High Lander said:
"StarTop road folks were the first to decide that the base Orders did not apply to them, and moved into CADPAT to demonstrate their "operational focus". The Army HQ wannabes quickly did the same."
Strike 1 - It wasn't a question of whether the "Orders' applied to them. Commanders have the "authority" to determine orders of dress as they deem appropriate as long as it conforms with CF guidelines. As for the Army, to use the term "wannabes" is inappropriate. The Army truly struggled with the view of itself and how others viewed it coming out of the '90's and into the new millenium. The Army went back and forth on this issue a couple of times actually. It has more to do with a lack of institutional confidence.
Having read the CFSU(O) standing orders on dress, there is a slight degree of wishy-washyness. However, the direction is pretty clear:
Unless otherwise directed, in accordance with the paragraph above, all Officers and Warrant Officers shall wear an appropriate order of service dress (Nos. 3a to 3c inclusive);
The Base Commander sets dress policies. The dot COMS decided long ago that rules do not apply to their bloated, inefficient staffs, and thus chose to ignore the dress policies. The Army commander, LGen Caron, then sent a note to the CDS. "Since my folks interact with the dot COMs, they should therefore be in CADPAT too."
Bad logic. Bad example. And speaking with any number of folks on the Land Staff today their preference for CADPAT that has never graced a range or training area is explained by "it's a zero maintenance uniform". (PS: I was on the Land Staff when the transition occured, and still have many friends there.)
"Here's a question, though: what's the cost differential between DEU and CADPAT? By wearing out a lot of CADPAT a*s-first in the chairs in NDHQ (and in the chairs in the four Land Focre Area HQs) are we not spending money on NP that could find a much more productive use?"
With the dissolution of the Clothing Allowance and the switch to a points system both types of clothing impact NP so the point is somewhat moot. Of greater concern should be an analysis of what is being worn and in turn reducing the stock holdings of what is not being worn because this is wasted money on shelves.
Let's put this in simple terms: a paid of CADPAT pants go for roughly $100; DEU pants for $42.56. (I'm not on the supply system so I can't get the exact quote on CADPAT; the DEU cost is from the Logistik website). Assuming equal wear, the CADPAT costs the department twice as much to maintain. In choosing the lazy uniform, the Army (and dot COMs) are costing the department thousands of unnecessary dollars.
As for folks being too lazy to iron or polish, try not to generalize. The Staff don't get a vote, they do what they are told to do and when told it is CADPAT they wear it. When told it is DEU they wear it and talke care of it. The same people who don't maintain a sharp set of DEU's are the exact same people who don't police up their CADPAT uniofrm and wearing dirty boots and more often than not they are the same ones who are out of shape so the ball keeps rolling downhill. Policies don't make bad soldiers, they are bad on their own.
Having been in the NCR for over a decade I will say that those who take good care of their uniforms are the exception, not the rule. Badly scuffed shoes. Shirts whose backs resemble nothing more than topographical maps, with wonderful patterns of relief. Improperly ordered ribbons. Incorrect formation identifiers. And few who seem to give a damn about any of it.
The sooner we can put Hillierisms like the dot COMs, static domestic HQs in CAPDAT, over-recruiting infantry, and generally running like a cult of personality instead of a professional military behind us, the better.