Quote:
Originally Posted by
GlockMeister 
| Of course you mean those uniforms that would be or are very similar the the UN uniforms? lol |
That's not the outfit I had in mind. Think back to my original comparison. My comparison was with an organization rather more sinister.
Besides, the UN doesn't have a uniform, just those Blue Berets of Shame worn by the unfortunate troops seconded to UN control by their native governments when they are under UN command.
I really feel that the Army has made a serious mistake with this changeover to a blue uniform for their service dress uniform. Yes, I know that up until the Spanish-American War the Army uniform was an indigo blue, and that even after the Army went to the high-collared khaki uniform for service dress, the Army maintained the Dress Blue uniform for formal occasions, and Mess Dress Blue for super-formal occasions. Most soldiers not assigned to the Old Guard or White House or Embassy duties, even officers, might not have occasion to wear Army Blue even once a year in the course of a hitch. They still don't. Army Blue is equivalent to black tie in the civilian world, and Mess Dress to white tie. How often do you need to wear a tux or a dinner jacket each year?
In a century, the Army as gone from the high-collared khaki uniform, to the brown sack coat type uniform in the mid-1920s, to the Army Green uniform in the early 1960s for a routine dress uniform.
But at least no one ever mistook someone in Army uniform for anything but a soldier.
These new blue blouses look like something I'd expect a big city cop to wear. The black berets that Shaliskili inflicted on the Army are bad enough. Now, when our soldiers leave their bases, they'll look like traffic cops in black berets. Is that the message the Army wants to send to the world?
