53
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by zaxvenz@lemm.ee to c/news@lemmy.world

The US defence secretary’s decision to review military standards on combat and physical fitness and appearance opens a Pandora’s box of widely differing rules among the services.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sequentialsilence@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago

How much you want to bet we’re going to start having military parades to “show off our strength”.

The US doesn’t do military parades. George Orwell said it best in 1941, "Why is the goose-step not used in England? There are, heaven knows, plenty of army officers who would be only too glad to introduce some such thing. It is not used because the people in the street would laugh. Beyond a certain point, military display is only possible in countries where the common people dare not laugh at the army."

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

No, I think this is going a different direction, disqualifying women for certain roles, even if they meet the physical qualifications. Keep in mind that whenever this administration states their goals, they are lying. Often, their goals are explicitly the opposite of their public justification.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 7 points 1 week ago

Frankly, as a citizen of a formerly-allied country that the US is now openly discussing annexing by force, I'm fine with them crippling their military with absurd rules and standards. Go nuts, Hesgeth. Pile on the racism and sexism and whatever. Kick out any pilots or gunnery officers or whatever that are good at their jobs but that can't run a mile in whatever arbitrary time you pick. Ensure there are lots of well-trained former military personnel in your country that are bitter at your government but no longer under its control. I'm sure it'll go great.

[-] Zorsith 6 points 1 week ago

And here i was thinking about an entire third different direction; using "fitness" and "readiness" requirements the purge the military

[-] d00phy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The US may not have military parades in a traditional sense, but they absolutely have something similar: at just about any outdoor sporting event from the college level to pro, there’s some sort of military “thing.” Whether it be a fly-over, funded by the Pentagon, or a color guard there for the national anthem. Also, at NASCAR races, the Army either used to or still does sponsor a car. Those are the examples I can think of off the top of my head. It’s not. North Korea or USSR by any means, but it’s kind of always there.

Edit: correcting some misspellings

[-] shiroininja@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

What a beautiful quote by Orwell.

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 week ago

Here comes the skirt uniform for female soldiers. If they can't force them out by law, they will make them sex objects and then shrug when they get assaulted.

[-] LastWish@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

We have "dress" skirt uniforms, unless you're alluding to "combat" skirts.

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I didn't think the skirt was mandatory? At any rate, I would put nothing past them. I mean they won't be allowed in combat if the govt can help it. If they can't due to court rulings? Who knows. Skirts wouldn't shock me. With camo hosiery.

[-] LastWish@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Sounds more like bad porn writing than Dress and Appearance!

Skirts are optional. One of the authorized items that can be worn by women.

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sounds more like bad porn writing than Dress and Appearance!

Sounds exactly right!

[-] flightyhobler@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago
[-] riyehn@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Fucking around with the military is incredibly dangerous for both Trump and the country. This is an administration that (a) openly disregards service members (to the point of sending them into battle after publishing the war plans), and (b) directly disobeys court orders.

That's a pretty volatile combination. Soldiers are required to refuse illegal orders. What happens when Trump gives orders that clearly violate a direct court order? Will the entire military really make the same decision to comply or refuse? What happens when individual units come to different conclusions?

It may just be about dress codes for now, but Trump's way of governing, when applied to the military, is a recipe for actual civil war.

this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
53 points (100.0% liked)

News

28442 readers
3605 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS