# When in Doubt: Mustaches



## dapaterson (23 Jul 2014)

An American Marine Reserve Lieutenant Colonel reflects on his time as a governor in Iraq:

http://www.cracked.com/article_21303_8-things-i-learned-as-american-ruling-iraqi-province.html


----------



## pbi (24 Jul 2014)

Good read. 

One thing that has struck me over the years  about the US forces is their severe aversion to officers wearing moustaches. I guess Grant, Jackson, Lee and Pershing would never cut it in the Army or Marines today.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Jul 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Good read.
> 
> One thing that has struck me over the years  about the US forces is their severe aversion to officers wearing moustaches. I guess Grant, Jackson, Lee and Pershing would never cut it in the Army or Marines today.



I recently read a[n unverifiable] statement that Sir Arthur Currie was the only general officer in the British armies on the western front without a moustache.


----------



## dimsum (24 Jul 2014)

[tangent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nEFLKpknM4

[/tangent]

 ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Good read.
> 
> One thing that has struck me over the years  about the US forces is their severe aversion to officers wearing moustaches. I guess Grant, Jackson, Lee and Pershing would never cut it in the Army or Marines today.



I find US officers and to some extent their Senior NCOs to be humourless as well.
Maybe I was just at the wrong place.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jul 2014)

All the best WWI generals had moustaches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vafxnkWndI


----------



## dimsum (24 Jul 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I find US officers and to some extent their Senior NCOs to be humourless as well.
> Maybe I was just at the wrong place.



I never really noticed it until I started living in Oz, but American humour is different than "Commonwealth" humour.  One of the most frequent comments that I get when Aussies find out I'm Canadian (thanks to my neutral North American accent) is that Canadians/Aussies/Kiwis/Brits  *get* sarcasm and when people are "taking the piss" more so than the typical (stereotypical?) American.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jul 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I find US officers and to some extent their Senior NCOs to be humourless as well.
> Maybe I was just at the wrong place.



They have a sense of humour... it's just rationed a little more than most of their weapon systems  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> They have a sense of humour... it's just rationed a little more than most of their weapon systems  ;D



Who wants to join me this afternoon marchin up and down the square?

Marchin up and down the square not good enough for you?


----------



## CombatDoc (24 Jul 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I recently read a[n unverifiable] statement that Sir Arthur Currie was the only general officer in the British armies on the western front without a moustache.


He was likely the only "pear-shaped" GO on the Western Front, so didn't need a moustache for recognition or status.  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Jul 2014)

ArmyDoc said:
			
		

> He was likely the only "pear-shaped" GO on the Western Front, so didn't need a moustache for recognition or status.  ;D



The statement did note that he had several things that would have prevented his rise if he had been British. These included, besides his lack of a moustache and his pear-shaped body, his origin as a militia officer, his careless attitude towards dress and his very profane manner of speech.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The statement did note that he had several things that would have prevented his rise if he had been British. These included, besides his lack of a moustache and his pear-shaped body, his origin as a militia officer, his careless attitude towards dress and his very profane manner of speech.




Not to mention some hints of impropriety in his financial affairs.


----------



## pbi (25 Jul 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I find US officers and to some extent their Senior NCOs to be humourless as well.
> Maybe I was just at the wrong place.



Jim: I had a similar experience with most (but not all) of the US types I served with over the years. I think the issue is not really that they're humourless, but that we may have a somewhat different sense of humour from them. I think that a bunch of Canadians, Kiwis, Aussies and Brits would probably all laugh at the same joke, more or less. I'm not at all sure that if there were US folks in the group that they would get it.

I should say that when I lived in the US, this was also generally true of people in service jobs such as shops, restaurants, etc. Usually in Canada you can share a bit of quick humour with these foks and you will all laugh: I found that about half or more of the times in the US, that fell flat.

Maybe Americans have higher standards for humour than we do.


----------



## pbi (25 Jul 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I never really noticed it until I started living in Oz, but American humour is different than "Commonwealth" humour.  One of the most frequent comments that I get when Aussies find out I'm Canadian (thanks to my neutral North American accent) is that Canadians/Aussies/Kiwis/Brits  *get* sarcasm and when people are "taking the piss" more so than the typical (stereotypical?) American.



This is exactly what I was trying to say. I also find that they sometimes don't do too well in laughing at themselves.


----------



## pbi (25 Jul 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The statement did note that he had several things that would have prevented his rise if he had been British. These included, besides his lack of a moustache and his pear-shaped body, his origin as a militia officer, his careless attitude towards dress and his very profane manner of speech.



Yes, shocking fellow! And, do you know what else about that Colonial wretch? I hear the beggar was actually a *businessman* before the war!!! Good God, one can just _nevah_ be sure of whom one is serving with, can one??? Bwah, bwah.


----------



## dimsum (25 Jul 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The statement did note that he had several things that would have prevented his rise if he had been British. These included, besides his lack of a moustache and his pear-shaped body, his origin as a militia officer, his careless attitude towards dress and his very profane manner of speech.



Sir John Monash (Cdr of the Australian Corps and, with Currie, the person who planned the Battle of Amiens) would probably have been snubbed as well, as he was also a militia officer (before transferring) and German-Jewish.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2014)

My American colleagues, in my last job, were, almost universally splendid people - funny, able to laugh at themselves, etc, etc - when we were together in our own community. The problem was when they were _mixed_ in with their American _confrères_: then they lost their individual and collective senses of humour and all that went with it.

Th problem, I _suspect_, is with the American military culture, which takes itself very, Very, VERY seriously, not with the people, themselves.

Many Aussies, Brits, Canadians and Kiwis with whom I worked took their jobs very seriously, but not themselves nor the military _establishment_ in which they served.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jul 2014)

I too have noticed this American military personnel.  Warm and funny when you mix them into a mostly Canadian setting; cold and reserved when there is a certain critical mass of other Americans around.

There is something akin to religious fervour within the institutional US military, towards the institution itself.

You just don't see that in Canada.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Jul 2014)

My impression from working with USAF personnel is they take their responsibility as "Defenders of the free world" very very  seriously. 


[size=8pt][size=10pt]Where's that darn sarcasm icon?[/size][/size]


----------



## Transporter (25 Jul 2014)

Unless something has changed in the past few years (and I don't believe it has), US Army officers are still required to provide up-to-date photos of themselves, in full dress uniform, for their Pers files (or whatever the US equiv is called). I've been told the photos are not just window dressing, but are indeed "looked at" and duly considered within the selection process for things like command, etc. You probably don't want to stand out as "mustache guy" when the general consensus within the organization is that officers are to be clean-shaven... zigging whilst everyone else is zagging doesn't go over well.


----------



## pbi (26 Jul 2014)

I have heard this story a number of times over the years, usually from Canadians who have served alongside US forces.  When I have heard it, it not only referred to mustache-phobia but also to the practice of officers having their photo taken lying on their backs on the floor so that any bulging over the belt is controlled by gravity.

While I tend to believe the first bit about moustaches (very rare to see a US officer with one), I think the second part is probably nonsense. First, how would you even take a photo like that? Second, I don't really think it would be necessary anyway: overweightness appears to be extremely rare amongst active duty US officers.

To be fair, they are competing against huge selection lists (thousands of officers in any given MOS) under a system that AFAIK still permits your file to appear only twice for selection to a given rank: if you don't get picked up after two "looks", you are released. This may have been suspended due to the severe personnel problems of the last few years, but I know that it was definitely in effect for US Army active-duty officers.


----------



## Transporter (26 Jul 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> To be fair, they are competing against huge selection lists (thousands of officers in any given MOS) under a system that AFAIK still permits your file to appear only twice for selection to a given rank: if you don't get picked up after two "looks", you are released. This may have been suspended due to the severe personnel problems of the last few years, but I know that it was definitely in effect for US Army active-duty officers.



The up-or-out policy is still in force. However, for a while there (height of Afg and Iraq) it wasn't uncommon for Army officers to be getting picked-up below the zone i.e. promoted before what would normally be their first year of eligibility, or first look. I believe that practice has tapered-off considerably nowadays.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> To be fair, they are competing against huge selection lists (thousands of officers in any given MOS) under a system that AFAIK still permits your file to appear only twice for selection to a given rank: if you don't get picked up after two "looks", you are released. This may have been suspended due to the severe personnel problems of the last few years, but I know that it was definitely in effect for US Army active-duty officers.




ff topic: but very, very slightly related.

There is an old (1920s/30s) Navy story which _might_ be true ...

Officers serving away from the major fleets, e.g. in the China Squadron or, even more remote, with a Reserve Division, were often seen to be disadvantaged when the promotion boards sat. So a system was introduced allowing officers to send a letter, each year, to the high _mucky-mucks_ telling them what wonderful things they had done to "add something more to this wonderful year." This didn't seem to do a whole lot of good, most promotions still went to officers who were within the eyesight and earshot of selected captains and commodores, so one officer put pen to paper and said:

          "Every year, when the promotion list is circulated, it is said, by all, about one fortunate fellow on that list: 'How in hell did he get here!?!' I would not object to being that officer."


----------



## reccecrewman (22 Aug 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I recently read a[n unverifiable] statement that Sir Arthur Currie was the only general officer in the British armies on the western front without a moustache.



That may have something to do with the fact that Command No. 1,695 of The King's Regulation's reads:

The hair of the head will be kept short. The chin and the under lip will be shaved, but not the upper lip. Whiskers if worn will be of moderate length.

This was a policy very much adhered to in the British Army from the mid 19th century onward, however, by mid WWI, it was kind of let go. Maybe Currie was the lead trendsetter amongst GO's!


----------

