DuPont CoreMatrix

SMA Dailey Was On Capital Hill Showing Off Pinks and Greens 

This is what Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey had to say about how the WWII-style prototype uniform was received by members of Congress.


“Great feedback here on Capitol Hill! Pre-decisional, but exciting nonetheless as we wore pinks & greens when America became the undisputed, most powerful nation on Earth — universally loved & revered by the American public. We are still that U.S. Army!”

90 Responses to “SMA Dailey Was On Capital Hill Showing Off Pinks and Greens ”

  1. Will says:

    The problem I have with this, is that the uniform is meaningless. The reason that uniform means something is because what the men did at that point in history. I’m scared that we’re trying to build comradere and esprit de Corps just by issuing new uniforms. If you really want to make the uniform mean something, make it hard to earn. Make a fighting force that wins battles, and dominates the world. That’s why our military is respected, not because of what they wear. Everyone is so focused on the fact that most kids today are fat, slovenly, drug addicts. While that’s true, don’t taint the military by catering to the lowest rung. It’s much better to have a small force of dedicated warriors, instead of a full force, with a large percentage of seat fillers.

    • Derp! says:

      Dominate the world? When did that become a national strategy?

    • Frank_Shanks says:

      You’ve obviously never worn a uniform, prick…

    • Kirk says:

      The man makes the uniform; the converse is a widely believed falsity.

      I believe I’ve gone on record around here to that effect often enough that I don’t need to repeat my arguments. It is comforting to know that at least a few others agree with me.

      I think that they ought to leave this latest visitation from the Good Idea Fairy(TM) right where it is, and put the money, effort, and time into doing things that actually count on the battlefield, like training. Do enough of that, and experience the success that comes from that on the battlefield, and whatever the hell it is we’re wearing at the time will come to be seen as a hallmark of excellence, even if it’s just a t-shirt and some worn-out jeans.

      Actual accomplishment and expertise does more to build true esprit de corps than any bullshit uniform the powers-that-be chose to inflict on the force.

      • miclo18d says:

        I have no dog in this fight because I will never wear this uniform (I personally think it looks nice but that’s beside issue here), but I was in the Q-Course when Shitsecki (my spelling may be off there) decided to “give” the black beret to all. My history was from 3/75 and then a LRSD before going SF, so my entire career was spent wearing a beret and earning it to get in each unit with varying degrees of selections and assessments.

        My complaint then and now, which is brought up by many here, is that the uniform is not being earned, and that when we change uniforms on a now annual basis (it seems) that we are depriving soldiers of what REALLY motivates and makes them better at their jobs. MONEY TO BUY AMMUNITION TO TRAIN WITH!!!!!!

        in the units in which I was issued a beret, I hardly ever wore it! It was mostly for a parade of a promotion ceremony or such. Other than that we were mostly training and trying to make ourselves more deadly on the battlefield. Realistic LFXs were what motivated us, FRIES on an OBJ with live ammo at night, Break Contact with dropkick claymores, threat weapons training, etc. How many of thos black beret wearers and those that will be sporting those “awesome” P&Gs will ever touch a freaking claymore, let alone blow one?

        • SSD says:

          Earned? As in being a Soldier doesn’t earn you the right to wear the Army’s uniform?

          People bitch about pogues and support guys but when compared to the nation they defend, they’ve done something the other 99% haven’t, they volunteered and hung in there. Truth be told, there’s nothing particularly special about about most military jobs.

          I’m retired, but the service member is his own worst enemy. He is tribal and turns on those who have his back so can feel special. We’ve got so many damned baubles now, and that includes the Marines, to show how special each of us is, that we have forgotten what it’s really all about and that is banding together with others to serve the greater good. Being a team member. Hell, I did it when I was in too, but what I learned is that there’s always some guy who comes along and is more special than you.

          Should we focus on individual and collective tasks that support METLs? Yes. Does every Soldier need to blow a claymore or throw a live grenade or shoot a LAW to know how they work? No.

          • Pringles08 says:

            Soldiers love to fight, in absent of a clear enemy we fight each other.

          • Kirk says:

            The root problem here is that the institution has lost its ever-loving mind, with regards to this uniform issue, and it demonstrates just how out of touch with reality that the people running it are.

            You don’t get excellence by the simple expedient of handing out gewgaws, and then mandating that the wearers “be excellent” through the simple virtue of putting the damn things on every morning. That’s backwards from how it works–The black beret became symbolic of excellence because the Ranger Regiment worked its ass off, in training and on operations. If, instead, we’d made the black beret the headgear for the various Corrective Custody Facility units around the Army, well… The wear of the damn thing wouldn’t be seen as any kind of signal of excellence. It would, instead, be an indicator of shame and embarrassment. That’s how this shit actually works, folks: What the unit does becomes the real power behind the symbol.

            All y’all could really use some more reading in military history, and you’d begin to understand what our leadership in the institution of the Army obviously doesn’t: The unit and the men make the uniform, not the other way around.

            If it were otherwise, then things like the Turkish Janissary units using a soup spoon as part of their revered uniforms wouldn’t be historical fact. As well, about half the unique regimental accoutrements of the British Army wouldn’t exist, either…

            Do it right, and you could make a clown costume over into an effective and respected military uniform, complete with ruffles and ceremonial little horns the troops would beep at the crowds as they passed in review. Do it wrong, and you could put them all into extra-super-martial Hugo Boss uniforms with exquisite little tailored hats, and they’d just look ridiculous.

            It’s the unit and the men, not the uniforms they wear. This fixation our higher leadership has on the dress uniform is magical thinking at its worst, and indicates a need for them to transition to doing something else in life, like running a high school marching band or a fucking beauty pageant.

            I’m going to start taking these people seriously again about the time I hear an SMA actually agitating and advocating for more and better training (pointedly not including things like COO training and the various mandatory sexual harassment/race relations BS), less turbulence in the ranks, and things like proficiency pay for marksmanship being brought back. Until then, wellllll… They’re the ones who’ve beclowned themselves.

          • miclo18d says:

            You know the point I was trying to make Eric. Don’t get into the weeds on whether a uniform is earned or not. What I’m saying is that if you are an air traffic controller, money could be better spent on you being the best f’ng ATC that you could be or the best PAC clerk, fuel handler, dental assistant, vet tech, infantryman or SF Trooper.

            Stop wasting time and money on freaking clothing items!

            For efffs sake!

            • SSD says:

              Think of the word uniform. It’s used to identify a service member. It’s the Army’s identity. You look at that uniform and you think, “Soldier.”

              You’ve got to put them in something, so why not make it a uniform that looks good?

      • Loopy says:

        Kind of ironic that people on a clothing and gear website are complaining about the Army adopting new uniforms.

        • Kirk says:

          So, we should all be enthused at the waste of resources here…?

          I did 25 years on active duty, and one of the biggest wastes of time, money, and effort I dealt with was that crappy dress uniform, modeled on 19th Century “walking out” uniforms that have been socially obsolete since at least the late 1950s. I literally had troops who couldn’t afford to buy decent winter field boots because of the associated stupidities surrounding that damn black “all-weather” coat we had to buy, and then never wore. Which was then later pulled from the clothing bag, anyway…

          This shit matters, maybe not to you, but to some of us who dislike waste. As a taxpayer, and a former soldier, this kind of arrogant and foolish waste just aggravates the hell out of me, especially knowing that there are going to be a bunch of mid-career types who don’t make all that much money, and who have young families they’re going to have to try to support while having to buy this crap out-of-pocket, just so some immature jackass who never got over having his GI Joe toys taken away can play dress-up dolls with real human beings.

          The kids coming in aren’t the problem; they’ll get this stuff on initial issue, and it will be financially painless to them. The guys who are going to get fucked, and fucked hard, are the mid-career types with less than ten years in, and who only have a few stripes on their shoulders. Those are the guys who aren’t going to get their initial issue of these new uniforms paid for, and who will have to absorb the costs of buying them while simultaneously maintaining their existing field uniforms out of a joke of an annual clothing allowance.

          None of this would be a problem if they’d treat the rarely-used dress uniforms as organizational issue, which is what they really ought to be doing. Hell, give the concession to Joseph Banks, the Mens Wearhouse, or some other outfit, and let the commanders pay for this shit out of their unit budgets whenever they want to play dress-up.

          This shit just pisses me off, and the casual way the senior leadership goes about doing this kind of thing to the troops just indicates the general contempt they feel for those guys that they have the balls to laud as “the backbone of the Army” whenever their speechwriters remember to include them in some sonorous encomium they’re going to deliver somewhere.

          If y’all were this worried about the whole issue, why the hell did none of you raise a single hand in protest when they went to that idiot ASU idea? The fact that there are guys out there in low-density, low-promotion career fields that are going to have to buy a second set of dress uniforms to wear one or two days of the year seems to be a concern that escapes most of you.

          Not to mention the fact that I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that this whole “pinks and greens” uniform concept is going to look like crap, when it reaches mass-issue. The light-colored pants are going to wind up with a rainbow cornucopia of different shades in very short order, and the contrast is going to look like shit spread across an entire formation.

          I think people are forgetting the fact that the WWII version of this uniform was mostly custom-tailored, made of much higher-grade materials than the general issue uniforms, and mostly privately purchased. As such, the translation to a modern setting ain’t going to provide the same results. There’s a damn reason the whole shift to a standard uniform for both officers and enlisted happened, and why it didn’t take the form of a copy of the “pinks and greens”. Hell, the clues are right there in the damn nickname–Why the hell do you suppose they called those pants “pink”, when they were supposed to be a lighter shade of OD green? Yeah, that’s right–They generally faded, lost color, and failed to meed the actual color standard.

          The historical ignorance here is palpable, and I’ll just about guarantee we’re going to be seeing posts on here in about five years, bemoaning the entirely predictable problems with this uniform. We just can’t learn.

          • Stefan S. says:

            Wow. Nothing else to bitch about? Please get off your soapbox. Bet you said nothing when chicks got Ranger tabs and Trannies are getting Tricare paid for “reassignment surgery”.

            • Kirk says:

              I’m bitching about this because it’s stupidity that I can now criticize, being retired and not having to silently support these dumbasses when they come up with shit like the black beret fiasco.

              It was physically painful to have to participate in that whole childish exercise in magical thinking, as well as support the chain of command with the troops. I don’t think there were any of us line dogs who thought that whole thing was a good idea, but we had to support it.

              The other stupid shit you mention? That’s all political, and there’s not a damn thing you, me, or anyone else wearing a uniform can do about it, besides vote the stupid mofo’s out of office when the elections come up. And, I have gone on record numerous times, saying that both those ideas were ridiculously stupid, anyway.

              The whole concept of there being any such thing as a “dress uniform” is completely risible in this day and age. Hell–We can’t even wear the damn things in public anymore, for fear of being targeted by terrorists, so what the hell purpose do they serve? We’re not that far off from an era like the 1930s, when even the Army Chief of Staff wore civilian clothes to and from his offices in Washington, DC, only changing into uniform while in the office or reporting to Congress. With the changing environment in society, the whole concept of a dress uniform has become severely outdated, and we may just as well acknowledge that fact and save the money.

              Be honest with yourself: When was the last time you and your buddies in the barracks said “Yeah! Let’s get into our ASUs, and go out on the town…”.

              Ain’t happening, is it? Hell, even if you wanted to, the folks at the intel shop would probably be briefing you on what a bad idea it was, to make it easy for the bad guys to spot and target your ass. Remember how we used to do PCS moves, in full Class “A” uniforms? Remember why we quit? Does the name SW2 Robert Dean Stethem ring any bells, for you?

              And, since the entire idea of these uniforms is based on that archaic tradition, that of the “walking-out uniform”, weeelll… I think we’re a little overdue to be acknowledging reality and doing away with the damn things. I, for one, would rather see the troops spending all the time devoted to doing in-ranks and uniform maintenance on things like crew drills and combat lifesaver refresher training.

    • Attack7 says:

      Aw man, a bunch of folks complaining about something they can’t control!

      Buck up! The branch can’t seem to wear uniforms correctly today anyway, so why complain.

      Complain that your NCOES/OES doesn’t have a progressive mastery of combat skills development for your MOS, or that you haven’t attended MMTC, AWALP, JFO, MBC, JM, MG, or some other course that will assist you and your people with mastery of the Big 5-8 tasks for combat against a peer threat.

      When the uniform comes out, get it, tailor it, wear it correctly and proudly, then make all your people do the same. Then teach them the origin, who wore it in the past and why. This is the difference that has been lost all these years. Or you can be the ‘other’ leader who does the opposite, which is why the service branch has such a bad reputation today = very little by first and second line leaders to develop the correct, high performance culture in units. It is you, its on you, it is not easy, buck up!

      • Dave says:

        The feedback I’ve seen, solid leaders are looking forward to the uniform addition. The malcontents and poor performers are bitching about the clothing allowance.

        This being implemented will have a net zero effect on training quality. But it will give a more professional appearance to our Army. A Soldier in a sharp uniform in public is much better than one in ACUs.

        Training improvements starts with junior leaders. No you won’t get unlimited funds for live fire training. So figure out how to improve skills and knowledge outside of the LFX. Crew drills, Battle drills, and professional development cost zero.

    • Bill says:

      It starts at the bottom.
      Looking good is feeling good. We need a dress uniform that gives us history and tradition, just like the USMC and Navy have.
      Instead we currently have a USAF bus driver outfit, that somehow looks worse than the actual USAF.
      I love the P&Gs and hope they’re approved forthwith, with a small bump in unform allowances to help joe get his hands on a set.

  2. 10thMountainMan says:

    I really like this uniform. Look foreward to wearing it.

  3. Joe says:

    Are we going to start calling it the Great Patriotic War too?

  4. Mike says:

    Gotta have that fucked up haircut too!

  5. This is as ignorant as handing out BSM’ s and rank and green and black berets to remfs. How about re-introducing discipline SMA instead of feel good items and participation awards.

    • SSD says:

      I know right! How dare the Army get a good looking uniform. In fact, they ought to go back to UCP while they’re at it!

      • Kirk says:

        The adoption of UCP was a perfect examplar of how and why all this uniform crap has gone off the rails. If you recall, the adoption of that pattern was yet another case where some high-ranking dumbass put his thumb on the scale, and made something stupid happen for his own self-aggrandizement.

        We don’t need another goddamn stupid-ass dress uniform that 99% of the force is never going to wear outside of mandatory in-ranks inspections and promotion boards. We need more and better training, better institutional personnel policies, and about a million other things besides someone’s flakey idea of what a WWII officer wore around the Pentagon, or when working in a headquarters with our allies.

        The fact that there are people who are even paying attention to this issue in the upper echelons of the Army is an indicator that the majority of them don’t have a fucking clue about what’s going to matter over the next ten to twenty years. We’ve got indicators in the Ukraine right now that the Russians have pulled off another “revolution in military affairs” with regards to how they’re fighting, and we’re worried about what dress uniforms we’re gonna be wearing to the fucking memorial ceremonies, instead of figuring out how the hell we’re going to counter their electronic warfare and drone reconnaissance.

        The Army needs to pull its head out of its ass, and figure out that the world has changed, and is in the process of changing even more. The crap that scares the shit out of me here is the rapidity of our return to the old ways of doing business–Instead of recognizing that the old linear battlefield ain’t coming back, and we’re going to have to have a permanent institutional change reflecting that, creating and keeping Personal Security Detachments in every unit above company level, we’ve gone back to our comfortable rut, and ignored the necessity to have these things permanently integrated into the various headquarters. Which means that we will again be pulling them out of our asses for the next go-round, and raping the line units for equipment and personnel to support allowing the commander to roam the battlefield.

        This shit ain’t new, either–The Germans lost Rommel to a similar blind spot, as well as a bunch of other leaders across the rank structure. We lost MG Dean to the North Koreans for very similar reasons, and there’s no reason to think that things are going to somehow suddenly become safer for battlefield circulation in the future. Hell, if anything, the prevalence of “special operations” troops in the Chinese, North Korean, and Russian forces argues that we really need to start beefing up our commander’s security more than ever. I can about guarantee you that a feature of any conflict on the Korean peninsula is going to include a dedicated effort on the part of the North Koreans to do things like kill and capture our leadership as it attempts to do its job of observation and circulation.

        Things like that need attention; not pretty-pretties for the idiots in the command structure to play tin soldiers with.

  6. Francis Marion says:

    I’m having a touch of a hard time understanding the vitriol directed at a potential authorized uniform….What’s the issue here? It may happen, it may not. It has no true effect on what the Army does and won’t be worn by most troops anyway. In the eight years I was privileged enough to serve, I wore my Class A’s a whopping total of twice, one of which was graduation from basic, the second was graduation from AIT.

    • SSD says:

      I’m pretty confident this is going to happen. What’s more, I think you’ll see Soldiers who work in offices wearing it regularly. I expect a policy change to come along with it.

      • MED says:

        I’m also tripping on the haters. WTF? Keep it stupid, simple. Especially if you’re not even going to be wearing it. I don’t really give a crap what you think.
        I personally love it. I can’t wait for the authorization. Ive “earned it”. So have all my sisters and brothers I serve with.

    • Strike-Hold says:

      I also have a hard time grasping why some people are so vocal in their bitching and moaning about it. These very same people are probably many of the same ones who complain so loudly about the ASU.

      In my opinion, UCP, the ASU and the Black Beret were DUMB decisions – this is a good move to fix at least one of those dumb decisions.

      It will also put the troops in a much more suitable looking service uniform (the ASU is too fancy and also looks too much like a bus driver, sky cab or Metro DC police uniform). At the end of the day, I think it’s high time that Soldiers started looking like Soldiers again, so I’m fine with this change (I also like how they’re “road testing” the idea for feedback before steaming ahead with it too).

      Now, they just need to bring back brown jump boots too. 😉

    • z0phi3l says:

      I’m also not sure why the hate, thankfully I”ve been out for a while and never had to wear the current travesty of a “dress uniform” but I sure as hell would be chomping at the bit to start wearing this

  7. Harold Shrewsberry says:

    We have an outstanding army where all who serve volunteer to be a part of the elete dedicated to protect our country from all enemies domestic and foreign. The uniform is a big part of what the army stands for and providing soldiers a uniform symoblizing proud service is a big part of what makes our army great. Look more at what is in the uniform respecting and honoring the individual. This new uniform helps identify the sacrifices made by all who served focusing on a special period of dedicate service. I am glad to see a change that captures a look at our past while striving to provide a uniform that inspires respect for all who wear it. The soldier makes the uniform not the uniform that makes the soldier. Command Sergeant Major Retired.

  8. Aaron says:

    Can we stop?

    Seriously wtf do SMAs do?

    • straps says:

      Stuff like this, partly. Idle hands…

      I actually like this move, and I believe that SMA Dailey has shown himself to be one of the good ones.

  9. 9baller says:

    They look good. What’s up with these comments that are equating these to having less training, like it’s either/or? I’ve only worn the ASU for DA photos, but I see how terrible they look whenever I see someone wearing them, and we’re in the same Army.

    I haven’t heard anyone say the current dress uniform is less shitty than this one. The goal should the best in everything, even an office uniform. If you start off with the mentality of demanding the best of everything you reap the benefits everywhere. The idea that you should allow something to be shit so you can be better elsewhere is amateur at best.

    • Kirk says:

      Then, the idea that you’re going to somehow implement excellence in military performance by changing the uniform would be…? Delusional, perhaps?

      It’s not an either/or proposition, here. What it is is an indicator that the people running this clusterfuck have no goddamn idea whatsoever of what is important, and what needs to be prioritized on. Changing over to this from the ASU is going to be a huge distraction and cost a fortune, not least for the junior enlisted.

      As well, let’s spend some damn time thinking about the practical issues here, with regards to mass-issue of this abortion of a uniform. There’s this thing with different dye lots and different fabrics experiencing different results for color-uptake, color-fastness, and a whole host of other issues. What looks really good and neat in prototype often turns to shit when it goes into mass production, and even with modern technique, I’m seeing a potential here for severe problems in maintaining uniformity of color shade across an entire formation. The jackets probably won’t be that noticeable, but the pants…? Holy shit… You’re going to have everything from a relatively original issue color to stuff that’s faded out and whitish, because some guy has actually worn the things a bit more. Instead of going “OK, all the tall guys to the front…”, it’s gonna be “break out the color scale, and make sure everyone in the front rank has more-or-less matching pants on…”.

      Fading isn’t all that noticeable in darker colors, like the blues and greens we’re all most familiar with, but in the khakis and tans…? LOL. I don’t think many people remember the “good old days” at all well–There’s a reason that the term “cook whites” was applied to older khakis, and frowned upon by the First Sergeant. I seem to remember the old-timers from my first years of service bitching and moaning about the need to constantly buy new khakis to keep the leadership off their backs, and every time I brought up how cool they looked, I’d get an earful about the cost to maintain them. And, that was back when a set maybe cost about twelve bucks, over at Quartermaster Sales.

      Although, to be honest, I do see an advantage for the individual soldier–We’re not going to have to worry about shade-matching between the coat and pants, any more.

      There are reasons the Army chose to go away from the “pinks and greens”, rather than issue them across the board after WWII. The uniform was expensive to maintain, and there were a lot of officers who were relieved to be able to go to the new greens. For good reasons… Which, of course, we’ve forgotten. The way things look, we’re gonna get a quick history lesson to remind us, shortly.

      • Adun says:

        Maybe we will see soldiers start to take pride in the more faded uniforms, because it will partially indicate time in service if they are more faded. That is what happens to a degree in the IDF since time in service was valued over many other factors.

  10. Dirt Bag says:

    Why don’t we do something simple if its about looking good, start pressing and starching our uniforms again since we have a professional looking pattern now. It went away with the UCP ACU, but the care and use label is the same as the BDUs. Also the verbiage in AR 670-1 hasn’t changed since 1983 so anyone who tries saying it’s unauthorized is full of crap. Starching was never authorized but pressing is, and is arguably mandatory if you read the regulation.

  11. Jon, OPT says:

    Getting a new uniform pulls no one from the field, doesn’t distract a unit, and seriously, if an Officer or NCO has a career path that relegated them to be put on uniform transition projects, would you want that guy (LTC Nevergonnahaveacommand and SGM Letsmeasurethosesideburns) running you through training?

    I get that funding could go to better supporting troops logistically (no argument here), but designing and creating a nice uniform is negligible compared to the amount of money wasted on items that are issued to EVERY Soldier through CIF that never get used. If your point is to nitpick misuse of funding, this is not the department to start in, you are pointing at the third string waterboy for the Pentagon Wars and asking why he’s on the field.

    Plus, it’s FINALLY a good looking uniform, the ASU answered a question no one asked, the Blues were officially not mandatory (let’s have a uniform that shows how much a Soldier loves his job, don’t have, and you’re suspect!). I don’t have an issue with this, it’s not something that costs a lot, and those manning the project are probably better off there than rodding Privates off the range so they can check that their boots are on the “wear” list, or that their eyewear is on the APEL for sake of uniformity, not safety.

    Just my .02, also, did I mention that this is finally a good looking uniform? Over 20 illustrious years of Woodland to Scorpion and everything in between; having worn greens, A’s, B’s, Cunt cap, Berets, ASU etc, finally the force won’t look like Flyboys, but a ground fighting force. Now do the jump boots in Brown and you have me sold.

    • Kirk says:

      Any uniform looks good in prototype, mostly because they are hand-tailored, and the models are picked carefully. The true test comes when you’re doing mass-issue, and everybody is suddenly wearing what the factory could produce cost-effectively.

      The reason everyone looks at the pictures from the era when these things were on mass-issue still, and thinks “Wow, what a good looking uniform…” stems from the fact that most of the examples they’re looking at were a.) custom-tailored, b.) made from much higher-quality materials than the average uniform of the era, and c.) the guys wearing them generally were buying them out of their own pockets, soooo… They were kinda insistent on getting quality for their money.

      What comes out the other end of the sausage-making machinery ain’t gonna look like what you’re hoping for, even with modern textile technology. Odds are, the end product is going to look about as good or bad as the individual soldier wearing it is, and there are still going to be people who manage to make it look like they’re wearing flour sacks.

  12. Joe says:

    No in the negative comments section (so far) is arguing any of the following:

    • The WW II era Pinks&Greens looked terrible!
    • The current crop of uniforms are amazing!
    • Dress uniforms are of the utmost importance to making a fighting force legitimate.

    People, or (Russian troll-bot), are arguing that todays soldiers

  13. Joe says:

    todays soldiers:

    • Don’t rate WW II era uniforms…but somehow they rate superior ones???
    • Army doesn’t need to replace an item because we already have some!!!…Think through that non logic for a second.
    • This is like the beret debacle!… No, no it’s not. At all.

    We replaced good enough, (Pinks & Greens), for worse, (current crop of dress uniforms), and are returning to something superior, (Pinks & Greens) Think of all the traditions, uniforms, equipment, weaponry that Soldiers of the past used, and is still being used today
    Does the current Army “not rate” to use that as well? I hear bets bitch and moan about “these millenials have it too easy, back in my day
    ..), but then when someone attempts to reclaim something lost it’s heresy of the highest order. Same idiots who were clamoring for the Army to return to the M14 as a current issue service rifle are upset the Army is returning to a BAMF Class A uniform. On second thought I bet 99% of them ARE Russian Troll Farm Bots.

    From one Marine to all you Army types, rock on. If the Marine Corps has worn the same dress unoforms (essentially unchanged), for the last 100 years, the Army gets a free pass to about face and fix themselves. That is all.

    • Dave says:

      it’s not about “rating” a WWII uniform, it’s about the fact that the Army had a green uniform with 60 years of tradition behind it that it shitcanned in favor of pretending we’re the Greatest Generation.

      The green Class A uniform had 60 years of tradition behind it, it was the uniform my father and uncle wore during their service in the Vietnam war. It’s the uniform that I and my comrades wore during the GWOT. It’s the uniform of Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia. It was the uniform of the Soldiers who won the Cold War. There is much more history behind it than the “pinks and greens.”

      For the SMA to say that the last time the country honored and respected the Army was during WWII is an insult to all the Veterans who came afterwards. It shows a gross lack of respect for their service.

      • SSD says:

        The dress Green uniform was adopted to give the US Army a more modern, corporate look. That uniform sucked compared to what came before it.

        • Dave says:

          It looked fine, especially when paired with the tan shirt it was originally fielded with. And it was quite popular when it was first fielded.

  14. 32sbct says:

    Can we ever get past the black beret issue? That’s been in effect since 2001. The majority of today’s force don’t remember when Rangers wore a black beret. It was a bad decision to take the black beret from them but having everyone wear a beret did not make anyone better or anyone worse. The old piss cutter hat was terrible and needed to go.

    As far as the pinks and greens go I don’t see the need for another uniform. How often does a Soldier ever wear their ASU now. One of the big reasons to adopt it was to reduce the number of uniforms a Soldier needed. They should have gone this direction in 2008 but they didn’t so now we should drive on. Think about it. This would require a 100 % change out including items like shoes, belt, tie etc. Too much money for just a different look.

  15. z0phi3l says:

    Here’s my 2c

    Compared to Daley, the 2 in the Pink and Greens look much better, was never a fan of the Bus driver look that was implemented when we went full blues and made some weird changes to it

    Not sure what was done but the current blues look different than what we used in the 90s but it could also just be old age

    • Matthew says:

      YES!!! I thought they looked like bus driver uniforms too! Finally we get a good SMA and people are bashing his ideas? This guy is awesome. I hope a he stays a long time.

  16. Matthew says:

    I love these new uniforms. The blues make us look like bus drivers and police. I’d rather go back to the greens then these craptacular blue uniforms. SMA Dailey is fucking awesome. Anyone who likes the blue uniform is probably an 88M or some other soft skills. I believe it should be the combat MOS type soldiers that decide the uniform not the soft skill pencil pushers. Yeah same team one fight but its the 18 and 11 series guys that fight and die the most often. I want to look good in my “hero” photo(the photo everyone sees when a soldier falls” when I die…. Not looking like a bus driver or a meter maid.

    This does not cost the Army additional money as they phase uniforms out and it is on the service member to purchase the new uniform by the wear out date. New recruits get the new uniforms as the blues are phased out.

    • Che Guevara's Open Chest Wound says:

      88Mikes have “soft skills?” It didn’t seem too soft when we were getting ambushed & IED’d on the reg in Iraq.

      On second thought, never mind. I just realized you’re one of those kids who’ve never served in theatre. Carry on posing for your “hero” photo.

  17. Will Rodriguez says:

    The irony in so many of the comments is off the charts.

    People complain because you can’t instill esprit with a uniform They are right but then chafe at the sorts of things that instill esprit, tough training is surely part of it but so is uniformity… Wait! I can’t wear tats, have relaxed grooming standards etc.

    Others complain about the cost, forgetting they get a clothing allowance. How many actually replace over $470 of uniforms a year? Oh, and the thought of turning this into training? A 1000 rounds of 5.56 costs about $300 but most live fires have two iterations before going hot what’s that cost? What about the 7.62 support weapons, one 40mm HEDP round costs $200 and now add range time targetry etc. When all is said and done we are talking MAYBE a handful of events. YES, let’s do more training but forgoing a dress uniform sure isn’t going to pay for it.

    Other complain of the lack of ASU’s tradition. LOL, we’ve been wearing blues longer than any service and this point gets to the heart of the problem.

    Our Army does a terrible job of inculcating pride in being a soldier. How many of you know the Army’s motto? The Army’s birthday? How many identify with ____ (fill in MOS title) instead of the term “Soldier”? How many spell Soldier with a capital S instead of a small s. I won’t even touch on the general lack of knowledge of our own Army’s history?

    The Army defaults to letting units inculcate esprit which happens in a lot of the combat arms units I served with (and also reinforces identifying with a specialty and a specific unit vs. being a Soldier). Most often I remember enlisted learning their unit’s history in the dreaded promotion boards some above are complaining about where they have to (wait for it), wear their dress uniforms. (BTW, it’s hilarious that some complain about buying a uniform they never wear but will be the first to bitch if they have to wear it! Again, I said the irony is RICH!)

    To really change we need a top to bottom inoculation of pride and there actually is a lot to be proud of (an essay of its own). I don’t think it will happen. Just like we can address much of our marksmanship training with a real emphasis vs. buying hardware we just don’t seem to have the staying power.

    Example. “The Soldier Creed” is what remains from the Army’s attempt to instill combat skills and a warrior spirit across the service because of the dismal job the 507th Maintenance Company (of Jessica Lynch fame) did when it ran into an ambush. The initial plan incorporated some much needed combat training and a lengthening of basic. The problem is the effort died on the vine because when these newly trained CS & CSS soldiers got out to their units the leaders had not been “regreened” and had better things to do. Fast forward a decade the training is gone and all that remains is the Soldier’s Creed.

    While I LOVE the Pinks and Greens the desired result will not be achieved. Pinks and Greens were bought by officers who thought enough of their appearance to buy tailored uniforms. It came in a time where field uniforms were worn in the field and dress uniforms for their appropriate requirements. It existed in a time where you could be FINED for nopt wearing the uniform properly. LOL, imagine the uproar if soldiers had to wear dress uniforms on public travel like we had to do only a couple of decades ago or God forbid, the monthly pay day inspection? People would lose their minds.

    Oh, to those who promote higher standards but don’t want to wear a dress uniform. I don’t think you ever stood a payday dress uniform inspection where the over weight couldn’t hide as well as those that didn’t have enough pride to wear the uniform correctly and proudly. Even the most cynical had to “fake it to make it”. One may not know a sane person cannot act a certain way and over time not feel the emotion they are displaying. It’s why “ARE YOU MOTIVATED?” eventually works.

    Parting shot… If you happen to be in one of those units that doesn’t have an esprit problem AWESOME! That doesn’t mean the rest of the Army couldn’t use tweaking and why stand in the way of that effort? Is it because your ___ (fill in the specialty) doesn’t need a pride injection? Well you just made my point because you said _____ vs, US Army or Soldier…

    • AbnMedOps says:

      I’m pretty much with you, except on the capital “S” in the word “Soldier”, which is a well intended, but ill-begotten, grammatically incorrect conceit decreed by the Chief of Staff of the Army several years ago.

      I’m by no means the authoritative source for grammar (nor am I a Grammar National Socialist…much), but the authoritative sources I’ve consulted agree that one capitalizes proper nouns, not common nouns, and “soldier” is not a proper noun, in most usages. If you addressed an individual soldier as “Soldier” (example: “Soldier, what the F- where you thinking?”), aforesaid soldier (common noun) would now become a specific individual with a specific title (proper noun), and the capital “S” would now, maybe, be a correct useage.

      In closing, you certainly wouldn’t write “We killed 15 enemy Soldiers” with a capital “S”, would you? Or maybe you would, today, because Army software might autospell it that way!?!

      • SSD says:

        I’m going to keep doing it. This isn’t the New York Times. I write like the services as much as possible.

        • AbnMedOps says:

          Eric, you are fine! I’m not trying to change YOU – I’m trying to change the Army! lol

      • Will Rodriguez says:

        Great points on grammar. I endeavor to use the word Soldier as our Soldiers from the Sea” use the term Marine.

  18. MED says:

    I’m also tripping on the haters. WTF? Keep it stupid, simple. Especially if you’re not even going to be wearing it. I don’t really give a crap what you think.
    I personally love it. I can’t wait for the authorization. Ive “earned it”. So have all my sisters and brothers I serve with.

    • Dave says:

      It’s not about “earned,” it’s about the stupidity of getting rid of one green uniform just to replace it with a slightly different uniform 3 years later. It’s wasteful and expensive, and it’s not going to be an alternate uniform, it will be the standard dress uniform with the ASUs going back to the being the dress blues.

      More to the point, why is the Army worrying about fielding a dress uniform when it can’t equip soldiers with the gear they are supposed to have when they deploy? Half my company deployed to Afghanistan without pants because the RFI ran out of common sizes. I had to buy 2 pair on E-bay and the rest of the Task Force had to donate a pair of pants each so that could be in the proper nomex uniform.

      You should be happy with the blues and leave it at that.

  19. Jon says:

    So I’ll go out on a whim here, since I’m out and all. I think the Pinks and greens were always a good uniform. I came in with greens and switched to blues while in. Came in with BDUs (shortly) and went to UCP then they were going to multi-cam as I went out. I think the uniforms as a whole are more than a morale thing but a recruitment piece too. While I agree that money should be set aside for training and ammo, to quote an old supply chief “different pots of money”. I think if a decent uniform can be established that will encourage people to join is a good thing, especially as we transition from a “at war” military to a “peace time army”….yes, there are still folks going downrange, but it is the pattern we see throughout history. I do think they look sharp and hope the Army goes to wearing them more than just for inspection again. When I came in, it was already a rarity, but when my brother was in, Class B’s were a stable uniform for some MOS’s. I think it should be that way again. Specifically, recruiters wearing ACUs to a school is not as attractive as say a nice set of Class B…. There will always be the argument about earned vs. given. There should be some things earned, but Soldiers have to have a pride in their uniform from before they join, in my opinion. That is one thing the Army has been lacking for a while. Hopefully, Pinks and Greens will bring that back.

  20. Die-Hard-Hans says:

    Of all the s**T we can spend our money on. I’m gonna have to buy yet another, new uniform…

    • SSD says:

      What else would you spend your clothing allowance on?

      • Kirk says:

        Oh, gee… I dunno… Maybe some new ACUs, a pair of boots, some new underwear…?The stuff that wears out, or gets damaged, in the course of a year?

        The clothing allowance is a fucking joke that doesn’t even begin to cover uniform costs for a combat arms enlisted soldier that isn’t working in the Pentagon. I could have “blown” my clothing allowance just keeping in serviceable ACUs over the course of a year, and usually wound up spending easily over 1500.00 a year, when you added up all the cleaning, replacing boots, laundry costs, and repair on things you already owned. Even if you went to the extent of having your boots resoled, you’d often have the CSM or First Sergeant bitching about all the little nicks and marks on the damn things from working with concertina in the field–And, don’t even get me started on Motor Stables issues, where some jackass insists on you wearing a “clean, serviceable uniform…” at all times, to include annual services on the vehicles. That kind of thing just eats uniforms.

        Those of you who were commissioned have no damn idea at all just how far that wonderful Clothing Allowance you keep referring to doesn’t go. It sure as hell doesn’t enable you to buy a complete new dress uniform whenever the powers-that-be get a wild hair up their asses.

        That allowance just barely begins to cover maintenance and replacement costs for what’s in your initial issue bag, let alone when the CSM wants you to keep your deployment gear packed with multiple sets of uniforms and accessories at all times…

        That “clean and serviceable” crap can get stretched a long ways towards insanity, when they have you doing “junk on the bunk” for your deployment bags. I worked for one genius who basically wanted the junior enlisted to own and maintain 8 sets of BDUs in perfect condition, so that we’d have a full set in the bags and a full set for daily wear. I ain’t going to say he was entirely wrong, either, but the problem was that the troops shouldn’t have had to pay for it out of pocket. For some of them, it came down to “have what the boss wanted, or feed the wife and kiddies…”.

        Hell, you go buy one pair of Danners for the field, and you’re kissing goodbye to about half that allowance. Resoling them a year or two later, if you even can, and it can run a good quarter of the allowance, right there. I can’t recall paying less than about 60.00 for a good resoling job, on any boot, and you pretty much have to do that at least once, unless you want to buy new every time.

        You guys need to quit pointing at that clothing allowance as though it were some kind of answer, because it flatly is not what you think it is. All that allowance really does is defray some of the costs associated with keeping your uniforms ready to go, and it’s actually only reimbursing you for about a third of your annual costs. When I used to have my taxes done professionally, I could easily write off $1500.00 a year, when it came to uniform expenses. All that crap adds up, and it adds up to a hell of a lot more than the clothing allowance.

        I’d be interested to know if any of you who are lauding this supposed vast allowance of fundage have any idea at all what the average mid-grade soldier winds up spending, every year, on uniform upkeep and maintenance. I really don’t think you do, because if you did, I wouldn’t have had to keep re-fighting the battles every year over getting guys issued coveralls and work boots for the motor pool on OCIE accounts. I don’t know how many times we got told that those items were only for mechanics, or other folks in the maintenance fields.

        As another point, with the delusional commissioned types? Do you know that in the entirety of my 25-year career as an enlisted swine, I only ever saw any of my commanders actually pay for damaged uniforms out of unit funds but maybe three times, and all were things like having vehicles burn to the ground with everyone’s gear aboard? I never once saw a commander authorize replacement uniforms for things like the guys having to literally dive into concertina during training, or some other genius BS. Every time we submitted, we got denied, and that goes from 1982 through to 2007. Even when the company commander agreed with us, the vouchers would get shot down up at battalion or brigade.

        Hell, the stupid bastards made us turn in laundry during an FTX back in the late 1980s, so that a Reserve laundry unit could get some training time. Roughly 80% of what we sent over came back literally shredded by the archaic machinery they had, and who ate the replacement cost on that one…? Yeah, take a guess what they told us “That’s what your annual clothing allowance is for…”.

        • SSD says:

          I was enlisted for 10 years. Never complained about buying any uniform, except sewing rank, wings and unit patches on Field Jackets for an inspection while I was in Group. I never complained because I was a professional Soldier.

          • Terry Baldwin says:

            I was enlisted for 10 years myself and was a SFC by the time I got my commission in 1985. For the life of me I do not remember any of my infantry soldiers having much concern about what the clothing allowance did or did not cover at any point in my career. In my experience, most soldiers recognized that doing more than the minimum in any endeavor requires extra time, effort and yes money.

            This is a profession not a hobby. Like Kirk, I and most professional NCOs I tried to model myself after did end up buying / replacing more than the minimum number of uniforms and boots every year. And we spit-shined our boots every day we were not in the field and got heavy starch(that of course contributed to destroying the uniforms more rapidly).

            I am not sorry that spit-shining and starch have gone away. But a professional standard of appearance still has immense value. Especially for NCOs and junior officers who are setting the most direct example for our junior enlisted. And just as importantly in presenting ourselves to the American public.

            FWIW, as far back as I can remember, the P&Gs have been the favorite dress uniform on every soldier survey of the subject. At least twice before in my career there was some serious consideration of bringing them back. So this is not an entirely new initiative.


          • Kirk says:

            Well, good for you. That’s just… Special. And, entirely irrelevant, because what we’re talking about here isn’t taking pride in ones professional appearance and ensuring that you have a serviceable uniform on, but the brass flat-out picking your pockets to play dress-up with.

            I seem to remember similar discussions about the ASU, and being assured that this was the last, the final, the penultimate dress uniform, and there wouldn’t be any more fucking bullshit changes coming down the pike, ‘cos we’d finally “fixed it all” with the ASU.

            Didn’t last, did it? So, now we’re gonna take another dive into the troop’s paychecks, for some bullshit they’re gonna wear a couple times a year, and mostly for mandatory inspections that have not one fucking thing to do with anything that’s going to enhance their ability to stay alive on the battlefield and win our fights.

            Color me unimpressed. Even if the Army was going to pay for this, it still represents a huge waste of money, and coming on the heels of the ASU fiasco, I’m less than impressed. Just like with the goddamn UCP bullshit, they had the right solution in hand ten years ago, went with something else, and now we’re going to revisit the issue again after it didn’t work out the way everyone in a position of power thought it would.

            About the only way I’d be happy with this bullshit is if I knew that the money for it was coming out of the paychecks and retirement funds of the assholes who saddled us with the ASU ten years ago. As that’s not the case, and we’re about to rape SGT and SSG Snuffy’s paychecks for around a thousand bucks, well… I’m not happy with this shit, and I refuse to be a cheerleader for it.

            And, oh-by-the-way, I can about guarantee you that this little cluster-fuck ain’t gonna work out the way y’all are so cheerfully predicting. Those uniforms are not going to look the way they do now, custom-tailored and on carefully chosen photogenic models, when you’re finally seeing the end result across entire formations of regular troops. You didn’t notice the shade differences on WWII-era uniforms that much, because the officers weren’t generally seen next to each other in formation, but there’s gonna be a reckoning when it comes to the way it looks on 15-man fronts and in company formations. With differential fading on those light-colored slacks, the formations are going to look like crap, and it’s going to be “Hey-ho, back to the good-old but really bad-old days, again…” when the senior enlisted start demanding everyone match shades as closely as possible–Which was a major frustration for folks wearing the old khakis, per the old-timers I had as bosses back when. Every time I would bring up how cool the khakis looked, I’d get an earful about what a pain in the ass it was to have to buy new every time they wanted them worn in formations, and needed them to match. I don’t know that that actually happened, from personal experience, but I do know that’s what I heard every time I spoke up about how cool the old uniforms were…

            • Terry Baldwin says:


              I did wear khakis for several years. Again I’ll be damned if I remember anyone complaining about the uniformity of fading or demanding absolute shade conformity in formation. That may have happened in the excessively anal retentive units the “old timers” you speak of served in – but not in any of the infantry units I served in.

              The only real complaint I ever heard about the khakis is that they tended to wrinkle easily especially in high humidity. Still, I and most guys I know from that era were sorry to see them go. They made a relatively low maintenance and good looking “Class B” uniform especially in the summer.

              I can remember doing funeral detail in khakis at the Punchbowl National Cemetery on Oahu in the early 80s. Some days we would do three or four funerals and we had to bring fresh uniforms to change into at some point. As I recall we were issued 3 sets of khakis at that time.

              Which brings me to my next point. I suggest everyone quit focusing on DA photos and promotion boards – or even how often in a year you wear the dress uniform. The most important events in my career in which I wore a dress uniform was at funerals for the fallen.

              Whether it was khakis, Dress Greens or toward the end ASUs I wore the uniform with pride. If not for myself at least for the fallen and the families’ sake. I’ve gone to a lot of funerals over the years. So, yea sometimes a professionally worn dress uniform matters. It matters a lot.

              I reject your argument that someone is “picking soldiers’ pockets” in this case. No one guaranteed anyone that they would end a long career with the same uniforms that they started their career wearing. The biggest problem with the ASU in the first place (IMHO) was that it “saved” money based on the false premise that a one uniform “solution” could be all things to all people on ALL occasions.

              That was a bad decision but was in line with your thinking that cost should be the overriding consideration. You and I are both out now so it is not up to us. My impression is that a lot of the people still serving would like to see P&Gs readopted and the Dress Blues returned to their previous status. I agree that it is not likely to be a perfect or permanent resolution; but I suspect it will be very popular.


  21. k9 ballmonkey says:

    I am not going to read all of these, to see if it has been touched on. Does anyone not see Fraud, WASTE, and Abuse. Does any of these leaders or project managers who come up with these stupid ideas think about the colossal waste of money and time it is every time the good idea fairy has an accidental discharge with her wand.
    How many times are we going to change our uniforms and all the additional items that have to change with them?. In addition to the cost to the soldier of having to outfit themselves with a new dress uniform, minimum $500.00 bucks right there.

    I hope the SMA feels good about this new uniform, It will definitely be an excellence on his NCOER.

    • SSD says:

      I don’t think the SMA is too worried about a bullet on his NCOER.

      I’ve got to tell you that I’m genuinely perplexed by your FW&A line of thinking. What is the Army supposed to wear if it isn’t a uniform?

    • Attack7 says:

      I don’t see FW&A when you compare this to NETT Warrior or all that NIE and AEWE crap that goes on every year, and never works! I see a service uniform, so the Blues can go back to being Blues!

  22. Ex11A says:

    The problem with the ASU is that if you take your jacket off, BAM you now look like a waiter or cook at a nice restaurant. There is no Class B of the ASU without looking ridiculous. At least with this proposed uniform, you take the jacket off, you’re walking around in a khaki shirt and pants, so you at least look military. Also, having a cool uniform does more for recruiting than a million stupid slogans (Army of One, Army Strong, etc.).

  23. Horshack says:

    My TL says this uniform is awesome and he would love to have worn it when he got back from the war in ’91. At his parade, there unit had to mach around town in the ugly green uniform with the triagle hat on. My ATL said my TL always got upset about that parade because he wish he could wear a beret. Whatever color. He don’t care. Just looks bad ass. My TL says he will by a set of these and wear at the local VFW Christmas parade when all the war heros march around town. Those guys our bad ass!

  24. Chester Copperpot says:

    The uniform looks good – nice brown shoes.

    However, I would caution that the Army should take a look at the process the Navy went through a few years ago with the Service Dress Khaki optional throwback uniform experiment. Despite nearly every Four Star Admiral – including the JCS Chairman, several COCOMs, the CNO – and almost all the Navy Senior Enlisted leadership wearing the SDK prototypes, the initiative was cancelled.


    The leadership decided that even though all Chiefs and Officers already owned a partial version of the Khaki uniform and the combination cap, the new uniform cost too much, and did nothing that an existing uniform didn’t already do.

    • SSD says:

      This won’t be an optional uniform, purchased at the Soldier’s discretion. This will be a clothing bag item.

      • Dave says:

        So, does the ASU go back to being the dress blues, and optional uniform for enlisted and mandatory for officers?

        Killing the Class A’s in favor of the ASU was sold as a cost saving measure for soldiers. One field uniform and one dress uniform and that was it. Now we’re taking a step backwards and requiring soldiers to keep up with 2 dress uniforms in addition to their work uniforms.

        It’s really sticking it to all the National Guard officers, requiring them to purchase a new dress uniform 2 years after mandating the current dress uniform. Another $4-600 spent on a uniform you wear once a year (if that) for your DA photo.

        • straps says:

          Won’t wear it for a DA photo. Will wear it at community engagements. Which anyone who isn’t doing needs to STOP complaining about recruit quality.

          Signed, a lowly Reservist who wore some variation of the ASU for 22 days last FY (10 for pay, 12 for points).

          • Dave says:

            Good luck on getting promoted if you’re wearing last year’s uniform in the DA Photo. We had the Branch Chief come and brief us at Ft Rucker about 5 years ago, straight up told us we wouldn’t be promoted if we were wearing the green Class As, which were an authorized uniform at the time.

            And if you want to engage the community, wear your cammies. People respond a lot better to those than any dress uniform.

            • straps says:

              Already sold on this uniform. My S4 can keep theirs, mine will be Marlow White. And I’ll stand for a photo in whatever will get me a long look at the next board.

              Far as community engagement, utility uniform is appropriate in some settings, decidedly NOT in others. I believe Army has been variously ashamed of/confused by its Class A/B uniforms, and developed a blind spot. And been a little lazy. And tolerated many senior leaders hiding bad habits under loose-fitting clothes.

              We engage prospects (most of the time) in utility uniforms. We engage influencers in whatever uniform is contextually appropriate. That’s not always the utility uniform. We’ve discussed this as an Army-only group and with service partners and with facilitators (conferences, etc.). The extra effort has been worth it.

  25. straps says:

    Exclusive of the debate (which has actually been pretty cool), nobody seems to have noticed that they’ve added a belt.

    They’ve added a belt.

    • SSD says:

      That they have.

    • AbnMedOps says:

      Is the belt calibrated for in-ranks tape testing? Or, better idea, it could be reversible for dual use as a reflective PT belt!

      • straps says:

        Hells yeah. Jacket turns into a REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE lipotropic TENS device if the chest/neck/waist ratios are off.

        No need for a reflective belt–the uniform radiates the golden glow of past glory.

  26. Loopy says:

    Slap a dead bird logo somewhere on the uniform and the guys here will stop complaining,

  27. JBar says:

    Regardless if the decision is good, financially, or not, that”s a damn good looking uniform! It also looks to be WAY easier to wear and maintain. With this and OCP, the Army is finally getting back to where they should have been long ago. Now, just stay there.

  28. JBar says:

    Does it cover self mutilation scars well?