Milbloggers On DADT

A group of milbloggers has called for the repeal of DADT.  Here is Q of Q&O:

I've also come to understand that it isn’t going to be the activists or those who want to flaunt their homosexuality who are going to seek to serve their country. Being a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman is a hard, dirty and dangerous job.  Those that choose to serve are not going to do it because of who they love, but simply because want to serve their nation and the military is their chosen method of doing so.

This is a cultural change thing.  And the culture has been changing for years to more and more acceptance of homosexuality in terms of offering equal rights and protections.  This is simply an extension of that.  If I thought it would seriously effect readiness, I’d probably oppose it – but I don’t think it will.  Will there be some problems and some objections to overcome?  Yes.  But the military can and will overcome them.

And on the lighter side, from Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive:

"If I am lying by the road bleeding, I don't care if the medic coming to save me is gay. I just hope he is one of those buff gay guys who are always in the gym so he can throw me over his shoulder and get me out of there."

That ties in to something I wrote a while back.  My *guess* was that the repeal of DADT would actually be easier in wartime when soldiers are focused on more important issues such as not getting blown up.

Comments

[Cecil Turner]

I've also come to understand that it isn’t going to be the activists or those who want to flaunt their homosexuality who are going to seek to serve their country.

This is silly. There are those who flaunt their sexuality under the current rules . . . the idea that they're suddenly going away if the rules are changed is nonsense. And the activists are already chiming in on the various boards, but none are going to sign up to make test cases? Yeah, whatever. This falls a long way short of a workable solution to an intractable problem, and there will be more problems, not less, with its repeal.

I'd also note the guys signing onto that statements are generally (all?) not going to have to live with the result--and the AD guys commenting are a lot less supportive. That said, they'd better get something going to replace DADT, because it's going to be untenable fairly soon.

[Rob Crawford]

How about we all just adopt "didn't ask, don't want to know"?

[jimmyk]

If I thought it would seriously effect readiness, I’d probably oppose it – but I don’t think it will. Will there be some problems and some objections to overcome? Yes. But the military can and will overcome them.

So there are some costs to getting rid of DADT; these guys are strangely silent about the benefits. Are there any on the military side? Is there a shortage of qualified recruits? Or are they basically advocating that the military should incur some problems in order to pursue some kind of social agenda with no obvious benefits?

[Cassandra]

Please read the letter (and Jimbo's clarification in the comments) more carefully. This is NOT Milbloggers asking for DADT to be repealed (though some, like McQ, may support that individually):

The impetus for this letter was the simple fact that this is going to happen. As I mentioned in the post, Gates has said that the DoD study is to plan for implementation not to see if it should be done. Both he and Mullen are on record saying they support repeal. What we want to happen is a bi-partisan group to write the new legislation in Congress not just the left/Democrats. they should have some folks who may not agree with this in the room and making sure that they listen to the service chiefs and do this in the least-damaging way. We are hoping to provide a little cover for some Republicans to get in the game and watch the sausage being made so we don't end up w/ rules that allow someone to march in a gay pride parade in a beret, combat boots and a jock strap. There are plenty of difficult issues to deal with and the more folks who understand the military and support it involved, the better.

Thanks.

[Pops]

"""If I am lying by the road bleeding, I don't care if the medic coming to save me is gay.""

This is what I would call SUPREME LOGIC.

Let's subsititute gay with something else and see if we ever get a NO answer.

Would you care if the person saving your life is straight?, white?, black?, bi-sexual?, sleeps with a goat?, likes very young girls?, enjoys stomp porn?, paints his rear end and stands on his kitchen table reciting Mein Kampf?, is an islamic radical, thinks Hitler was misunderstood, loves Obamacare?, spits on pictures of his Mom??

Gee, I'd let any or all of them save my life too...so what's the point?

The real question is this:

What do you say to the parents of the 18 year old female volunteer who you just made room, sleep and shower in the same room with a 24 year old man who finds her sexually atractive and wants to have sex with her? By the way, he also out ranks her and has complete control of her activities in the dorm and at work?

Now of course you would all say, you'd never let a man room with her thats outrageous!
So what's the difference if its a man or a women that wants to have sex with her?

Of course the liberal argument would be that its ludiocorus to think gays can't control their sexual urges...but then why do we force heterosexual men to room separately from females - are you saying they CAN'T control themselves as well as gays can?

If you do allow gays to serve, then provide them separate living and bathroom quarters. Problem solved.

[Rex]

Implementing the inclusion will mean establishing adequate privacy--both for gays and non-gays. I was asked, about 15 years ago, how I felt on the issue of gays in the military. I replied that for me, the issue was one of privacy. Just as it is hard to provide privacy (but it's doable) for the inclusion of females in the military, it will be hard to provide privacy for gays in the military. Can we do it? Sure we can. Will it affect military readiness? Only to the extent that the time and money to make the changes could have been used on something else. What the issue boils down to is whether or not it's fair to prevent someone from serving in the military solely because of their sexual inclinations.

At least inclusion of gays on ships won't increase the pregnancy rates!

[jeff]

cassandra ...

please square your comment with the first sentence of the post ...

"A group of milbloggers has called for the repeal of DADT."

are you saying Tom can't read ...

for what its worth the repealers of DADT don't have a solution for the Navy ... and that folks WILL effect operations ...

Its not about doing the job, its about living together in close quarters. And no the barracks are nothing like ship life ...

[boris]

"are you saying they [straight guys] CAN'T control themselves as well as gays can"

Actually some women I know seem to have that very idea. Gee I wonder where they get that notion?

[Sue]

Someone mentioned earlier that if DADT is repealed, that doesn't solve the problem of gays serving in the military, openly. Congress will have to pass a law, right? So why would they want DADT repealed? Why wouldn't they want a law in place before DADT is repealed?

[Cassandra]

please square your comment with the first sentence of the post ..."A group of milbloggers has called for the repeal of DADT

McQ has called for the repeal of DADT. He is ONE of the signatories to the letter (which Jimbo wrote).

What part of Jimbo's comment about his own letter is hard for you to understand?

As to this:

...are you saying they [straight guys] CAN'T control themselves as well as gays can...

Do men and women bunk or shower together in the armed forces? No.

Why do you think that might be?

Those who are asking whether this will impact readiness don't have to assert that gays are any LESS able to control themselves than heteros.

We bunk men and women separately for a reason - the same reason that concerns a lot of people: the natural tendency of human beings who are attracted to each other to want to have sex with each other.

That is no different for gays than it is for straights.

[Cassandra]

...What the issue boils down to is whether or not it's fair to prevent someone from serving in the military solely because of their sexual inclinations.

No.

What it boils down to is whether the net benefits of allowing openly gay men and women to serve outweigh the net costs. The answer may well be yes.

But the question should be asked honestly, and those who know something about those costs shouldn't be hushed up.

The costs of integrating women into the armed forces have been high enough that the Pentagon doesn't "bother" to keep track of the effect on unit readiness any more. IOW, we refuse to face those costs honestly.

[Cassandra]

Someone mentioned earlier that if DADT is repealed, that doesn't solve the problem of gays serving in the military, openly.

Sodomy is still a punishable offense under the UCMJ.

[Janet]

With DADT discussions I usually link this article from Ace, and this article from Villainous Company.

[Greybeard]

What Pops said.
I showered in an open bay with a dozen guys, and I never had any inclination any of them were sexually excited by the others in that shower room. I know there have always been homosexuals among those serving, but they kept that to themselves.
Are we just gonna do away with sex/gender altogether?
'Cause that's basically what they're doin' here. Unigender showers/restrooms?
Nah, that won't have an effect on our troops' performance.
And the fact that we may as well support it 'cause "it's gonna happen no matter what we do"?
Not if I can help it.
Remember in November.

[Clarice]

HI, CASSANDRA. If you're looking for more villainous company you've come to the right place!

[JM Hanes]

If my understanding that gays can serve openly in the Israeli military is correct, it might be worth taking a look at how they manage it -- assuming it's something they think requires management at all.

[Cassandra]

If you're looking for more villainous company you've come to the right place!

Hi Clarice! :)

[astonerii]

How many Nidal Hassens would be tolerable in the military? How many aggrieved gays with chips on their shoulders would be considered protected class soldiers? Our military already proved what is more important to them, and Political Correctness far outweighs the safety and well being of our troops. How many women claim rape when consensual sexual relationships go wrong? How many blacks claim racism when promotions do not come fast enough, or when confronted with doing something wrong? How many gays will get away with rape using claims of homophobia against their target? Openly gay is not going to work well, while it will work poorly, why is soldier well being and national security trumped by a person's need to actively show their sexuality?

[Janet]

Okay..LUN about transgenders winning a discrimination fight with a retail store.

So will this happen in the military? Will transgenders want to dress like girls? Don't tell me it won't go that far....

This PC nonsense has got to end.

[Janet]

and if peoples sexual urges trump every other consideration, will Walter Reed start doing sex change operations? What if Lt. Paul wants to become Lt. Pauline?

[Mercedes]

Space Daily has a torpedo. It's not fission or fusion, but has a bubble affect just like the global warming super bubbles.

[matt]

one of the issues within the gay community is promiscuity, which was one of the root causes of the AIDS crisis. There are many who are not promiscuous, but as the lesbians joke among themselves, their favorite car is a U Haul.

Military efficiency is the overriding factor. Either a candidate meets the physical and psychological requirements for the military or they don't.

One of my former employees many years ago served on the first coed Navy ship. I was told over 50% of the female crew were pregnant after the first cruise. the Navy covered the scandal up.

A recent case in Iraq saw a MGen apologize to enlisted female personnel for an order issued regarding fraternization.bad discipline, but politically incorrect.

People, especially young people, have an incredible urge to screw. I don't use the word procreate because with gays it is impossible. The military is very effective in disciplining these urges while on duty under rear echelon conditions.

Allowing openly gay personnel to serve in the field on at sea in close quarters is clearly detrimental to maintaining the operational efficiency necessary to the mission. A COP in Afghanistan is only a 100 x 100 yards, and troops are stationed there for several weeks at a time, if not longer. A ship stays at sea for months at a time. Shit happens.

By he way, pederasty and homosexuality are pandemic in Afghanistan and Iraq, just to throw more gasoline on the fire.

[MarkO]

These are Times of Wonder. All have overcome their natural tendancies and dsavowed the leaning of ther tribes to join together in the celbration of life. Let the sun shine.

[Richard Aubrey]

This would give us another protected class.
Currently, since gay soldiers don't officially exist, there can be no discrimination--officially--against gays, and when the gay soldier is not noticeably gay, no reason for discrimination.
Once gays are a protected class, we have a problem.
Recall how the Tailhook non-scandal was the feminists' bestest thing ever. They spooked the Navy so badly that the first two women graduated from F14 school did so with failing grades. One was subsequently grounded for unsafe flying and the other blew an approach and was killed. Note, further, that the Tomcat has a crew of two, so the Navy was putting others in danger in order to mollify Pat Schroeder.
One anecdote after another tells us of female soldiers who can't hack it, who get pregnant to avoid deployment, who claim harassment to avoid discipline.
This is not to say there are not good female soldiers. The question is what do you do with the ones who are subpar. Since they are a protected class, very little.
The F14 incident was the most notable of a myriad of small and medium cuts.
You'll note that Maj. Hasan, despite appalling performance--most readers know the details--was passed along and promoted to Ft. Hood shooter fame because those in charge of stopping his progress were afraid--justly--of career-ending accusations of Islamaphobia. The most notable incident in a myriad of small and medium cuts.
Without DADT, we'll have another class. I know that the usual suspects challenge opponents to show any, just one, example of when women or Muslims were antithetical to the mission of the military.
For some reason, they exclude stuff like Hasan or what's his name who fragged some officers in Iraq.
There are very few documented incidents for the reason that no officer will risk his career documenting them.
And we'll have a new class on top of the, at least, two we have now.

[bunkerbuster]

Wouldn't it be great if the U.S. military positioned itself at the forefront, rather than the rear, of defending the civil rights of gays, as it has in regard to civil rights for ethnic minorities.

Then there's this filed under: it's not the heat, it's the hypocrisy:
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum personally requested that the state’s Department of Children & Families hire anti-gay psychologist George Rekers, whose national reputation was shattered last week after he vacationed for two weeks in Europe with a gay male escort from Miami he met through Rentboy.com.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/11/1623961/bill-mccullom-requested-hiring.html#ixzz0nlF9swg5

[David Walser]

@Janet: Thanks for the links to those two blog posts. Both authors made very good points and made those points very well.

One additional aspect of all of this needs to be mentioned: In civilian life, we generally have time to reflect and to decide whether or not we'll accept a new assignment. That's not the case on the battle field. Soldiers need to trust their commanders and carry out those commanders' orders immediately and without reservation.

Now, suppose you're in the midst of a battle and your gay lieutenant orders you into a dangerous position. Are you going to wonder whether you got the dirty end of the stick because you spurned his advances the night before or because the lieutenant put you in danger to protect his "favorite"? Will such doubts affect the speed with which you fulfill the lieutenant's orders?

Petty jealousies and rivalries infect virtually any group of men or women. Of the interests that create these jealousies and rivalries, none are stronger than sex. Mixing openly gay soldiers into a unit can do nothing good for unit cohesion and effectiveness. It might NOT hurt cohesion and effectiveness, but it would be unusual if that were the case.

[Laura]

Matt,

The integration of women on ships has been a disaster but no one wants to talk about it. poor recruiting and pc boot camps have led to all sorts of issues with violence within female barracks of junior enlisted. Rape and assault cases in deployed coed units are very high. Until these elephants are dealt with squarely how can we even be talking about doing away with don't ask don't tell.
I had a long conversation with a Marine colonel whose last assignment was commandant of USMC boot camp in SD. He said they had to develop a ethics and morals curriculum for new recruits because there was no common understanding anymore of what those norms were. It's not just that they are tolerant of homosexuality it's more that they don't have any boundaries at all.

[squaredance]

Well, you would be quite wrong. Those gays will get fragged in the first real battle. This is a disaster to morale and command. It is tough enough under the best circumstance and now they must deal with this vileness.

We face a grave existential threat and this is our response? Less than a decade after 911 and this is how we face it? We are not far from total catastrophe and self immolation. How our forebears would reel in shame of us. The decadence and rot will soon be terminal.

I can assure you TM that you have not the faintest clue what this means, and neither does some glib and myopic mil-blogger who was a junior NCO for a couple of years way back in the echelon. You should be ashamed of yourself for reaching conclusions which have such grave and serious consequence from such a superficial, anecdotal and sentimental basis. Fat chance of that, I know. You think that this is an opportunity for levity. It is in reality quite far from that.

This is highly destructive to the military, and that is its intent, to demoralize the military. The Left could care less about the gays: The promotion of Homosexuality in the West was one of the key strategics of the soviets direct action organizations and for obvious reason, and that is just the source of this madness as it was handed down to our current crop for Democrats from their long gone Soviet handlers.

No decent warrior, no decent man--no decent American--can bear taking orders from soch immoral people nor should they. To hold such people up as role models is sheer moral depravity. To flippantly countenance it is wholly immoral and irresponsible.

It just goes to show how far to the left this site really is--how far gone this place ie. You do not even know this about yourselves. How pitiable and pathetic! You all sit there and complacently rationalize away this outrage as if it were nothing.

If should be a cause for great shame, but instead you "imagine" that it "does not matter". Some Conservatives you folks are.

What self-deluded hypocrites. Truly, There is no bottom to this place. You should be ashamed of yourselves. All of you.

[ignatz]

I can only speak of my own experiences.
In SAC, as women were integrated into field work and were placed in mixed trips cross country and overseas it was a complete mess.
The sexual politics and entanglements were everywhere as was favoritism and covering for preferred but inadequate female recruits.
We simply did a considerably poorer job after our unit had a significant number of women in field work, period.
While the issues with gays would be different I consider it unlikley they would be less disruptive.
And Cassandra looks mighty good in that purple dress. Yowza.

[ignatz]

--Truly, There is no bottom to this place. You should be ashamed of yourselves. All of you.--

Piss off.

[bgates]

There is no bottom to this place.

I thought that's what you were here for.

[daddy]

Interesting how as soon as ">http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/10/new-details-emerge-how-massa-tried-to-er-snorkel-his-navy-shipmates/"> Representative Eric Massa became a political liability for Ethics Violations and expendable to the Dem's for his Health Care vote, suddenly we found out about his serial homosexual preying on subordinates while a Naval Officer.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . we found out about his serial homosexual preying on subordinates while a Naval Officer.

He wasn't the only one. Familiarity with cases like this, despite DADT, suggest to me there's a lot more of a challenge than those who blithely wish it away would like to admit.

Well, you would be quite wrong. Those gays will get fragged in the first real battle.

[eyeroll] Geez dude, lay off the sauce.

[Aren't you?]

No bottom, no top, no walls. Independent thinkers here.
================

[Pops]

"""What the issue boils down to is whether or not it's fair to prevent someone from serving in the military solely because of their sexual inclinations.""

Well gee, then its easy, OF COURSE WE PREVENT PEOPLE FROM SERVING. It is not a RIGHT to serve in the military - and your service is for the militaries benefit, not yours.

What if someone feels the need to masturbate everytime they see a man in uniform? Would that sexual inclination mean you couldn't serve?

[sbw]

A centralized, overgeneralized rule is as deleterious in this instance as a centralized, overgeneralized rule is for health care.

If there a specific problems that need to be addressed for rules of behavior between people working in an official capacity, even in close quarters and under the pressure of war, they need to be addressed as close to the problem as possible and as specifically as possible.

Most of the problems I have seen raised are not specific to sexuality and would have be problems if no specific sexual orientation were involved. The problem is the problem, not the sexuality.

We need create no privileged classes. There are crimes, not hate crimes. It would be shame to twist this into an issue of sexuality when what must be addressed is behavior.

Keep business professional. Don't fraternize.
Don't foul your own nest. Such things are sexually neutral, except in political discussions.

[matt]

The other issue for gay rights is simply the cost. Do we pay for spousal support for gay marriages, or for separate facilities for gay military or social security? Do we further damage the nuclear family by withdrawing resources a la the marriage penalty?

Much of government is about entitlements and costs. My father told me this 35 years ago. If government cannot now afford current programs, how can it afford additional costs?

And what is the benefit to society of such programs? The cost/benefit calculation both economically and societally would, I believe be disadvantageous.

[jean]

There was talk of Rep.Massa time in the Navy.He would jump in the bunk with fellow officers.Didn't seem to get much press.If an officer did this to an enlisted man what recourse would there be?

[Blue]

How about we jettison Gates and Mullen instead of DADT. Homosexuals have served in the US armed forces from the start - many with honor and distinction. "Openly gay" is a whole other deal. Kind of hard to imagine gay pin-up art on the noses of WWII bombers...

[bunkerbuster]

Amen, SBW. I would assume military life is more difficult than the typical civilian scenario on a number of levels. The close-quarters, battle stress, obedience to authority and surrender of basic rights create all sorts of difficulties. Nothing about gay sex is uniquely troublesome in that environment -- except, perhaps, for individuals who are themselves uniquely troubled by gay sex, but even there, we can assume individuals within the military may have any number of special difficulties that the organization need not trouble itself with other than to ensure the personal problems don't affect performance.
And what about countries like Israel and the U.K., where gays have been working in the military for decades? Can't we look to their results rather than hypotheticals?

[jorod]

Homosexuals will always go "where the boys are."

[Richard Aubrey]

sbw.
Some years ago, this came around and there were Senate hearings. Turns out that the IDF does--speaking of that time--not put gays into line units. They get rear echelon jobs--maintenance, intel, that sort of thing--and there's a reason for that.
As one IDF guy said, we are too small to play such games.
Don't know about the Brits.
My problem is both with gays and unit cohesion, and gays as a protected class. It's one thing to say that all should be judged by the same standard, but try that with women or Muslims and your career is down the toilet.
So nobody with half a brain can say with a straight (sorry) face that gays will be judged by the same standard. Given the history of other protected classes, ain't gonna happen.
That process, as we have already seen, is prejudicial to good order and discipline. Question is who thinks that's a feature and who thinks that's a bug.
The left deliberately fomented racial tension in the military in the Sixties in order to weaken the military. I was there, as they say. Think that idea's disappeared?

[J]

So many odd thoughts I have. First was that we used to have the greatest military in the world....now I'm told we want to be just like the europeans who, I guess, have a much superior military.
Then I thought....we are in a war, what an unusual time to start social experiments.
Then I thought our military was to protect and defend, not a laboratory for liberal social experiments. I could go on and on, but I'm pretty sure you get the drift. Our present day military is not to defend our country and strategic interests, it is to fulfill some halfwit's fantasies.

[Melinda Romanoff]

I'm not Dr. Maturin, but I seem to remember that the fifth column's purpose was to disarm the homeland.

Anything that throws a wrench in the works, I suppose.

Then again, there is the mistaken reputation of the FFL.

[sbw]

I'm not about liberal social experiments. We've spent the last 30 years suffering from the current one. I'm saying that the problem IS the liberal, not the social experiment.

The broader the brush with which you paint, the more problems you create. I run a company. The problems caused by are with stupidity, and they far outweigh the problems with sexuality. And the ones with sexuality, tend to be heterosexual.

One who insists on framing the issues in terms of homosexuality unfortunately may overlook the more ubiquitous underlying issues, never resolving them.

[Pofarmer]

" defending the civil rights of gays"

It seems the only ones without civil rights are white guys.

It's not just that they are tolerant of homosexuality it's more that they don't have any boundaries at all.

No decent warrior, no decent man--no decent American--can bear taking orders from soch immoral people nor should they. To hold such people up as role models is sheer moral depravity. To flippantly countenance it is wholly immoral and irresponsible.

Tend to agree on both counts, and those same kids are going out into the workforce, and the govt, and the financial institutions. We may be about done.

[daddy]

"There was talk of Rep.Massa time in the Navy...If an officer did this to an enlisted man what recourse would there be?"

Jean,

Consider the available recourse this way:

Recourse was available to CNN if they had decided to tell the truth they knew about Saddam Hussain. And similar recourse was available to the MSM if they had decided to tell the truth they knew about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, or about John Edwards and Reall Hunter etc.

Except that in all those cases the Media (who loves to remind us how they courageously always speak truth to power) had thousands of cameras and megaphones and virtually unlimited ability to state the facts and their side of the argument, yet they all cowardly remained silent and acquiesced to Power; for reasons of cowardice, continued access, and ideology. All they had to do was "put some ice on that" and roll along.

When you analogize that to the case of some subordinate enlisted sailor, who has zero microphones, virtually zero ability to really get his or her story out, and a million times less power on their side than the MSM, all at a risk of immediately ending their careers by challenging the word of a Senior Officer in a closed environment, you can easily begin to empathize with the predicament they find themselves in, as opposed to many who think no big deal, c'mon military, lead the way, but of course don't lead the way on campus, except maybe in the old gym on every 3rd Tuesday night between 7 and 7:15 PM.

Thats the sort of recourse a junior swabby generally has when challenging a predatory serial homosexual Senior Officer like Massa.

[bgates]

No decent warrior, no decent man--no decent American--can bear taking orders from such immoral people nor should they. To hold such people up as role models is sheer moral depravity.

Who exactly are "such people"? Gays? That kind of thinking sounds a lot like the opposition to Truman's desegregation order. When I thought that's all that opposition to gays in the military amounted to, I thought the opposition was reprehensible. Since then, I've been persuaded by the arguments on here about the dangers to unit cohesion caused by introducing such a primal force as sexual attraction, as well as the dangers of allowing a class of soldier that's likely to be as protected as Muslims (and "we need not create privileged classes" because they already exist).

It's unfortunate that some patriots cannot serve in combat, and that's unfortunate whether the patriot is blind, paralyzed, or gay. It's not a moral indictment of anyone in any of those categories to say his presence in certain jobs would cause more problems than it would solve.

I'm not convinced by the argument that having fit 19-year-olds, some of whom are attracted to others, live in confined spaces for months at a time becomes a problem only if by some chance one of them acts on it. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with getting plastered and then driving from a bar to your house, but we don't let people do that, because of the easily foreseeable consequences.

So squaredance can think I'm a degenerate, and busty can think I'm a bigot. Disagreeing with both of them is no guarantee that I'm right, but it's not a bad sign.

[bunkerbuster]

``Try that with women or Muslims and your career is down the toilet.''

If that's true, it's only more evidence that any problems aren't really related to sexual preference, but to general corruption and need to be addressed as such.

[Pofarmer]

bunky, where do you come up with such insane drivel?

General corruption? Would you mind explaining that?

[She MAKES YOU (r) laugh]

They thought it was a global warming super bubble that created the sink hole, but it was a landslide. Windows were okay.

[Dave (in MA)]

OT: I blame global warming.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

As most informed people know, gay men and women have been part of the enlisted ranks and officer corps since the armed services were formed. Many of them served honorably without their sexuality becoming a problem. For example, Rock Hudson (when he was Roy Fitzgerald) served on a ship in very close quarters in WWII with the father in law of one of my dearest friends As I understand it, Rock bothered none of his fellow sailors, and they didn't bother him. On shore leave, he went one way, they went another. No one had any doubt that he was "gay", and he didn't hide it as he was not a famous heartthrob then. But it was never an issue on board ship, and my friends FIL remained good friends with him until Rock died.

When I commanded a basic training company in in 1966, there were a number of troops in my company whose sexuality was questioned by some troops in their platoon. Basically, the advice from my First Sergeant was unless someone made an actual pass at someone in the company, it was best to just leave everyone alone. I took that advice and had no problems on the "gay front".

As and aside, the biggest morale problem I had then was when one of our married platoon sergeants began carrying on an affair with the wife of another of our platoon sergeants, and was discovered in flagrante. Somehow, I counseled my First Sergeant through handling that one successfully, but I can't remember how.

[bunkerbuster]

Po: if the military leadership is conspiring to confer special privileges on women and Muslims, that would be a kind of corruption. I doubt this is happening, though, other than in isolated cases.

[bunkerbuster]

Repression of gays is a hallmark of totalitarian countries. From Iran to Russia to Cuba and Saudi Arabia, it seems to be virtually a one-to-one correlation between repression of gays and tyranny. It's good to see that, with the ongoing defeat of American conservatives in the "culture wars,'' America is moving directly away from that and all it represents.

[daddy]

The disappearance of the lower ring on Jupiter addressed in ">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1277734/Jupiter-loses-stripes-scientists-idea-why.html"> this story with photos is interesting.

From reviewing ">http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/image318.html"> this it appears to me that that band is partly where Comet Shumaker-Levi 9 impacted in Jupiter in 1994.

If you simply type in "Jupiter" in the search box on ">http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search"> this page you'll find a ton of good photos of the stripes over the years, all of which look slightly different to me, and which also includes this interesting side">http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080724.html">side by side shot of the Red Spot just beneath the now disappeared belt, being chased by huge small spots, large as planets, that move and disappear within only a couple weeks.

Amazing that all this stuff is available nowadays at the touch of a finger.

[jimmyk]

So even Jupiter is suffering from climate change. Gotta be Bush's fault.

[Visit the sins of Cheney upon his daughter.]

jk, someone's already called it at Watts Up; it's Halliburton's fault.
======================

[nathan hale]

No, that would probably be the Tyrell corporation, kim

[Richard Aubrey]

bunkerbuster.
I'm a bit tentative as to whether you think these are isolated cases.
You think Hasan was a one-off?
The first two female F14 grads were isolated cases?
If you really believe this is isolated stuff, it's a really convenient belief.
There was a case a year or so back when some Annapolis grads were on the bridge of a warship sprinting through the ocean. It was, apparently, exhilarating. One of the youngsters said he enjoyed it so much he ---mild slang for getting an erection--and a nearby newbie of the female persuasion took offense and filed sexual harassment charges.

There was, iirc, no serious action taken. But this is an interesting situation. She is a naval officer. She's supposed to be all about projecting power, killing people, breaking their stuff.
But once she heard something considerbaly milder than she heard in the female quarters, from a man, a completely different mindset took over. Either she'd been taught that she needed to be on the lookout for such things, or she had been taught never to pass up an opportunity to stick it to a man. In any case, this fake offense took precedence over her role as a naval officer.
The guy's career is probably damaged--he's got an investigation on his record, and not for anything simple like, say theft or assault. No. He was investigated for sexual harassment.
She is gold, at least in terms of future OERs, since any downcheck can be said to be a matter of the Old Boys club getting their revenge. But her subordinates will, nor should they, never trust her on anything at any time.
Chances are that the Navy itself taught her this in some kind of sensitivity class. Or not. They certainly didn't unteach it.
But the stories of poor performance overlooked, gender-normed physical performance scores, and so forth, are endless.
You can pretend to think they're isolated cases, but it would be a credulous person who thought you really believed it.

[JM Hanes]

Jim Rhoads:

I obviously can't speak to combat situations, so I'm left relying on anecdotal evidence from others. It seems like most first hand accounts I hear from people relating their own experiences, as you've done, suggests that, as a rule, known gays serving alongside straights have not created huge problems.

The most strenuous objections seem to come from retired military folks and folks who have not served themselves who are imagining all sorts of creepiness. Second hand reports usually tend to be pretty general observations, like so-and-so said "it was a mess" or extrapolations from single incedents.

Of course, we have very few active service commenters here, but the milbloggers certainly do, so the fact that they're the ones bringing up the issue now seems significant to me.

In any case, outside of combat and/or close quarters, I've never understood how the prohibition on uncloseted gays can be justified. Were people who object really OK with booting out critically important Arabic translators for revealing themselves? How can others casually equate gays with a killer like Hassan? If warning signs of his malice and instability were ignored, it seems to me that's a dangerous command problem that needs to be fixed, not an indictment of gay service.

I do think change is coming one way or another, because I know my kids and the kids they went to school with have entirely different attitudes than my own generation as a whole. By the time they have their children, opening the military to gays will no longer be a social experiment, because I believe it will be the norm everywhere else.

Just my 2¢.

[Pofarmer]

Jim, when things are kept under wraps, I agree, it's no problem. I am afraid the problems come in when, today, folks tend to be a lot more open about things.

Bunks

It seems odd that you are trying to make this into some sort of corruption or other inside the military, when, what it is, is just the result of the military trying to adjust to liberal policies.

[Captain Hate]

You can pretend to think they're isolated cases, but it would be a credulous person who thought you really believed it.

You don't really think anybody takes the White Shadow seriously, do you?

[boris]

JMH: "I don't see what the problem is" does not seem like a strong argument to me.

Let's try "What's the big deal?".

Suppose the military had a policy that married officers not get caught having extramarital affairs. Compliance to that policy would simply involve not haing affairs or being discrete.

Inflating that into some sort of civil rights outrage and demanding to know what possible reason the military might imagine such a policy would serve .... GMAFB

[boris]

*not having affairs" ... (laptop keyboard)

[Cecil Turner]

In any case, outside of combat and/or close quarters, I've never understood how the prohibition on uncloseted gays can be justified.

Outside of combat and/or close quarters, how can the military be justified?

[Cecil Turner]

Thats the sort of recourse a junior swabby generally has when challenging a predatory serial homosexual Senior Officer like Massa.

In my very limited experience with predatory homosexuals (2 cases, both involving senior NCOs), they were surprisingly hard to prove and prosecute. In one it was handled quickly with an uncontested discharge. In the other, getting one relevant witness to testify was difficult even after it was common knowledge (for some reason, it was necessary to demonstrate the predator was sexually aroused at the time of the incident). I know there were others, who never reported. And "deleterious to morale" doesn't begin to cover the effect.

[Porchlight]

Repression of gays is a hallmark of totalitarian countries.

But that doesn't stop leftists from supporting those countries in their war against Israel (a country where gays are welcomed) anyway.

[global warming gas bubbles]

British sent the space torpedo to the Venezuelans cause Hillary tried to help with that BP oil rig there. No problems, clean. The other space torpedo big mess.

The ring? Got bored of creation and decided to do some planet shit. If you try to get rid of the whole planet they just bring it back.

[JM Hanes]

Cecil:

"Outside of combat and/or close quarters, how can the military be justified?"

Oh come on. Outside of combat you've got everybody it takes to support everybody in combat. I note your non-defense of firing gay translators.

[Janet]

Look who is supporting the repeal of DADT and you can KNOW it is a terrible idea. When was the last time liberals did anything to strengthen our fighting military?

...and to pretend that sodomy is no big deal is a lie. If we, as a nation, mainstream this behavior, many more will experiment with it and be so hurt. Do we even CARE about our young people?
Our entertainment industry already promotes this stuff to our young...LUN is a video of a pop singer at the AMA awards. Now it is a big celebration of his sexual honesty...isn't he great...but what about the other people involved? What's the name of the young man who is treated like a dog? Who has his face pushed into the "star's" crotch on national TV? He is someones son or brother and we gawk as he is letting someone treat him like a dog.
To pretend mainstreaming this behavior is no big deal is just shameful.

[Richard Aubrey]

J.M Hanes. Reading comprehension is a good thing, no matter what your teachers said.
Nobody compared Hasan to gays.
Let me try this again:
Muslims, as are women, are a protected class. Hasan is Muslim. Therefore, his miserable performance and his looneytune views COULD NOT BE REMARKED upon. Clear now?
Ditto the two F14 pilots earlier mentioned.
Gays will be a protected class. Therefore, any miserable performance or looneytune actions or views MAY NOT BE REMARKED upon for official purposes. See Hasan, Maj, multiple murderer and non-closeted jihadi.
Hasan and the F14 clustercrunch are the notable tip of a serious, widespread problem in the military which damages our preparedness.
The problem is not those in protected classes who do well. The problem is those who do poorly, and the double standard.
Sure, it's a command problem. And it isn't going away. Hours after the Ft. Hood shooting, Gen. Casey said it should not damage our commitment to diversity. Which is to say, if you see a Muslim (or someone from another protected class) being either nucking futz or performing below standard, he didn't want to hear about it.
Whatever the good general thought he was saying and whatever others can put into his words, that's the message his subordinates, which is practically everybody, got.
And it's not a matter of homophobia, which is a cheap way of dismissing an argument not otherwise manageable.

[Cecil Turner]

Oh come on. Outside of combat you've got everybody it takes to support everybody in combat.

Oh come on yourself. Are you suggesting we implement a policy that doesn't apply to folks in combat (or who could be in combat)? Who would it apply to?

I note your non-defense of firing gay translators.

If you've got a policy, you probably ought to implement it.

[Pofarmer]

To pretend mainstreaming this behavior is no big deal is just shameful.

I'll agree with you Janet. I used to think it was no big deal, but, with having kids, I've changed my attitude. People that say you can't make someone gay, or that people will be one way or the other no matter what, haven't had a lot of experience with kids. I don't want all the pressure on my kids to accept things that I find morally wrong, and physically repulsive, so, I don't expose them to it.

[JM Hanes]

"If you've got a policy, you probably ought to implement it."

Got it. Implementing, vs changing, current policy is more important than intel.

[boris]

The military has to deal with losing personel assets more than they would like ... but they try to keep that as low a possible ... and discipline is very important to that end.

[ignatz]

I have seen not a single plausible argument as to how repealing DADT makes the military stronger and many which convincingly argue it will weaken it.
Nor has there been a single plausible argument that gays are presently being prevented from serving or that some human right is involved here so I can only conclude that repealing DADT will harm the military and is being driven by idealogical reasons.
That's a dangerous and stupid thing to do with the institution charged with preventing the destruction of our country.

[ignatz]

--Repression of gays is a hallmark of totalitarian countries.--

Usually.
But celebration and promotion rather than tolerance of gays is usually the hallmark of a weakened, decadent and declining country.

[Cecil Turner]

Got it. Implementing, vs changing, current policy is more important than intel.

Strawman. Unless you're suggesting whatever policy is adopted shouldn't be implemented?

[jimmyk]

Strawman.

I think JMH makes a fair point that the policy could be more lenient regarding strictly "back office" non-combat personnel such as translators. There is still the issue raised by Richard Aubrey of the dangers of making any group "protected," thereby making it impossible to fire them for incompetence or outright malfeasance.

[boris]

"lenient regarding strictly "back office" non-combat personnel"

That would establish a reason for asking. It would put those willing to be discrete at a career disadvantage compared to what they have now.

[Cecil Turner]

I think JMH makes a fair point that the policy could be more lenient regarding strictly "back office" non-combat personnel such as translators.

Most "back office" personnel don't start out that way. Practically all live in "close quarters" at some time during their career, certainly during initial training. Many others are rotated from front-line billets (e.g., Navy shore duty). There are lots of ways you could change the policy, including exempting various groups. (Though none I can think of solve more problems than they would create.)

In any event, the "current policy is more important than intel" argument remains fallacious.

[Cecil Turner]

The translator example is also a good one for challenging McQ's suggestion activists wouldn't apply. Per Ian Finkenbinder:

“I looked at myself and said, ‘Are you willing to go to war with an institution that won’t recognize that you have the right to live as you want to?,”’

And is now part of a group suing, saying DADT violates their Constitutional rights.

[Richard Aubrey]

"live as you want to"????
Hell, you don't even have the right to live.
At all.

[boris]

Hope that's more ambiguous than it looks RA.

[nathan hale]

The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities, how does one even get around that concept

[Richard Aubrey]

Boris. Put me down for being excessively literal today, at least when reading your last.
The military can demand you die. Place and time to be determined by your--possibly--squad sergeant.
See "selective unmasking".
Concern about living how you want looks kind of dumb when the Green Machine can end you living at all.
Too bad, and all that. But that's why the military has Graves Registration and regs for funerals and so forth.

[Pofarmer]

The translator example is also a good one for challenging McQ's suggestion activists wouldn't apply.

That's kinda the point. It doesn't take hordes, just a few test cases.

[Richard Aubrey]

I believe the translators were fired for fraternizing, which they had been told was against the rules when they started.
FYI, the forbidden fraternizing was not merely homosexual, but all varieties.
They knew the rules, they broke the rules.
But, being a protected group, they can count on support anyway.

[JM Hanes]

Cecil:

"Strawman."

After "Outside of combat and/or close quarters, how can the military be justified?" I figured we weren't having a serious conversation.

[Cecil Turner]

I thought it should be obvious whatever policy was enacted would have to apply to the indispensable part of a military organization. And that practically everyone starts out in the "close quarters" business.

And sorry, but most of the comments above of the "I don't see it as a big deal" type just demonstrate little or no appreciation for military realities (I particularly liked bb's "I would assume military life is more difficult . . ."). [/eyeroll]

Further, I'd note you tend to get a bit emotional over this (and related) issues. And frankly I don't appreciate the insinuation that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be a bigot or ignorant.

[sbw]

So today our community woke up to a four-letter expletive directed at a gay student spray-painted on the bricks of our high school.

It would seem that problem not discussed is the uncivil public expression of misguided opinion.

The problem may rest less with gays in the military than with the needs a repressed minority so insecure in their own sexuality they are compelled to deface property in a useless effort to harangue others into believing that they are somehow the healthy ones.

Gays in the military isn't about gays; its about bullies.

[Janet]

Gays in the military isn't about gays; its about bullies.

I don't understand what this means.

[Richard Aubrey]

sbw.
Wrong. It's about military effectiveness.
Only.
Trying to haul in homophobia means--see if you can follow this--you have no argument.
See how that works?

[sbw]

Richard, nonsense. It means that to focus on gays and not the reaction to them is ... is ... so liberal an intellectual narrowness.

---

Janet, bullies lash out against others when their own sense of reality runs head-on with conflicting evidence. I raised the issue whether this was about the gays or about the reaction to them. Both are worthy of discussion.

Reading this discussion I had entirely overlooked that issue until it was spray-painted on the school wall this morning.

[Richard Aubrey]

sbw.
Conflating high school spray painting and concern for military effectiveness Does Not Compute.
We are not focusing on gays, gays themselves or the reaction to gays.
We're focusing on military effectiveness.
As they say, in the dark ledgers of war, all the entries are in red.
Coddling somebody's moral preening is not as important as dead soldiers.
Except to the moral preeners, for whom nothing is more important.

[boris]

Probably not a good thing to have any part of the military looking at the issue as bullies "insecure in their own sexuality" vs victims needing special protection.

Also not a strong argument: "See! there really are homophobes ... let's talk about them instead"

[sbw]

Conflating high school spray painting and concern for military effectiveness Does Not Compute.

Yes. I can see that. Why do you suppose you can't conceive that someone's distaste for another might get in the way of military effectiveness?

[JM Hanes]

Cecil:

I feel more passionately about those "related issues" than this one, and I fail to see where I insinuated bigotry or ignorance here. A majority of the most strenuous objections which I've heard raised center on sharing close quarters, which certainly seems understandable to me.

I do, however, think that we're asking an extra measure from gays who must walk the thin line of DADT when they're out there putting their lives on the line like everyone else. And yes, I see it as requiring them to lie by omission, which is something I'd like to see rolled back any and everywhere it can. And yes, I was shocked to see Arabic translators booted from the service when we already had so few of them, because I saw DADT putting our troops in the field at further, IMO unnecessary, risk. If you find it hard to stomach those opinions, that's your problem, not mine.

You clearly took umbrage at some of my comments in the Kagan thread, but I also went to considerable effort to explain my objections and my perspective on something that I obviously find disturbing. Yes, I may have come on strong yesterday, but you've had plenty of harsh words in other threads for those who disagree with you, yourself, so I'm not sure casting stones is in order.

I don't think you're a bigot and I don't think you're ignorant.

[Richard Aubrey]

sbw.
I can conceive of it. I also don't think it's a problem, except.... We separate men and women in quarters and showers and so forth. Gays and straights? No? Why not? After all, if gays and straights can be told to grow up, why not men and women?
Is it an attitude problem if a soldier is hit on by a superior? Not if it's a female soldier hit on by a male superior. That's harassment. But gay on unwilling gay, or on straight? Oh, but that's different. How's this supposed to work. The straight soldier hit on has an unfortunate attitude problem if he finds it objectionable. What about the unwilling gay soldier...? Does he have an attitude problem. That's a tough one.
Sure, you can say, now, that both are harassment, but when the real thing happens, you and those who think like you will be hammering the straight soldier for homophobia. You can bank that.
See, the people who promote this haven't thought beyond moral preening and sticking it to the military. Like the feminists after Tailhook.
My particular issue is protected groups and double standards, but that's not the only one, and none of them have to do with "attitudes".
All of them have to do with military effectiveness.
During the hearings some years ago, one non-military type opined that we're the most powerful military in the world and we can afford some inefficiencies.
People dying as the cost of inefficiencies are just as dead as anybody else.
Stupid twat knew but didn't care.