9 December 2008

The Butter-Cutter On The Army-Navy Game

“What an ass whuppin' Navy put on Army-40 ta zip! Did ya watch the football game Saturday?” The Butter-Cutter asked as I approached the virtual Chow Line.

“Yes, I did. This is the seventh consecutive victor for Navy over Army and their first shutout of Army since 1978. What has happened to Army?” I wondered aloud.

'Well, I'll tell ya one thing: fer this game, they came in with the wrong camouflage uniforms!” he suggested.

“ 'Wrong camouflage uniforms,' what do you mean by that?” I asked.

“Maan . . . the uniforms they played in. They had the same pattern on their helmets, numbers, and trousers that they got on their brown camouflage utilities [BDUs]. If they wanted ta be camouflaged, they shouldda wore Navy uniforms! Camouflage means lookin' like the stuff around ya 'n' they didn't look nothin' like them Navy guys. What a dumb-shit decision their coach made on that one.”

I didn't know what to make of what The Butter-Cutter just said. So, I played along and explained, “The two teams in a football game must wear different uniforms. If the 22 players on the field were all dressed the same, it would be confusing to those players as well as the spectators.”

“I KNOW THAT! I wasn't the one who decided ta camouflage the Army team; it was the Army coach who tried ta confuse everybody by puttin' his team in camouflage uniforms 'n' he picked the wrong camouflage. Even them cadet Strap-Hangers that came ta watch the game f***ed it up. They all wore baseball caps with the same brown pattern camouflage like the players. But, none o' them looked like Navy-types-MAJOR F*** UP!” The Butter-Cutter said. “Since, they all looked like Army-types, the Navy-types had no trouble seein' 'em 'n' whuppin' their asses! Them West Point-types gotta take a course in doin' camouflage RIGHT!” he said.

“STOP! STOP! STOP!” I said. “The Army team was NOT trying to hid from the Navy team. They evidently chose the brown camouflage pattern for their football uniforms as a gesture of solidarity and commonality with their brothers and sisters in the field. This pattern is indicative of the Army uniform worn by its warriors,” I explained to THE Butter-Cutter.

“So, yer sayin' ta me that this brown uniform pattern ain't no camouflage pattern? This pattern ain't supposed ta help somebody hid from the bad guys? Its just a 'warrior' uniform pattern?”

“No, I'm not saying that: It is a pattern intended to aid the soldier in blending in with his background in combat; in other words, camouflaging the soldier from the enemy's view,” I corrected him.

“Them Army warrior-types been spendin' most o' their time fightin' from house-ta-house in Iraq; ya mean ta tell me that that brown pattern makes 'em look like an Iraqi house?” The Butter-Cutter asked.

“NO, it doesn't make them look like an Iraqi house. It . . . tends to help in . . . obscuring . . . the shape of the soldier in . . . that generally brown-colored environment,” I attempted to answer. “In any case, the camouflage pattern has ALSO become the standard for American warriors' uniforms. There are slight differences from one Service to the next; but, they all use a camouflage pattern.” 

“In no-shit language, this 'standard for American warrior's uniforms' is more Pentagon Spear Chucker homogen-jive!” he volunteered.

“Homogen-jive? What in the name of the English language is 'homogen-jive'?” I asked.

“Maan, yer slow: homogen's like homogenize-makin' stuff the same; 'n', 'jive' is Bull Shit. Ya put 'em together 'n' whaddaya got?  Things that look alike but ain't--Bull Shit, pure 'n' simple!”

“Oh, come now. The Services are trying to communicate a warrior image. What better way than to have the Service members wear a recognizable field warrior uniform?”

“Ya got everybody runnin' around in LOOK-ALIKE war suits: in the field; in garrison; in the Pentagon; 'n', where-ever. So, brain-dead civilians think all these warrior-types are the same. But the bottom line is: soldiers ain't like sailors ain't like Marines ain't like airmen. So, it comes down ta this 'communicate a warrior image' stuff bein' nothin' more than homogen-jive,” The Butter-Cutter said.

“You are making too much of this. The commonality of uniform pattern does NOT make the warrior wearing it!” 

“No? Well, them Navy-types wore their own uncommon uniforms 'n' whupped them Army-types in their 'commonality' uniforms Saturday in that football game! Ya see: Winners ain't no kinda common; they're different then everybody else!”

Semper Winners,

Anthony F. Milavic

Major USMC (Ret.) 

Waddaya think?

sniperbait66 said:   December 9th, 2008 2:04 am

Screw the camouflage. Bring our kids HOME! Let the Muslims sort out their own problems (notice I didn't say "Ragheads"). Bush/Cheny started this whole thing with 9/11 to make Congressmen/women and Cheny/Bush wealthy/er. The Oil Industry and the Military, Congressional, Industrial Complex Ike warned us about, have been the ONLY ones to profit. I hope General Jones has the honesty and the BALLS to do something RIGHT/constructive, since the other Generals all seem to have NO BALLS, we'll just have to wait and see who fuc#s us first.

j rooth said:   December 9th, 2008 8:01 am

General Jones started it... It was on his watch that 9/11 happened so I guess we can blame him for giving Bush his war. I know we can blame Jones for the digital cammies worn by the Corps and copied by the Army. The General asked me (and 29 other Vietnam Marines) what I (we) thought of the new uniforms one summer day while standing at the base of the Iwo Jima monument after a stirring speech given by James Brady about the "new" Air Force memorial to be built. Have you had the opportunity to see what the Air Force finally went with? In the uncanny words of my daughter, "WHEEEE!" The only saving grace about it is it is not located on the Mall. However, it is located next to Henderson Hall and the Navy Annex. But I digress...or is it digest? Getting back to the original post, the Navy did manage to show he Army that "Army Strong" is as lame as "An Army of One!"

Ed Blanz said:   December 9th, 2008 10:34 am

Major, the wearing of the utility uniform 24/7 started with CMC Gray. The 2nd Marine Division, under LTGEN Toomey, wore summer/winter service for office work, classroom training, MPâ??s on the gates and in vehicles. The utility uniform was used for field duty, working in Motor â??Tâ?, field days, anywhere where the service uniform was inappropriate due to the chance it would become soiled or ruined. Award ceremonies, Office Hours, Request Mast and for sure Courts-martial were all conducted with everyone in service uniform. At the same time, working parties, grass details, field days, vehicle maintenance were all conducted in utilities. Somewhere in the 80â??s (I think) the service uniform was â??replacedâ? by the utility uniform, and the utility uniform was no longer used for grass cutting details, field days and most vehicle maintenance functions. I remember company clerks in service uniform â?? and then changing to utilities to go to the field; BN staffâ??s in service uniforms in garrison and all Brown Baggers having a wall locker to keep one set of utilities, one set of service uniforms in so he (never served with WMâ??s) would be able to change to the appropriate uniform. Now, I would suggest that the Corps replace the seabag with digital cammies and Blues. Not real need for the service uniform. Ed Blanz 

Dick Gaines said:   December 9th, 2008 11:30 am

I never liked the newer dungarees at all--the old HBT dungarees w/the Gung Ho Cap (as my DI called it) was just fine. Along about July 1952 an occifer stpped my platoon #437 at PISC and told our DI that we were to tuck in our utility jackets and trousers--kinda hard to do with boondockers--about half my platoon had the new "Micket-Mouse boots" (so-called by my DI). A month or so later, at CJHP, I reported in to find that most of the troops were still wearing their dungarees the old way--many of them had huge globe and anchor insignias stenciled on the backs of their dungaree jackets, along with name, ervice #, etc. Dem were the daze!

Ken Martin said:   December 10th, 2008 5:32 am

I am not a huge sports fan, but i always watch the Navy-Army game. Was that QB camoflaged as a Navy player (when he graduates from the Academy he will be a Marine Pilot) and that receiver was also wearing the Eagle,Globe and Anchor........more camoflage?

Terron Sims, Ii said:   December 10th, 2008 8:36 am

We have discussed the unifrom issue before, and I know that it will come up again, so I will focus on the game, which I have dutifully attended every year since returning from Iraq in 2004. There are MANY reasons why Army football is not as good as it ought to be and why the other two "schools" are much better. You can call these excuses, if you like, but it is what it is. 1) West Point is the only service academy whose graduates are fighting the war. Football players with any REAL skill do not want to go to war and, if they do want to attend a service academy, we are always last on the list. 2) Army's football team is a part of The Corps. There are no special privilegs to being an Army football player (hanging out w/Pete Dawkins does not count), where as AF and navy football players are sequestered from their corps during the entire season, which means that they do not have to handle the same academy stresses as Army football players. 3) Coaching. Since firing Bob Sutton (the worst thing that could have happened to our program), Army has had 4 head coaches in 8 years. You cannot build a program w/o coaching continuity and consistancy in play calling. 4) Location. West Point may be the most beautiful place in the world, but you have to drive at least 20 mins to catch a movie or grab a half decent meal (sorry for you guys who like Schade's pizza), where as navy has a mall across the street, which their freshman can go, and AF is in a real city. At the end of the day, though, navy and AF are still jealous of West Point because we are the only service academy who has been ranked in the Top 25. In 1996, we were ranked 24 at the end of the season. GO ARMY! BEAT...their name's aren't worth mentioning!!

AFM said:  December 11th, 2008 6:23 pm

The Butter Cutter, in his colorful way, repainted the long-standing suggestion that the Armed Forces were becoming a Purple Suit Force. Now that all the Services are wearing camouflage uniforms should the term be changed to, "Camouflaged Force?" On reflection, I prefer the Butter Cutter's term, "Homongen-Jive Force."

TC said:  December 12th, 2008 4:27 pm

Go to the following for another take on the game: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVUb5nAKTE

 Robert Osborne said:   December 15th, 2008 7:31 am

 I think I losing track of what we were talking about here. But does the Camouflage really matter other than the basic color coming close to the back ground. Back in the mid 60's while attending ITR one of the classes was a Camouflage class. The Utility Uniform of the day then was the Gomer Pyle style Utilities so they were the plain green no fancy stuff other than the hidden buttons and Map pocket. At the time I had bright Red hair, fair skin and lots of Freckles the instructor pulled me out before the company entered the intruction area and told me to lay on flat on my stomach in the grass about one hundred feet infront of the bleachers with my head and face toward the bleachers and not to move. After I was in position the company was brought into the bleachers and seated. and the class started. He kept me there for about 15 minutes before he had me stand up no one had seen me. I understand this was a regular demonstration back then. Show what can be done with patients and disipline.