The new Army beret is supposedly being issued to improve morale, but no one seems to have asked the soldiers what they think. Not only do none of the dozens of soldiers I’ve asked like the plan, none of them knows anyone who does. Those in special operations – the ones who do the most dangerous, arduous and urgent assignments of an army – are justifiably livid. The standard issue of berets violates an international practice of 50 years in which most armies reserve them for elite units. As President Kennedy said when he authorized the green beret for the Special Forces, it is “a symbol of excellence, a badge of courage, a mark of distinction in the fight for freedom.”
Military honor is as subject to inflation as specie – over coined, it becomes specious. Standard berets are like the Dodo’s Caucus race in Wonderland – all the runners get a prize. It is the same politically correct emphasis on self-esteem that brought you grade inflation and the erosion of standards throughout society. The media have been dismissive of the controversy. They don’t understand the black beret symbolizes perhaps the world’s most elite unit. Ranger volunteers are already elite airborne soldiers, yet 43 percent fail to finish initial training. Too often, this is due to serious injury – recently several trainees froze to death during a swamp exercise. The Rangers’ combat record includes the successful D-Day assault up the sheer 100-foot cliffs of Pointe du Hoc where 60 percent of the force was killed or wounded. At Anzio, the 1st and 3rd Battalions (767 rangers) were attacked by over 20,000 German infantry and hundreds of tanks. After destroying a quarter of the German force only six survivors returned to allied lines. That is what a black beret means – a compromise tan beret just doesn’t cut it.
In addition to its unfortunate associations with Monica Lewinsky, the beret is not a practical hat. Two hands are needed for adjustment when going out of doors, a problem when carrying anything. Being woolen, it is quite hot in the summer. Neither the beret, nor the folding garrison cap it replaces, are waterproof or brimmed. Four decades after society abandoned hats, only the military could recreate the atmosphere of the Congress of Vienna, where according to Friedrich Anton von Schonholz “hat shops were mobbed like bakeries in a famine.” The initial beret purchase is cited as costing up to $35 million. While only two will go to each member, berets must be provided for 250 percent of a unit’s muster strength to allow proper sizing. An additional 1.2 million berets are needed annually for replacements and recruits.
To meet an arbitrary deadline based on the Army’s June 14 birthday, the Army actually declared a fashion “emergency” allowing the defense logistics agency to ignore laws requiring uniforms be American made. The second problem is specification of a beret made, so to speak, from whole cloth. Equipment for manufacturing one-piece berets is so obsolete, this provision guarantees foreign manufacture. A domestic supplier using modern machines can supply a two piece sewn beret for $4.75. Until the Army was publicly embarrassed, we were to have mainly Chinese single-piece berets at $7 each. Those are government prices, individuals pay $12.95 at the nonprofit Army Air Force Exchange Service.
4,000,000 berets: $35,000,000
Of course the taxpayers will pay, but not only them. Enlisted soldiers receive an initial clothing issue, but subsequent annual allowances are quite inadequate. Males receive an annual allowance of $273.36 and females receive $329.28 in addition to free maternity issue. The 200,000-odd officers receive a one-time $300 allowance, but officers and sergeants must buy and maintain their uniforms out of pocket. The inadequacy of the allowance is demonstrated by the fact that Department Of Defense civilians can receive an initial uniform allowance of $799.47 and $266.49 annually.
The IRS says that cost and upkeep of work clothes is tax deductible. Beneficiaries include delivery workers, firefighters, health care workers, law enforcement, letter carriers, athletes, transport workers, even musicians and entertainers. The legal criterion is that clothes are worn “as a condition of your employment and they are not suitable for everyday wear” – the perfect description of military uniform. In tax code Wonderland, however, active-duty servicemen cannot deduct them.
The pace of uniform change is daunting. Just consider colors – we began World War II with olive drab green shade 33, then changed to darker OD 7, succeeded by even darker OD 107, followed by gray-green (later Army green) 44, then AG 344 and now AG 489.
The first change I witnessed was the demise of khaki, officially called Tropical Worsted or TW. It was a beautiful uniform, albeit difficult to maintain, and was replaced by the current Class B uniform. This uses the same trousers and shirt as the Class A service dress providing economy and simplicity. I first began to question the wisdom of mandated changes, however, when the shoulder epaulettes were changed from dark green to black. Because this was about 1990, it must be the real reason for the fall of the Evil Empire. Depending on rank, epaulettes cost about $2 a pair. At that time, there were about 1.8 million in the total Army – assume two pairs each.
3,600,000 sets of epaulettes: $7,200,000
Now the laundry list. For in the last 3 years, the entire uniform has been shredded. As of January 2001, the total strength of the active Army, reserve and national guard was 1,045,690. In all three Army components, there are a total of 123,835 women or 12 percent of the force. In our costing we use modest estimates of replacement clothing and prices from the nonprofit Army Air Force Exchange Service. Other supplier prices are quoted in the few cases where an AAFES price was not available.
Shirts for the male office and dress uniforms have been replaced. The new shirt is unchanged, except that the formerly smooth pocket is now pleated. Finalized in 1999, this is the real reason Slobodan Milosevic surrendered. Stealth fighters can be shot down, but how do you defend against the impregnable pleated pocket? The standard polyester/cotton short-sleeve shirt is $10.75 and the long sleeve $12.85. Nicer polyester/wool versions are $28.95 and $32.95 respectively. Assume only three each of the standard shirts for $70.80.
5,531,130 men’s shirts: $65,267,334
Three styles of women’s over-blouse shirts were discarded for a tuck-in shirt. This is especially puzzling since a new optional purchase over-blouse is available, identified “by the use of Princess seam construction.” The short sleeve tuck-in is $9.25 and the long sleeve $16.20. Let’s assume three of each for $76.35.
743,010 women’s shirts: $9,454,802
The color of the male and female service dress was changed from AG 344 to AG 489. The barely perceptible difference still mandated an exorbitant replacement. While the new color debuted in 1993, the old one continued in the clothing sales system to be bought by the unwary for years afterward. Because many soldiers are in assignments where they seldom wear office uniforms, many perfectly good ones were thrown out.
Due to this change, women replaced at least one coat, two slacks and two skirts. Men replaced at least one coat and two pairs of trousers. Since the material is dry-clean only, you really need more than two pairs of pants. The men’s standard jacket is $98.85 and pants $29.95. If you want something presentable get ready to shell out $259.00 for a “professional” grade suit with officer’s braid. Minimum replacement costs were therefore $158.85 for men and $187.95 for women. A new AG491 optional-wear uniform replaces the AG434 optional-wear uniform – it is hard to estimate the cost of this change.
921,855 male service dress sets: at least $146,436,667
123,835 female service dress sets: at least $23,163,337
The standard single-breasted, unbelted 65/35 polyester/cotton dress raincoat is being replaced by a 50/50 polyester/cotton, belted, double-breasted trench coat. Trench coats are debonair, so why did we ever abandon them? The Army officially adopted trench coats during World War II, only to replace them in 1967. Contrariwise, if the current coat is so terrible, why was it ever adopted? The new coat costs $80.55, assume one each. The optional black, double-breasted 50/50 polyester/cotton coat is also being discarded. The unisex cardigan sweater has been replaced at a cost of $39 just to add epaulettes.
1,045,690 all weather coats: $84,230,330
1,045,690 sweaters: $40,781,910
The only parts of the physical fitness uniform not being replaced are socks. The new material is water resistant, but it is hard to find an imperative for the change other than fashionable diaphoresis. The new jacket costs $55.60 and sweat pants $28.80, compared to $23.05 and $15.10 for the current items. Shorts and shirt are being replaced for $10.35 and $6.10 each vs. the present cost of $5.75 and $6.75. Since units conduct physical training at least three and often five times a week, assume one sweat jacket and pants and three sets shorts and shirts, worth $133.75 a set.
1,045,690 physical fitness sets: $139,861,038
Coveralls worn by aviators and tank crews were made of fire retardant NOMEX. They were snug, facilitating egress from confined cockpits and (with boots and gloves and helmet) completely covered the body. Since this is the same design used by the Air Force and Navy, there was economy of scale. Still, generals were offended by soldiers who weren’t “uniform.” Now this safety equipment is replaced for Army aviators, by a NOMEX copy of the standard two-piece camouflage field uniform. Needless expense and exposure of the midriff to fire takes second place to regimentation. As an issue item, there is no readily available price for the aviation BDU, but the coveralls cost $190 to $230 commercially. Crewmen receive an initial issue of three, a heavy and light flying jacket and an additional flight suit about annually. Assuming similar costs, a set of three uniforms would be about $600. There are approximately 60,000 aviation personnel. Supposedly the armor crewmen will also have to change. Meanwhile refueling personnel, soaked with aviation gasoline and working near the static electricity generated by hovering helicopters, aren’t issued any NOMEX.
180,000 NOMEX uniforms: $37,800,000
The women’s neck tab is being replaced by one with a Velcro fastener. The new tab costs $5.10, let’s assume two sets. In another great leap forward the women’s black Oxford shoe with moccasin toe is being replaced by a smooth toe. Various models of this shoe cost from $29.85 for synthetic high gloss, to $49.00 for more durable natural leather – we’ll assume $80 for two pairs. The AG 489 skirt too will be replaced as of October 2002. It used to have a side zipper, but will now have a back zipper, pleat, two front darts, and a non-slip waist band. The new standard version costs $22.55, let’s assume the purchase of two. Both the beltless women’s AG 489 and AG 491 slacks are being replaced with a belted pair for $30.50 each, again let’s assume the purchase of two. All female rank insignia, service stripes and overseas bars were redesigned. The new politically correct terms will be “small” and “large” rather than “male” and “female” and cross dressing is now permitted. The insignia averages $2.10, let’s assume two sets of rank, plus a set of service stripes for $6.30.
247,670 women’s neck tabs: $1,263,117
247,670 pairs of women’s shoes: $9,906,800
247,670 skirts: $5,584,959
247,670 women’s slacks: $7,553,935
371,505 pairs of epaulettes and insignia: $780,161
These are mandatory replacements requiring disposal of current items, irrespective of condition. We have computed only direct costs, but consideration must be given to sunk costs. Prices for original items aren’t readily available and their depreciated value is almost an existential question. The beret for example supersedes both the garrison and service caps worn with the Class A and B uniform. Actually the situation is worse, the garrison cap must still be provided for initial training at a cost of $5.35 each only to be discarded for the beret.
The male enlisted service cap (also known as the saucer cap) costs $44. The enlisted female service cap is $52 and officers’ versions cost up to $86, but let’s assume one enlisted service cap and two enlisted garrison caps for each member. Because there is no wear-out period, most of the value is lost. Just a few months ago the military district of Washington was strictly ordered to always wear the service cap with the class A uniform, now we are told to never to wear it again.
Although a long-standing tradition, it is true that the service cap was expensive. In the long run its discontinuation will save money, but we could have continued with the garrison cap. The garrison cap was hardly useful, but it had at least the virtues of convenience. It was flat and easy to pack and could be worn under the belt indoors. The garrison cap was cooler, less expensive and easier to maintain than the beret and – oh yes – everyone already owned two or three of them. I suppose the Army’s hats-throwing mentality gets an early start at West Point graduations. And to think I didn’t believe in flying saucers.
2,091,380 garrison caps: $11,188,883
921,855 men’s service caps: $40,561,620
123,835 women’s service caps: $6,439,420
In this case, the sunk costs of the old headgear are even greater than its replacement. Assuming that, generally, the lost investment in replaced items is about as much as the cost of replacements, the true costs of the uniform changes are up to twice the calculated replacement costs. This doesn’t have to be – there were changes in which old clothing was not banned. The green jungle boot, for instance, has been succeeded by a black jungle boot of the same design. The green boot is no longer available for purchase, but can still be worn. The Enhanced Hot Weather Battle Dress Uniform succeeds the Hot Weather Battle Dress Uniform. The new ones must be purchased, but the old uniforms can still be worn (but not a la carte).
The maternity ensemble is also being changed: one long-sleeve shirt, two short-sleeve shirts, one tunic, two slacks and two skirts costing a total of $202.60. In the main age group of Army personnel, from ages 20 to 30, 18 percent of women become pregnant annually. This is to say that over 2 percent of the force, or about 20,700 are pregnant annually. After abortions and miscarriages, about 13,869 should proceed to term. It’s one way to make good the recruiting shortfall. Maternity uniforms are supplemental issue for enlisted personnel, costing about $2,809,859 annually, but at least previous stocks are being used. Abuse of the previous cash allowance has forced direct issue to be made from Military Clothing Sales.
The Army’s most striking uniforms are actually the oldest. The “thin gray line” of West Point cadets are wearing a uniform dating to 1813. The dress blue uniform derives from one adopted in 1851. Of course, utilitarian improvements should be made to the field uniform. And while the human body hasn’t changed, improvements in materials do occur. Although a tricorn hat would provide far more protection from glare or rain than the beret, I’m not suggesting that we wear them, or periwigs for that matter. We could, however, have kept almost any of the various dress and semi-dress uniform styles after the high neck “military collar” was abolished in 1925.
Military clothing should be classic and timeless, bringing it “up to date” is futile. If we were to copy the latest fashion, fashion would instantly change. In fact, that process has already begun. The cover story in the July 30 Army Times is “A New Look: A top designer turns your ideas into 12 new looks.” According to the Army Times, the Army Uniform Board met on Jan. 26, and seriously discussed yet another redesign of the Class A and B uniforms – that’s right, the ones we just replaced. You might conclude the Uniform Board doesn’t have enough sense to get out of the rain – come to think of it, umbrellas are not authorized. According to letters received by the Army Times, most soldiers would like to return to World War II-era khaki. Stan Herman, president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America provides a set of retro concept drawings for the article.
In 1779, the Continental Congress delegated authority for the prescription of uniforms to the general in chief (equivalent to the modern chief of staff). At the time, this meant the able hands of George Washington, but the practice has left the uniform vulnerable to the whim of every successor. Uniforms are simply not an emergent matter requiring expedited decisions by military command. Needless changes and expense will continue unless external concurrence is required.
Because the taxpayer is paying, congressional approval is appropriate. After all, the costs of uniform changes are higher than many budget line items. So high, it is convenient to use scientific notation. Our estimate of recent replacement costs is $687,000,000. Including sunk costs could drive the estimate to $1,370,000,000. Of course, this is just the Army – the same problem may pertain to the other services. The coup de grace is that Secretary Rumsfeld has just announced that the Army research program towards a HIV vaccine will be cut from the defense department. The program’s budget is $35 million, exactly the estimated cost of the new berets.
New Army Berets: $35 million
All the Emperor’s New Clothes: $1.37 Billion
An Army with Sensible Priorities: PRICELESS
Kirk O’Field is the nom de plume of a soldier.
WATCH: Mark Levin: Joe Biden has been a failure his entire career
WND Staff