Vindman's dress uniform reveals a tug of war using troops as political totems, experts say
Vindmans dress uniform reveals a tug of war using troops as political totems, experts say
By Alex Horton
General assignment reporter covering national and breaking news
November 19, 2019 at 1:32 p.m. EST
In his opening remarks at the impeachment hearing Tuesday, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman casually mentioned the other part of Washingtons intense focus.
The uniform I wear today is of the U.S. Army, said Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council who raised alarms over whether President Trump asked Ukraine for political help in exchange for military aid.
But Vindman and his dress uniform, adorned with a Purple Heart, Ranger Tab and Combat Infantry Badge, have become proxy symbols, either bolstering claims of Democrats or used as evidence by Republicans that Vindman is using his service as a shield from criticism.
And while active-duty service members routinely wear their full dress uniforms to testify on Capitol Hill, security experts say the scrutiny of Vindmans uniform has become another data point in the politicization of the space between civil society and the military.
....
President Trump mentioned Vindman in a Cabinet meeting during the hearing in an apparent swipe at his dress selection. I never saw the man, I understand now he wears his uniform when he goes in, Trump said.
....
Alex Horton is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post. He previously covered the military and national security for Stars and Stripes, and served in Iraq as an Army infantryman. Follow https://twitter.com/AlexHortonTX
MyOwnPeace
(16,926 posts)at a "Republican" hero - in Congress:
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Dave in VA
(2,037 posts)He is wearing his army service uniform.
Take a look at the difference:
http://www.uniforms-4u.com/c-army-uniforms-1076.aspx
Hope this helps everyone understand the terms better...
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,425 posts)Not that I had much choice in the matter.
Dave in VA
(2,037 posts)My dad was WWII navy and my father-in-law was an Honor Guard in the Army. Tomb of the Unknowns, etc.
Learned a great deal from both of them.
TEB
(12,841 posts)You have to show all awards or badges
MyOwnPeace
(16,926 posts)the criticism directed at Lt. Colonel Vindman was that he "was" in uniform, as if to show that he's "military" and deserving of some special attention.
If they can say that about him, then the same should go to Ollie:
"In 1988 North was indicted for conspiracy to defraud the government and resigned from the Marine Corps. At his 1989 trial, he was found guilty of obstructing the U.S. Congress, destroying documents, and accepting an illegal gratuity and was sentenced to two years probation. In 1991, after a prosecution witness claimed that his testimony had been tainted, all charges against North were dropped."
Let's hope that Lt. Colonel Vindman has a more worthy record to justify his "uniform."
Dan
(3,554 posts)3Hotdogs
(12,374 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,425 posts)Lt. Col. Vindmans uniform spoke loud. His humanity spoke louder.
By Robin Givhan
Fashion critic
November 19, 2019 at 6:23 p.m. EST
The uniform did what uniforms are designed to do.
When Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman appeared before the House Intelligence Committee, his striking presence in his serviceable eyeglasses and his military uniform exuded authority, ferocity and patriotism. As one of the Democratic committee members noted admiringly, Vindman was wearing a Purple Heart on his uniform. He also had a Combat Infantry Badge pinned on the left side of his chest, indicating hed been involved in active ground combat. For civilian viewers, it was helpful to understand the meanings of some of the insignia on his jacket. But even without the details, anyone looking at the vast collage of medals spread across his chest could understand the story they told: that Vindman is one of the many dedicated individuals who choose to stand guard so that others might sleep easily.
Military uniforms command respect. Theyre also intimidating. Uniforms are a testament to chains of command, order and service. When worn by a group of men and women, they create a visual wall, an impenetrable and emotionless barrier.
....
Stewart was right to fear the uniform. He was right to be bothered by its potential to add substance to Vindmans words. But the impact of what the witness wore didnt come solely from the golden epaulets and shiny buttons and medals. The uniform carried weight because Vindman did not disappear into it. He was not an automaton. He was not stoic.
He was a son who reassured his worried father in his opening statement: Do not worry. I will be fine for telling the truth. He was a military officer who called himself never partisan. And he was a vulnerable human who began the morning with a powerfully kind gesture to the only other person in the room who really knew how he was feeling.
....
Robin Givhan is a staff writer and The Washington Post's fashion critic, covering fashion as a business, as a cultural institution and as pure pleasure. A 2006 Pulitzer Prize winner for criticism, Givhan has also worked at Newsweek/Daily Beast, Vogue magazine and the Detroit Free Press. Follow https://twitter.com/RobinGivhan
malthaussen
(17,193 posts)... find it necessary to waste time critiquing what a witness wears to testify. SMH. If that ain't form over substance, I don't know what is.
--Mal
Moe Joe MoFo
(28 posts)Hey Donnie! At least Vindman has a uniform to wear, you cowardly little phony!
LizaB
(1 post)While I understand Lt. Col. Vindman wearing his uniform, if the choice were possible, I would have gone with the (I am not a military person) Class A uniform (dress green service). It would have included all his medals and decorations, but the message would have been slightly less "hot," than that conveyed by the dress blue uniform.
BumRushDaShow
(128,904 posts)for certain types of events/situations and it had been stated that he wore the appropriate uniform.