When looking at photos of American soldiers and local citizens together in Iraq and Afghanistan, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out who the US soldiers are in any photo. They are the only ones for 1000 miles wearing “camouflage”. Isn’t the whole point of camouflage to make you “blend into the background”? The soldiers might as well be wearing bright red coats and have white plumes on their hats.
It seems to me if you really want to blend in, you might wear dark slacks, white shirt, wear a 5:00 shadow of beard growth (for the men) and probably dye your hair black. Sort of like what EVERY Iraqi on urban street corners is wearing. If I had a family member over there, that is the camouflage I would want them to wear.
Maybe I am missing something here. Is the point of camouflage to blend in, or is it to scream, “US soldier, right here!”? Or is camouflage simply a term like paisley or polka dot to describe a pattern of material and no longer has anything remotely to do with protection?
Our finest of armies would look somewhat less professional if they were tearing around in flip-flops and 20 year old Michael Jackson t-shirts. Still, I think you misunderstand what camo accomplishes. It’s not some Predator-like system (though the newest stuff is pretty good), it just sort of breaks up the outline and helps protect the soldier against the elements. Besides, even if our troops were to put on the Members Only jackets, it’s sort of tough to ‘blend in’ wearing your Interceptor vest.
Yeah, you’re pretty much missing the point. The troops you see on the streets of Baghdad aren’t supposed to blend in. They’re peace keepers - cops, basically, and they’re supposed to be visible. The point of camoflauge isn’t to blend in with crowds, it’s to blend in with the enviroment. Put one of those troops out on a sand dune, and see how easy he is to spot.
Besides, soldiers disguising themselves as civilians is, I believe, a violation of the Geneva convention.
All branches of the service have different uniforms, each one appropriate for the task at hand (theoretically).
However, the overriding purpose of uniforms is to identify those wearing them as members of a professional military force, required to obey and entitled to protections of the Geneva Convention by being so outfitted.
It’s also to deliberately designate soldiers as legitimate targets. By wearing a uniform, a soldier is efffectively saying, “Shoot at me - and not at the civilians.”
Plus, just for fun, let’s pretend the Pentagon does have some soldiers out there running around disguised as the normal Iraqi Joe on the street. Odds are they wouldn’t be bragging about it to the press, so we wouldn’t know about it.
No. Camoflauge patterns are designed to give a human body an amorphous shape which is not instantly recognized by the human eye. The application of standard camoflauge, or disruptive pattern material, is different that that of say, a ghillie suit, which is designed specifically to make the wearer indistinguishable from their environment. We have an incredible ability to recognize threats based on very simple geometric relationships. When a soldier sees an enemy in the field, quite often what distinguishes the human form is visibility of the triangle created by head and hands, or the body/legs ratio. Wearing camo (on face and hands, in addition to clothing) breaks up these forms by obscuring the edges or naturally bright or shaded regions of the form. The net result is that a soldier scanning for an enemy would take an extra second or two to identify him, since such identification requires the deeper thought process of distinguishing an anomaly against the background, instead of the instant and almost subconscious identification of human form. Some soldiers will take to wearing two different camoflauge patterns for top and bottom, to further exploit this phenomenon.
Along with all the reasons mentioned above, doesn’t military camo serve to intimidate as well? Were I Joe Q. Citizen in an occupied country, I may give a second thought to screwing around or drawing attention to something unsavory I was doing if I saw a bunch of BDUs down the block. Naturally, to some zealots, the uniform is nothing but a bullseye, but if I were planning on sabotaging a bridge or something, I’d make damn sure there were no camoflauge uniforms around.
(What’s with a Pit thread turning into a GQ of sorts? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.)
There’s also the issue of discipline. A soldier in a clean, smart, utilitarian uniform feels like the professional and highly trained warrior we send him ou to be. Soldiers who dress like civillians (like slobs, more likely than not, since these guys wouldn’t be patrolling the Baghdad daytime emmies) will act like civillians. Sloppy and undisciplined.
Plus, and let’s face it, aside from some special forces masters of disguise, our boys would stick out like a sore thumb out there. In or out of uniform.
The new uniform (ACU, in Armyspeak) is nowhere near as blue as the pictures would lead you to believe. Still not sure how it is better than some good ol’ fashioned feld grau, but if the troops are happy with it, who am I to complain?
So is torturing your prisoners. Hasn’t stopped this administration. Just get Gonzalez to come up with some definitions of “disguising” or “civilians” that make it all hunky-dory.
Everything else aside (I kind of like what they did with the pockets), I’m not wild about that camo pattern.
The “splotches” are too numerous and small and blend together at any kind of distance, just like that crappy desert pattern used in Desert Storm. It doesn’t break up the outline at all.
I’m not looking forward to 2006, when I will be forced to purchase that abomination.