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.

  • Sequentialsilence@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    4 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days 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.

    • d00phy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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