Is it time for the Military to allow such things as haircuts, hands in pockets, and beards?

On page one of the USAF squadron commander's handbook (long ago) it said "Be unreasonable." There's a very good reason for these things. A lot of things the military does are unreasonable--for a reason. The short hair, clean face, pressed uniform and shined shoes are unreasonable. Is there a real reason the working day begins at oh dark thirty? It's unreasonable. In my day, Marines were not allowed to carry an umbrella in the rain. So why is it like that?

Because in war, a lot of things very necessary to the mission will sound unreasonable, even to an experienced warrior. We must ensure that our people will not question every order they get. They need to be comfortable with doing unreasonable things.

SSG (Join to see) It is about discipline. Having long hair, beards and hands in pockets will not increase morale. When you are out in the bush, where you can not get a haircut, shave, etc, different rules apply. It is not time (at least for the Marine Corps), to allow these things when in garrison.

Can't compare SF with the rest of the operational Army.

As hard as I try, I'm still guilty of the hands in the pocket violation from time to time.

There is a huge misconception about the SF community and the presence of facial hair. Those relaxed grooming standards are about the cultural values of our indigenous partner forces. Special forces are allowed to have facial hair as it appeals to the cultural norms of our host nation allies. In garrison, our regular place of business, we need to maintain a professional appearance. It's also about the cultural norms and values of the people paying our salaries. They expect a professional looking military.

When I was a SPC, I walked in to the office area where 3 warrant officers worked. I put my hands in my pocket and walked from desk to desk to make sure they could all see me. One raised his head and turned to me "SPC Shim, What are you doing with your hands in your pockets". I replied "Practicing to be a Warrant Officer". And then I did a bunch of pushups.

Oh no we must have the groomig standard. Otherwise, we'd be forced to evaluate Soldiers solely on their level of competence. God forbid that ever happens.

Yes, all of the above detract from the military appearance. Why do SF and SEALs wear beards in Afghanistan? To adapt their appearance into the culture of the people they are trying to help. Everything that the military does, no matter how nonsensical it may appear, has a reason. If you will do a bit of research and thinking, you can answer a lot of questions yourself.

I don't think it matters if Chesty Puller, Patton or Audie Murphy roamed the battlefield with long hair and beards, they were courageous and still good examples and in WWII the Soldiers lived rough, on the line for extended periods with little hygienic facilities available.
Long hair is easier for lice and other critters to take up quarters so that's the real reason for the military preference for short hair.
Hands in Pockets; still can't put my finger on this one other than it makes you look like your at ease in the environment your in, and we all know its way better to look uptight and stiff at all times. But rules are rules. I still don't put my hands in my pockets .
Beards fell out of favor due to chemical weapons and masking seal issues. The SF with their Combat Beards came back in favor because the middle eastern culture prefers them and if your trying to fit in and gain trust it helps.
Increased moral; maybe until you get lice which sucks or gassed which also sucks really bad. Or you can't get your hand out of your pocket in time to catch a grenade or miss saluting someone or fall and bust your teeth out. All of which could suck at some level.
Discipline problem, depends on the situation and level of potential sucky-ness.
Chesty Puller was the original Chuck Norris he could'a worn Bermuda shorts Gucci sandals and and a Hawaiian print shirt and still reaped havoc on the enemy.

General Burnside approves!