Apparently you are unable to understand. It is clear that the US military is lowering its recruitment standards to permit induction of high-school dropouts to meet its recruiting goals. We could go into an extended discussion of the deficiencies of the US k-12 education system, but that would require me to compare the US system with European–primarily German (since that is what I know best)–systems.

Question: do you really want a high-school dropout to be controlling high tech weaponry? Or do you merely want them for cannon-fodder?

Regarding DADT, the architect of the “compromise” essentially admitted that it–based on “unit cohesion”–was a fraud. What more need be said?

And the idea that DADT was “forced” on the military is preposterous in the extreme. I was actually a sentient being in 1992-93 and saw what went on.

Going up a bit, someone criticized my use of “raj” as my handle

what I would expect from someone who screen names himself after a notorious colonial regime

sorry, but I have used “raj” as my handle on various message boards for a decade, and will continue to do so. Why? Because they are my initials. Richard Allen Jordan. And I will continue to do so, regardless of your complaint.

Your complaint reminds me of an idiotic comment on a now defunct message board IntellectualCapital.com, who wanted to send me back to India. As if I had ever been there.

If on the other hand your point is that the military’s DADT policy is incoherent, dishonest, inconsistent in application and panders to superstition and bigotry, in accordance with the nature of decision-making in a democracy, then I agree with that point.

Richard P. Hoffman
SFC, U.S. Army, Retired

Ah, so you don’t disagree with my point.

Regarding DADT, the policy was thought up by a professor of sociology at Northwestern University, Charles Moskos. He opined that allowing openly gay people to serve in the military would be counter-productive to “unit coherence.” That was in 1992-93.

A few years ago, he opined that, if a draft were to be re-introduced, openly gay people should also be drafted. So, that proves that the “unit coherence” issue regarding DADT was a fraud.

It’s too bad but this kind of comment, so ignorantly contemptuous of common folk, what I would expect from someone who screen names himself after a notorious colonial regime. For him apparently a high school diploma is a magic talisman because it serves as a clear distinction between respectable peole like himslef and “that sort of people”. It also is a cheap little debating point because he ignores the realities of decision-making and the role of the military in a democracy – DADT is a policy that was a civilian decision. Clinton cooked it up with Congress. It was forced on the military, like Truman’s integration order. They didn’t like either policy, but too bad. That’s how it works in our country, Raj; get used to it or not, all your priggish disapproval won’t change it.

I don’t know where this came from, but how can the military be “better than that” when, as has been reported, they are inducting high school dropouts to meet their recruitment quotas?

Since you are going to say nice things about my comments, I might just ask you what parts you disagree with. I may find on second look that I don’t agree with them either.

“It’s all about politics and bigotry then, and bowing to the least common denominator. The military is supposed to be better than that. ”

Uh, no, not in a democracy. If you are going to give power to the common people, what else are you going to get than bigotry and the lowest common denominator? As for the military being better than that, when that happens, the military becomes and aristocracy, and the democracy becomes feudalism – which I for one think is much worse, for all its supposedly “better than” than rule by the common people with all their/our bigotries and stupidities. What you disdain as “politics” is the process by which we vile peasants come to these decisions. It si so much more refined ot do it over port after dinner among the better sort of people, I am sure, but the quality of the decisions is more less.

So these gay service members are doing more to get DADT abolished than all the pressure groups combined.

Well I do want to point out that a lot of the “pressure groups” such as SLDN and AVER have a very large number of veterans serving in them. They are not the same as HRC.

Really?

One only needs to look as far as the current discharge figures to understand the real reason behind the ban on openly gay servicemembers. Those discharges have dropped precipitously during the Iraq war, and men and women who come out are told “tough luck…we’ll deal with you when your tour is up.” So, at precisely the moment the military would have us believe it is MOST unsetting to be forced to live with an openly gay comrade, they’re forcing straight soldiers to do just that. Later, when it’s not so critical, they’ll go about kicking the gays out. Priceless. It’s all about politics and bigotry then, and bowing to the least common denominator. The military is supposed to be better than that.

excerpt from Andrew Sullivan:

“These discharges comprise a very small percentage of the total and should be viewed in that context,” said Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman. She added that troops discharged under the law can continue to serve their country by becoming a private military contractor

Oh my. I hope you understand what that means. That means that the gay people who are discharged from the official US military because they are gay, are welcome to become mercenaries (so-called “contractors”) who largely work side by side with the official US military. Other than the fact that contractors are (probably) not eligible for VA benefits, and that the mercenaries are paid much higher than regular military, what does this mean in regards DADT? Not much, as far as I can tell, other than the fact that their deaths are not included in the official US gov’t military death count.

Actually it does to the liberals, at least when they’re pretending to give a damn about military service. Why else were we told over and over that Kerry served in Vietnam.

Maybe it’s because the ChickenHawks have been bashing Democrats (not liberals, Democrats) as being unpatriotic. I found that aspect of Kerry’s campaign lacking as well.

To the point, I don’t have much truck with “patriot” or “patriotism.” I largely agree with Ambrose Bierce from his “The Devil’s Dictionary”:

“PATRIOT, n.

One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.

PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. ”

(It would take a bit of parsing to understand what he is saying)

That doesn’t mean that sometimes one has to go into battle, as in the case of WWII. But I sincerely doubt that anything since then (including Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait) would justify a dispatch of the American military.

Why don’t you answer Calarato’s questions instead of being a little bitch?

Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Ronald Reagan
William Clinton

None of these men served in the military, all of them sent troops into harm’s way, and all of them usually rate high in polls of past presidents and almost all in American history.

Why don’t you answer Calarato’s questions instead of being a little bitch?