The Military Uniforms - Argumentative Essay Example

The military uniforms are not like the normal or civilian clothing. At the same time, they are not expected to be so expensive. However, one may wonder why the newly launched military uniform also called the operational camouflage pattern uniform (OCP). The launch of the new uniform led to the army spending more than $4 billion. This paper is going to examine whether the newly launched operational camouflage uniform is expensive or costly than the old battle dress uniform (BDU). Several people have argued about the impacts of changing the military uniform, especially on the economy. Different opinions have emerged with one side expressing their satisfaction with the new uniform while the other refuting the claims. However, one thing that remains clear is that the new launch of the OCP to some extent is a wastage of taxpayers money. Therefore, the military could have saved a lot of money if they would have stayed with the BDUs.

The U.S military spends a lot of resources on projects that aim to improve the army and the entire military system. Browne (2016) from CNN says that the recent uniform change is just but the latest in a spate of modifications across the military unit since the 9/11 attack. Even though most of the modifications have been short-lived, but they are very costly. Browne (2016) further explains that the projects undertaken by the military cost the Pentagon millions of dollars. As a result, the Congress three years ago refused to fund any new military combat uniform styles. Prior to that, the military has been changing the styles. As Browne (2016) states, before 2002 the military used only two styles of uniform; the Battle Dress Uniform and Desert Camouflage Uniform. However, since then each combat group has opted to have their own style. Some people may argue that they are the military and because the kind of work that they do they should be protected. The Economist (2014) highlights some of the thoughts from navy reserve and says that he wears the camo so that he can feel safe. This is a statement from Sean, a member of the navy reserve. However, no matter the reason that one may give for changing the combat uniforms frequently as it has been in the past decade and a half, wastage of public resources cannot be driven out of the discussion. The Economist further explains that different styles by each service group over the past 14 years have proven that the military is spending more resources on uniforms which can always be designed as suggested by the Defense Appropriation in 2014, to be used by both service groups.

Pincus (2012) explains that the military has spent over $4 billion between 2003 and 2012 only to design and change the combat uniforms which is the Army Combat Uniform (ACU). Even before the testing was complete, the military changed and recommended a different pattern. In 2009 as Pincus (2012) further explains, the army found that the ACU offered less effective concealment; there was a need to change the style that had cost more than $4 billion. Maybe someone is not doing the math somewhere, but having over $4 billion going to waste is not good for an economy whether it is developed like the United States economy. Therefore, the government needs to come up with policies and strict regulations that inhibit the military from designing any style of combat uniform whenever they feel like they want to. The move by the Defense appropriation was a good strategy towards reducing wastage of public resources but there is a lot that can still be done.

Despite that the government invests heavily in the military service units, the servicemen still complain of inadequate uniforms. Pincus (2012) explains that while the military spends over $4 billion on projects that aim at improving the lives of the servicemen, the Afghan soldiers complain of an inadequate supply of uniforms. So one may even wonder why the government should invest so much in the programs that do not impact the people intended. The ACU style was designed for the soldiers and since the soldiers have not witnessed its impact then it can be called a wastage of public resources. The new Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) is another project that aims at enhancing the concealment that failed in the ACU. However, the implication of this is not considered. People are busy looking for more funds to improve the army combat uniforms at the expense of the taxpayers interest. The taxpayer whether rich or poor pays the taxes to get service in return. There is no need to continue paying taxes if the government cannot be responsible for how to utilize the collected taxes. Cox (2014) explains that the lawmakers are still planning to remove the service specific-camouflage patterns for the service units of the U.S military based on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2015. This is a good move that aims at enhancing the way the public officers use the public resources. Maybe what many public officers do not understand is that they are in those offices because of the taxpayers money. Most of them make decisions as if they were in their own private offices. That is why they are able to embezzle the money meant for the public projects. However, there should be a system that determines the accountability of the public resources to minimize such kind of misuse and misappropriation of resources.

Most of the people engaging in this debate acknowledge that the OCP uniforms are good but expensive and unnecessary. Of course, no one is objecting the need to improve the lives of servicemen and women, but when it comes to wasting of the resources just to improve one department of the government it becomes a problem to the whole country. The military is very important and there is no way the public can thank them for the heroic acts that they do to keep the United States borders safe for the citizens. However, in any case, the servicemen and women do not feel the impact that the projects designed to help them, then it is no longer an issue of what is necessary or not but it is an issue of what is wrong and right. It is very wrong as Pincus (2012) puts it to fund a project worth more than $4 billion and yet the military servicemen and women still complain of an inadequate supply of uniforms. The government should hold someone accountable for all such wastage. The policy proposed by Congress to limit the funding of any more uniform design is a good move. However, this does not mean that billions of dollars that have been wasted should be left. The government needs to go beyond enacting policies and legislation to ensure that the people accountable for the wastage of public resources are held accountable and punished for the wrong things they have done for the public.

As Browne (2016) explains, some people are opposing the impacts of launching the new OCP uniform citing that the reports are misleading the public. Browne (2016) cites that the army officials are not happy when the GAO report estimated the new OCP uniform is costing the Pentagon more than $4 billion. The army officials express their opinion claiming that the reports overestimated the project and they did not put into account the military replacing the worn-out uniforms and swapping them out immediately. As Browne (2016) explains, the argument by the army officials does not make any difference because no matter the style used to design the combats at some point they must be replaced. Therefore, no one can argue that because it is worth more than $4 billion so it would not be replaced. Nothing can stay forever no matter how worth it may be. In this case, it is the army officer who is misleading the public by refuting the reports that tried to estimate the way the public resources are utilized by the public officers without credible and reliable information.

Many people have not objected the change of the new uniforms but the expense at which the new styles are about to be obtained. The Economist (2014) explains that the worst offender has been the army which has been in the spotlight for misusing the public resources or funds allocated to the sector. One may wonder if the military can use $4 billion to design new uniforms then what of the other projects expected to be undertaken in the department. Further, if that is only the cost of uniforms then how much do they need to be allocated to meet the projects of the department? The government cannot pump billions of money into the sector that is full of rogue individuals who only serve their interests and not what took them there. Such people should be flushed out of the public offices and the entire military cleaned for new persons to take over. The Economist (2016) spent another $3.2 million on designing the universal camouflage uniform which did not also last for long before it was termed as ineffective. The government cannot continue like this; that something is designed and along the way someone realizes that it was not effective enough and it is changed. This is a clear indication that the military is not researching on projects it wants to undertake before investing heavily in them. The initial stage of project planning should provide enough information as to whether the design is going to be effective and serve the intended purpose or not. However, investing first in a project then claiming later that it is not right is wrong and bad for the economy.

SASI (2015) explains that civilian clothing cannot be made to the military combat standards, but this does not explain why the army should spend billions on mare clothes that will wear out sooner or later. SASI compared the OCP and the BDUs highlighting some of the disadvantages of the new uniforms over the old BDUs. SASI (2015) writes that even though they are comfortable and superior but all the military uniforms have a limitation with respect to durability. SASI estimates that the OCP is expensive than the BDUs. The BDUs were cheap, costing about $25 each from surplus stores. However, the OCP is expected to cost more than the BDUs. SASI (2015) further notes that the OCP and ACU were designed with the aim of achieving superiority. I conquer with SASIs idea that if only the army could engage in a good amount of research would be easier to sniff out the low quality of uniforms that have been supplied in the military at a high cost as it has been the case in the past 14 years.

The army has put its priorities upside down because the divided debate over the new uniforms revolves around the expense that army is expected to incur. Shawn Snow (2017) criticizes that the new uniforms OCP will cost the Pentagon over $28 million in the name of fashion. Snow (2017) explains that the army in 2007 embarked on designing new uniforms for the army that was similar in fashion to the current combat. The ACU, which was later changed to OCP was designed at much higher cost even though it was the same and similar in design with the current combats. Snow argues that the army wasted over $28 million to design the ACU that did not last even a year before it was changed to the OCP which also saw the government invest another $4 billion in the project that also did not work. Snow (2017) further asserts that the government already had the rights to multiple camouflage pattern that would have provided for the Afghan army at no cost. However, even though the new OCP uniforms cost more than expected Snow (2017) argues that the DOOD was unable to provide documentation that demonstrates that the uniforms were essential or needed. The army officials have refuted such claims giving their own reasons why the military uniforms were expensive than the previously acquired combat uniforms. For instance, Snow (2017) reports that the army officials claim that the uniforms cost more to produce because the vendors seeking to supply them are required to buy pre-patterned mate...