Military Uniforms and Standards - Essay Example

Military Uniforms and Standards Introduction Uniform is a set of standard clothing widely used virtually everywhere – in business organizations, education, sports, church, government, health care, and military and paramilitary organizations. Due to similarity of uniforms, it is believed that they indicate membership of a person to a specific group and bring homogeneity to a group of otherwise diverse people (Pratt & Rafaeli 2001). The use of uniform in the militaries is a bright example of how standard clothing can be the largest set of symbols and meaning in organization. The uniform is the best known distinctive feature of any military unit of the past and present. The word ‘uniform’ derives from two Latin words: ‘una’ (which means ‘one’) and ‘forma’ (which means ‘form’). In the common meaning of this term, military uniform is a set of clothes with a specific design, color and symbols prescribed or traditionally worn by all members of a particular military unit (Pfanner, 2004). This essays seeks to identify the most important features of the military uniform and explore their meaning in the context of modern days. Main Discussion The importance of military uniforms and their appearance can be better understood from looking at the origins of special military clothing. In the ancient times and in the Middle Ages feudal lords, kings and princes dressed their military servants and followers in the same colors and heraldic signs in order to distinguish them from the followers of their enemies during war and from representatives of other social classes in peaceful time. A distinct uniform and corresponding heraldic sign was one of the most essential factors in the ancient warfare enabling soldiers immediately determine the belonging of combatant and at the same time maintain the unity of their group on the battlefield (Martin and Ullrich, 1963). However, in the medieval times there was barely a single feudal lord rich enough to maintain a standing army and, therefore, uniforms were extremely diverse. It was not until the end of the 17th century that the growth of commercial trades and development of centralized states led to emergence of large standing armies and typical military uniforms in the modern sense of this word. Those days on the military uniform started to increasingly acquire the meaning of patriotism and pride going beyond its initial purpose of mere identification. As a famous historian of European military costumes wrote, “The esprit de corps of standing armies on the Continent owed much to the jealously preserved traditions linked with their uniforms” (Martin and Ullrich, 1963, p.139). Eventually, the color of uniforms worn be large national standing armies became traditional. Thus, the British army adopted their famous red uniforms that lasted for more than two centuries until the transformation of warfare methods and strategies required camouflage clothes; the Russian army stuck to green uniforms, the French and Austrian militaries were dressed in white colors, and the Prussian troops wore blue colors (Keegan, 1993). These colors dominated uniforms of all national militaries while the distinction between various regiments within the army was achieved either through use of different colors of trousers, buttons, cuffs or other accessories. For example, up to now the five regiments of the British Foot Guards differ from each other due to the particular grouping of their uniform buttons (Wright, 1965). However, despite these differences the function of military uniforms worn those days was similar: to demonstrate belonging of the person to the army of a state showing the difference between particular branches or regiments without going beyond one unique style. This remains one of the key functions of the military uniform used nowadays. The importance of military uniforms worn by modern armies also act as a symbol of order and discipline that have traditionally been considered the most essential feature of military organizations. A variety of signs and symbols such as badges, epaulets and other displayed on the military uniform emphasize the strict hierarchical structure of the military organization. Nowadays, the majority of national armies have special standards, regulations and policies covering the use of military uniforms. Such regulations normally oblige members of the military units to properly maintain the appearance of uniforms and corresponding signs and symbols. For example, the uniform regulations and policies currently practiced by the US Army contain almost four hundred pages of various rules and requirements (Pfanner, 2004). This aspect of importance of the military uniform is perfectly summarized in the US Army uniform standard: “The Army is a uniformed service where discipline is judged, in part, by the manner in which a soldier wears a prescribed uniform, as well as by the individual’s appearance. Therefore, a neat and well-groomed appearance by all soldiers is fundamental to the army and contributes to building the pride and esprit essential to an effective military force. A vital ingredient of the Army’s strength and military effectiveness is the pride and self-discipline that American soldiers bring to their Service through a conservative military image. […] Soldiers must take pride in their appearance at all times, in or out of uniform, on and off duty. […].” (Army Regulations 670, Article 1.a, 2002). This statement emphasized the importance of such historic functions of the military uniform as identification of the person’s belonging to a certain group, promotion of patriotism, and strict discipline. Distinction from civilians Another important function of the military uniform is to draw the line between the militaries and civil population. The need for such distinction was first emphasized simultaneously with the onset of large standing armies in the 17th century. The so-called ‘law of war’, a set of written and traditional rules regulating warfare, brought forth the assumption that soldiers of regular armies should be easily distinguished from the rest of population by the military uniform. Therefore, only persons wearing the military uniform were allowed to take part in the combat while the civilians were not allowed to perform the military functions (Pfanner, 2004). In the modern days the issue of distinction between the militaries and civilians has become even more important: in fact, this distinction is the founding stone of modern warfare. Thus, Article 48 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions contains the following statement: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to a conflict are required at all times to distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly must conduct their operations only against military objectives” (Article 48, 1977). Although this statement contains no mention of uniforms, there is little doubt that it is precisely the military uniform that enables parties of a conflict to comply with this basic requirement of the international humanitarian law. Psychological warfare Psychological effects of the military uniforms other than promotion of the group’s unity and boding also deserve mentioning. Historically, the design of military uniforms was meant to inspire respect and fear. This was achieved through inclusion of specific costume design features that enhanced broadness or height of the wearer thus making his appearance more meaningful for civilians and intimidating for the enemy (Martin and Ullrich, 1963). Modern operational uniforms have almost lost this traditional feature due to a different nature of contemporary warfare, but formal dress uniforms that are not used during combat largely preserved these features. Camouflage One of the most essential functions of the military uniform is to ensure safety and comfort of the wearer. At present the typical military uniform used during combat is camouflage clothing that is designed to adapt to the colors of the combat area. Soldiers wearing such uniform are less exposed to the risk of being targeted by the enemy. The improved functionality and protective features of modern uniforms resulted in diminished disciplinary requirements and made the military uniform much less identifiable. Instead, the criteria of flexibility, visibility and sometime even monetary cost became the determining factors in the appearance of modern military uniforms. The function of identification traditionally attributed to the uniform was largely overtaken by the advanced communication and visualization technologies (Pfanner, 2004). The tendency to improve protective features of the military uniform is likely to strengthen in the future and will inevitable lead to the loss of traditional important features. A traditional formal dress uniform used during combat is likely to become a burden for the wearer as distinctive signs, colors and symbols easily recognized at distance may be taken advantage of by the enemy. At the same time, it is difficult to question the fact that improved safety of soldiers wearing new uniforms is less important than any of the above-mentioned functions of uniforms of the past. Military Standards In the increasingly globalized and technically diverse modern world, the issue of standardization has gained overwhelming importance. Introduction of clear uniform standards has several essential advantages that include improved reliability and compatibility of goods, compliance with certain requirements and decreased cost of production, operation and maintenance of goods (Perry, 1994). The military have a long history of developing and use of specific standards in different areas including goods, construction, services, health care, etc. Military standards represent a large class of standards initially applied for the military purposes. The key reason for development of the specific military standards was to ensure that goods supplied to the military meet the needs of the latter. Thus, in the United States where the Army is the major domestic buyer of goods, the standards created by the Department of Defense were implemented to make sure that goods and services purchased and used by the military are compatible with the needs of the Army. Development of such military standards had enormous effects on virtually every sector of the US economy. Although the Department of Defense has taken significant efforts over recent years to decrease the use of military standards and replace them with less strict commercial ones, a large number of US and foreign companies continue to rely on military standards in design works, quality assurance and manufacturing of various goods (both military and non-military) and services (IHS, 2008). One example of the influence of military standards is the tolerancing standard. The growth of demand for various mechanical elements and assemblies manufactured across the globe brought forth the need for accuracy that became the critical factor in gaining the competitive advantage in the market. As a result, the idea of positioning tolerancing was introduced and readily adopted by the Army that included it in corresponding military standards. Eventually, the military standard for tolerancing accuracy transformed into the commonly applied standard ASA Y14.5 released by the Unified American Standard Association in 1956 (Puncochar, 1990, p. 1). The influence of military standards is especially noticeable in those non-military industries that produce goods or services. Companies involved in these industries willingly use military standards that are cheap and highly reliable to decrease the cost of production and improve quality and compatibility of produced goods. The use of military standards is justified solely by the marketing considerations. The common perception of the US military as a highly disciplined and reputable organization contributes to the common acceptance of standards developed by the military too. Therefore, even mentioning of military standard in relation to some product or service can be viewed as a hidden advertisement (IHS, 2008). Military standards in health care also had significant effects on the development of current norms and practices of non-military health care. For example, numerous advances and improvement achieved in the area of military medicine and hygiene at the times of the Civil Ware eventually transformed into standards of non-military medicine in the late 19th century. Subsequently, these achievements contributed to further development of the US health care system in the beginning of the last century (Anderson, 2008). Conclusion From its onset, the military uniform became one of the most essential and distinguishable attributes of a soldier. There are several elements that contributed to the importance of military uniforms. Firstly, the primary function of the military uniform was identification of person’s belonging to a certain group. Although this function was in place since the ancient times, it was not before the emergence of large standing armies in the 17th century that identification turned into the main purpose of wearing the military uniform. Secondly, uniforms and insignia worn by the military of the past and present promote order, disciplines and subordination. Although this function has diminished these days due to the change of warfare methods and introduction of new type of camouflage uniforms, the traditional formal dress uniform did not disappear. The use of such uniforms in peaceful times and for ceremonial purposes clearly shows that the Army continues to adhere to and maintain the traditional functions attributed to the military uniform in the past. Therefore, the military uniform has barely lost its importance as a symbol of belonging to a highly disciplined and ordered organization with high reputation. Thirdly, modern military uniform used during combat is a critically important element of a soldier’s fighting kit. Improved protective features of the uniform, coupled with better flexibility, reliability and functionality contribute greatly to the performance of soldiers during combat. Although the traditional aspects of the military uniform were largely sacrificed to achieve these improvements, the need for such operational clothing became the inevitable results of drastic changes in the methods and techniques of warfare. Instead, the formal dress clothing never used in combat turned into the sole carrier of the traditional meaning and importance of the military uniform. While the military uniform has very long history, the origins of contemporary military standards are relatively recent. However, their importance for both military and non-military sectors of economy is impressive. Military standards initially created to ensure suitable performance, accuracy, compatibility and improved repair and maintainability of equipment, spread immensely to become the benchmark of national importance. The benefits of military standards include also high quality of equipment and services. Perhaps it was also the reputation of the Army that contributed to the high popularity of military standards in non-military industries. Discipline, accuracy and practicality that have been traditionally considered the distinct features of the military were embodied in military standards. Works Cited Anderson, A., A Brief History of Military Contributions to Ethical Standards for Research Involving Human Subjects, Scribd, 2008 Army Regulation 670-1 issued by the Headquarters Department of the Army on 1 July 2002, Washington DC, and effective as of 1 August 2002, Chapter 7, Art. 1.a (Personal appearance policies) of US Army Regulation 670-1 [retrieved November 4, 2009 from http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf] IHS, 2008, U.S. Military Standards: Effective Acquisition, Reference and Use, retrieved November 4, 2009 from http://aero-defense.ihs.com/products/standards/military-specifications/mil-specs-learn-more.htm Keegan, J., A History of Warfare, Pimlico, London, 1993, pp. 131-136. Martin, P., and Ullrich, H., Military Costume: A Short History of European Uniform, Stuttgart: Keller, 1963 Perry, W., 1994, “Military Standards Conversion: A New Way of Doing Business”, Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments [retrieved November 4, 2009 from http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/military/milperry.htm] Pfanner, T. “Military Uniforms and the Law of War,” International Review of the Red Cross 86 (2004): pp.93–130 Pratt, M. G. & Rafaeli, A. 2001. Symbols as a language of organizational relationships. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23: 93-13 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Article 48, 1977 [retrieved November 4, 2009 from http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079] Puncochar, D., Interpretation of geometric dimensioning and tolerancing, Industrial Press, 1990 Wright, Q., 1965, A Study of War, 2nd edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965, pp. 145-151. Read More