Not appropriate for a soldier?

[Yaish]

Two issues:

First, military service is about obeying the lawful orders of your superiors. If the officer in question has the authority to determine proper dress for civilian attire, then its a lawful order. Normally in the US this authority rests with a base Commanding General, who issues such orders or delegates that authority to Unit Commanders. For example, in the US Marines wearing tank tops or untucked shirts is against regulations, as is not wearing a belt in any item with belt loops.
If the officer in question lacks that authority then piss on him, its not a lawful order. If he tries to give a subordinate any problems because of it he could get in trouble. (and here the real world enters into play: He can probably make your life hell and get away with it, and you can probably complain but without a sympathetic commander good luck)

Now, the second point. Yes its true that military members agree to adhere to and follow a second set of laws and rules. In the US its the UCMJ, I'm sure other countries have their own versions. However, anyone who thinks they are living free and clear of any authority because they arent in the military is sadly deluded.
Try walking down the street naked.
Try walking into your neighbors house (naked or not, I dont care) and taking their home theater system.
Try driving with the pedal to the floor as you go down the freeway.
Try ignoring the tax collector.

I'm sure you get the picture. You've just gotten used to the rules and authority you are familiar with and rarely recognize it. For long term military members its much the same thing. You feel just as 'free' once you've gotten used to the rules. For the most part the difference in the level of authority over civilians and the military is merely a matter of appearances. (with a few granted large exceptions)

[davedove]

I don't know how it is in Finland, but in the US commanders (I can't say how far down the authority falls) can dictate how a soldier dresses, even in civilian attire. Granted, it isn't pushed most of the time, but if attire is deemed "unsuitable" it can be barred from wear.

It sounds to me like the commander in question suffers the same misunderstanding of the kilt as most of the populace.

[James]

It might not be written down, but there is a tacit understanding when accepting commissioned rank that one will adhere to certain codes of behaviour.

That includes such things as the manner of dressing: and I well recall how just as I was required to obtain my uniforms, hats etc, from specified tailors, because my regiment required certain styles of cut, and colour. I was also required to adhere to a certain off duty dress code.

This all might seem overly restrictive to some: but it is a part of the ethos of the officer corps of any army, and oddly enough enhances the fighting ability of that army. For it is a shared thing amongst the soldiers of say a regiment, a part of what binds together first the officers, and then the other ranks.

Now such things as the adherence to an off duty/civilian attire dress code, might appear ridiculous in this day and age: but it is also linked to the very necessary discipline, which also binds a unit together when life gets too interesting.

So rather than quibbling about not being allowed to wear the kilt when as I understand it carrying out a military duty: the attitude should be of pride in holding a commission, in an army of high repute.

It is some years since I was a serving officer, but if time travel was possible-and I had to serve again: I would hope it was with an army which insisted on the preservation of such standards.

James

[Graham]

Graham, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to disagree with both the "High Protector of the Forum" and also someone whose views I have come to respect as they, mostly, mirror my own. However, in this case I have to disagree. You claim to not want to have your "freedoms, beliefs, or conscience compromised or dictated by other men". I can understand and symathize with that, but IMHO without Ackwell and all the others that have dedicated themselves to military service, or have died in the past defending our freedoms, we would have our freedoms, beliefs, etc. much more compromised, and possibly eliminated. I know, or believe based on your postings, that you are a pacifist and I would love for the world to be a place that every issue could be resolved peacefully, but we are not there yet, and I am not sure we ever will ever get there. Too many people with too many views that they feel are the "only" correct ones and have to convert the world, violently if necessary.

Sorry for the long, possibly controversial post. Mods, feel free to delete if this has crossed over the line.

First of all, you don't need to feel uncomfortable disagreeing with me, you are as entitled to your view as anyone. I don't claim to be right, except as far as I am concerned. My view, in this matter, is right for me, but not necessarily others.

I was waiting for someone to pick up on the "defending our freedoms" line, I left myself open there.
I don't wish to disrespect those who have died believing that, nor is the topic appropriate here.
I will just say that as a Christian, I take a pacifist view as far as corporate military action is concerned (ie, I would defend my own family, but question the motives of governments in warfare) 'nuff said, maybe too much.

My point was, as James has now said, if you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules.
Kilts are the very symbol of freedom and individuality, as has been outlined here countless times.

Neither of these qualities seem to have a place in the military, for reasons James has pointed out.

[Sir Robert]

Being in the military is about the controlled killing of people and breaking of things. Nothing more, nothing less.

An undisiplined military is an armed, out of control, rable.

A hyper-disiplined military is worse, it has the potential to commit war crimes. The SS death camp guards said: "I was just following orders." They were hung for their crimes. Lyndie England said the same thing, she got 3 years in prison for what she did to Iraqi prisoners.

Do not sing the praises of disipline to me I know better than that.

MODERN Germany has it about right, each Soldier has the obligation to deceide if the orders that they are given are moral or not.

If this is indeed voluntary I would say to the anti kilt guy, hey when my kilt is welcomed here then I will come back until then you can go talk to the trees when you need men. If it is less than voluntary I would start screaming at each level of your chain of command that this guy is out of the accepted bounds of behavior for an officer and needs to be removed from the service immediately for the good of the country.

Make him pay for his big mouth.

[James]

Graham has rightly raised the question of 'freedom and individuality': this might not be the forum to comment-but all too often there is a contradiction innate in such an expression.

For they are rights which must be defended, and sometimes it is necessary to fight to enable such freedoms to persist. Be that fight of arms, words, even demonstrated and maintained by wearing the kilt. The joke being that on occasion to defend those freedoms, it is necessary to accept some limitation of them.

So always there is a struggle by some means or other to defend freedom: it might be with The Continental Line of 1777, the liberation of Kuwait a few years ago-or the suffragettes of Britain struggling to obtain female emancipation, maybe the Royal Navy in the first half of the 19thC trying to prevent the slave trade to the Americas. Possibly Houston's army of 1836 at San Jacinto. Sadly all too often that freedom is bought and paid for in blood.

But always by whatever means, freedom must be paid for.

James

[Archangel]

Graham has rightly raised the question of 'freedom and individuality': this might not be the forum to comment-but all too often there is a contradiction innate in such an expression

snip

The joke being that on occasion to defend those freedoms, it is necessary to accept some limitation of them.

So always there is a struggle by some means or other to defend freedom: it might be with The Continental Line of 1777

snip

But always by whatever means, freedom must be paid for.

James

That's always the struggle individually or globally: your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.
Not joke but irony. It is also very important to challenge and monitor these limitations. Many of the ones being applied now have little to do with resolving the issues and more with preparing a controlling authority. Any challenge becomes a challenge to patriotism which, as you know, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I don't know what the Continental line is but the other examples are part of the ebb and flow of the balance of power. I would question some and agree with others. In any case, the review is worth the exercise.

Back to the subject at hand. It is unfortunate that Ackwell has been slighted in this way but every movement forward has a hook pulling us back, but now we get into too much of a philosophical discussion that doesn't help him much.

[AckZel]

Well, we talk about my situation quite a bit. Thanks for your comments! There is always place for a little discussion about philosophy of war. Like Carl von Clausewitz said: "War is only a continuation of politics by other means."

In my point of view war for defend you own is only authorized war. And in Finland the main tasks of Defence Forces is written:

"The Finnish Defence Forces are required to practise territorial surveillance and to be able to defend Finland's territorial integrity and sovereignty at all times. Finland's defence must be strong enough to prevent anyone from threatening the country by military force or making it the target of military action. A credible defence policy will deter any aggressor from attacking or using Finnish territory against a third party."

I think that is right way for military to work. Not for agression against others. And I think the most important thing is just BE THERE. To make attack against us unprofitable. That saved Sweden from German attack in WW2. And you probably don't know about "Operation Stella Polaris" in Finland but historians are sure that it saved Finland from the destiny of Czech Rep. after WW2. Plenty of it can be found by google if interested.

Ok, here's my philosophy about it. (as good as I was able to write it in English) And I think I'll find a way to kilt the guild up!

[motorman4life]

well there against USMC regs...........

lol

i wish i could wear them there

Aren't there USMC specs for mess dress that proscribe the wearing of a USMC tartan kilt? I have seen many Navy and USMC functions with officers and enlisted men wearing kilts.

[Colonel MacNeal]

AckZel,
How did this thing turn out?
Cheers, ColMac