Why do we spend so much time debating the regulations we are expected to adhere to?

CW2 Ben Schwartfigure — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 20:45:20 -0400

As service members, we have an obligation to adhere to all of the rules and regulations that govern us. We did not write the rules, we did not approve the rules, but we do wear the uniform and therefore are subject to the consequences of not following those rules. So, why do we spend so much time debating them and choosing not to abide by them? I am a strong believer that the small things lead up to the big picture. I do not have to agree with a rule or regulation, but that does not give me the authority or the right to disregard it because it is trivial in my mind. If enough service members have an issue with a rule or regulation, there are appropriate channels available to address them. Until they have been addressed and changed, the bottom line is that we have an obligation to abide by them. Just my two cents. What are your thoughts?

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 11:36 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 23:36:20 -0400

IMHO, certain folks debate the regs for a couple of reasons. 1. They don't like them because they are simply not convenient. 2. They are out of date and not applicable to the current conditions. I totally understand reason number 2 as things constantly change based on our Ops-Tempo. But as for reason 1., sometimes folks need to shut up and color. Instead of complaining, present a solution to the problem. Just my 2 cents.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 12:27 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 00:27:27 -0400

Service members spend so much time debating to gain insight and understanding for something which bothers them. This leads to better understanding for the group as a whole and enlightenment for those who did not know. Further with this type of group discussion and information sharing and reviewing, sometimes a better solution is crowd sourced and can be delivered through proper channels to affect change. The great thing about RP is that all of the channels are reading and debating some of the same forums.

Response by Cpl Michael Strickler made Sep 14 at 2014 1:02 PM

Cpl Michael Strickler — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:02:09 -0400

I think that SFC James Sczymanski hit it pretty well on the head, though a tad blunt. I would have phrased it more scientifically as saying that the only way to improve is to question what is around you. Without getting to philosophical the regs were put in place for a reason. Hopefully most of them were good reasons.

But, there does come a point that those regs need to be questioned and adapted to fit the current situation and needs of the force.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 4:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:57:02 -0400

Sir,

I'd offer that most, if not all, of the people debating the regulations are still very much adhering to them. In my line of work, I hear the disagreements all day long. The good Soldiers will state their position but acknowledge that they still have a duty to follow whatever it is they disagree with. There will always be those who simply don't follow the rule and say it's because they disagree with it, but the truth is, they weren't going to follow the rules anyway. I also believe you answered your own question when you stated, "If enough service members have an issue with a rule or regulation, there are appropriate channels available to address them." If we, as Soldiers, don't voice our disagreements, the issues will never be addressed.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made Sep 14 at 2014 10:18 PM

PO2 Rocky Kleeger — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:18:27 -0400

A complaining soldier/sailor/airman/Marine is a happy...you know

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 1:20 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 01:20:58 -0400

CW2 Ben Schwartfigure - Because these rules and regs seem to be so fluid and especially during peace time where staff types are trying to justify their jobs and their future. A bad idea is to have to shave on leave and while at home. I cannot think of a more intrusive idea than that other than satellite monitoring and microchips.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 1:54 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 01:54:28 -0400

I think there is a difference to discussing regulations versus whining. Like if we are asking why do we have to wear pt belts? That's more or less whining, which I have been guilty of.

Then there are times where regulations do not keep with change and actually hinder the mission and you are forced to find work arrounds. As a reservist, I have found that there have been a few times where the Reserve Commands regulations or interpretation are not in sync with the active component, or the process to due some sort of duty is very convoluted.

Case in point, as an Air Force reservist we can augment active duty units that have man power gaps. I am doing this currently. However both sides had a requirement for duty approval before the orders could be cut. They created a Catch 22 where reserve command and the active duty command wanted the other side to act on the approval first. Each side was in a stalemate until I finally was able to get top cover from an O6. Then things started to role. But it took two weeks to coordinate something that should have taken a few days.

So this would be example of discussing regs to highlight a broken process that needs mending in order for the mission to succeed more efficiently.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 15 at 2014 7:25 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:25:19 -0400

A lot of it is ambiguity. The bulk of regulations are poorly written, so they leave a lot to interpretation. Ten personnel can read a regulation, and each will have a different interpretation of the content.

You'll always have those people who assume, or go by "but CSM so and so told me", but the poorly written nature of a lot of the regulations doesnt help matters..

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Sep 15 at 2014 3:01 PM

SGT Craig Northacker — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:01:55 -0400

Good question, however, I remember a class on a hot August afternoon in basic training addressing the law of war and our responsibility to adhere to it. Blind adherence to orders was a central them in the post Second World War War Crimes Trials. However, there were some select individuals, despite Nazi allegiances and being the masterminds behind WMD's and the deaths of more than a few thousand people (12 million), who were deemed eligible to be recruited under Operation Paperclip and work for the US.

Other issues stem from local violation of good order and morale, not to mention command indiscretions and foibles that directly violate our Constitution. Until the Patriot Act, the constitution was inviolable in theory - now it is not.

So, rules and regulations are subject to whimsy in adherence to them, depending upon who is doing what, and why. And the lowest one on the totem pole will always be the fallguy.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2014 10:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:53:37 -0500

When I find myself debating regulation, it's because there is someone above me violating one of them, and I want to fix that. Typically when an incident happens and I disagree with the solution, because it does not follow Army Regulation, or when policy is formed that is not in line with Army Regulation. This has happened frequently enough in my career that learning how to search through regs has become a skill in and of itself. What a lot of people fail to realize is this: EVERYTHING IN THE ARMY IS WRITTEN DOWN SOMEWHERE. Every SOP and policy should have a reference (that is an official Military or DoD document) which backs it up. This is something I learned as a PFC, and if there is no reg to back it up, the SOP or policy should be rewritten or revised. Too many Sergeant Majors these days (or perhaps I've had a poor sampling) simply think they can make it up as they go, and as long as they get a signature on it nobody can dispute it.

Many times when I have the supporting documents that state a policy or SOP is not in line with official regulation I get a response that is little more than a professional and tactful way of saying "sit down and shut up, I outrank you, so we're doing it my way."
Now, most of the time the policy maker has a goal or end state and the policy is the means to that end, they just take the short cut because they don't know the regs. A few times I've been able to present the way the policy ought to be written, or procedure that should be followed, a change has been made, and then everything was fine, but most of the time when you tell someone that their SOP or policy is not following regulation they take it as a personal affront from you. So, to use what I consider to be a phrase in military vernacular, a pissing contest begins.

To sum up, we argue because we want things to be correct, fair and just, and someone feels they are not. Using regulation takes opinion out of the equation and sets the standard in black and white. The hard part is getting someone to follow it.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 4:27 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:27:59 -0500

Because how do you change rules and regulations if all you do is follow them blindly? We should be asking "why" and "who is the authority" of every rule that makes it more difficult to execute the mission. The goal should be to prune back any rule or regulation that does not benefit the mission.

Now, there is a difference between asking questions or debating the rule among a group of peers, or proposing changes to a superior, and telling subordinates to blow off a rule. As Tom Hanks said in Saving Private Ryan, "Gripes go up".

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2015 1:14 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:14:04 -0500

Regulations are not written correctly. Most are ambiguous and are left up to interpretation. If they were written rock solid there would be no debate. What I may interperate you may interperate something differently. There are phases such as "you should" vs. "you will" these are just two examples of many.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Jan 28 at 2015 1:17 PM

CPT Richard Riley — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:17:12 -0500

I'm not convinced that many are 'debating' a regulation as much as they are attempting to clarify and understand that regulation. There is always more than one way to look at something, rarely is it blatant black and white, so entering a discussion about a specific regulation is more likely an attempt to comprehend the ramifications of it and how it applies to their situation.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2015 10:31 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:31:43 -0400

Why do we spend so much time debating them?

1. We (general) want them to say what we want...

2. When a regulation benefits a lower ranking service member, sometimes higher ranking service members get butt hurt (is that one word?) about it because they feel lower ranking service members shouldn't have some benefit.

3. Someone with more rank than sense thinks their interpretation is the only one that matters.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Jul 29 at 2015 10:43 AM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:43:26 -0400

As a free people, we should be free thinkers, not pawns. So many Nazis followed orders that they didn't agree with. It is no excuse. If it violates moral convictions, it needs to be addressed.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2015 6:33 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:33:23 -0400

I think we are getting too wrapped around the axle over these issues. I know it sounds cavalier to suggest there are regs that don't matter, but frankly what of the world wars? we had draftees that accomplished suicide missions but didn't know or care to know the regulations, they simply did what they knew was right. I am a firm believer that it is better to look the other way for infractions that are not illegal and not safety related. The rest of it can be worked through.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 16 at 2015 8:32 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:32:47 -0400

I wonder if their is confusion because many regulations are passed down verbally?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2015 10:16 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:16:24 -0400

Because those in positions of authority want to exercise personal whim instead of military necessity.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2015 11:16 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:16:08 -0400

Service members have been bitching about virtually every aspect of their service since the beginning of time. Social media just means more people see it.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Apr 13 at 2016 3:40 PM

SFC Marcus Belt — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:40:13 -0400

'Cause a Soldier that ain't complainin', probably ain't breathin'!

But mostly I think it's because people gripe about things they don't like, and this is a safe venue, and as an added plus, there is the opportunity for new perspective to be gained. There is a great deal of knowledge and experience across all the branches (haven't seen a USCG member yet though: maybe they have nothing to talk about), and several different eras of service.

I am not an Army traditionalist, for example, but a discussion here caused me to rethink some of my opinions that led me to a modified position on military traditions. Still not for me, but I can accept their value in some formations.

That's just an example, but I suspect I'm not the only one who has gained a new perspective on some element that they do not like about military service.

Response by MSG Christopher Keller made Nov 2 at 2016 6:00 PM

MSG Christopher Keller — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:00:53 -0400

We have an obligation to adhere to them, but some regulations are not always well thought out but get implemented anyway (tatoo policy) and after input from the soldiers they re-looked it and made changes.