Apparently the toe shoe is too unmanly and detrimental to a proper military appearance for American soldiers:
Vibram, one of the leading makers of the trendy footware, claims that its FiveFingers shoe “allows our anatomy to work naturally and move more freely.” FiveFinger fanatics claim that the shoe strengthens muscles in the feet and lower legs and improves their range of motion, balance and agility.
But in the military, it seems to come down to image, not performance, reports the Washington Post.
“Effective immediately, only those shoes that accommodate all five toes in one compartment are authorized to wear” because toe shoes “detract from a professional military image,” states the military notice.
I have no idea if Vibram’s claims are true, but I do rather agree with Thomas Ricks, who wrote “An army that is more concerned with looks versus results IS a matter of national security”.
It is possible for an effective army to look like bandits in the field* and still look presentable in garrison.
But, yeah, in general the Army tends to go way, way overboard on stuff like this. I’m sure General Washington would have simply said ‘Oh, Sergeant Major, those chaps in the five-toed shoes …’ and SgtMaj would have said ‘Righto General’ and the word would go out ‘knock it off with the shoes’.
But the US Army has had two-hundred some years to gather to themselves the lame, the pencil-necked and the lovers of paperwork. Happily the Marines don’t have _quite_ as much time for this nonsense.
* within reason. Bandit-ti attire that compromise expensive equipment or impedes one’s ability to operate is a bad idea. For example crossing bandoliers of machine gun belts: looks very banditto. Also promotes wear on the links, dings up the cartridges: it’s miss-fire city, maaaan
Comment by Brian Dunbar — June 30, 2011 @ 18:30
Possibly the worst-looking army in NATO in the late 1950s to early 1960s was the Canadian army. The powers-that-were decided that battledress (the field uniform the Canadians wore in World War II and Korea — similar to but better quality than the British uniform), was antiquated and needed replacing. So they stopped issuing it, but couldn’t figure out what to replace it with. A stop-gap was using black overalls for field wear (kinda like SS panzer troop uniform, but far sloppier). The overalls were sturdy, but not designed for the stress of being used in this way: they wore through at elbow and knee, the dye faded unevenly, and after a year or so, the Canadian combat troops looked like ragamuffins. (Source of information is Sean M. Maloney’s War Without Battles: Canada’s NATO Brigade in Germany 51-93).
Comment by Nicholas — July 1, 2011 @ 10:31
Haw. The US Army, in a similar situation, would find the troops re-dying their overalls to satisfy the CO, maintaining a wall-locker overall for inspections, a parade overall for marching, an office overall for office work. Official bulletins mandating proper color and placement for rank, branch, unit patches.
And they’d top it off with a beret.
Comment by Brian Dunbar — July 2, 2011 @ 11:57
Nothing wrong with a beret. I preferred the green beret we wore with combat uniforms (when not wearing helmets) to the bloody CF Green Balmoral that replaced it for my regiment. Snazzier looking, but much less comfortable to wear.
Comment by Nicholas — July 2, 2011 @ 23:25
My heartburn with the beret: in the U.S. Army they were the badge of office for special forces and airborne units. Then the army gave them to everyone, which devalued the meaning.
To me it’s all of a piece with the people insist on having special ‘no-score’ soccer games for tots, giving everyone who plays a sport a trophy.
If everyone is special then no one is.
Comment by Brian Dunbar — July 4, 2011 @ 11:29