As we understand it, Retired Major General (IL ARNG) and Rep William Enyart’s (D- IL) amendment to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act was introduced to the full House Armed Services Committee and passed 32-30. If enacted it will…

require all military services to use a joint combat camouflage uniform, including color and pattern variants designed for specific combat environments.

First off, for those of you unfamiliar with the legislative process, this is just the first hurdle and it’s still quite a way from becoming law. It’s not as bad as I had feared but I’m concerned it still ham strings the individual services. Below is a simplified version of what has to happen.

In order to become the law of the land, it must first pass a vote in the full House of Representatives. Then, the Senate will vote on their version of the NDAA which may or may not include similar language. Either way, the two versions of the NDAA will most assuredly contain differences which will have to be hammered out in Conference Committee made up of members of both chambers of Congress. Once those differences are worked out, a conference report detailing what is in the final legislation is voted on by both the Senate and House of Representatives. After approval, it goes to the President to be signed. Barring a veto it becomes law. At any point in this process expect the services to weigh in.

This is by no means a quick process. The NDAA will become law some time after the Army’s June 14th announcement.

I find this language shortsighted. Service leaders need the latitude to accomplish their mission and at some point, that may require different uniforms. Despite assertions to the contrary, prior to the adoption of the MARPAT MCCUU in 2003, the services did not all wear the same uniform. For example, the Navy wore a work uniform that was not camouflaged and was unlike anything the other services used. But, It was the right uniform for their mission.

And lastly, while the services should work together, Congress telling them that they have to use the same individual equipment to accomplish their missions sets a bad precedent. In the past we have seen Congress force unwanted combat systems on the various services that place undue burdens on force structure and readiness. The services are the experts at defending the Nation and they should decide what tools are required to make that happen.

I’ve been mulling this over all day. I don’t think it’s a good idea for Congress to tell the military services which camouflage they should be using or how they should equip their troops.

First off, they’ve got more important things to worry about. That’s a given.

Second, they have their lane in the road and the military services have theirs. Even retired two-star General turned Congressman William Enyart, (D-IL) doesn’t seem to have the bubble on camouflage. If a guy with that kind of pedigree doesn’t understand the issues at hand, how can we expect someone to who has never served? Representative Enyart has stated that he plans to introduce an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would require all services to adopt the same camouflage pattern by 2018 and would ban the services from developing new camouflage patterns for their own use.

While I’m all for the separate branches of the US military adopting the same camouflage patterns for a variety of reasons, doing it because Congress said so is not even on the list. Aside from the operational and logistical advantages of a common uniform, this budget environment alone should be the precursor to a more common sense approach to field uniforms. Dress uniforms Remain a great way for the services to express their individuality. I’m advocating for the military to do the right thing for the right reasons.

As for a moratorium on camouflage development, I strongly disagree with this idea. Based on the poorly written legislation I see coming out of Washington, such a move will assuredly have negative second and third order effects. For example, what about USSOCOM? While it isn’t a service, it has service-like budget authority and regularly has unique requirements. It uses its budgetary and acquisition authority to fulfill those requirements under MFP-11. Would a poorly written law preclude SOCOM from the fulfillment of unique camouflage requirements that are not shared by conventional forces? Based on Congress’s batting average, my guess is “yes.”

Congress needs to put the services in the hot seat for sure and make them explain why they can’t play nice together but telling them how they should equip individual service members oversteps their mandate.