Previous Page
your views
Camoflawed Reaction
I read your cover story, “Camoflawed” [May 2014], first with interest, then with incredulity, and finally with anger. I believe you can trace the answer to how the military ended up with 10 camouflage patters to interservice rivalry, muddled thinking, and poor leadership.
Blue camouflage uniforms for sea-going sailors were particularly interesting. From whom or what was the leadership trying to hide our sailors? I find it hardly credible that the Marine Corps leadership could disobey orders to share their pattern had they received such an order or that the Army could not develop its own pattern after more than a decade of trying.
Finally, I became angry when reading about the multibillion dollars spent on development of useless and unnecessary uniforms. The … leaders involved in these fiascoes are also the same types who claim the military cannot afford benefits including health care and retirement-pay costs. With the poor leadership and muddled thinking used to waste billions, of course they cannot see how the military can sustain millions in benefit costs.
When you are wasting billions, it must be hard to figure out where the millions will come from.
— Cmdr. Herschel Rector, USN (Ret)
Life Member
via email
“We Marines want our enemies to know they’re up against Marines during combat.”
—Col. J.E. Vesely, USMC (Ret)
The current camouflage controversy is similar to other uniform changes that have proliferated at an accelerating rate for decades. I enlisted in the Navy in the mid-1960s, not long after the flat hat, [which] had survived a century, was eliminated. In the next years, enlisted [personnel] went from dungarees to uniforms that looked like gas station attendants’ (with the never-used drawstring holes at the bottom hem) and so on. Soon we all dressed alike, and then we parted ways and returned to more traditional uniforms. In the midst of [it] all, officers and chiefs lost the dress khakis. But they gained the [certified Navy twill] uniforms that melted in fires! Corfam shoes were a great idea for foot illnesses, too. Later came the Gulf wars — or conflicts. And somewhere, someone had the bright idea that all servicemembers everywhere, including downtown in cities, should wear combat gear to signal “We are a nation at war.” It frankly became, and remains, a costume party. Perhaps the worst idea was for the Navy blue camo uniforms. If camouflage is to make one harder to see, whom are sailors at sea hiding from? I agree though, the uniforms would make [sailors] harder to see if they fell overboard!
At one point in my 31 years, it was recommended that each service chief should be authorized to make one, and only one, uniform change during their tenure on their Pentagon throne. That was a good idea.
— Capt. Alan Dooley, USN (Ret)
Life Member
Waterloo, Ill.
I had the honor to be the chief of staff of the Marine Corps Systems Command when the Corps decided to establish a program to replace our then-current combat utility uniform.
As I recall, we had two objectives: first, to produce a more effective uniform, and second, to return to a distinctive Marine Corps utility uniform. We met both objectives. If you take a close look at the uniforms each of the services wear while in garrison, I suspect you’ll find that each is distinctive from the others. Why should it be any different while deployed? We Marines want our enemies to know they’re up against Marines during combat. In the “Camoflawed” article, the author accused the Marine Corps of “intransigence.” I think that if he had tried hard, he could have applied a few negative labels to the other services as a result of their efforts, spanning 11 years, to produce an effective combat uniform.
— Col. J.E. Vesely, USMC (Ret)
Life Member
Morristown, Tenn.