the morning coffee spit!

I certainly carry no brief for Petraeus, but the gaudiness of his uniform in contrast to Eisenhower's is not at all a matter or his or Eisenhower's personal choice.

Petraeus is wearing Class As, a uniform whose every element of gallimaufry is closely and carefully dictated by regulation. To fail to adhere to these regulations, which their subordinates have no choice but to follow, while practically possible for a general, really sends an even worse message of privilged exceptionalism than adhering to the arguably excessive standards prescribed by regulation. Think Patton and his non-regulation pistol.

The regulations in force when the picture of Eisenhower was taken, in contrast, were shaped by the practical needs of WWII. I don't know the details of the period, so I can't say exactly which uniform Eisenhower is wearing, but I know the general rule that the Army's uniforms get gaudy between wars, and get spare and practical during big wars. I'm not just talking about the difference between dress and work (or "fatigue") uniforms, between field and garrison uniforms, but the migration during peacetime even within the same category to more and more geegaws, even on field/work uniforms. All that crap disappears within the first few months of a real war, informally at first, then confirmed in regulation.

Which leads to the following conclusion required by the iron laws of military haberdashery: the Army isn't behaving like this is a real war, or we would have simpler uniforms, even garrison uniforms like the Class A. You can reach the same conclusion from other evidence, but it's nice to know that the uniforms confirm it.

Good stuff today. Jesse Taylor is right on, and that's a good piece on Reagan.