The tattoo policies in the military need a revamp. Some of the best soldiers i served with were covered in tattoos. I understand no face tattoos. Tattoos on neck and hands should be allowed. The military should not be a place for softies. They say no tattoos for professionalism. So to the enemy we want to look professional? How about intimidation? What would be scarier to the enemies? Clean cut guys with no tattoos? Or clean cut guys covered in tattoos? Tattoos throughout history has been reserved for the tough. So why is it not allowed in our militaries? When I was in a bunch of the best soldiers were kicked out due to the new (at the time) tattoo policies. That was a huge mistake. They were well trained. Disiplined. Effective and ready to rock and roll. Type A people. Then they were removed. The Army was not the same after that. Not saying there isnt good soldiers without tattoos but it seems like there is much less.
Allow the military to have their tattoos. Better recruits. Better soldiers.
I agree…the military can gripe about what a soldier wears ON TOP of his/her skin, but the line should be drawn at the epidermal layer. If ink exists BELOW the skin cells of the person, it is really no business of the military to forbid or take action against the soldier because of it. Of course I also take the stand that the military should have no right to inject soldiers with whatever they want. They have a long and sordid history of damaging soldiers by “getting under their skins”. And there is my two cents.
It’s about what those tattoos might represent or say. It’s the same reason you can’t put custom embroidered patches on your uniform. Would you want a soldier with a Nazi symbol on his forearm or on his uniform to be representing our country? And yes, we could review everyone’s tattoos first, but it’s a lot simpler to just say no to all visible tattoos.
I think there is some middleground that could be attained. Your post about visable tattoos that are incindieary, hostile to fellow soldiers, pornographic, and overly-distracting, should probably be a legitimate gripe for a military who wants their soldiers focused on chain of command, taking point, watching their six, and ensuring the survival of their ranks. I agree with soldiers having the right to have tattoos as long as they are not intentionally offensive or pose a distraction danger to the troops.
I spent a fair amount of time in the Army.
I have seen Soldiers wearing tattoos in the 70’s on. Current policy is: Prohibited areas: Tattoos are prohibited on the face, head, neck above the t-shirt collar, wrists, and hands other than one ring tattoo per hand Prohibited types: Tattoos that are indecent, violent, racist, sexist, vulgar, expose nudity, or are associated with gangs Prohibited statements: Tattoos that contain anti-government statements or glorify violence
Tattoos do not make for better soldiers, nor do they make them worse.
Attitude is what matters.
