And the rule was, if they enlisted they had to shave, if they were drafted, they did not have to shave.
Thus, until this order, Sikhs could NOT enlist unless they agree to shave. Thus Sikhs are part of the pool of recruits the Military has traditionally said they did not want, for Sikhs and their beards did not confirm to what the US Military viewed as normal for military personnel.
The Western norm for Military hair was set by Scipio Africanus around 200 BC. Scipio Africanus then lead that Army into the Battle of Zama and defeated Hannibal. Scipio Africanus had been part of the Army defeated at Cannae by Hannibal and from that defeat Scipio Africanus ordered all of his soldiers under his command to be clean shaved and have short hair.
Prior Roman Armies reflected Roman tradition of long beards and long hair. Scipio Africanus changes in army hair would become the new Roman norm till about 150 AD, then resume as the Roman Norm with Constantine around 300 AD (along with the norm of no tatoos, early Christians viewed Tatoos as an attack on God's perfect work, the Human Body and thus banned by the early Christians). Clean Shaved and short hair has been the tendency in the Western World when it comes to the Military ever since. Clean Shaved and Short hair goes in and out of fashion, but overall the Western Norm (The last big movement to Shirt Hair and Clean Shaved face was with the French Revolution, which also included the shift from leggings to pants for men). The US Civil War was a big time for beards and short hair, but that died out by the 1880s. Long hair and Beards were part of the "Revolt" of the 1960s, but did not last even to the late 1970s (and then did not affect most men, most men remained clean shaved and short hair, but longer then the military cuts of the 1950s).
The Sikhs are NOT of that Western Tradition of Clean Shaved Face and short hair. The Sikhs have their own military tradition which includes their beards. Thus NOT viewed as possible recruits even in the 1970s when the US Army was much larger then it is now. The US Army in the 1970s instead went to recruit women, because the Army could.
The Air Force, Navy and Marines were forbidden by law to recruit more then a few percentages of their total recruits from the female population. No such legal restriction applied to the US Army. The difference in law had to do with the National Guard and African American Soldiers in 1947. The US Army still had a segregated Army in 1947 and Congress, to avoid having to address the issue of integration, gave the US Army the right to determine for itself who it could recruit, while putting restrictions on who the Navy, Marines and Air Force could recruit. Thus how many women and African Americans the Army could recruit was left up to the US Army itself. In the 1970s the US Army used this rule to permit itself to be 10% female, way more then the 2-3 % of the other services, a limit set by Congress in 1947.
The problem is, while women and African Americas solved the problem of finding better quality recruits in the 1970s, today those options have been fully exploited. African Americans remain a source of recruits to this day, but the number of African Americans who enlist today is DOWN from the 1975-2000 period. This drop in African American enlistments is the number one reason for the drop in over all quality of US Troops. African Americans did not enlist after 2002 and other recruits had to be found, that was done by reducing the quality of the recruits by increasing the number of non high school graduates and increasing the number of recruits with minor criminal records.
Side note: When I was in the National Guard in the 1980s, in National Guard Units the white enlisted, NCOs and Officers tended to be better then the African Americans, mostly because the whites had been member 10-20 years and the African Americans just six years of less. On the other hand, when I had to deal with regular Army personnel, the opposite rule came into play. i.e. the African American Officers and NCOs (who I interacted with, they were assigned to evaluate my National Guard unit) where heads and shoulders above the white offices and NCOs. That was my impression of them and I mention it for the drop in African American enlistments after 2002 is the primary reason for the decline in quality of the enlisted ranks since 2002 and the Military is looking for a replacement for even with the end of the War in Iraq, African Americans are NOT enlisting anywhere near the numbers they did in the 1975-2002 period.
The various tricks used to get recruits have run out and the Military is looking to expand the pool of recruits, given that African Americans seem NOT to want to enlist as much as they did in the 1975-2002 period. Thus Homosexuals can now be recruited, women are being looked at for actual combat roles and these changes to increase the pool of people who might enlist.
In simple terms, the Sikhs help prove my point, they are of the pool of potential recruits the Military traditionally did not accept, but are now willing to accept for the military needs to improve the pool of recruits. The Military is getting enough recruits (which include foreign nationals, mostly from Central America) but the quality is not what it was in the 1990s. In the 1990s the US Army saw it lose 1/3 of its total strength and that permitted the Army to improve its enlisted ranks, but that improvement was short lived after 9/11. You had a sudden round of enlistments to fight in Afghanistan, but once Iraq was invaded the number of people willing to enlist took a nose dive. Do to that drop in the number of recruits quality went down (any recruit is better then no recruit).
Now, with the Military looking to cut back, it can improve the quality of the people it enlists, but are having a hard time getting all of the better recruits it needs. Thus groups the Military previously rejected are now being looked at. Thus this change as while as the changes as to recruiting Homosexuals and increasing the slots open to women. All have to do with improving the quality of the enlisted personnel to what it had been in the 1990s.
= new reply since forum marked as read
