It appears that the House of Representatives aren’t the only ones who want to hold the US military’s feet to the fire regarding their myriad camouflage patterns. The Senate version contains the following language which, while not exactly like the House’s Enyart Amendment, it is definitely in the same vein. Naturally, if it makes it through the remainder of the legislative process, any differences such as the Senate’s stipulation that an individual service (ie the Marines) can’t restrict their pattern’s use by the other services. At any rate, this ought to wake the Army up and get them to announce their camouflage decision before one is foistered upon them.

Subtitle F—Other Matters

Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms (sec. 351)

Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111–84) required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the performance, interoperability, costs, logistics, and patents involved in the services’ combat camouflage and utility uniforms. In April 2010, the GAO reported that since 2002, the services continued to develop unique combat and utility uniforms. The committee notes that prior to 2002, the services wore the same pattern and family of combat camouflage and utility uniforms. The GAO found no performance standards for specific combat environments, no criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and no requirements for the services to test interoperability between their uniforms and other tactical gear, despite the DOD establishing a Joint Clothing and Textiles Governance Board in 2008.

The committee remains concerned that until this year, the Department of the Navy chose to equip its sailors and marines with different types of combat uniforms, providing significantly different levels of protection in combat environments. The GAO recently identified that the DOD’s fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms could be more efficient, better protect service members, and result in up to $82.0 million in development and acquisition cost savings through increased collaboration among the military services.

The committee continues to strongly urge the secretaries of the military departments to explore additional methods for sharing uniform technology across the services as they develop their combat and utility uniforms. The committee continues to believe that combat and utility uniforms should incorporate the most advanced levels of protection and should be available to all men and women in uniform, regardless of the military service in which they serve. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to reduce the separate development and fielding of service-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms in order to collectively adopt and field the same combat and camouflage utility uniforms for use by all members of the armed forces. The committee notes that the recommended provision would also restrict any military service from preventing another military service from authorizing the use of any combat or camouflage utility uniform. Additionally, after the date of enactment of this Act, each military service would be prohibited from adopting new designs for combat and camouflage utility uniforms, including uniforms reflecting changes to the fabric and camouflage patterns used in current combat and camouflage utility uniforms, unless the services adopt a uniform currently in use, all services adopt the same combat or camouflage utility uniform, or the Secretary of Defense determines that unique circumstances or requirements justify an exception to the policy.

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.