Some ironies are more than cruel. On the day that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan approached Fort Hood armed with guns, he may have passed a newsstand selling copies of the November 9 edition of Army Times. On the cover was a photograph of a Sikh soldier wearing a beard, mustache and turban with his uniform, drawing attention to this headline, "Regs Make Way for Religion – Sikh, Muslim Allowed to Incorporate Customs Into Army Dress."

Maj. Gen. Gina S. Farrissee, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Personnel (G-1), had granted a "religious accommodation" exception for Capt. Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi, a Sikh physician. Without providing a reason for special treatment, General Farrissee's October 22 letter stated that Capt. Kalsi would be allowed to wear uncut hair, a turban and beard with his uniform. The Army may revoke the religious accommodation, granted for Kalsi alone, at any time. Another Sikh awaiting dental board results expects a similar personal waiver.

Army Times further reported that a Muslim officer serving as an orthopedic surgery intern at Walter Reed Army Medical Center received permission to "wear a beard, as required by his sect of the Muslim faith." The Army will have difficulty denying similar privileges not just for 3,400 Muslims currently serving, but for thousands requesting uniform exemptions for other religious or personal reasons.

Sikhs, who are not Muslims, have a storied history as warriors in the Indian and British militaries. They have served in the American military during periods of conscription, such as World War II and Vietnam. In 1967, however, the Army adopted regulations establishing uniform personal grooming and clothing standards for all volunteers. Military men and women may not wear religious head-coverings, garments, or jewelry that are inconsistent with uniform appearance. The armed forces guard individual rights, but they are governed by different rules.

In the 1986 Goldman v. Weinberger case, the Supreme Court upheld military regulations barring Jewish yarmulkes. Constitutional rights and freedoms guaranteed to civilians are subordinate to military necessity.

Now the Army is inviting more petitions from individuals seeking special accommodations on a "case-by-case basis." Having abandoned sound practice without justification, the Army will have no principle on which to stand. Incremental "consistency" will erode military culture, fueling doubts about the judgment of leadership and accelerating resentment of special treatment for religious minorities. This would be the case even if there were no reports of a Muslim extremist shouting "Allahu Akhbar" while executing fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

The Sikh Coalition issued a report claiming that Capt. Kalsi was one of two men "recruited" to join the Army's Health Professions Scholarship Program. The report claimed that Sikhs are barred from military service, and demanded complete revocation of extant regulations, even though they can serve if they comply with regulations applying to persons of all faiths.

Capt. Kalsi told Army Times that in 2001 recruiters assured him that he would be able to maintain the uncut hair and turban that are mandatory in his Sikh faith, but superiors revoked permission in 2008. Instead of capitulating, Army G-1 should have supported Capt. Kelsi's superiors. Pentagon officials also should hold accountable any official who fostered apparent misunderstandings about uniform regulations.

In several interviews following the Fort Hood attack, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey expressed concern about possible "backlash" against Muslim soldiers. Casey told the Wall Street Journal that it would be an "even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. ...We have a very diverse society. And that gives us all strength."

That statement only makes sense if the Army maintains professional uniform standards for all, without favoritism, special treatment, or political correctness taken to an extreme.

If individuals may choose their own mode of dress on a "case-by-case basis," why not allow peyote smoking and other controversial religious practices, provided that the entire unit agrees and there is no unit cohesion problem?

Rights of individual expression and free speech are equal to freedom of religion, so Army officials should allow military band members to wear their hair longer with cool-looking beards. They should also suspend regulations forbidding loud criticism of the president, if soldiers in a given unit agree, and allow uniformed personnel to wear or display political messages and run for partisan political office while on duty.

Come to think of it, some soldiers consider it "demeaning" to salute superiors in an egalitarian military, and others want labor unions to press for better living conditions. Absent adherence to sound priorities, the Army will have difficulty holding the line against PC accommodations in a headlong slide down diversity’s slippery slope.

It is wrong to blame innocent co-religionists and people of faith for the massacre at Fort Hood. The only way to guard against "backlash" is to carefully review and revoke all policy exemptions that depart from sound principles. Religious expression and other constitutional rights are important, but if there is a conflict, the needs of the military must come first.