Well, LtCol Garner, if the culture in Afghanistan would be to cut a hole out of your pants so your left butt cheek was hanging out would you do that too? I'm guessing not--so why should we oblige them on the chador? Its not a military uniform! When these Afghan gals come out to LA, I don't see them wearing the clothes of the cultural norm out there. Nope. Still in the chador. And...the SOF guys are trying to blend with the population. They don't have to wear their military uniform when they are doing that stuff. Hate to say it, but I can still tell you are in the military in that picture. If you want to dress up in that stuff in your spare time, buy all means....but on duty? Even when that duty might offend people, its still duty. Martha McSally's problem wasn't with women going off base in Saudi Arabian shopping centers, it was with the fact that the Saudi Arabian government couldn't defend themselves so they outsourced to their allies the U.S. Beggars can't be choosers. If the Saudis don't like who we sent to go protect them and team them a few things whether it be race, gender, age, whatever, they can take it and shove it up their A$$.

This is an entirely sensible and compelling arguement for allowing a slight variation in uniform regs based on a solid foundation of common sense. I've seen Hoda Kotb of the Today Show and Bono wear various versions of Middle Eastern scarves, in addition to their popularity in Dupont Circle neighborhood in Dc. I don't think any of those folks are Muslim. Its a fashion statement, not a religious or cultural statement.

It reminds me of the headscarf debate in France. Europe has certainly had more problems integrating their Muslim populations than here in the Great American Melting Pot. C'mon guys, its just a scarf. The debate about assimilation vs accomidation is quite complicated, but I don't think letting women wear scarves will destroy the fabric of western civilization.

And I've been to about half the countries in CENTCOM and I don't recall anyone ordering any women to wear variation of chador (islamic dress). Saudi is the only place I recall hearing of such things, but certainly not in Afghanistan. Being the land of the two holy places brings baggage.

I say the men should wear it too.

If this whole thing yields any positive it will be because of people like LTC Garner. It's an honor to be served by such people, and it's great fortune that they can so clearly make their case.

The burqa is indeed worn across the length and breadth of Afghanistan, most notably in the cities or whilst traveling in places where they will be more likely to encounter strangers.

By contrast, in the rural Pashtun areas of the country most women will wear a brightly colored headscarf.

First, LTC Garner, I'm in awe of your dedication and thank you for providing a shining example of and for women in the military.

Second, as a female Army officer, I worked and lived with ANP in Zabul province and neither the ANP nor my commander encouraged me to wear a chador. Had they known, the Taliban may have been upset, but my Afghan partners certainly weren't.
I wrote a blog article about my experience:
http://dujournalismarticles.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-advised-afghans-and-it-wasnt-so-bad.html

As someone who has logged 30 years serving in the Muslim world (with long stretches in Afghanistan) I must say that LTC Garner has it right.
Ultimately, one makes a range of cultural accommodations to show respect to the host-country and to one’s host-country colleagues.

One doesn’t drink scotch in front of a pious and observant colleague. One doesn’t drink water in front of anyone during Ramadan during the day.
And women adjust their clothing and their body language to reflect and respect the modesty that their colleagues consider culturally correct.

Why does an American Methodist woman cover her head with a scarf when she enters a Catholic Cathedral in Spain? Because it is respectful to do so.

Why does an American man stand silently with a reserved facial expression during the playing of the Finnish national anthem at a military parade in Helsinki? Because it is respectful to do so.

Most sensible Western women who work in Afghanistan, whether as civilians or as military personnel, make cultural accommodations which show their respect for their Afghan colleagues and for their culture.

Do they “have to”? Not really. But not to do so would be boorish and counterproductive.
LTC Garner has it right.

Maybe the military could issue Scarf for those that want to wear scarves along with an update to Army Regulation 670-1. In the meantime –Unless, I’m really out of touch, and there has been an update over the past few years I have to insist, that is NOT a uniform! I know the SOF guys break regs all the time, and others do what they please in a combat environment, but if its absolutely necessary make it a uniform item and sell it at the PX. I think the point Col McSally makes deserves merit, but perhaps not in a COIN environment where we are trying to win hearts and minds. So, LtCol Garner is really spot in once sense. And, she sounds like a truly great person. But, Martha McSally fought really hard for what she perceived as blatant discrimination against women, and she suffered a lot for that. A Lot. Ask any A-10 pilot in the Air Force what her reputation is. They are not allowed to say her NAME. Her whole point is - why should women be treated any differently than anyone else? I don’t think people should run around offending others and being boorish. On the other hand, I don’t think fighter pilots should be forced to wear burqas. And believe me, if Martha McSally hadn't stood up for what she did...who knows. Maybe every military woman in AFghanistan would be wearing a chador, even on base. We are really lucky to have a woman like Martha McSally who had the courage to stand up for other military women. She is a hero for what she did.

what was even more disappointing in Martha McSally's article was her inaccurate account that the army would never allow a change to the uniform for religious purposes, absolutly wrong, she should feel free to visit any chapel or even a Jewish Chaplain providing services...and if I remeber correclty, a Sikh Soldier had recently completed basic training
http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/sikh-soldier-completes-us-army-training-with-turban-on-65640

Politeness goes a long way. Most certainly, I'd not advocate the following behaviors in a majority Muslim country: washing down a b.l.t. with a jim and coke on the street, feasting in public during Ramadan, chomping on gum during said month, or wearing Daisy Dukes. But still...

You're foreign, you're part of a foreign military force, even if you are fighting against an unpopular movement, you're an outsider. Polite behavior might soften the fact, but it's still there.

As with any cultural reconstructive effort (and the US, in its wisdom, and despite claims to the contrary, is trying to change Afghan society, make no mistake) there is toleration and then there is acceptance. The first should be a goal, aiming for the second, however, is dangerous.

Women soldiers are indispensable if the US is to carry on with its sort of stated nebulous plan/wish list (boondoggle, say it again, boondoggle). Because women are so important tactically in the "hold and build" period, I'd ask if it is possibly deleterious for American female soldiers to lesson the distance between themselves and Afghan women through their behaviors. Do we want local Afghans to think of female soldiers as "normal" women? That could be a landmine.

It is one thing to wear a scarf when one enters a church. It is quite another to wear one while traveling outside, as Garner shows us.

Garner and more than few posters here really need to look-up the definition of the word "uniform." It won't read "wear a scarf in Islamic countries, wear leather chaps in San Francisco, wear halter-tops in the Bahamas, and wear plain, black and white clothing when in Amish country." A uniform will be adjusted for warm weather, cold weather, and other conditions, but all personnel will be required to wear the same configuration.

Steve C's comment regarding journalists is totally irrelevant, as journalists do not wear a uniform of any kind.

And Garner's political correctness is not returned by Muslim women in Western countries, as they continue to wear the same shapeless sacks commonly seen in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

If Garner does not want to wear the uniform, she should resign her commission and become a full-time advocate for Islam.

Maybe she will make the cover of the Weekly Standard. "Check out the latest fashions in the US Army genocide campaign against Afghanistan."

Yes, provoking the local people, and then use overwhelming force to defend yourself against the angered locals sure make a lot of sense.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\03\03\story_3-3-2011_pg3_2

COMMENT: A passport to dystopia? —Dr Mohammad Taqi

Professor Ali has taken serious liberties with the facts and has tried to denigrate the Pashtuns by portraying them as a people inherently incapable of living under a democratic dispensation. He simply ignores the secular-democratic Khudai Khidmatgar Movement (KKM) that dominated the Pashtun polity in the first half of the 20th century

When Samuel Huntington and Warren Manshel co-founded the Foreign Policy magazine (FP) in 1970, they felt that “in the light of Vietnam, the basic purposes of American foreign policy demand re-examination and redefinition”. They pledged to do so through “an effort to stimulate rational discussion of the new directions required in American foreign policy”. They described their vision in their first editorial dated January 1, 1971:

“Our goal is a journal of foreign policy which is serious but not scholarly, lively but not glib, and critical without being negative. And we frankly hope that the discussions of these issues in our pages will affect the actions, or at least the thinking, of those in government, academia, business or elsewhere who shape our foreign policy.”

FP has since gone through many phases, editors and management, but has more or less stuck to the original vision of a lively yet serious debate. Even those of us who have never subscribed to Huntington and FP’s US-centric view of the history and future, considered the periodical a sober entity — well, up until last week.

On February 25, 2011 an article titled ‘The Islamic Republic of Talibanisation’, by Professor Saleem Hassan Ali of the University of Vermont, was published online by FP in its section titled “Argument”. The gist of Professor Ali’s outlandish theory is that having failed to rout the Taliban in Afghanistan through military means, the US should somehow arrange for a referendum to be held in Afghanistan and several adjoining parts of Pakistan, in which people would opt for an Islamic emirate under the Taliban rule. If and when such a referendum is successful, the people of Afghanistan and Waziristan subscribing to the Taliban worldview can immigrate to this autonomous emirate. The US and its allies would have to make sure that this entity is encapsulated from the surroundings so as to prevent export of violence but would be induced to trade with the neighbours and encouraged to “try its hand at governing”, which shall eventually result in everyone and their uncle living happily ever after.

Reading the 1360-word piece left me scratching my head. Was this a tongue-in-cheek swipe at both the Taliban and the regional and world powers? I wondered if some political fiction had gone totally haywire. Is this what Huntington and Manshel had meant by serious, rational and lively debate, without being negative? But reading the comment section underneath the article one could almost hear the Twilight Zone music playing: Professor Ali in his responses to a barrage of criticism appeared to be seriously defending an atrociously glib thesis!

Making a case for a fundamental change in the western and US strategy to cope with the Taliban’s ‘staying power in Afghanistan’, Professor Ali starts with a frontal assault on the Pashtun nation itself. In an utter disregard for the history of the region, he writes: “The fact is that the Taliban and other Islamist elements are popular in the region out of which they operate, the Pashtun tribal belt between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This has always been an utterly conservative locale where the local population has generally favoured Islamic fundamentalism. Even going back to the 1930s, Waziristan’s rallying flag against the British was a simple white calligraphic ‘Allah-Akbar’ (God is Great) on red fabric.”

Well, the fact is that Professor Ali has taken serious liberties with the facts and has tried to denigrate the Pashtuns by portraying them as a people inherently incapable of living under a democratic dispensation. He simply ignores the secular-democratic Khudai Khidmatgar Movement (KKM) that dominated the Pashtun polity in the first half of the 20th century. He then mentions the doctored elections of the 2002, stating: “In Pakistan’s frontier province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Islamists were freely elected into power in one recent election.” However, cherry-picking the history, he skips the electoral rout of these same Islamist political parties at the hands of the secular Awami National Party (a continuation of the KKM) in 2008 elections that were widely accepted as free and fair. And even before that, the Pashtuns of the tribal belt have elected people with impeccable secular credentials like Abdul Lateef Afridi (Khyber), Shahabuddin Khan (Bajaur) and Dr Javed Hussain (Kurram) in various national assembly elections.

Professor Ali quotes a New America Foundation poll, which had suggested that the majority in Waziristan opposes the west’s military presence and that the parties (JI, JUI, PTI) with Islamist inclinations would gain almost half of the votes in a free and open election. Ironic that an article published under the section “Argument” would have a deductive fallacy bigger than the Hoover Dam: most Waziris despise foreign presence while all Taliban fight the foreigners, therefore the Waziris want to be ruled by the Taliban!

But this is not it. The article lectures the geopolitical strategists to seriously consider a canton under the Taliban where they may be free to flog and maim people. Professor Ali writes: “Although the west and its allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan have been terrified by the spectre of a second Islamic republic, there is a way to mitigate the threat: the creation of a semiautonomous region where Islamists can exercise their draconian system of law — if that is what the people agree to impose upon themselves.” In the most blatant manner Professor Ali not only blames the victim but also expects that the Pashtuns of FATA, held hostage by the armed mercenaries and their masters in Rawalpindi, will somehow vote freely in a fair referendum.

Pashtuns are outraged at FP for allowing its pages to be used not just to disparage a proud people but also to propose creating a terrorist haven. FP calls its flagship blog, ‘Passport’. But with this new low in geopolitical discourse it seems more like a passport to a barbarian dystopia, where new techniques of torture and terror would be perfected.

Sam Huntington had said in an NPR interview: “I think clearly the US, as well as other western nations, should stand by their commitments to human rights and democracy and should try to influence other to move in that direction.” This is precisely what Barack Obama has decided to do in the rapidly unravelling situation in the Arab world. But apparently, Professor Ali has opted to stand on the wrong side of not just the Pashtuns but also the history itself. As for FP, it ought to revisit its first editorial.

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com

I spent four consecutive years serving in the Indochina war. Except for the Reach Echelon, few people made much of a fetish out of the details of “proper uniform’.

In Laos we didn’t wear uniforms at all and in VN everyone pretty much made up his own. No two sets of TA-50 looked alike. Black guys and white guys favored very different approaches to modifying their uniforms.

Nobody would have mistaken an average VN infantry platoon for the Old Guard on parade.

Set against the backdrop of Southeast Asia, headscarves on women soldiers in Afghanistan seem like very small beer.

I spent four consecutive years serving in the Indochina war. Except for the Reach Echelon, few people made much of a fetish out of the details of “proper uniform’.

In Laos we didn’t wear uniforms at all and in VN everyone pretty much made up his own. No two sets of TA-50 looked alike. Black guys and white guys favored very different approaches to modifying their uniforms.

Nobody would have mistaken an average VN infantry platoon for the Old Guard on parade.

Set against the backdrop of Southeast Asia, headscarves on women soldiers in Afghanistan seem like very small beer.

I read the WP article and then the comments, it is amazing to read the sense of entitlement and ignorance in both areas.
McSally's job is not to whine about having to wear a head scarve nor is it her job to be treated in a "special" manner since she is a woman but yet here we are again with another example of her and many females wanting just that. I hate wearing a beard yet have to do it or I will not get taken seriously by Afghan Nationals, so guess what? I do it because that is what the job calls for. Uniforms in a war zone are also a silly thing to ping on, you wear what gets the job done and not what looks the best or is the most "uniform".
Really amazed at McSally but see it all the time so I should be used to it by now. PC culture is killing the Military.

Lt Col Garner is a strategic thinker who exercises practical moral intelligence and an understanding of the world she operates within. Col McSally seems to merely be an operator/tactician who has mastered her primary duty. Both are necessary, but it becomes dangerous when the McSally's get put in charge...mostly because the Garner types know they are smarter/can't stomach working for them and end up leaving the military. Thank you Lt Col Garner for your inspiring message and for your service.