personal and unit discipline. Those things are not only essential to to accomplishment of the mission under duress. They can also save a soldier's life under certain circumstances. Those who do not understand the military world ought not be suggesting changes; they don't understand what they're doing. And those who do understand military society ought to be far more careful than they apparently are about making wily-nily changes to accommodate political correctness.
Re: Turbans In the Army?
Brian, thanks for making this point. The military does make allowance for certain preferences, such as a mustache. A beard prevents a seal on the gas mask, making it useless in combat and a detriment to the training needed to hone combat skills.
Additionally, Patrick Shanahan has it exactly right. There is no right to military service. Such service denotes subservience of the individual to the needs of the military unit and the requirements of national security. The purpose of the military is to defend the nation by being willing and able to inflict maximum destruction on any aggressor. This requires a uniformity of effort embodied in uniformity of appearance, performance, and purpose. Anything that detracts from this uniformity is counterproductive and therefore has no place. Further, any personal grooming construct which prohibits effective use of combat/protective gear has no place on the battlefield or in training.
Which begs the question, since a beard makes a gas mask useless, will the Sikh be exempt from combat?