Marine Corps bans big tattoos below the knee and elbow
posted at 8:25 pm on March 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Also spitting, swearing, and “fisticuffs” unless they follow Queensberry rules. Semper Fi tattoos will still be tolerated provided they show Tinkerbell spelling out the motto with pixie dust.
“This is something I love to do,” said Cpl. David Nadrchal, 20, of Ponoma, who made an appointment to get an Iraqi flag and his deployment dates etched onto his lower leg. “The fact I can’t put something on my body that I want — it’s a big thing to tell me I can’t do that.”
Nadrchal said he is unsure whether he will re-enlist: “There’s all these little things. They are slowly chipping away at us.”
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway announced the policy change last week.
“Some Marines have taken the liberty of tattooing themselves to a point that is contrary to our professional demeanor and the high standards America has come to expect from us,” he said. “I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not represent our traditional values.”…
Tattoo artist Jerry Layton at the Body Temple Tattoo Studio in Oceanside said he was booked up with Marines rushing to beat the deadline.
“These are guys that are dying in the war,” Layton said. “They can fight, but they can’t get a tattoo? It’s ridiculous.”
Exit question: Sure, a man with a one-inch butterfly tattoo on his forearm can take out a sniper’s nest in Fallujah. But can he enjoy it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Tribal
Kini on March 28, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Good for the USMC! Semper Fi
Wade on March 28, 2007 at 8:28 PM
What a maroon
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 28, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Also spitting, swearing, and “fisticuffs” unless they follow Queensberry rules. Semper Fi tattoos will still be tolerated provided they show Tinkerbell spelling out the motto with pixie dust.No fan of AP and this kind of crap making fun of the Corp is why.This is insulting to all of us vets AP, wise up. You can be against the tats without insulting Marines. When I see you toting hardware and volunteering to defend the right to associate Marines with tinkerbells, I might have a different opinion of you.
Totally uncalled for.
Wade on March 28, 2007 at 8:36 PM
I have to side with the Corps on this one. You can’t have piercings, you have to keep your hair regulation. When I was in, you couldn’t wear tank tops into any buildings on base like the PX or the E-club. If your pants had belt loops, you had to wear a belt.
It’s not college, AP, it’s the Marine Corps. I doubt this will affect a large number of Marines, and they’re free to get what they want when they get out.
If the Commandant of the Marine Corps wants to set appearance guidelines, there’s not much you can do about it.
pencilnub on March 28, 2007 at 8:37 PM
I thought that was the dress code. Tattos that do not show.
CrimsonFisted on March 28, 2007 at 8:38 PM
I’m a teacher of young children and I have to hide my tats. I don’t think the new regs are stifling.
robblefarian on March 28, 2007 at 8:42 PM
I think Allah is making fun of the PC rules, illustrating absurdity with absurdity (h/t Rush).
laelaps on March 28, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Correct Sir.
Wade on March 28, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Yeah, and as usual you’re looking for offense where none is intended. You did it in the thread about the wounded Marine who married his high school sweetheart, too, and people were laughing at you for being so hypersensitive.
You don’t like my posts? No one’s forcing you to read the site. Take care.
Allahpundit on March 28, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Wade:
Um, he clearly thinks the tattoo ban is lame, as illustrated by the use of the word “lame.” He’s not being anti-Marine or anti-tattoo. Sheesh.
marykatharine on March 28, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I remember that. Earth to Wade: AP is pro-military.
PRCalDude on March 28, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Are you speaking for AP? I can read and that is insulting, no matter what AP’s intentions. He/She should think through his/her post a little more carefully when associating anything with the very men and woman who give him the right to make a ass of him/her self. In any case I would prefer AP just say ‘Thank You’ and go on his/her way.
Wade on March 28, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Well, I don’t believe this site, or AP’s opinions, should be held to your standards of what is offensive.
Criminy, AP is pro-military - that should be abundantly clear to anyone who has read this site for any amount of time.
Slublog on March 28, 2007 at 8:50 PM
the cmc is right. when i was in that ban was in effect at a unit level anyway. such visible tattoos can make you ineligible for b billets and special duty.
this is one of those situations where only marines know enough to comment.
johnnyquest on March 28, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Astonishing.
PRCalDude on March 28, 2007 at 8:53 PM
I see Mr Sensitive is back. Anyway, what’s the big deal with getting tatooed. I agree with this comment from the Fox news link above:
Let ‘em do it. For many, it seems to be a matter of pride in joining military service.
thedecider on March 28, 2007 at 8:54 PM
By the way, AP is a dude.
Slublog on March 28, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Wade -
Wow. Nice Colonel Jessup reference too. He’s poking fun at the rule man…come on.
Pilgrim on March 28, 2007 at 8:54 PM
I feel for the tobacco chewers. Swallowing that stuff ain’t good.
Free Constitution on March 28, 2007 at 9:00 PM
I agree with Allah, the tattoo ban is lame.
Ditto for the requirement that soldiers/marines keep their hair short. And do pushups, and salute, and obey orders, and run (well, I actually AM against that one).
Please. Hearing 20 yr olds complain about losing their identity because they can’t get a a 2 foot DEATH tat on their face doesn’t create much sympathy.
Besides, they still allow tattoos, they just have to be able to be covered up wearing the short-sleeve PT shirts–at least in the Army, I assume USMC is similar)
The argument is that if they can fight, what’s the big deal about the tattoos?
Why do you assume they can fight? Because they are disciplined. Why are they disciplined? Because they are able (or forced) to subjugate their, generally selfish, individual desires for the benefit of their squad, company, unit, etc.
Placing limits on a young man’s ability to realize those selfish desires (including the deathface tattoo) is part and parcel of what it means to be a soldier.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 9:07 PM
A couple posters here don’t seem to understand irony.
Lehosh on March 28, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Sounds like a case of a few making trouble for the many. Meh, it’s the military, not an episode of The Real World. I say let the guys have what they want and pay for it, to boot, but I haven’t the foggiest what’s best for the USMC.
spmat on March 28, 2007 at 9:10 PM
I could care less either way about the tattoo ban but the idea that AP is insulting the Marines because he finds the ban lame is just ridiculous.
EnochCain on March 28, 2007 at 9:10 PM
In my day anything visible outside the edges of the uniform (neck, arms, PT shorts) Article 15. I agree with the Corps on this. Might look ok on Popeye but they men need to save the oooohs and ahhhhs for their girlfriends.
Fighting….same…..we had a couple of yahoos who every payday got drunk, lined a barracks room mattresses and played Bruce Lee on each other. Save that crap for the enemy and the left-tards at the bar.
Limerick on March 28, 2007 at 9:12 PM
For once, I also too disagree with AP, although I think calling him anti-military is beyond preposterous. I have several tats, but none that show. I had a troop that had some piercings, and invariably they got infected or caught in various pieces of equipment (like his IBA). My guys did have tats that showed on arms, and I kind of also thought it undermined us when we were trying to liase with locals who weren’t altogether comfortable with it. Sitting down with the locals to enjoy some tea and discussing your hope for peace is somewhat undermined by the guy next to you have a tat on his hand that says “kill them all let god sort them out” or somesuch.
But I will flip in the sense that I also wouldn’t have put the ban in place during a period of war.
E5infantry on March 28, 2007 at 9:20 PM
When you are in the Military, you ARE government property.
ChrisIansNana on March 28, 2007 at 9:20 PM
“also too” what a redundant ass I am. Must be the tats.
E5infantry on March 28, 2007 at 9:21 PM
If I recall, this was a return to a previous policy.
The services had relaxed the tattoo rules to allow about 2 years ago or so. (I may be wrong on the timeline)
Sounds like USMC is just going back to what the rules were initially.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 9:24 PM
And it all began just over a decade ago when the powers that be decided that it would be a swell idea to to ban military members under the age of 21 from drinking alcoholic beverages on base.
Talk about your bulls**t policies.
Of all the politically-correct feel-good crap they’ve instituted over the years…this one still makes me angry.
The Ugly American on March 28, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Gee…..yah think? ; )
The Ugly American on March 28, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Allah, NOTHING can stiffle the joy. NOTHING.
Troy Rasmussen on March 28, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Yeah, because nothing but sweet sweet awesomeness comes from horny, drunk, 18 year olds with access to firearms.
Nothing good happens between 2300 and 0400. Nothing.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Are you calling AP a transvestite? FIGHT! Fight! Fight!
Signed,
Piling on.
Bill C on March 28, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Lighten up, Francis.
AP thinks its a dumb rule, he was being a smartass, which most people could appreciate.
I know, I know, its the internet and THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.
Bad Candy on March 28, 2007 at 9:36 PM
*cough* me piles on *cough*
Bad Candy on March 28, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Buncha troublemakers in this thread…
Slublog on March 28, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Yeah…..it is like McHales Navy meets Predator…something you gotta experience to know.
Limerick on March 28, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Heh, its not as bad as the troublemakers at AoS, Slubbo.
Bad Candy on March 28, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Well, that goes without saying.
Slublog on March 28, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I remember this as the old policy as well(started in the eighties).
I’m thinking that some of the young guys of this era started taking things too far causing the USMC to revert to the old policy. :::shrug:::
As someone above said, when one joins the military, that person is virtually owned by the government. They tell you what to do, how to do it and when to do it. Mostly importantly, they tell you how to look and behave when you’re wearing that uniform and representing Uncle Sam. And, if you think about it, it makes sense: whatever one does while wearing the uniform isn’t just a reflection on that individual, but on that service, the entire Armed Forces and, indeed, the USA–especially when overseas.
It *is* a voluntary force.
Some forget what the acronym G.I. stands for.
Actually I agree with you WRT this policy. If you’re old enough to handle an M-16 and to die for your country, you should be old enough to knock back a couple at the club and stagger back to your barracks.
baldilocks on March 28, 2007 at 9:43 PM
HAHAHAHAAA!!!!
I went a little overboard with the color schemes.
Bad Candy on March 28, 2007 at 9:43 PM
When you’re advising the command on their 15th DUI that month, one becomes a bit jaded to that view…
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 9:45 PM
You’ve obviously watched “Taps” one too many times.
Funny how it never appeared to be a problem during the years I served.
Then again, we had this little thing called “The Brig”, into which any horny drunken 18 year olds were tossed if they acted the fool.
The Ugly American on March 28, 2007 at 9:47 PM
It wasn’t so much the cliche tribal tats that were causing problems, it was the naked lady tats on their forearms and the line of Iraqis that wanted to see Candy dance.
Bad Candy on March 28, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Alcohol:
One posting….we had a division and a half….roughly 18-19 thousand. Boondocks. 1 town outside the gate. One mile long, one-half mile wide. Population: 62 bars. The MPs, JAG, and First Sergeants were kept mighty busy.
Limerick on March 28, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Perhaps if they were drinking in the EM club rather than passing fake I.D.’s off base….
The Ugly American on March 28, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Perhaps you have a point, but I certainly hope that said 18-years-olds (or anyone of any age) aren’t able to stagger up the armory when off-duty and retrieve a firearm. Don’t those things have guards?
Also, drunk crazies with guns tend to be older.
baldilocks on March 28, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Once again…..if they were allowed to drink on base…..
The Ugly American on March 28, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Hmm, someone got to a fifteenth DUI without getting booted from the service? Sounds like there’s a larger problem here than drunken eighteen year olds.
baldilocks on March 28, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Yeah, that thing they call “The Brig?” Guess who advises the command whether they can actually place a soldier in there?
Like I said, when you’re advising a command on their 15th DUI that month (or let’s try domestic violence–because alcohol is NEVER a factor there), one becomes less willing to allow underage kids to drink.
You can get a DUI on-post. We do have roads on which cars occassionally travel.
The majority of Article 15s and GOMORS are issued as a result of DUIs or other alcohol-related offenses.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Not a question of going to the armory. Most military members tend to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights (i.e. they usually own a personal firearm). That’s the access to firearms I was referring to. Add drunkenness into the mix and it’s a bad mix.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Kids??????
The Ugly American on March 28, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Once again nothing. The majority of alcohol-related offenses on my installation occur (or originate) at the NCO club.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Sooooooooo….anybody know any good lawyer jokes?
I kid, I kid ; )
The Ugly American on March 28, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Something I don’t think a lot get here armylawyer…..a post is like a city….with NO (well little) distractions.
Homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, battery, dui,
fatal car wrecks, suicide, drug-abuse….it is all there folks….the military has it’s hands full keeping those fine troops of ours in working order.
Limerick on March 28, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Not an individual’s 15th DUI, but a particular command’s. 15 separate DUIs.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Wade shortly before I got out of the AF, they implemented a no tats at all policy. (Never sure how far it went but that is another thread).
Since when is a questionable “human resources” policy change insulting to the men/women that serve in the Corps or any branch of the military for that matter?
This no tats policy is going to hurt the Corps because well trained Marines are looking to leave over it.
F15Mech on March 28, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Because “Underage adults” doesn’t quite make sense.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 10:00 PM
It’s no NEW tats. If you currently have one, they’re not separating you. And if your decision to stay or leave centers on the flaming skull of Nekros tattoo you’ve just been dying for, then well, your priorities might be a tad skewed.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Ahh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I would assume that most of those DUI offenses were committed by those who are 21 or older.
Look, I understand where you’re coming from and I certainly hold no illusions that the military will change its drinking policy. As a matter of fact, I understand it very well. Even though the policy doesn’t make sense in light of the very adult responsibilities which are placed on the young service man/woman, protection of the force (and civilians) trumps fairness everytime–at least in the military.
Back to tats. F15Mech said that the AF banned all tats recently. I wonder how they enforced the ban. Has the AF instituted full-on naked inspection? Are the AF doctors commanded to dime on patients who have fresh tattoos (not previously documented in the medical records)?
I had a acquaintance–fellow AF member–who had a huge tattoo of the AF eagle on the front of her torso. Who the heck knows why?
baldilocks on March 28, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Heh.. it’s kinda fun to watch military guys argue over this stuff. FWIW, armylawyer, I have a friend that’s a lieutenant in the army, and he has to deal with that kind of behavior with his platoon. I think he would agree with you on the rules about underage drinking.
spmat on March 28, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Yes, most DUIs are committed by of-age individuals. Simply because the underage soldier’s access is limited given the law as it stands. Change the law, you increase the access.
I think the very adult responsibilities we place on such young men is all the more reason to prohibit them from engaging in self-destructive behavior. Fact remains most crimes are committed by young men. Most domestic violence cases, most sexual assaults, most basic assaults. Alcohol is typically the major element at play. We train them to be placed in situations where their destruction is attempted by others. No reason to help that along.
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 10:32 PM
“All God King Xerzes requires is a token of Earth and Water, to demonstrate your submission, as well as the banning of all tatoos below the knee and elbow………”
“Submission, and the banning of tatoos below the knee and the elbow……. Now THAT, is a problem!”
“YOUR A MAD MAN, …. THIS IS MADNESS!!!!”
PinkyBigglesworth on March 28, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Ok, I missed that part, however the same thing applies.
If I remember correctly the AF policy was no tats and they would cover current active duty members to have them removed.
That said it still amounts to…
No new tats
Since I have no tats I really don’t care one way or the other however if I wanted to get a tat, as long as it did not violate the UCMJ, what is the big deal?
Trained Marines (that love tats) will leave if you make such a wide spread policy change.
Phase it in fine; however don’t risk loosing trained people by making such a change mid-stream. The Air-Force tried it around 98/99 and I know people were thinking about leaving over it.
F15Mech on March 28, 2007 at 10:43 PM
In my time, a DUI and the Fat-Boy program would get you bounced out of the Army faster than anything. Ft Sill used to have Traffic Control Points with a pylon slalom course that you had to drive through (that was tough even when you were sober). Ft Knox always had MP’s outside the O Club just waiting for someone to drive drunk. DUI’s were always listed in the post newspaper (I believe page 2 of The Turret). DUI was a real career stopper.
DAT60A3 on March 28, 2007 at 10:47 PM
It’s a career stopper, but not a career ender…
armylawyer on March 28, 2007 at 10:53 PM
This isn’t even going back to the rules in my time: no tats visible when you were in your skivies (t-shirt and boxers), other than one EGA on one forearm.
htom on March 28, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Tattoos are tacky.
Connie on March 28, 2007 at 11:32 PM
LOL. Seriously.
Theworldisnotenough on March 28, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Wade:
Don’t cry. It’s not manly.
VinceP1974 on March 28, 2007 at 11:51 PM
One final thing then I am going to bed…
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/06/12/video-marines-lawyer-discusses-haditha-on-cnn/
How is Allah different then the generals you insulted back in 2006?
F15Mech on March 29, 2007 at 12:29 AM
I had a lot I wanted to write but have decided to substitute my manifesto with one sentence: The new order is crap.
jarhead05 on March 29, 2007 at 12:52 AM
That right there says it all folks! Say what you want, you sign a contract like no other when you sign up with the USMC.
R D on March 29, 2007 at 1:24 AM
One case I will mention is that…
When a co-worker tells you/shows you his tat (that covers his entire back) and it was published in the AF Times how long would it take before someone turns him in?
F15Mech on March 29, 2007 at 1:32 AM
BTW it was not recent. I said roughly 98/99. I also said I did not know how far it went. Next time you want to quote me you are free to do so. Don’t put words in my mouth however.
F15Mech on March 29, 2007 at 1:36 AM
I do agree with that statement; however the problem I would have (If I still served) would be the sudden change.
All government property is etched with a marker of some kind correct?
The 5/16th socket from a toolbox I checked out, had the box number, in case I left it in a jet, assume the jet crashed due to FOD (FOD being the 5/16th socket), they could trace it back to me.
Now let’s compare that to tats….
I entered the military with known etches. (aka tats)
Military was fine with them for 1,5,10,15,20 years, during that time I etched myself when I wanted, with no issues.
Now the military is saying no new tats are allowed. I am sorry I will take an issue with that…
I now have a choice to make, stay in or get out.
F15Mech on March 29, 2007 at 2:06 AM
F15Mech, they are not saying no new tattooes are allowed, if I am reading it right. It is none below the knee and none below the elbow. If I am wrong, then please correct me.
Glynn on March 29, 2007 at 3:06 AM
Glynn see my post dated
F15Mech on March 28, 2007 at 10:43 PM
F15Mech on March 29, 2007 at 3:15 AM
My son said that when he reported for boot camp at MCRD San Diego in 2003, that a tat below the elbow or knee was an instant washout, and that this was made clear by his recruiter before he took the oath. His training company was told by his drill instructor that the marines were moving to reject incoming recruits that had any tatoos at all.
This order should be no surprise.
georgej on March 29, 2007 at 4:06 AM
Just my opinion but disqualifying someone for service in a time of war due to a tattoo seems sort of…dumb.
EnochCain on March 29, 2007 at 4:11 AM
There is a real exchange of thought. Don’t like it, don’t read it. Are you suggesting people only read articles in which they agree?
I see a lot of opinions here and it would be nice for those who think this is not a good idea, it would be nice to know a couple more things. Who would they suggest make rules for the Marines to maintain unit discipline? What is the posters military service?
Wade on March 29, 2007 at 8:40 AM
One more thought and then I am done with this thread. There are lots of military rules in which I do not agree, and did not agree, but to serve my country in a cause in which I feel is more important, those rules are secondary and to be followed.
Wade on March 29, 2007 at 8:49 AM
Are we going to devolve into the chickenhawk argument, Wade?
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Slublog:
That’s not a chickenhawk argument. If we’re discussing whether certain rules are relevant or not w/r/t maintaining unit discipline. Inquiring as to one’s relevant experience regarding unit discipline is reasonable.
The lack (or presence) of such experience doesn’t invalidate (or validate) one’s argument, but it may be weighted accordingly.
————
Suppose a layman complained about that whole “washing hands before surgery” thing as being irrelevant to being a real surgeon.
Inquiring as to that person’s experience with performing surgery might be relevant and informative, yes?
armylawyer on March 29, 2007 at 10:16 AM
What bothers me is the clear implication that those of us who have not served should just “say thank you and go on our way,” as he stated in this post:
Arguing from experience is one thing, and you make a fair point, but Wade’s tone throughout this has been off-putting.
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Armylawyer.
Exactly. I do not believe you need to have be a part of something to be a participate in any discussion. The frame of reference is nice to know because it helps one understand better someone else’s position.
Wade on March 29, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Maybe you should read what you quoted more carefully. How do you read tone in text or are you assuming tone?
Wade on March 29, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Wade, how else do you expect people to read this:
Your tone has been hostile throughout this discussion, with no good reason, as has been pointed out to you.
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Then there’s this:
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 10:51 AM
From a movie Slublog…that is how. Maybe you are too sensitive. Again you need to read the words. Words have meaning. Words like, maybe, prefer.
Wade on March 29, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Used to be, people who wrote did so with an eye toward imparting a certain tone to their readers that could be discerned by their choice, meter, and order of words. This is harder to do now that some readers and writers both have devolved into infantile netspeak and annoy-o-cons where the substitution of a painfully obvious graphical representation has seriously retarded our literary abilities. However, it is still possible to determine tone from words alone if one maintains a healthy distance from the SMS plague.
James on March 29, 2007 at 10:57 AM
SluBlog. What Marine unit were you in?
Wade on March 29, 2007 at 10:58 AM
None. Why does it matter, since I have offered no opinion of the subject at hand?
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Do you mean like the tone of that is snarky?
Wade on March 29, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Oh.
Wade on March 29, 2007 at 11:02 AM
For the record, I will say that I believe it’s up to the military, with appropriate civilian oversight, to determine their own regulations.
Slublog on March 29, 2007 at 11:03 AM
That is funny. If you can not see a difference I will not try to point it out. Anyway, ya all have a good time, I have to finish my breakfast of nails.
Wade on March 29, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »