The very first paragraph of the piece sets the tone. If I ever had the chance to meet this "writer", I would have to fight with every fiber of my being the urge to hock a loogie in his face:
Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform. He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is....Why yes, General Petraeus even wears a "hunk of cheap plastic" name tag. You know why, you twit? Because according to Army Regulation (AR) 670-1 para. 15-10b(16) and 28-24c., he has to! Trust me - I was a Sergeant in the Army with 12 years of service; it was my job to know these little details.
Read the rest of the column if you like, but it just made me even more angry. This clueless columnist is actually taking the General to task for wearing his required uniform. Unbelievable!
I know I worked hard for every single piece of my "peacockery" as the twit calls it, and I am more than proud to show it off:
Good Day to You, Sir
4 comments:
The obvious question: Why on earth were you reading the Los Angeles Times?
A quick search,Petraeus has a Bronze Star with V. Not shabby at all.
And Ribbons for service, that is what is given.
Your point I take it, is that the writer does not understand military ribbons or awards.
I have earned every part of my military "puffery" and I am proud of each piece of it. I did what I did. The writer did what he did. I don't think they are the same.
Chanman and law and order, a sincere thank you for your service. As for the L.A. Times article, does it really surprise you that one of this paper's genius writers doesn't know squat about uniforms? As far as they're concerned, uniforms are only worn to intimidate people.
Post a Comment