While comparisons are seldom, if ever, so precise that one can ignore the differences, there are remarkable similiarities between the racial segregation in the military and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on gays openly serving. A reading of the history of racial desegregation in the military is fascinating in and of itself, but one finds the same prejudice, resistance to change, arguments in favor of the status quo, that the military shouldn’t be used as a “social experiment”, questions raised about unit cohesion and barracks facilities, etc., that were used against desegregation as are used now against gays openly serving. One such striking example comes from the testimony opposing full desegregation of Kenneth C. Royall, Secretary of the Army, before the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity In The Armed Forces on March 28, 1949:
At the outset I want to make it clear that in my opinion the policies which should be applied to the use of all Army personnel, regardless of race, are those policies which best promote a sound national defense. Our basic mission is to win battles and to establish an organization capable of winning battles.
Specifically the Army is not an instrument for social evolution. It is not the Army’s job either to favor or to impede the social doctrines, no matter how progressive they may be – it is not for us to lead or to lag behind the civilian procession except to the extent that the national defense is affected…
Another – and an important – factor to be considered on the question of segregation is the morale of the troops as a whole – their satisfaction with Army life, and the spirit with which they perform Army tasks. In war, when the chips are down, this morale factor may well be the difference between victory and defeat.
We must remember that soldiers are not mere bodies that can be moved and handled as trucks and guns. They are individuals who came from civilian life and often return thereto. They are subject to all the emotions, prejudices, ideals, ambitions and inhibitions that encumber our civil population throughout the country.
Solders live and work closely together. They are not only on the same drill field also in the same living and eating quarters. From the standpoint both of morale and of efficiency it is important in peace and in war that the barracks and the unit areas be so attractive to them that they will devote not only their duty time but a reasonable part of their optional time at the post – that they will not be watching the clock for a chance to get away.
In war it is even more important that they have confidence both in their leaders and in the men that are to fight by their sides. Effective comradeship in battle calls for a warm and close personal relationship within a unit…
In this connection we must remember that a large part of the volunteers in the Army are Southerners – usually a larger proportion than from any other part of the country. Whether properly or not, it is a well known fact that close personal association with Negroes is distasteful to large percentage of Southern whites.
A total abandonment of – or a substantial and sudden change in – the Army’s partial segregation policy would in my opinion adversely affect enlistments and reenlistments not only in the South but in many other parts of the country, probably making peacetime selective service necessary. And a change in our policy would adversely affect the morale of many Southern soldiers and other soldiers now serving…
[I]n my opinion – and I believe in the opinion of a great majority of the experienced Army men and officers – it would be most difficult – and unwise from the standpoint of national defense – to require any substantial proportion of white soldiers – whether from the South or from other sections of the country – to serve under Negro officers or particularly under Negro non-commissioned officers.
On the website for the US Army is an excellent book called Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 by Morris J. MacGregor, Jr. on the history of racial desegregation in the military which is an interesting read on the subject. While I recommend a full reading of the text, I would like to highlight some sections from Chapter 13 that I find relevant to the modern debate on DADT that one can reasonably compare to efforts to desegregate the military 60 years ago:
Ironically, the most celebrated pronouncement on segregation at the moment of the Truman order came not from publicists or politicians but from the Army’s new Chief of Staff, General Omar N. Bradley. Speaking to a group of instructors at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and unaware of the President’s order and the presence of the press, Bradley declared that the Army would have to retain segregation as long as it was the national pattern. This statement prompted questions at the President’s next news conference, letters to the editor, and debate in the press. Bradley later explained that he had supported the Army’s segregation policy because he was against making the Army an instrument of social change in areas of the country which still rejected integration. His comment, as amplified and broadcast by military analyst Hanson W. Baldwin, summarized the Army’s position at the time of the Truman order. “It is extremely dangerous nonsense,” Baldwin declared, “to try to make the Army other than one thing—a fighting machine.” By emphasizing that the Army could not afford to differ greatly in customs, traditions, and prejudices from the general population, Baldwin explained, Bradley was only underscoring a major characteristic of any large organization of conscripts. Most import, Baldwin pointed out, the Chief of Staff considered an inflexible order for the immediate integration of all troops one of the surest ways to break down the morale of the Army and destroy its efficiency. […]
Commenting independently, General Bradley warned [Secretary of the Army Kenneth] Royall that integrating individual Negroes in the National Guard would, from a military point of view, “create problems which may have serious consequences in case of national mobilization of those units.” […]
And when his subordinates added to this sentiment the notion that integration would disrupt the Army and endanger its efficiency, they quickly persuaded the already sympathetic Royall that segregation was not only correct but imperative. The secretary might easily have agreed with General Paul, who told an assembly of Army commanders that aside from some needed improvement in the employment of black specialists “there isn’t a single complaint anyone can make in our use of the Negro.” […]
The specific object of Royall’s indignation was Lester Granger’s final report on the work of the National Defense Conference. That report emphasized the conferees’ rebuttal to Royall’s defense of segregation on the grounds of military expediency and past experience with black soldiers. The Army has assumed a position, Granger claimed, that was unjustified by its own experience. Overlooking evidence to the contrary, Granger added that the Army position was at variance with the experience of the other services. His parting shot was aimed at the heart of the Army’s argument: “It is as unwise as it is unsound to cite the resistance of military leadership against basic changes in policy as sufficient cause for delaying immediate and effective action.” […]
[Secretary of the Navy John Nicholas] Brown did not spell out the risk, but a Navy spokesman on [Secretary of Defense James] Forrestal’s staff was not so reticent. “Mutiny cannot be dismissed from consideration,” Capt. Herbert D. Riley warned, if the Navy were forced to integrate its officers’ wardrooms, staterooms, and clubs. Such integration ran considerably in advance of the Navy’s current and carefully controlled integration of the enlisted general service and would, like the proposal to place Negroes in command of white officers and men, Captain Riley predicted, have such dire results as wholesale resignations and retirements. […]
[Marine Commandant General Clifton B.] Cates seemed determined to ignore the military inefficiency attendant on such elaborate attempts to insure the continued isolation of black marines. The defense establishment, he was convinced, “could not be an agency for experimentation in civil liberty without detriment to its ability to maintain the efficiency and the high state of readiness so essential to national defense.” Having thus tied military efficiency to segregation, Cates explained to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air that the efficiency of a unit was a command responsibility, and so long as that responsibility rested with the commander, he must be authorized to make such assignments as he deemed necessary. It followed then, that segregation was a national, not a military, problem, and any attempt to change national policy through the armed forces was, in the commandant’s words, “a dangerous path to pursue inasmuch as it affects the ability of the National Military Establishment to fulfill its mission.” Integration must first be accepted as a national custom, he concluded, “before it could be adopted in the armed forces.” […]
But there was to be no easy road to integration for the service. Considerable resistance was yet to be overcome, both in the Air staff and among senior commanders. As [Assistant] Secretary [of the Air Force Eugene] Zuckert later put it, while there was sentiment for integration among a few of the highest officers, “you didn’t have to scratch far to run into opposition.” The Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, General Edwards, reported to Secretary [of the Air Force Stuart] Symington that he had found solid opposition to any proposed policy of integration in the service. Normally such resistance would have killed the study group’s proposals. In the Army, for example, opposition supported by Secretary Royall had blocked change. In the Air Force, the opposition received no such support. Indeed, Secretary Symington proved to be the catalyst that the Army had lacked. He was the Air Force’s margin of difference, transforming the study group’s proposal from a staffing paper into a program for substantial change in racial policy.
Finally, in commenting here on a repeal of DADT some have objected because, as they see it, certain gay activist groups have at times through their actions or inactions behaved in a manner they find to be reprehensible. In essence, they take a view that all gays should be held responsible for the misbehavior of special interest groups that purportedly represent them. Yet as I previously replied about this:
[U]nless [one is] willing to subscribe to the liberal notion that such groups do indeed speak for whomever they say they do and only them (NAACP for blacks, SLDN for gays, NOW for women, etc.), this is contradictory. In such a case, liberals have every right to condemn blacks who disagree with the NAACP, gays who stray from say HRC, or women who don’t believe NOW represents them.
Putting pressure on civilian and military leaders for change is nothing new in this country, and such is not necessarily worthy of condemnation. It might be instructive to end this post by looking at some of the pressure brought to bear by civil rights groups opposed to segregation, courtesy of the website for the Harry S. Truman Museum & Library, for an example:
March 27, 1948: Twenty African-American organizations meeting in New York City issue the “Declaration of Negro Voters,” which demands, among other things, “that every vestige of segregation and discrimination in the armed forces be forthwith abolished.”
March 30, 1948: A. Philip Randolph, representing the Committee Against Jim Crow in Military Service and Training, testifies to the Senate Armed Services Committee that African-Americans would refuse to serve in the armed forces if a proposed new draft law does not forbid segregation.
April 26, 1948: Sixteen African-American leaders tell Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal that African-Americans will react strongly unless the armed forces end segregation.
June 26, 1948: A. Philip Randolph announces the formation of the League for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience Against Military Segregation. Randolph informed President Truman on June 29, 1948 that unless the President issued an executive order ending segregation in the armed forces, African-American youth would resist the draft law.
— John (Average Gay Joe)
But this brings us to the basic question that divides politicians on the issue of equality for gay people. Is homosexuality an immoral act or a part of the human condition. I did not find it amusing when the current president answered “I don’t know” in the 2004 Debates when asked if homosexuality was a choice. (If idiot Kerry hadn’t put Mary Cheney into the debate at that point it would have been a big story the next day. Instead the Cheneys played victim and deflected criticism from Bush. A clever ploy and an effective one.
It would be all well and good if this were merely the radical fringe. But those who believe that gay people choose to live an immoral lifestyle and could change if we wanted to control the social agenda of the Republican party. It’s why so many gay people are hostile to Republicans. Will Giuliani take that on or brush it aside? Can Log Cabiners have any impact on this issue? We will see. But for now I think we have a problem when we are depicted by leaders as sick and depraved and therefore not deserving of respect and equality.
That can only be answered by one’s religious beliefs, which thanks to the First Amendment hold no sway in determining whether someone is fit to serve in the military or not. That is last refuge for those opposed to gays serving in the military, imposing their religious beliefs on others. I’d like to remind those who try this that in addition to the First Amendment, which protects their rights as well, the same argument was made in opposition to ending slavery AND segregation. I can easily quote a number of Bible passages that were once used to justify both, along with the supposedly inherent inferiority of blacks.
Personally, I’ve always held that the infamous passage quoted from Leviticus is an admonition against having sex with drag queens or femmes. It doesn’t say anything about having sex with a man as a man.
Leviticus 18:22-23 “;You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
John, while it might be convenient to link Truman’s order ending desegregation with a call to repeal DADTDPDH, the link is suspect when you read about black veterans serving in VietNam and the desegregation, racial intolerance and the adverse effects of both on unit moral, cohension, readiness to fight, effectiveness. Race fights, as one Medal of Honor Hispanic veteran Lou Rocco has pointed out, were the reality in the military he served in.
Try Wallace Terry’s “Bloods”, Al French’s “Patches of Fire” or Samuel Black’s “Soul Soliders”.
Truman’s order has become the Holy Grail for some opponents of DADT but the linkage lacks credibility because the Truman’s act left a deep divide well into VietNam… and some minority service groups contend, even today. Gays in the military don’t need that kind of successful social engineering.
Wasn’t it Gen Powell who said the link was convenient but invalid?
John – I’m certain that when the Army was desegregated, there *were* some morale problems – on the part of some people who couldn’t handle it, for whatever reason. Truman took the position, in essence, that the United States ought to have a desegregated Army, and anyone whose morale suffered could put up, or leave over time.
Those of us who support DADT abolition / gay inclusion are likewise saying the United States ought to have a gay-inclusive military or at a minimum, one that just doesn’t care about gays in its midst. (At a minimum, adding “Don’t Pursue” to DADT.) But here is where the analogy to desegregation breaks down: Desegregation didn’t introduce a new element of sexual tension to military living quarters. It didn’t inherently put service members who were sexually attracted to their fellows (or deeply opposed to such attraction) naked in the same showers. I still think we should abolish DADT; I’m only saying, no, it isn’t just like racial desegregation was.
The better analogy would be to the military’s decision to keep men and women segregated. If the military started putting men and women naked in the same showers – again, at least at first, they’d be adding a serious new element of sexual tension to military life. I’m not saying it’s unreasonable. We may well end up there someday (a la Starship Troopers). We should go there now, today, with honorable gay service members. I’m only saying, no, it’s not as simple as your post implies.
To me, it’s almost as untoward a policy initiative as the GayLeft pressing for full marriage “rights” or validation of the most extreme acts/elements in our community. I want a military that is focused on winning fights with our enemies, not expanding liberal societal values.
That can only be answered by one’s religious beliefs, which thanks to the First Amendment hold no sway in determining whether someone is fit to serve in the military or not.
I am not so sure you can say this question is one that is only answered through religion.
Morals and definitions of what is or isn’t immoral isn’t unique solely to religion (as many an atheist/agnostic will object to being labeled with having no morals since they have no religious belief).
A person could make an argument that homosexuality is immoral or at least a choice without quoting any verses from the Bible.
This is a problem the abortion debate often gets into-it is assumed that everyone who is opposed to abortion is opposed due to some religious belief, when this isn’t the case.
That said-I honestly don’t think the debate over nature/nurture/some combination matters at least for the purpose of this debate.
If a gay person 100% chose to be gay, should it really matter in whether he is qualified to serve in the military? You will have a hard time convincing me that allowing gays to serve openly would be harmful.
I think one interesting thing with the whole “social expirement” argument is that unlike during segregation, I think society is in general is actually more open to gays serving openly in the military than there were people open to integration of the military. I think the military is really at the point where it is simply time to change the law.
I think those opposed to gays in the military for morale reasons aren’t going to have much to argue-most of the legitimate arguments they may make would amount to “we can cover that in the UCMJ” therefore it isn’t a concern for keeping gays out so much as it is using the tools available so everyone can serve under the same rules and standards.
#4 MM – While I have just stated why I think the link is shaky, my reasons appear to be different from yours. You assert that 20+ years after Truman’s order, the military still had morale problems and race fights due to desegregation. What else you might be saying is unclear, but this seems like a key phrase:
Are you only saying you don’t think we should abolish DADT / move to gay inclusion? Or are you also saying we’d be better off if Truman hadn’t desegregated? Please note I am ASKING for clarification; rather than leaping to conclusions (one way or the other) as I have seen some do on this blog.
I think you are too easily dismissing what integration meant for those raised not only by societal custom but also religious belief in the inferiority of non-whites. To say that a black man was now your equal, and later that they could marry a white woman, without this being something from the Devil was an enormous change in mindset. Yes, the element of sexual tension wasn’t a factor in racial desegregation. We have something they didn’t really have for racial desegregation 60 years ago: the experience of our Allies in dealing with this added factor. You can read documents about this here: http://www.palmcenter.org/library/dadt/documents.
You apparently skipped the opening paragraph. A simple one-to-one comparison wasn’t intended nor was it the point. I said that there were “remarkable similarities” between reasoning behind segregation in the military and keeping DADT in place. I never said nor implied they were exactly the same. In reading the history of racial desegregation one finds many things that are thrown up in opposition to repealing DADT. The one argument which was repeatedly used in another thread here was opposition by military leaders. That is a specious and invalid argument in my view, which is why I posted this.
Michigan Matt I think you make a good point about the fact that integration didn’t mean everything and everyone was all happy as clams, and things went smoothly.
Although one huge difference between the military of integration days and the military of DADT is that today’s force is voluntary. I think when you mix in guys who are in the military with no choice, who also aren’t comfortable serving with minorities, you may see more explosions.
Not to say that the end of DADT wouldn’t cause problems, but I think careful planning of just how to end the policy may alleviate some of the problems.
Desegregation didn’t introduce a new element of sexual tension to military living quarters. It didn’t inherently put service members who were sexually attracted to their fellows (or deeply opposed to such attraction) naked in the same showers. I still think we should abolish DADT; I’m only saying, no, it isn’t just like racial desegregation was.
I think this is a good point. But I think most of these concerns can be planned for, and addressed with the UCMJ.
I figure the biggest balk would be the living together/showers thing, but honestly doesn’t it really make a difference if the guy in the bunk next to your the guy in the shower next to you yesterday was in the closet and today he isn’t? As long as he isn’t harrassing you and you aren’t harrassing him, this seems a bit like a “grow up and get over it” argument.
I don’t know if it is the fact that I am a woman-but I don’t get getting all upset that a gay person is sharing quarters with you as long as they aren’t coming on to you (sexual advances would make me uncomfortable in that setting, but there would or at least should be a procedure in place to deal with those situations).
There are already prohibitions against fraternization-so some of this would fall into this catagory anyway-whether it is gay or straght.
The one argument which was repeatedly used in another thread here was opposition by military leaders. That is a specious and invalid argument in my view, which is why I posted this.
That would be me I think.
And I still think the best way to deal with the repeal of DADT is to lobby and push the military leaders to make the changes.
Just because there are similarities doesn’t mean that the better tack is to repeat what happened before.
Especially since this go around the congress will have to act, and if you can argue that the military brass-or at least a good many of them support the measure, you have one huge leg up for getting congress to act.
@6: It’s interesting that you would see a conflict between the two, as that kind of false “either/or” choice could be used to defend racial, sexual, or even religious or nationality based discrimination in the military or, really, anywhere (ala “I want a police force that’s focused on fighting crime, not advocating crazy liberal social values about blacks being cops”), and I wasn’t aware that (anyone here admitted that) “gay people being fully integrated into society” was a “liberal” value, as if that wasn’t a conservative goal either. It is, right?
Actually, yes they do. I’m not saying that gays need the same kind of problems that racial minorities faced post-Truman, but that problems which may result is not a good enough reason to keep the ban in place. Where Royall was right is that the military reflects society in general and the reasons for the problems that resulted from desegregation stemmed from the fact that our country as a whole were struggling heavily with them. The military is perhaps the most integrated organization in our country today and one can reasonably argue that Truman’s action greatly helped move race relations forward. I say that the same reasoning applies to gays in the military. Fortunately, our country seems to be more accepting of this than our political and military leadership who almost like their counterparts 60 yrs ago are paralyzed by the idea of change.
No John, I didn’t skip it, I only took it as pro forma. “While I acknowledge my comparison may be invalid in theory, now let me spend 50 times as many words as if my comparison is perfectly valid – theory be damned.” 😉
That was exactly the argument used by those who wanted to keep the military segregated.
That could be a very good point. I can’t really imagine what desegregation was like for someone raised on segregation, nor muster much sympathy for them.
Good point. I forgot about that. The fact that the military is voluntary means that when DADT is lifted those who freely join know going in and that gays will be serving openly.
Exactly. I still say the example of our Allies should be studied for this.
Hmm…believe it or not I tend to mean exactly what I write. 😉
That depends. On his good manners. (I.e., whether he has any.)
Indeed. I’m not opposed to that, if successful it would be quite helpful for a smooth transition, but am not willing to give them ‘veto’ over such a change again.
Besides the UCMJ, the military has a way of weeding out those who are not able to play nice let’s say. Anyone who’s gay and wants to serve because they view the military as a ‘buffet of beefcake’ is going to be sorely disappointed. The military isn’t for everyone but sexual orientation alone isn’t a legitimate exclusionary reason.
Indeed. I’m not opposed to that, if successful it would be quite helpful for a smooth transition, but am not willing to give them ‘veto’ over such a change again.
I can agree with that, at some point you may have to tell them to just deal with it, but sound arguments with sound reasoning (and let’s face it it is pretty hard to argue the whole “morale” one or even the “social expirement” one in the face of evidence from successful integration of gays in other countries).
But I don’t think the best tack is to tell them to shove it from day one, and lobby congress on your own. Get the brass, or at least enough of them behind you, and you have a pretty good front to get things changed. Also, transition and planning will go a lot more smoothly if the guys in charge aren’t being drug there kicking and screaming.
Agreed, though I believe these can be done at the same time. I can’t remember where, but I read before that the Brits offered to have their military leaders brief ours on the lifting of their former ban against gays but were refused. Something like this should happen.
John, a final note before I focus 100% on work. I appreciate your post, and this discussion. Equality before the law and equal opportunity-to-serve are the forms of gay equality I’m interested in – or should I say, the only real and sustainable forms of gay equality.
Along those lines, I decided 15 years ago that my top 3 gay issues were (a) sodomy law repeal, (b) gays in the military, and (c) gay marriage or at least civil unions. One and a half down, one and a half to go.
All the other Gay Left crap – ENDA, hate crimes laws, the disregard or repeal of public lewdness laws, etc. – is Orwellian “special rights” that will have to be (and should be) repealed if the United States ever turns back to its founding principles of real individual freedom – something I hope for.
Just me, I think your idea is a good one. Certainly it would be easier to get rid of DADT if the military leadership was in favor of doing so. But how do you make that happen. Are active duty officers allowed to go on record as being against current military policy?
For me, repealing DADT will do more to obtain the full rights in other areas than anything else. It wasn’t the only thing, but it certainly helped blacks during the Civil Rights Era. Something about having your butt saved or facing danger next to someone different tends to help change people’s minds about things.
It’s generally frowned upon and could jeopardize their career depending upon how they choose to do so.
Just me, I think your idea is a good one. Certainly it would be easier to get rid of DADT if the military leadership was in favor of doing so. But how do you make that happen. Are active duty officers allowed to go on record as being against current military policy?
Okay, I personally can’t do this. And my idea works mostly on the assumption that you have a president that wants to change policy.
I think you lobby the brass from within-John mention that the Brits had volunteered to brief our military on how they integrated gays into their military, taking them up on the offer would be a good idea.
The reality is at this point, the only way to get rid of DADT is to get congress to change the law. The president can’t do it-all he can do is advocate and sign a bill, if he is given one.
If you have a president (CIC) advocating for change, I think you can arguablly provide opportunity for some military leadership to go on record to congress with regard to their opinion on the matter. I don’t think encouraging the brass to go to the New York Times would be advisable, but I think policy discussion between branches of the government on proposed new policy is legitimate.
If the president isn’t behind it-not sure how easy it is to get the brass behind it, and there isn’t a guarantee if congress writes the law and passes it, the president will sign it.
The reality is that Truman had it much easier-he could and did make the change through executive order, and lucky for him, the congress didn’t create some idiotic law to prevent integration. Any future president in favor has to get congress on board or the change doesn’t happen, and I think one way to get them on board is to get the military brass advocating for change to the congress in support of the presidents position.
First off, what should be noted is that minorities were not barred from serving at all; they were barred from serving in certain situations and duties. There had been black soldiers, for instance, in the United States armed forces since the Revolutionary War, and combat units/groups since at least the Civil War.
Second, the sexual element in quarters and interactions cannot be downplayed. Not only does sexual tension have its own issues, it can also exacerbate the issue when romances, infatuations, and whatnots affect the judgment of a soldier — or worse, their leader — under combat conditions.
It is true that policies against fraternization technically mitigate this. However, the practical tack is to avoid the situation altogether, especially since fraternization policies are both difficult to enforce and carry a significant degree of emotional baggage along with them. This is why men and women are separated in housing and similar more-private activities except in extreme situations. In order to follow the same idea, gay soldiers would not only have to be housed separately, but housed separately from each other.
Finally, let us be absolutely practical. Gays constitute barely a single-digit fraction of the population; our service is hardly required from a military necessity standpoint. There are numerous other ways to serve your country without joining the military. Being unable to serve under the conditions that you prefer for whatever reason does not make you any more or less of a person.
Quick historical note – That Congress (that wisely withheld its hand in 1948) must have been Republican in both houses. The Democrats had the segregationists and the Democrats took control in 1949 (i.e., in elections at the end of ’48).
No one has said otherwise. The issue was one of segregation.
Why? Please explain / justify. Note that the possibility of sexual tension (which I partly agree with you on, i.e., I noted it earlier) can have solutions other than separate housing.
That depends on the military specialty/field. Front-line Marines? No, probably not. But let’s just say that in fact – in reality – harm has been done United States’ security interests by the unnecessary discharge of significant numbers of gays in other military specialties.
I’m not a radical on this. For now, I could settle for merely adding DP (Don’t Pursue) to DADT. It was supposed to be there. Clinton sold it as DADTDP. But, they reneged on DP and that has done damage.
That’s an overly simplistic review of the history and the last part glosses over the wrenching change having even segregated units caused.
Nor should it be overplayed. This element already exists and has existed as gays are currently serving and have in the past, as long they are closeted or their unit isn’t bothered by their sexuality. Yet somehow the military has survived as have those of our Allies who have almost all lifted their own bans.
All of which countries like Israel faces everyday, with a conscript military to boot, not only with gays but women soldiers. Somehow they manage and except when their political leaders bungle things, do a pretty good job.
Not just “technically”, they do along with proper training.
A specious argument which was invalid for desegregation as well when it was used in opposition.
Irrelevant. Blacks constituted only 9.8% of the US population in 1940 and their service was “hardly required from a military necessity standpoint”, yet that too was not a valid reason to avoid desegregation.
#8 ILC writes: “What else you might be saying is unclear”.
FYI ILC, my comments at #6 were a continuation of my comments at #4… interupted/interposed with your comments at #5. I didn’t intend my comments at #6 to be a reflection, a commentary or a response to your comments at #5.
Thanks for another “school marm” moment, though; you rarely disappoint.
Two more items on this I neglected to add. First is that given how it can be shown that since WWII the discharges of homosexuals decreases in wartime (that includes the current conflicts) only to increase once hostilities are ended, it seems the military found a way to cope. The stress on the military and importance of “unit cohesion” during battle is far more than during peacetime, yet again somehow the military found a way to manage in war with gays serving that it somehow ‘forgot’ once peace came. Curious that.
The other item is that you are ignoring the important example of openly gay soldiers in the militaries of our Allies. I’m not just speaking of them serving alongside their fellow countrymen, but in multinational units and on missions that include American forces living under DADT. IOW, that Brit soldier fighting alongside, sleeping next to, showering with, etc. their American colleagues might be gay and yet somehow they manage. If your point were valid it would mean that by logical extension such units and missions need to come to an end.
#33 – Wow – Ask a sincere question, get a patented MM dig. No sir; you never disappoint.
Incidentally, my question was directed at your #4 alone – so no, you did not understand the interaction (or perhaps my question). Bye now MM. 🙂
Most of what I’ve read above ignores the fact that gays have ALWAYS served in the US military, it’s only the degree of “openness” that’s really the issue. We know there have been gay military commanders at all levels up-to atleast 2-star-rank in all the services just in the last 25-years since flag-officers have come-out after retirement from all the services. And prior to WW2 it wasn’t a big-deal in many commands as long as there were no scandals or command-problems. And it wasn’t until the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era that they actually started to ask at enlistment about your sexual orientation as an official policy. Prior to that, being gay was usually as issue if you wanted “out” of the military, or to avoid being drafted in the first place, or caused as scandal while in uniform.
Discrete and not-so-discrete officers and enlisted have served in the US military since long before Maj. Gen. von Steuben and his “aides” whipped the Continental Army into a professional-level fighting force that could stand against the British regulars.
Instead the Cheneys played victim and deflected criticism from Bush.
Sorry? When did the Cheneys become liberals? Furthermore, what criticism was deflected from Bush?
I am one of the few still living that served during the segregation of the race and gender. You may wonder how did it work. Fine. We won the war. The last one that America has won. No. That was just a flip answer. The race should not be segregated but yes on the gender. One example a neighbor girl went into the Army. One month later she was pregnant. Discharged after about 3 months. During the War the WACs did a good job and also the gals in the British military without bunking side by side with the men. Then should the gays serve separately. No. You can’t look at a man and tell if he is gay. I am sure I served with many in my 4 years but at that time I was not aware of it. There was no problem what so ever with gays serving with the rest of us.
There you go!
So John W – what do you think makes people uptight about the idea now?
I don’t know. It started in 1946.
Truman may have been some influence. It was known at the time that he hated gays. He had a word for them but I can’t remember what it was. Unfortunate I do not has access to any of the 3 1946 Washington newspapers.
#38
How about with babes like Dr. Ruth who was a sharpshooter for the Haganah?
#42. I am sorry I am not familiar with that. You will have to refresh my memory.
#43. send it to jwaggy at comcast.net.
The stress on the military and importance of “unit cohesion” during battle is far more than during peacetime, yet again somehow the military found a way to manage in war with gays serving that it somehow ‘forgot’ once peace came. Curious that.
Not curious at all; it’s the same reason that Israel can do it.
Namely, it’s much easier to keep your sexual urges under control when you’re being shot at as opposed to when you’re not. I don’t think gays in Israel or in combat have any more self-control than most liberal American gays; they simply are faced more often with the consequences of what happens when you spend more time daydreaming about undressing your comrades than you do watching the sniper sneaking through the fence to kill them.
The other item is that you are ignoring the important example of openly gay soldiers in the militaries of our Allies.
You’re right, that is important.
There is a reason we are the ones doing the heavy lifting in every theater; the other governments do their best to keep their troops OUT of combat and back in “support roles”.
Mainly because ours is the only army in the world (save Israel) that puts a higher emphasis on combat readiness and military fitness than it does on social engineering. What Israel does is born, not out of social engineering, but out of the fact that they need every able-bodied person on which they can lay hands — and those people know , as I mentioned above, the price of putting your individual sexual expression ahead of the good of the unit.
Now you’re just being absurd. It is true that for some stress will decrease their sex drive, but with others the higher levels of adrenaline from facing danger actually causes it to increase. Regardless of which in a given situation, again Israel and other Allies have managed — not to mention even the United States has which decreases its discharges of gays during war. You are feeding into every stereotype about gays with this claim of yours. YOU may not be able to keep your libido in check, but quite a number of others can. You keep making assumptions about gays who will serve in the military without any basis of fact, but on prejudice and stereotype. We’ve had gays in the military for years, do you have facts you can cite or are you just speaking out of your ass? Did the presence of Eric Alva in Iraq cause problems in his unit? None that I’m aware of. How about the others we know about and those we do not? If you had served in the military you would have an idea that the kind of people you fear do not last very long and are weeded out, whether officially thanks to the UCMJ or are dealt with through…unofficial means.
You agree that “it is important” and then completely ignore addressing the matter. While most Allied troops currently are in support roles as you put it, not all of them are. You fail to address that.
[AGJ] Now you’re just being absurd.I agree. NDT, you lost me on that one. You’re positing, in effect, that American military gays are in a constant struggle to keep their sexual urges under control, and often can’t. While I know there will always be a spectacular exception, on an “average” basis that is way off, and you just smeared some good people. You are also positing, in effect, that American troops aren’t not being sufficiently shot at (as compared to Israel). What do you call Iraq?
(apologies for bad formatting & typos)
Indeed. We know there are some in both Afghanistan and Iraq, yet somehow they manage.
One thing I neglected to add, in Iraq especially we’ve seen that lines between combat and support roles have little meaning as servicemembers of BOTH are drawn into the conflict. and unfortunately suffer casualties from attacks. MPs, truck drivers, mechanics, etc., have been in the thick of fighting due to insurgent/AQI attacks. Are you seriously telling us that the presence of gay soldiers eroded the unit cohesion of these folks? Why are you even making a distinction between combat and support roles when proponents of DADT have argued all along that this was irrelevant since gay troops supposedly affect unit cohesion regardless? Try fighting a battle without bullets, having the medical supplies to patch up the wounded, food to fill the combatants bellies, etc. If unit cohesion is supposedly eroded by the presence of gays one would think it would be a serious blunder to subject one’s vital supply lines and support network to such a ‘threat’.
By reading the above comments, I get the impression that you all think that gays has to have sex and when we are not busy in combat, there is a urge to play around with bunk mates. You forget that married men do not have their wives with them and they manage. How? And this is true with streights and gays – sometimes there are women available (whores, yes) which is enjoyed by gays as well as streights. Also the Manual of Arms says that to “relieve tension” it is ok to mastubate. That may be changed in the last 60 years. Also there is the “wet dream”. Sex is not the problem in the Service that it is made out to believe.
John, when you wrote at # 50 “Are you (NDT) seriously telling us that the presence of gay soldiers eroded the unit cohesion of these folks”, I think you’re missing a larger point and that’s the distinction of an openly gay soldier serving versus a DADTDHDP soldier.
It’s less about where that soldier serves than what the open, possibly abrasive (to some) conduct portends for the unit. I know the “where” or how was part of the other comments, but to the military brass, it’s the presence of an openly gay soldier serving and the adverse impact he/she has on other soldiers. Coming out of the closet may be the PC prescription for gays in general society… but it doesn’t apply to the military. In a military unit where it’s all about the team, it can’t be all about the individual’s interest in self-esteem and living true to one’s self.
For many in the service, the presence of an open, gay soldier DOES adversely impact unit cohesion. Gen Schwarzkopf offered in ’93 a statement before the Sen Armed Services Committee that, as a military expert, he knows from experience that an open gay soldier has deleterious effect on unit cohesion and effectiveness. Frankly, his view and that of Colin Powell trumps anything gay activists or politicians have to offer on the subject –the military is NOT an appropriate venue for social engineering –the kind of social engineering you propose by offering that progress on that front might help bring full gay civil rights to non-military gays.
Just because Truman did it to the Army in ’48 –when the draft was only used to replace exiting Army personnel and it was not the kind of broad based draft ala VietNam era- doesn’t make Truman’s choice then correct. It doesn’t mean, even now, that it was correct in hindsight. That decision was motivated by the natl political race for president… which Truman was losing when the exec order was issued. For Truman, it was all about bringing back FDR’s base of liberal northerners (Yankees) and blacks to the election. Truman was willing to hazard ANYthing to stay in office and this EO was not a bright, shining moment in history.
On a second point you make, namely that other countries have incorporated open gays into their service, aren’t you neglecting to point out the notion that the societies in those countries are more liberal, more tolerant, more progressive than many sections of American society. To me, that’s an important distinction. Sure, if our society was as liberal as Israel’s or France’s or GB’s or Sweden’s, I’d say the policy should be repealed.
I still think the answer to repealing DADTDHDP comes in two major steps. First, gays have to distance themselves and their leadership from the liberals who piss on the military via ROTC prohibitions and anti-military sentiments (USS Iowa in SF) and allow gay veterans and service personnel to lead on the issue; second, work on the military brass and society at large to build a more tolerant atmosphere for gay civil rights –and, yes, that might mean reworking the face we put on gay civil rights.
One of the stories that should have told when the Army discharged all those gay Arabic translators was one highlighting the patriotism of those ex-Army gays by showing how many went into private sector employment to continue their important work. I’m sure it happened.
The military brass ought to be heeded on this issue, not those seeking to dabble in social engineering experiments at the expense of unit cohesion. To build a parallel to Truman’s highly politically motivated decision in 1948 is to build an intellectually dishonest argument for repeal of DADTDHDP. Truman was one of the most opportunistic politicians ever in the WH… until Clinton42 got in there.
Aha – so part of the clarification I had requested of MM back at #8, comes out after all. He doesn’t give Truman credit for the EO nor approve it.
That is, shall we say, interesting. The next questions that come to my mind at least:
1) Wouldn’t *not* desegregating have been the more opportunistic thing Truman to do? The EO (and similar policies) split his own party and are part of what made his victory such a surprise. Google “Strom Thurmond Dixiecrats” if you don’t believe me, or read this.
2) Accepting the name-calling of Truman as “opportunistic” for arguments’ sake: What? does that mean Truman should have waited? Should have *not* desegregated the military in 1948?
I care less about MM’s views at this point, than the general opinion.
Did the presence of Eric Alva in Iraq cause problems in his unit? None that I’m aware of.
Eric Alva had a very simple choice, John; cause problems, and you will be discharged.
Similarly, Israeli gays have a very stark choice; cause problems, and you will be killed by the terrorists who are looking for exactly that opening.
You’re positing, in effect, that American military gays are in a constant struggle to keep their sexual urges under control, and often can’t.
Which is why DADT works; it makes it clear that, if you don’t, you lose your job.
If unit cohesion is supposedly eroded by the presence of gays one would think it would be a serious blunder to subject one’s vital supply lines and support network to such a ‘threat’.
Which is precisely why we don’t.
Our troops rely on our own supply, logistics, and support networks in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The other NATO members in Afghanistan are concerned primarily with securing Kabul and carrying out police work. The main people they are supplying and supporting are themselves, and even they admit they’re not doing very well at it.
Really, John. Do you think the US relies on social-engineered armies like the Netherlands and Germany for logistics? Germany had to lease transport planes from Russia and Ukraine to get its OWN troops and equipment to Afghanistan. These countries put all their effort into ensuring their armies have the right racial and ethnic makeup and nothing into whether or not they’re actually useful, and it shows.
And finally:
You forget that married men do not have their wives with them and they manage. How?
They’re not put into quarters with women unless it is an absolute imperative. As I said above, the armed forces take the singularly-intelligent approach that the best way to minimize such risks is to do the best one can to prevent the situations that cause them.
In other words: “yes”. And I think that’s a smear (as in, an insulting falsehood) on American military gays.
But as always, NDT, I admire your having the courage of your convictions.
A distinction without merit given how haphazardly DADT is applied across different commands. In some commands, gays serve openly without any problems being reported (until they transfer to a less-hospitable command of course). Jarrod Chlapowski is one of the veterans we’re interviewing in a couple of weeks on the podcast and that was his situation and given other reports he wasn’t alone. Then there is the fact that the supposed “Don’t Pursue” part of the policy is ignored in less-hospitable commands where gays are indeed asked, pursued and kicked out on little evidence. So what we have is a policy that is not universally applied and varies from command to command, something most people would find to be inefficient for the military.
What constitutes “abrasive conduct” to you? Again, besides the UCMJ the military has a way of dealing with folks who cannot play nice. I know, I’ve seen it happen.
You really should turn off the TV and put down the latest issue of The Advocate. In the real world we are speaking about more than a declaration of one’s sexuality, which for many is only shared with people they are close to, but just quietly living their lives without having NCIS or the equivalent from the other branches snooping to uncover something to kick out the queers. Even after the ban was lifted in the militaries of most of our Allies, many gays continue to remain private and I doubt you’ll see much of a change in our military once DADT is gone as well. The type of person you are describing who wears their sexuality on their sleeve and being gay is about the sum of who they are as a person, will not last long in the military regardless of whether the ban is lifted or not.
Actually, not really. Be that as it may, let’s say you are correct: such is par for the course that every single president from at least John Adams to George W. Bush can be accused of.
I applaud your honesty, it’s refreshing to see. However, I believe you are flat wrong about this and about Truman’s actions on desegregation. There were undoubtedly mistakes in the implementation of his EO, as there were with the ending of slavery, but to take no action because one is afraid of problems is extremely poor leadership. This is also a recipe for justification of a moral evil, waiting for the “right moment” which never comes and one’s inactions allow such a moral evil to perpetuate far longer and grow far worse than it would have been if even a flawed solution was sought. Then there’s the fact that implementing desegregation ended inefficiency in duplicate training, supply, maintenance, etc. facilities and commands all of which you’ve completely ignored.
Two questions: does this mean you advocate ending all joint missions and units with our “more progressive” Allies since this may be too much for our supposedly ‘troglodyte’ soldiers and obviously the poor dears won’t be able to have unit cohesion with them? While it’s difficult to set policies based upon polls, there does seem to be quite a lot of support (over 70%) for lifting the ban. What criterion do you have to ascertain when we’ve reached this “liberal” gaytopia you speak of that will enable us to repeal DADT without narry a problem?
I’m just willing to bet that I started speaking about “white guilt” and the “burden of the white man”, you’d have a big problem with that. As would I, so no worries about me arguing that. Yet somehow you can ignore identity politics when it comes matters like this but for gays you use it with impunity. HRC, for example, no more speaks for all gays than NAACP speaks for all blacks, NOW speaks for all women, etc. I do not hold all blacks responsible for the assinine tripe coming from the mouth of Julian Bond, or women for screeching noise from Patricia Ireland. For some reason though, you and NDT want to do this when it comes to gays. Why is that? This is NOT what conservatism is about but is exactly what we complain about from liberals.
No. Believe it or not, they are not infallible even in military matters. Furthermore, the military isn’t an entity unto itself but carries out the orders of the civilian government and every member of the military is a volunteer with the freedom to go elsewhere when their contract expires. Those who just cannot abide serving with queers under any circumstance are free to exercise that choice, just as those who couldn’t stand serving with blacks as their equals. I have no problem soliciting their views in the matter, seeking ways of reasonably addressing their concerns, etc. but what you ask is something they have never had and are not entitled to have.
All of this assumes a few things:
1. That there haven’t always been and aren’t currently gay men and women serving in combat positions without problems.
2. That more than a very small handful of enlisted people in those kinds of close quarters are going to come out. I know I wouldn’t.
3. That DADT only applies to men and women who are in barracks or in combat positions. Plenty of soldiers have been discharged who were not in that kind of position.
4. That gay men are all crazed sexed weasels who can’t wait to get there hands on any available man. And to hear this kind of argument from other gay people makes me want to vomit. Thomas H Cruise, don’t any of you guys have straight friends? You’ve never been camping with them or stayed over when visiting old buddies out of town etc? How are we ever going to get any respect when we have so little for ourselves.
I’m stunned at the ignorance this betrays. You really have no idea how our military has operated throughout OIF & OEF, let alone other joint actions such as in Desert Storm. This tells me all I need to know and I believe further discussion is pointless until you do some catching up because frankly you have no idea what you are talking about and you’re giving me nothing but rhetoric.
In other words: “yes”. And I think that’s a smear (as in, an insulting falsehood) on American military gays.
How so, ILC?
After all, gays who are serving now under DADT are demonstrating daily that they are more than able to keep their sexual impulses under control when it means their careers will be over if they don’t.
What I am pointing out is that removing that hardly gives them sufficient motivation to keep doing so.
That gay men are all crazed sexed weasels who can’t wait to get there hands on any available man. And to hear this kind of argument from other gay people makes me want to vomit.
(rolls eyes) Gee, I wonder where I would get that idea.
And of course, what is their response? “Straight men are doing it too”, “oppressive culture ruins our sexual expression”, etc……..
In short, I care way too much about our soldiers to even think about requiring them to put up with that sort of sh*t on a regular basis.
Spoken like someone who is completely ignorant of the military and has no idea what service is like.
You really have no idea how our military has operated throughout OIF & OEF, let alone other joint actions such as in Desert Storm.
Sure, John, whatever.
What our allies are saving us the effort of doing is the reconstruction grunt work, thus allowing our troops to focus on combat operations. Most of the armed forces of other countries in Afghanistan are banned from combat.
Spoken like someone who is completely ignorant of the military and has no idea what service is like.
Or like someone who has seen and dealt with the consequences of far too many sex scandals to buy the “fraternization policy prevents all problems” or “troublemakers are always caught violating the UCMJ”.
The simple fact of the matter is, John, that you were able to serve quite nicely under DADT because you had your priorities in the correct order. Most gays do not. And, unlike other countries, I am less concerned with pandering to minority feelings than I am that our military be in tip-top shape with the minimum of distractions.
If general articles from Wikipedia and the Beeb are what you believe gives you a good enough idea about how the military has operated throughout OEF & OIF, as well as other joint operations like Desert Storm, I’m not impressed. However, continue on in your safe little world just don’t expect people who know differently to give your views on the subject much credence.
Again, you speak from ignorance and to boot burn down strawmen since no one here that I know said anything close to what you have in quotes. Surely you are not going to suggest that Tailhook, for example, discredits heterosexuals from serving?
There you go again. The picture you paint / imply is that gays currently in the military, under DADT, are lascivious creatures with only the rudimentary self-control of a child; only the severest quasi-parental threats will penetrate their unreason. While I know that’s true of the civilians in your B.A.R. cite, I also know it’s not true of most gays now in the military. It’s an insulting picture. Add the fact of its general falseness, and you have a smear.
Let’s further add the fact that it’s a smear against military people. In other words: it’s an anti-military smear, and you, NDT, are presently doing the very thing you (rightly) fault Left gays for.
Cut the crap.
The picture you paint / imply is that gays currently in the military, under DADT, are lascivious creatures with only the rudimentary self-control of a child; only the severest quasi-parental threats will penetrate their unreason.
I would suggest you note what I stated to John prior to drawing that conclusion.
The simple fact of the matter is, John, that you were able to serve quite nicely under DADT because you had your priorities in the correct order. Most gays do not.
Next up:
Surely you are not going to suggest that Tailhook, for example, discredits heterosexuals from serving?
Of course not.
But it demonstrates quite nicely a) why the armed forces keep males and females who are serving in separate quarters, b) that fraternization rules and policies are not effective in preventing inappropriate sexual behaviors among servicement, and c) that heterosexuals have a self-corrective mechanism, given that these actions generated widespread outrage.
However, continue on in your safe little world just don’t expect people who know differently to give your views on the subject much credence.
Your point, John, is to prove that gays, of which you are one, should be included in the military.
Does it help or harm your narrative to point out the weakness and relative impotence of those countries whose armed forces do? Conversely, should I expect you to acknowledge any of it, or simply to discredit a source that demonstrates it?
So John was *THAT* rare in the military? There you go again, NDT. Stop smearing military gays, please!
It really isn’t worth my time to put so much effort into a response, like I’ve been doing over the past couple of days, to someone who has very little or no idea about what he is pontificating about. Essentially, he is speaking out of his ass and his reply about Tailhook is a prime example. Eh, I’ll wait for something with more substance before committing the time to post a reply.
For the record, again I respect NDT, admire him having the courage of his convictions, and say what I say with no rancor. He doesn’t give me the feeling I’m arguing with gil, Ian, etc. Only that he’s a little relentless 😉 In pointing out that he’s effectively smearing some of the troops, I’m only drawing out the logical conclusions of his statements – I don’t seriously think he has bad motives toward them.
Funny thing.
Supposedly, right-wingers who never served but support the military have no right to their opinions. (The “chicken-hawk” taunt.)
Yet, left-wingers who never served somehow are entitled to dictate exactly what military personnel policy toward homosexuals should be.
ILC, by definition, gays who are serving in the military now have their priorities in the correct order — because DADT has removed the ones who don’t.
I simply do not believe in getting rid of something that ensures those who do not are not allowed into or to stay in our armed forces, especially when there is no practical or military reason to do so.
Furthermore, I simply do not care. Whether or not I can serve in the military has no bearing whatsoever on my value, worth, intelligence, or viability as a person. You see DADT as a slap against gay people; I see it as the military establishing what will help it operate most efficiently, which is, in my opinion, its job.
“For the record, again I respect NDT”
You’re an idiot
I always am amused when I see “tolerant” liberals like arturo call other people “idiots”.
You have to wonder in what world these people operate. I mean, do they expect people to fall down at their feet as if struck by lightning, groveling, confessing their sins, the minute they insult them?
An obvious absurdity. Tis a free country so regardless of service feel free to fire away. Of course as the old saying goes, opinions are like a-holes and everybody’s got’em so don’t act surprised when somebody else doesn’t care for ignorant tripe dressed up as something else.
Every team is composed of individuals, no matter how integrated and aware they are of what’s necessary to maintain a high level of cohesion. Being grounded in yourself is what makes you a good team member. There is no magic formula to balance what a person needs to express about themselves for themselves versus what they need to contain for the good order of the social unit.
I wouldn’t think that many people who fit that description would join the military to begin with. But I think, at present, the issue is not about people who are disruptive, but rather the systematic pursuit and persecution of individuals simply because they fit a class of people. This creates a witch-hunt atmosphere which is not at all suited to maintaining social stability, let alone unit cohesion.
While I agree (of course) that the underlying principle should be military effectiveness, there is more to it than that.
In a free society, the purpose of the military is to defend that freedom and the fundamental principles on which the society was founded and is sustained, not just to protect it’s property or it’s citizens’ lives. Our servicemembers take an oath to defend the Constitution, to defend a way of life, not just to obey orders and fight effectively. If we (as citizens and soldiers) lose our connection with those underlying principles of freedom, equality, and, yes, fraternity/sorority, we become little more than mercenaries, obeying the orders of our masters. A society whose military is not imbued with the same moral strength and reverence for liberty and equality as it itself possesses, will quickly find itself subjugated by that souless, efficient, highly cohesive force.
That said, a good argument can be made that changes which are expected to have significant effects on the safety and effectiveness of our troops should be handled in an intelligent, well-thought-out and measured manner, and not be subject to political gamesmanship.
To me, what’s more important is that, gay or straight, our illustrious liberals in Washington are screwing our soldiers out of the money needed to do their jobs. Once again our soldiers, gay and straight, get to be fcuked over by liberals playing politics and muff diving on the MorOn.org/DailyKos SOBs.
WTF difference does it make if DADT is repealed? They’re still going to be political pawns of the liberal left and they’re going to get screwed every way from Sunday.
I mean, are we supposed to believe that liberals suddenly give a sweet damn about the military? Or are they, once again, fellating us for money and votes?
I’m going to go with the latter especially considering the Breck Girl (AKA Silky Pony) said Oh I think the president can get rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell/
And if the liberals really gave a damn about national security, would they have said they opposed it in a “debate”? Would Robert Redford have squeezed out the steamer Lions for Lambs on the public?
My head is spinning! There is so much in the post and the comments to consider. This has been a wonderful tour de force.
I am interested in gays in the military if DADT is removed. How would a code of conduct be written that would inform the gay soldier of the limits of his sexual conduct while serving? I can not see that it would be possible to escape the greater political issues of gay/hetero differences. I wonder if DADT was the “solution” chosen to get this whole topic off the front burner.
I have no idea how the system would embrace a commanding officer with a civilian life partner. We really have not seen much of that type of issue at top civilian and elected political levels. But top civilian and elected political levels are subject to all manner of political pressures. The military and the advancement ladder work very much differently.
My son-in-law is one of the top ranking black officers in the Navy. He knows that and everyone else does, because they really keep track of gender and skin color. Congress demands it.
Kudos to North Dallas Thirty. He always makes me think and I admire that. For those who pile on him because they disagree with what he says, I repeat the words of my grandmother: go suck a lemon.
#71 – It’s OK, NDT. arturo already knows from past encounters that I consider him an idiot on certain important matters, and he’s only hurt and trying to give me blowback. I don’t mind 🙂
#77 – Helio, I should think the principles of sexual harassment (or rather, of avoiding and/or punishing it) are pretty much the same whether it is man harassing woman, man harassing man, woman harassing man, or woman harassing woman (Bonnie Bleskachek). So one could, with a little effort, write the basic rules in a clear, gender-neutral and effective way. The issue of ‘looking’ in the showers is probably murkier, but as John tells us, the military has a way of dealing with jerks unofficially.
The Israelis seem to have it figured out so maybe we should learn from them.
The more I learn about you, the more interesting you seem. Do you have a blog?
In a sense, dealing with jerks unoffically is my deepest concern. As the Romans put it: who watches the watchers? With the way Abu Ghairib became the attack platform for the NYT, Code Pink, Durbinreidpelosirosiebrad, any word that a gay was short-sheeted will outdo the Koran in the john at Gitmo. I can already see the poor dear telling his story of hate crimes to Larry King.
So far as the Israeli military goes, I feel that sadly, they have become the political toy of a bunch of gutless liberals. (Sorry, that may be redundant.)
I have no blog and would not entertain the idea. I would not dedicate myself to it because I have already filled my days with too many things that take my attention.
I think I am leaning toward not dropping DADT. But then I know I oppose gay marriage, so maybe I still have some important learning to do.
ILC “The Israelis seem to have it figured out” How do we know? Believe me, what happens in the Army stays in the Army. But if a soldier starts “to stray”from the normal, the peer pressure will bring him back in a way that no one gets hurt then or later – better than DADT
And do you have a blog? My e-mail is jwaggy at comcast.net, guess its ok to include that without it being filtered.
#67:
I’ve stayed out of this argument but seeing as how my name has come up I will respond to this since it illustrates beautifully how tribe trumps facts and reason for authoritarian conservatives. See how ILoveCorporatism gives a pass to NDT for what even ILC states is a smear! He almost admits that he would never let a liberal like me get away with NDT’s outrageous claims – and I’m quite certain he wouldn’t. Good grief, you guys are so embarrassed by NDT’s ludicrous smearing of the troops and gay people in general that you have to trot out standard attacks on liberals just to try to shift the focus.
You even let NeverDoesTruth get away with his usual lies in his vain attempt to buttress his smear. One example will suffice. In #61 NDT claims “[m]ost of the armed forces of other countries in Afghanistan are banned from combat” and you just let him get away with it. Even though his link indicates just the opposite. Add up the numbers in the graphic and you’ll see that the forces of the major nations reluctant to enter combat (Germany, France, and Italy) add up to less than 6000 while those engaged in fierce combat (UK, Canada, and Netherlands) add up to more than 10000. Those latter three also just happen to have had openly gay men and women in their armed forces for a number of years now thereby blowing NDT’s whole “thesis” out of the water. Did none of you even bother to check his link? Providing links that don’t support his claims is SOP for NDT so start calling him on it already!
Similar to what was written when women were allowed in. For the challenges that incoporating openly gay soldiers may present, we have something that didn’t exist back in 1993: the example of Allies. While the methods and approaches they used would need to be adapted to how our military operates, it’s not an insurmountable problem nor would this be the first time we’ve taken something from them that worked to use over here.
It was, but like abortion it didn’t end anything.
How was the military able to adapt to senior officers and NCOs whose spouse is of a different race? It didn’t happen overnight but change did occur for the betterment of the military as a whole and the individuals serving within it.
You are fortunate to have a highly motivated son-in-law who no doubt is a credit to the Navy (good choice of services to btw). Understand, however, that if Truman and others had allowed the fear of change to stifle efforts to end segregation in the military, it is extremely doubtful that your son-in-law would be where he is today.
He helps to make things…interesting. I’ll give you that. 😉
While there is that element, I had in mind more benign inducement to conform to military life or leave. You’d be surprised what extra shite duty, an increased focus by NCOs on the ‘rebel’ and the disapproval of one’s unit can do to change most people’s perspective.
While it’s true that their current PM leaves much to be desired in military matters, liberals, as you put it, have run the tiny state since Ben Gurion and overall they’ve done pretty good.
I ignored it because I had already put in a lot of my time in commenting here and once it became clear to me that he had no clue what he was talking about, it seemed pointless to continue. He doesn’t know how the military works, how it has operated with our Allies throughout both current conflicts as well as previous large ones like Desert Storm, etc. At a certain point it becomes a waste of time to argue with someone so bound and determined to stick to their p.o.v. regardless of how little knowledge they have on the subject, that it’s better just to end discussion until something of more substance is given or someone else comes along.
One more thing Helio, do you think your son-in-law should be judged based upon the misbehavior, real or imagined, by the NAACP, NAN, Rainbow Coalition, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc.? After all, he shares color tone with them and these are the ‘annointed’ leaders of the black community. If not, than why is it okay for NDT to do this when it comes to gays? Try as I might I just cannot find such reasoning from the giants of conservative thought, whether it’s Goldwater, Reagan, or even writers like Shelby Steele. In fact, Steele wrote a whole book on how such identity politics and groupthink by modern liberalism has served the black community poorly.
I do not think my son-in-law should be judged by the real or imagined misbehavior of the NAACP, et. al.
He was high in his class at the USNA. That is a good starting point. If a gay had the same credentials, I would expect him to be committed to the Navy life and conduct himself accordingly.
Perhaps I botched the reason I mentioned my son-in-law. I know at the beginning of desegregation that blacks were not supposed to be able to handle the job and they would keep the rednecks riled up. Those who couldn’t handle the job and couldn’t handle the rednecks washed out. Time has changed a lot of that. (However, when my son-in-law was the go to guy in Japan, the Japanese were not entirely wild about dealing with his color.)
Gays bring an entirely different dimension to the table. It is not just a question of changing attitudes, it is about figuring out how to assure that gays and heteros are comfortable with one another in close quarters.
If the military is able to operate effectively under DADT, I am glad. If DADT is erased, the military is open to a great social experiment from which there would likely be no retreat.
Gays make up a small portion of the population. Furthermore, I suspect that the number of gays who would choose the military is very small. So, from a cold basis of numbers, I am not certain why the military should take on the job of trying to socially engineer an open gay policy.
Under DADT a gay can not serve his country in a free and open manner. I fully understand that. But I lean toward keeping DADT because I am apprehensive of how the radical gays will manipulate the politics that ultimately control the military.
I am still wrestling with this whole thing. There are aspects of the gay life that I know nothing about. I prefer to live in that ignorance. Perhaps my whole problem is that I do not want to face a reality that is uncomfortable.
I hated the Clinton/Lewinsky stuff, but the press couldn’t get enough of it. I sure wouldn’t want to have a constant stream of sex investigations in the military highlighted in the press. I am NOT suggesting that gays would bring a boatload of investigations with them. I AM saying that everytime an investigation involved a gay, the press and the political harpies would be all over it.
Forgive the rambling, I am a bit short on sleep.
#81
And here I thought you might defend the congressional failureship’s efforts to with hold funding of our soldiers without slapping their dicks on the table and cutting funding. But who the hell cares? They get to go on vacation for two weeks without doing a Goddam thing. Must be tiring to drive approval numbers into the dirt.
And while these sick, sorry bastards who’re unfit to pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed on the heel are on holiday, we have soldiers in the field. Guess some people can shove a fcuking turkey in their face after declaring our soldiers “losers” and “complete failures” if you’re a scum sucking liberal.
Honestly, I don’t know why in the hell liberals would take Thanksgiving off anyway. Given the fact that they hate America and everything it stands for, one would think that they wouldn’t celebrate this holiday. Then again, it’s two fewer weeks that they’re not screwing sh*t up and pandering to unions or trial lawyers.
Seriously. WTF difference does it make if the liberals revoke DADT if they’re not going to pass funding to pay our soldiers and provide them the equipment they need, gay or straight?
Besides, allowing gays to serve openly will only piss off their AQ buddies.
Perhaps that’s the point: Gut and castrate the military to the point they can’t afford bullets and are embarrassed to wear the uniform, AGAIN. That way, gays openly serving is more palatable as that will be the least of their worries.
#87, 88: Yeah keep trying to shift the focus from a smear against gays who want to serve their country honorably. BTW, for the first five years of the Bush wars, Republicans had their way on military funding. And what did they do? Well, the Walter Reed fiasco comes to mind not to mention the long and deadly delays in getting properly armored vehicles to our troops in Iraq. Remember the soldier who asked Rumsfeld about it and Rumsfeld’s flippant answer:
Of course that was a year and a half after the start of the war in Iraq.
#90: Oh, and you can add #89 into TGC’s tribe-defensive rant.
How does DADT keep gays from serving their country honorably?
Is there something I am missing here? Do gays bring something unique that would enhance our military ability and mission?
Yeah keep trying to shift the focus from a smear against gays who want to serve their country honorably.
Thank you for illustrating my point beautifully, Ian.
You see, as anyone who’s seen you comment here knows, you fully support people like Scott Beauchamp and John Kerry who openly lie about and slander ALL US troops, as well as your Democrat Party leaders like Harry Reid who have done everything in their power to deny ALL US troops equipment and funding out of petty political jealousy.
And now you start getting upset about alleged slanders against the troops?
Meanwhile John demonstrates why identity politics are so appropriately applied to gays; instead of pointing out your craven behavior and your obvious attempt to appropriate gay troops as a smokescreen for your antimilitary bigotry, he attacks me instead, who is disagreeing with the standard “gay ideology”.
In contrast, any black officer, and I think Heliotrope can tell us that his son is no exception, knows that the leftist antimilitary Black Caucus, etc. are people who hate the military and are using skin color to cover it up. That’s because they, unlike gays, are much less governed by their identity than they are their individual beliefs and performance. You and John are demonstrating exactly Heliotrope’s worry — the fact that radical gay leftists dominate even those gays who claim they want to serve in the military to the point that those gays cannot confront the antimilitary bigotry of the gay leftists.
“Yeah keep trying to shift the focus from a smear against gays who want to serve their country honorably.”
Or so says the gay leftist who supports the antimilitary lies and slander of Scott Beauchamp, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and the rest of the Democrat Party.
But of course, John doesn’t care about that, Ian, because you support DADT repeal — so, like a good gay, he’s going to claim that anyone who would have any argument otherwise knows nothing about the military, and sides with you instead.
Hence, to Heliotrope’s point, a radical antimilitary gay is openly and obviously manipulating a supposedly pro-military gay for the radical antimilitary gay’s purpose.
In contrast, black officers and leaders like Colin Powell are openly contemptuous of the leftist antimilitary black movement, i.e. the Black Caucus — and are rewarded by those antimilitary leftists like Ian by being called “pouty brown sugars”, “white negroes”, “uncle Toms”, “house slaves”, and so forth. I can only imagine what names Heliotrope’s son-in-law has been called by leftists like Ian — because he’s made it clear he doesn’t side with them or their antimilitary bigotry because of his skin color.
As an individual, your son is unique. As an outstanding sailor, he is not. There have been such who were straight and others who were gay and the only thing that is legitimate to determine what kind of sailor they are is their character — not their sexuality.
Does your son-in-law? Do any non-whites “bring something unique” that made desegregation worth it? Why go through the bother of the problems, real and imaginary, that mixing the races brings? Your son-in-law had the opportunity to serve and has reached the level he has not only on his own merit but because it was determined decades ago that he should have that chance. Without the actions of Truman and others like him, it wouldn’t have mattered how squared away of a sailor he is, he never would have been given an opportunity to shine. That’s all I want for gays in the military. Not quotas, not special treatment, nothing but the chance to their fullest potential without NCIS or other such groups snooping around to boot them out.
It doesn’t surprise me that you’d say this, NDT. Such is your standard repertoire. Like some of the liberals I’ve seen here, you have your head so far up your ass that can’t see the sun shine and all ya’ll are capable of doing is to toe the partisan line you’ve sworn allegiance to. Of course, in your case it’s questionable how ‘loyal’ you really are since you’ve pilfered the liberal tactic of groupthink (witnessed in these comments) and identity politics.
Let me ask this: was discharging arabic translators for being gay worth the risk of missing the information to warn us of the next Al Qaeda attack?
You ask what the benefit is of not discriminating? The benefit is hiring the best people for the jobs available without using superficial matters like race, gender, religion and sexual orientation as filters for who will be considered. The issue is not does nondiscrimination provide a benefit. The issue is: can we afford to discriminate when we are at such a crucial time in our history.
#92:
It forces them to lie about who they are – where’s the “honor” in that? – or if they are already out, it prevents them from serving period.
#93:
Oh that’s right, I forgot: you’re automatically anti-military if you oppose Bush’s vanity war in Iraq. Well, FYI, my partner is ex-navy and so is his father and they both oppose chickenhawk Bush and his disastrous war. But then, to you and drug-addled gasbag Limbaugh, they’re probably “phony soldiers”.
You bet.
Except, I’ve already blown your pathetic argument out of the water. Your link demonstrated that. LOL! Face it, you’re the one with the sick attitude towards homosexuality. No wonder you admire Dobson so much.
#91:
At the risk of you being attacked for something we agree upon: hear, hear!
#88: “Seriously. WTF difference does it make if the liberals revoke DADT if they’re not going to pass funding to pay our soldiers and provide them the equipment they need, gay or straight?”
Excellent point. The same people on this blog screaming about the repeal of DADT are the same ones who call Iraq a “vanity war” and are already gearing up to oppose any military action in Iran, no matter what the circumstances. The legitimate issues concerning military efficiency and cohesion in a fighting unit without DADT are unimportant and totally irrelevant to them because they don’t see unit cohesion as a life in death matter when all your soldiers are authorized to do is march in parades.
#100:
Hey Sean, get a clue: the next country you neocons want us to invade is Pakistan!
Oh really? Where exactly have I done this? You are mixing two different issues because you can’t get the fracken partisanship out of your head long enough to look at this on its own. You’re willing to say a big F-U to every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine who is gay and their service because you’d rather score political points. That’s pathetic. I don’t give a damn that Ian or any other liberals support repealing DADT. Their motives may differ but as the saying goes even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Hey, Ian: Get A Clue, Yourself! The link you provided is a NYT editorial discussing military intervention in Pakistan, not a news story about a Republican politician recommending it. However, now that you mention it, let’s see…who was that dim blub that suggested a unilateral invasion of our “tentative ally”….hmmmmm….who was that…….Oh That’s Right! Barack O’friggin’ Bama, that’s who:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html
Nice try.
So what about Iran, Ian? If they continue to thumb their noses at the UN and refuse to halt their nuclear proliferation, what then? Are there any circumstances under which you would call military action against Iran appropriate and/or justified? Or have you already made up your mind to oppose even the suggestion of it like the rest of the protest culture?
You’re willing to say a big F-U to every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine who is gay and their service because you’d rather score political points.
Sort of like Ian and his fellow leftist gays who are supporting Scott Beauchamp, who are banning JROTC, who spat on the battleship Missouri and all the veterans who served on her, who supported liar and troop-slanderer John Kerry, who support liar and troop slanderers Harry Reid, Murtha, and Pelosi.
The problem is, John, whether you put a priority on military effectiveness or efficiency, or whether you put your personal interest in having DADT repealed first.
Most of us choose the former.
Let me ask this: was discharging arabic translators for being gay worth the risk of missing the information to warn us of the next Al Qaeda attack?
The most entertaining thing is that this is always the first talking point out of the lips of gays who scream bloody murder about electronic eavesdropping on terrorists as an “invasion of privacy” — meaning that they are asking us to keep translators for material that they oppose collecting in the first place.
By the way, a single class of the Defense Language Institute is over 200 people — meaning that this group of magic translators can be replaced by barely a quarter of the number of people who graduate every year.
And finally, these are the same translators who missed the FIRST al-Qaeda attack.
#103:
I know it’s hard to tell the difference between a neocon and a Republican politician these days but they are not yet interchangeable terms. 😉
That goes back a number of years. That’s not something that suddenly materialized on innaugaration day 2001. Further, I’m surprised you have the vaginal fortitude to call it a “fiasco” since that’s the tip of the iceberg that awaits all of us if we get HillaryCare™.
Yeah, I remember that the soldier’s question was planted by the media. They had a hard time finding one who would ask it because everybody else didn’t want up-armored HumVees. All the guys I talked to about it at the time didn’t want to be slowed down by them nor did they want to be impeded by ballistic vests. However, liberal hacks like you and the liberal elites know far better what they “want” than they do. I also remember how the liberal media buried a story the next day saying that the work up-armoring the HumVees was on schedule.
Only a worthless douche like you would call an honest answer “flippant”. It was your boy, lord BJ, who gutted the military to the point they couldn’t afford bullets for qualifying. Just as it was he who gutted the CIA to the point they had no intel anywhere and knew less about what was going on in the world than at anytime in their history.
Did we miss information to warn us of the next al Qaeda attack?
Obviously, you did forget. When you withhold funding of the military to score points with your MorOn.org & DailyKook pimps, that’s anti-military.
Not to mention the other examples that NDT provided. I can go on with more, if you want.
You’ve clearly forgotten that same “drug-addled gasbag Limbaugh” raised over $2 MILLION for The Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation with Harry Reid’s abuse of power. We also remember, despite the fact you clearly don’t want us to, your very own Senate Majority Failure Harry Reid smearing Generals Pace and Petraeus. We also remember how scum sucking SOBs like you “support the troops” by smearing Petraeus in a deeply discounted NYT ad.
I thought “Osama Obama” considered himself a Christian.
The Arabic translators thing was always more ‘gotcha’ than substance. They can serve their country just as well performing Arabic translation for civilian intelligence agencies or private contractors.
Actually, it was $4 million since the “drug-addled gasbag” matched the donation with his own money. (I know using one’s own money to support a cause is a baffling concept to left-liberals).
This is not an “either/or” matter and even if DADT were repealed tomorrow it wouldn’t benefit me personally. What is truly interesting to watch, and annoying as well, are some of the people on this thread incapable of discussing the matter without moving away from the topic to engage in this predictble partisan rhetoric. The Dems suck on defense matters whether DADT is retained, and without some Trumanesque politicians rising in their ranks soon, will continue to do so after it is repealed. That should be enough to settle the matter but instead you and others wish to focus on that alone as in every thread regardless of the subject under discussion.
So can non-whites, or at least we can increase ‘effectiveness’ and reduce racial problems by segregating military units. Sound like a plan?
I think skin color and sexual orientation are apples and oranges. Most of the military people think gay people should be allowed to serve. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other. I think repressing sexual urges so that they don’t interfere with duty ought to be a requirement of all service members regardless of orientation. (And frankly it wouldn’t hurt if people kept their professional and private lives separate in the civilian context as well.) I simply think the “their expelling Arabic translators” argument is BS.
PIMF. “Most of the military people think gay people should be allowed to serve. ” should read “Most of the military people I know think gay people should be allowed to serve.”
*sigh*
I thought we might reach a consensus on DADT across party lines. If gays on the right, left and middle can’t agree on this issue, there’s really not much hope, is there?
To make myself clear: being black is a caused by the genetics of skin pigmentation. Being gay is an action. Whether the cause of that action is genetic, irrepressible or by choice is irrelevant. It is still an action.
There are a fair number of people who would say that being black is also an action. Dumb, shuffling, inarticulate, jive-popping, fried chicken fueled, loose-shoed and lazy. But anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that those actions are not genetically based.
If being gay is genetically caused, then the action(s) that define the category are the source of the concern. Somehow, I think a few posters can’t keep that simple fact in focus.
DADT is all about how the military can best manage the gay member and the actions that define being gay. That is a legitimate and worthwhile concern for both the military and the gay who would like to serve. The political activism of gays is a distraction to the problem, unless they have viable suggestions for solutions.
That Rush Limbaugh’s name made its way into all of this is a clear example of how troubling it is to deal with the basic problem.
Heliotrope, what’s lost here is that gays are allowed to serve in the U.S. military. What they are not allowed to do is make an issue of their sexual orientation. That’s the essence of DADT.
Perzactly. That is why I am leaning toward keeping DADT. What issue(s) do gays wish to make of their defining actions and how do open gay actions enhance military strength and cohesiveness?
I agree with you that they are different in terms of not being exactly alike, especially in terms of dealing with challenges arising from either. What I do believe is being overlooked here, or perhaps being too easily dismissed, is the monumental shift in mindset that occurred when blacks were to be treated as equals in the military instead of being inferior beings no better than children in their capabilities. In that I see a parallel.
Agreed, which is why though it ain’t perfect there are policies in place to deal with that in the military.
To the degree that it is sometimes overblown, I agree. Yet in general I find it to be a legitimate example.
I wouldn’t expect much from online discussions when it comes to controversial topics, regardless of partisan sympathy. In the real world there is much cause for hope and I personally believe we’ll see DADT repealed in about 5-10 years.
The only reason I can see with doing away with DADT is it gives too many people an “out” when they want to ditch on their military service. Unfortunately, if DADT were phased out and replace with behavior-based criteria (i.e. expelling soldiers of any orientation for engaging in prohibited sexual activity), it wouldn’t do away with that problem and it would arguably make it worse. Under DADT, all some nellie has to do to get out is go to their CO and say “I’m gay, where’s my paperwork.” If DADT were eliminated, that same soldier would have to engage in prohibited conduct to be discharged, such as making sexual advances toward members of his unit, which would be bad for discipline and cohesion. Also, there are a lot of gay activists who would be all like, “you have to allow gay soldiers to express their sexuality or you’re repressing them.” Which would also be bad.
DADT is not a good policy, but I don’t see an alternative that is less problematic. (That’s the problem when you think about problems beyond the bumper-sticker level.)
Being gay is not an action, for one can be celibate and never have contact with another homosexual their entire lives yet remain gay. Is this not what many on the extreme Right are calling for gays to do anyways? If what you claim is accurate than not only is the Catholic Catechism in serious error by making distinctions between orientation and behavior, but those pushing erroneous ex-gay nonsense are the worst Christians of all holding people to something they can never attain while lying to them at the same time. Of course with regards to the latter, that’s fine with me but that’s another discussion.
Why?
The same claim was made about segregation, yet we saw what that led to.
Was the “political activism” of black groups a “distraction to the problem” in seeking to desegregate the military? Perhaps to an extent, but without it such never would happened till decades later.
Yes, as long as they lie about who they are. It’s not a matter of making “an issue of their sexual orientation”, it’s that if one is found out no matter how private they’ve been they are kicked out. Read the policy for yourself. If a gay soldier is overheard discussing their problems with a trusted friend, for example, they can be kicked out. If they quietly have a relationship and never once tell anyone in their unit about it, they are kicked out if anyone discovers it even accidentally. That’s what DADT has led to, nothing more than lipstick on a pig with a different name but a continuation of the previous policy.
The same way that allowing non-whites serve in integrated units enhances both.
Yeah and it’s worth noting that conservative radio GIVES to charitable foundations while liberal radio TAKES from charitable organizations and they STILL can’t pay their “talent”.
Aye, and some of those poor translators were nixed after they told their COs. Not the way to keep your job.
Indeed. Yet it is not just gays who take advantage of this ‘out’, but also straights who claim to be gay to avoid going to combat.
In which case they would not be able to say “where’s my paperwork” and leave with an honorable discharge, but instead would face criminal prosecution under the UCMJ that would affect the type of discharge they’d receive. Trust me, that’s a big deterrent for most and those who are inclined to engage in bad behavior regardless will not be stopped by DADT or anything else.
Which would find about the same amount of success as radical feminists sought: very little. The military will accomodate people to an extent but not at the expense of their mission. Any activist group that tried to impose something like this upon the military would find not only opposition from the leadership, but also gay servicemembers and veterans.
Been away this weekend and will be tough to find time to fully catch up with this dynamic and engaging thread. Real quickly, Ian wrote:
First of all Ian, apparently you’ve forgotten, but we long ago established that *you* love corporatism. I don’t. Capitalism and corporatism are actually opposites, and we established in certain discussions that you support corporatism. Just a friendly reminder.
Second, as to your major point: as I already explained clearly in the half-sentence you chose to leave out (gee, I wonder why?):
With you, Ian, it’s different. I’ve seen the joy you’ve taken in, say, the hope/prospect of American defeat in Iraq, in past encounters on this blog.
I’m glad to read that someone understands the difference between capitalism and corporatism. There is hope for the right after all.
Ditto. It’s astounding to see someone on the Left admit what capitalists and libertarian-conservatives have long preached – namely, the very real difference between capitalism and corportism – rather than just repeating the ignorant shibboleths we usually hear from lefties.
This is clearly not acceptable.
This is more than likely an inadequacy of language rather than a premise for an argument. Perhaps we need a word for a celebate gay. The issue of being gay is how love and sex are expressed. That is an action. Let’s not try to reconstruct the basic rules of semantics. A celebate gay may have talents and affectations associated with open gays who act out their sexual affinities. That celebate gay then falls into the category of “I think he’s gay.” God knows people both gay and straight play that game all the time.
John, I think you are caught in a circular argument in your comment in post #122. Racism is a visceral reaction that is not prompted by actions. It is the result of ingrained bigotry.
I am quite aware that there are those who so devalue gays that they would take visceral and destructive actions against them. But there are many more straights who do not want to be made a party to or uncomfortable by gay actions.
Getting the military past skin color made sense in terms of mission and cohesiveness. What actions that define the gay would enhance the military mission and unit cohesiveness? Are we talking about reeducating the straight male in terms of how he reacts to being regarded as eye candy and having his pouch admired?
That brings me back to an earlier point I made. In terms of cold numbers, what does the military gain from this challenging social engineering?
DADT is not a good policy, but I don’t see an alternative that is less problematic.
That, V the K, is an excellent and concise summary of the problem.
I thought we might reach a consensus on DADT across party lines. If gays on the right, left and middle can’t agree on this issue, there’s really not much hope, is there?
Actually, Houndentenor, the fact that there are so many disagreements, so many different perspectives, and so much willingness to defend even gay-unpopular positions on the issue is one of the most hopeful things I have seen for gays in a long time.
It’s not a matter of semantics since what may appear to be minor differences in definition can have a significant impact in how one views something. Someone is gay whether they are celibate or not which in itself is not an action just the same as it is for heterosexuals. The action comes in response to the sexual orientation, regardless of which one we are speaking about. There is a big difference between the two.
I have no clue what you mean by this, other than perhaps someone who is celibate can devote more time and channel their sexual feelings into something else. There are people regardless of sexual orientation who are able to do this, or in Catholic parlance, are “called” to be celibate. Most people are not.
Even people who are not celibate can fall into this category you speak of because they are very private persons, not wishing to share details of their personal lives with others. Regardless, it’s none of their business whom this person loves or even if they do love someone.
I don’t think so. Racism assigns certain behaviors and actions to others because of their color, which as you say can similarly be done to gays. I would agree with you that for someone who is not gay there can be uncomfortable by same-sex intimacy, yet such is not necessarily ‘homophobic’. There are many from all races who are still uncomfortable with mixed relationships, yet that is hardly seen as reason enough to ban miscegenation.
Why? If one removes morality and egalitarianism from this, they constituted a small portion of the population and the hassle from desegregation hardly makes the effort worth it.
You keep asking this same deliberately loaded and BS question, so once more I respond in kind: Do non-whites “bring something unique” to “enhance the military mission and unit cohesiveness” that whites could not fulfill themselves that made desegregation worth it?
Polite crudity, interesting. Okay then, answer me this: do you want to ravish every good-looking woman you meet or work with? If you do, do you tell her? Do you follow this up by making a pass at her and/or bedding her? The reason I ask all of these should be obvious: straight males are capable of comporting themselves in a polite and business-like manner with some having to learn this when women first entered the workforce. Perhaps it’s time the lesson was extended.
John, I am sorry. Somehow, we seem to be talking past one another. You are committed to ending DADT. I am leaning against ending DADT.
I would not knowingly engage in polite crudity. I have been hit on by men and I do not like it. For some gays, that would make me the subject of their favorite neologism: homophobic.
Your last paragraph says it all:
You infer that some young straight men have to learn to “comport themselves in a polite and businesslike manner” around women. That is to say that they need to learn when and where to flirt and when and where to become more aggressive in the mating game.
Now you say that this maturation process, perhaps, should be extended…..(to gays.)
So, alas, it comes down to social engineering. The military can help gays learn to thread their way through an overwhelmingly straight world.
I have attempted to make clear why I do not see race and being gay as an equivalence in this issue. You do not agree.
This is where I get my back up. Blacks never needed to be taught how to thread their way through an overwhelmingly white world. Good God, they got that information loud and clear during slavery and segregation.
No, whites needed to learn that drinking from a universal drinking fountain or sitting on the same toilet seat a black had used was not going to cause them to suffer from some contagion.
The military has been the black man’s best friend. Legions of people (black and white) have learned the lessons of showing up on time with a good attitude and the value of clearly understood merit in rising up the ladder.
I do not think gays should be denied the same opportunity. But, whether you will admit to the issue or not, the average gay is bringing something far more complicated than mere skin color to the equation.
Nor is gay flirting and leering equivalent to the hetero rush of hormones in our society. In fact, we find no useful social model in history for blending gays and heteros except by gays being discrete. To be clear, the onus in on the gays.
The militant gays who are pushing their “in your face” sexual agenda can not help but be a force to be reckoned with in this whole DADT conundrum.
I hope I have been respectful. I am really trying to understand this problem and reach the compromise that is most fair to gays and the military mission and cohesion.
Heliotrope: Thank you for making more effort to understand a complex and difficult issue (gay-straight social interactions) than most gays do.
I think most everything’s been said at least once, so no rehash, but an observation: 100 years from [whenever], people will look back on this period and see it very much like the issue of desegregation. Not everyone will feel the same way about it, or how it was handled, but it will be accepted that it took place, that it was socially necessary, and that society has adapted reasonably well to it.
Some straight males will always be made uncomfortable, some gay males will always behave in an unhelpful manner, but by and large, we will all get along, and those who hold the view that society should have stayed the way it was will be a small minority. And, of course, we will still have quite a ways to go. Onward and upward.
Helio: I saw your comments last night and was tempted to respond right away, but I thought it best to sleep on it and reply afterwards. I’m glad I did for it is apparent that we have reached an impasse. I’m sympathetic more than you will know about the fear of the kind of change such a step means and for what the results will be for the military. You do not see the parallels between desegregation and repealing DADT, while I do, however imperfect such parallels are. So be it. As I said from the outset comparisons are seldom, if ever, perfect or exact.
Whether you and I agree on this matter or not is not important. Change is coming regardless of how either one of us view the matter. It’s only a matter of time. You cannot have for long a group of people fit and able to serve excluded simply based on ‘discomfort’. You cannot have just about all the major Allies of the USA agree that homosexuality is not a legitimate barrier to service without it bringing change in attitudes here as well. You also cannot have a major party be dedicated to lifting this ban without change coming, that is if the current crop of candidates are anything to judge by. The next Democrat to slip into the White House will try and ram this through without exercising any caution, an approach I don’t want to see happen. I would rather take the old adage of “only Nixon can go to China” and have a Republican CiC do this, not only to make the initial transition smoother but more importantly the full implementation of a repeal. Dan is right, in my estimation, by what he hinted at in the last podcast: we need to convene study groups or commissions to look at the matter. Not to “table the idea” because bottling it up in committee as both parties do in Congress will not make this go away, but within a set time period actually examine everything about it. Congressional, presidential and military. Let’s bring over leaders and officers from our Allies and quiz them on how they handled this matter, along with sending our guys over there to see it in person so to speak. We can hash out all the concerns and address them in such a forum. Strict policies concerning sexual harassment will be needed for starters. The kind of “militant gay” you speak of will not sign up for the military and on the off-chance they get wild hair up their ass and decide to do so, will not last long without a serious change of attitude, which is why they don’t concern me. Who implements this change does concern me. Rudy I could trust to handle this in the right manner, God help us if Hillary gets hold of the military and I say that about far more than just this matter. It’s not just Hillary herself, but the people she will bring with her into office that concerns me. I haven’t forgotten Les Aspin and his disastrous tenure over DoD.
100 years from now when a few brave European resistant fighters against Sharia, and the descendents of the survivors of the nuclear destruction of the United States look back to this time they’ll wonder just how freaking irresponisble and self-indulgent the people of our time were.
The 100 years thing reminded me of a short story i read a year or two ago. There’s a time traveller who comes back in time to visit the narrator and warn him about the future.
This is about 20% of it.
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm
That’s an unrelated matter, but I definitely share your concerns on this. Demagraphics do not lie and the Euros have big problems coming really soon. As far as the “nuclear destruction of the United States”, that’s always a concern but I don’t see that yet. Perhaps a strike, but not the destruction of the USA – yet.
Move over Harry Turtledove! This short story would make an interesting book and I like that he refers to others that I’m now looking into getting… Thanks.
John, I am in full accord with your response to me. I only hope that we can be openly frank and keep the crazies among the straights and the crazies among the gays off throwing bricks at each other while the grownups do the heavy lifting.
As a side note: the Hawaiian tongue has some large number of words for our word “lava.” That is because they want to accurately differentiate between the various forms. If find this same problem when talking about gay issues. We already have gaylesbiantransgenderbisexual. But within those groups there are subgroups that are differentiated by their proclivities, personalities and activities. I think this reality of vague nomenclature is both a strength and an impediment. But it is very important. If I am thinking of the flaming, militant gay that comes into my life fairly regularly, I am carrying a model of gays that will ultimately skew my thinking.
This whole issue has so many dimensions, that I believe we all, gay and straight alike, must be honest about our hangups and our ambitions. God put us here together and it is in our interest to be brothers. (And sisters and…..all that pc stuff!)
#135: Good grief! I suppose this is the 21st century equivalent of the “penny dreadfuls.” It’s a good thing you weren’t around when “War of the Worlds” was broadcast over the radio. LOL!
#132 Cowb0y:
Thank you for your well considered response. I hope that we can all improve our relationships with one another. If you have read my posts above, you know that there are things that gays do in public that are unacceptable to me. There are things that straights do to gays for which I gladly fund the prison system.
We all have the obligation to act responsibly in the public square and to lower the volume. If you go to the Lambda Rising webpage and look at the calendar page posted there today, I hope you would admit that this should not be among the selection that Barnes and Noble places with their lighthouses, cats, fields of Provence, NASCAR, Far Side, etc. selections. It may have its place, but its place is not in the public square. (Ditto calendars that would make Larry Flint take notice.)
If I am thinking of the flaming, militant gay that comes into my life fairly regularly, I am carrying a model of gays that will ultimately skew my thinking.
Eh, among any group whether it’s by race, religion, sexuality, etc. you are going to find a…I hesitate to use this word…diversity of opinions. I’m reminded of the joke a Rabbi friend once told me, “whenever you get 2 Jews together, you have 3 opinions”. I recently came across something from a 2004 article I was thinking of posting on later that might amuse you. Liberal-turned-conservative P.J. O’Rourke quipped:
I like that.
Or perhaps the warnings of Winston Churchill who throughout the 1930s was derided as being a warmonger when it came to critiques of Nazi Germany. Time will tell and while I doubt it will get as bad as in this story, in general I certainly hope you are right. You and I would be among the first to swing at the end of a rope if you are wrong. Oh and btw, it doesn’t take actually conquering the West to get what they want simply enough pressure to achieve results we wouldn’t care for. It may seem obscure and unrelated, but check out the history of iconoclasm, why it occurred and how it unfortunately split the Byzantines at a crucial time in history.
#141:
Well, by the late 1930’s, Nazi Germany had the most modern and powerful military on the European continent and quite possibly the world. Iran’s military is decidedly second-tier (they apparently spend about the same as Sweden does on theirs.) And al Qaeda has to rely on asymetrical warfare which in spite of all the sky-is-falling rhetoric is not going to turn the West into part of some world-wide caliphate.
Indeed. Iran doesn’t want a direct confrontation with us, for the past couple of decades it has preferred proxy war through asymetrical means. Just look at badly we have responded for much of that time period and how divided we’ve become as some of us just want to ignore the problem to make it all seem to go away.
Directly? Not from what I can see at this moment. Yet what toll will the large immigration to Europe and America of Muslim immigration take in bringing pressure from within? We’re already seeing that in France, Denmark, Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. What about when their numbers get even larger? There is a reason why I said look at the history of iconoclasm. External pressure from a large Muslim threat brought about this controversy that split Eastern Christians and severely weakened the Byzantine Empire. While the external threat today is not comparable, add what we do have to internal pressures from immigration and what will the results be? Time will tell.
Iran’s military is decidedly second-tier (they apparently spend about the same as Sweden does on theirs.)
Try fighting a war in this century, Ian.
All it will take to render Israel virtually uninhabitable and kill millions of people is one nuclear weapon.
Iran already HAS missiles capable of carrying such a payload the thousand miles it would take to fly from Tehran to Tel Aviv (a distance which could be considerably shortened by launching from other points in Iran).
And then Iran goes on the air and announces this; any incursion into its airspace or ground will be met with further missile launches at targets in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Mind you, this can be done with their existing missile technology; given the amount they were allowed to “borrow” from North Korea, the 2,500 miles between Tehran and Paris looks quite attainable.
And that’s likely their plan; either you do as we say, or the City of Light, among others, is vaporized in a flash of it. And what we say could be something as simple as demanding immediate elections to implement sharia law.
You and your fellow Democrats will still be sitting there insisting that Iran is “not a threat” because they don’t have enough tanks, aircraft, ships, or artillery. And we’re supposed to believe that people like you who scream and run away when they take a fraction of the casualties they were predicting are going to mount any sort of attack or resistance in the face of certain death and vaporization of hundreds of thousands of US troops.
And finally, Iran is not telling us — for obvious reasons — what it is spending on its illegal nuclear and missile capabilities.
#145: My goodness but you have a fertile imagination, chicken little!
please share with us your view about the man-made global warming theory
I’m much more concerned about a terrorist nuclear strike, than a launch by a readily-identified, geographically pinned government (no matter how pacifistic a Western leader might be, s/he will either respond to such with overwhelming force or be replaced, quite rapidly–one way or another–by someone who will).
The larger question is, what do we need to do to face the threat of determined, fanatical opponents who think nothing of throwing themselves at us as human bombs? Should we come together as a freedom-loving people, recruit friends around the world by trade and diplomacy, set an example for them, help them when they need it (but not in such a way that they feel oppressed by us and that our actions fuel resentment and make our enemies stronger), and ultimately try to sway the vast majority of people to a freedom-loving viewpoint?
Or, should we retreat into a paranoid, closed society where we spy on ourselves, suspend our own civil liberties, abduct and torture people from around the world, bleed our own economy and military, and basically put a big “Closed Until Further Notice” sign on Lady Liberty and all that America once stood for?
The issue (for me, anyway) isn’t about “ignore the threat” or “do whatever we want to fight it.” It is about what course(s) of action will actually serve us in facing an obvious, long-term, and difficult (militarily, economically, philosophically (for a freedom-loving people, anyway), theologically, and sociologically)) challenge.
There is a very real danger that we will descend into a persistent war mentality, were we start viewing the ideology of liberty and democracy as dangerous to our nation’s survival (haven’t you heard? Freedom-loving, pro-peace, proponents of democracy are now being labeled as “domestic terrorists”). Throughout human history, an external threat has always been used to justify the repression of civil liberties. Despite the admonitions of our forefathers, when given the choice between dying free and living as slaves, most people will choose the latter.
There was a time when America was revered by and inspired people around the world. A posture of military aggressiveness and internal paranoia, while it may make short-term gains, can only be successful in the long run if we completely destroy our enemies, an unrealistic goal in today’s ideologically-fragmented world political landscape. We need to chart a new course. Only by coming together as a people (both nationally and as members of an interdependent world community) and overcoming our internal divisions, not by amplifying them, can we do that.
Sorry for the libertarian rant, lol.
Note: I’m importing my comment on this issue from another blog, and I’ve *’ed out the names.
********,
You’re right, the highest positions of responsibility I achieved in the military were (acting) NCOIC of my S2 shop and platoon sergeant in a training environment. I did experience gender issues at my level, including losing female troops due to pregnancy, but I didn’t have to deal with those issues at a command level. Due to my experience with female soldiers, including my doubts, one of my interests in the current war has been the performance of our female troops in a genuine battlefield environment. From what I’ve heard, they’ve been doing okay.
It should be noted that male and female troops are allowed openly to have relationships, but like any professional workplace, there are rules they must adhere to. I’ve even served with wives serving with their husbands in the same unit. I don’t see why the same relationships rules couldn’t apply to homosexual relationships in a post-DADT military.
I admit I’m remarkably unsympathetic to the concerns about females on board ship due to my bias as an Army veteran who rode to work in planes, choppers, trucks, tracks, and of course, in my pimped-out LPCs, but no ships.
Where in my qualifier “no one who’s physically and mentally fit to do so” do you take me to mean that someone who is unqualified to do a job in the military should then do that job? In fact, I made a point of saying that folks who prove to be unqualified, which can happen for reasons unrelated to sexual orientation, are and should be disciplined, even put out of the military if it comes to that. My opposition is to the putting out and discouragement of gay Americans who are both qualified for military service and willing to volunteer for the uniform.
“Lots of women would like to serve in artillery and infantry units too, but until they can carry the same amount of gear the guys can (about 70 lbs last time I checked) they would be a drag on the command.”
You say that as though women are *not* already doing jobs in the military, or in the civilian world for that matter, that require heavy lifting. In fact, almost all jobs in the military – in the Army, at least – require some degree of heavy lifting (warning: they don’t tell you this at MEPS; I think the MOS book I looked at when I was at MEPS said 96Bs would only carry 25 lbs max – Hah!). I do agree that a double standard based on the physiological differences between men and women makes more sense than the sexual orientation restriction because there are and should be strict standards of performance in the military due to the practical nature of the military. That said, it should be noted that the standards are not uniform throughout the military. For example, I was a good MI troop and I’m reasonably confident I would have been a good combat arms troop, maybe even to an Army Ranger level, but I’m also fairly certain I wouldn’t have hacked it as an SF troop. If we start looking at different areas of the military (eg, JAG, Med Corp, MI, etc) in which, perhaps, we can more smoothly begin to transition to a post-DADT military, that would be an interesting discussion in and of itself. I did serve with a few exceptionally motivated female soldiers who PTed, humped a ruck, fired their weapons, did battle drills, etc, at least as well as their fellow male soldiers. They probably were exceptions, but I don’t doubt that they could have been good 11Bs if given the opportunity.
Anyway, your example, while fairly applied to female soldiers, doesn’t apply at all to physiologically and mentally (with a nod to former Harvard President Larry Summers) male homosexual soldiers.
*********, I’m not saying there’ll be no problems. There have been problems with gender and race integration in the military, too, and it hasn’t been a single-solution fix with either of those integrations. It’ll be a process with a post-DADT military, too, but I wonder if it won’t be an easier transition for gays in the military given that, even if it made sense that somehow they wouldn’t, enough gay soldiers have already proven that they are qualified as anyone else to do the harder jobs in the military, because they’ve been doing them.
The practical nature of the military, where the ability to do a life-or-death job under pressure with high stakes is most important, should help. There will be many opportunities, both real world and traditional, for openly gay troops to prove themselves to their skeptical peers and leaders.
At least, that’s how I overcame the race-based skepticism I faced as a soldier. When I discussed with my fellow Columbia U. ROTC advocate his experience as an openly gay Army infantryman, he explained that’s how he overcame prejudice, too. He actually joined the Army to challenge DADT and expected to be booted, but then he made it all the way to his ETS with his Honorable because he was just too damn good of a troop.
It is a cost/benefit issue, it always is. In my opinion, a socially integrated military in terms of equitable access (I don’t believe DADT qualifies as equitable access) has more benefits than cost, just for the increased talent pool. I also believe a democracy’s military should look as much as possible like the society it represents, even if it cannot practice all of that society’s civilian norms.
I wonder what the present incident rate is for presently serving gay American soldiers who don’t tell and haven’t been asked. Is it higher than straight soldiers? If not, why would their professional behavior change once they can tell? What about the incident rate for gay soldiers in militaries that don’t have DADT-like restrictions? If there is presently a significant problem with homosexual soldiers propositioning heterosexual same-gender soldiers, would it help solve that problem if homosexual soldiers could freely identify themselves to each other and homosexual civilians, like their heterosexual counterparts can?
Finally, I do sympathize with Co and Bn level commanders and their NCO counterparts. It’s an incredibly hard, stressful, and important job. Maybe because I was privileged to serve under (enough) good leaders and watched them do a hard job well, but I have great faith in their ability to lead a post-DADT military. I also have faith that professional American soldiers will ultimately make it work because – gay and straight, men and women – they are professional American soldiers who understand the meaning of Mission First, Soldiers Always.