General observations on just about anything.
If it passes I have a new name for it...
Published on May 31, 2010 By Nitro Cruiser In Politics

...but first some background.

Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.

What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items  and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.

Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.

If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide.  The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!

Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.

What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command.  The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.

For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well?  If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).

Remember, you heard the term coined here first.

UPDATE 05/24/2017

Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.


Comments (Page 1)
on May 31, 2010

I think everything you've said amounts to "but there might be some homophobia in the military and this could disrupt their operations". 

 

If that's your take, that's fine.  There really aren't many good arguments against gay folks in the military.   It just doesn't seem to fall in line with my perception of the military.  Maybe I'm just one of those fun Americans who believes that the military is largely made up of  competent, trained, 2 war-fighting professionals capable of unleashing a tremendous amount of ass kicking on somebody at a moments notice.  If this sort of grabasstic "OMG SOMEBODY MIGHT BE A GAY" type stuff is really that big of a fear, my perception is entirely wrong.  Very sad.

 

Further that:  if there really is a guy in a foxhole getting ready to go toe to toe with Tommy the Terrorist, and his biggest concern is whether the guy next to him is gay:  his priorities are totally screwed up. 

 

 

Just sayin'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

on May 31, 2010

I think everything you've said amounts to "but there might be some homophobia in the military and this could disrupt their operations".



If that's your take, that's fine.

Homophobia huh? Sorry that's the message you got from my article. Even if that were true, it is something I wouldn't have to personally deal with now or in the future. Inferring homophobia, is probably a good way to stymie criticism (not suggesting that is the case with your comment). But, the kinship is a hard thing to lose. When I was on active duty, I had to deal with plenty of "sexual" issues, from rape to fraternization, infidelity, and harassment. It's not a simple thing to do, and can hardly be dismissed as easily as pinning a "phobia" on it. While not in my direct chain of command, I did learn of three cases of man on man rape (all involved parties being servicemen), so to deny this as a potential problem does not make much sense to me. The favoritism and "blackmail" cases are true to life too. I even know of a lesbian case of favoritism. It couldn't be verified until years later (Don't Ask) but people knew, and the truth did come out eventually, when the jilted lover half of the partnership became a civilian. The remaining career was ruined. And yes it did cause morale problems, as any case of special treatment for some would, because the people in charge didn't know how to handle it. But, I digress.

As stated the people that should decide have no voice. That is something I don't like (and my reason for writing the article). Military are not allowed to get political. It's a good thing, beside it could ruin careers, yet they are being thrust into politics on a personal level. The folks that want something different, aren't the people that have to deal with the issues day to day. They pass a bill, or lobby for it and when they get want they want, that's it, they are on to the next issue or cause. For example would you like some people from San Fransisco determining what you should pay for your property tax, even if your in a different city, a different state?

I don't say all this because I expect the military would reject it. Quite the contrary, I believe they might accept it, but shouldn't they be the people to do it? How about some preparation time. Women weren't just placed in combat roles, it was implemented over time.

Maybe I'm just one of those fun Americans who believes that the military is largely made up of competent, trained, 2 war-fighting professionals capable of unleashing a tremendous amount of ass kicking on somebody at a moments notice.

Unfortunately, they don't join that way. It takes, I'd say, on average about two years to shape a person effectively enough to be very useful. Some more some less. An NCO probably spends 80% of the time dealing with making slackers more effective and instructing a small portion of problem children. People mature at different ages, combat can compound even small issues. Not nearly enough time goes into making the best better and making sure their personal growth needs are met. For example, my last year of service a few of the things I had to deal with were a heroine addict (it took months to process him out), a suicide attempt, three pregnancies (replacement issues), a desertion, numerous: lateness, unauthorized absences, alcohol incidents, financial issues, personal relationship issues, auto accidents, theft, fights, injuries and job performance issues. This in a group of 70 average age 19 years old.

on May 31, 2010

For example, my last year of service a few of the things I had to deal with were a heroine addict (it took months to process him out), a suicide attempt, three pregnancies (replacement issues), a desertion, numerous: lateness, unauthorized absences, alcohol incidents, financial issues, personal relationship issues, auto accidents, theft, fights, injuries and job performance issues. This in a group of 70 average age 19 years old.

It shows that your troops have morale and discipline problem off-duty, not that they are inherently deficient.

Adding a gay man anonymous among them won't change that. Gays are already somewhat accepted in the military, as long as no clue will lead to them whatsoever.

Well, this time, they won't have the damocles sword over their head, and they might bring their husband/wives over to social party. But I don't think a gay person is naturally more prone to problem then anybody else. If he starts being disruptive to your unit because of deliberate behavior, well that's something else. But just his presence? I think you gotta other priorities to focus on than what he does in his sack.

on May 31, 2010

Homophobia huh? Sorry that's the message you got from my article. Even if that were true, it is something I wouldn't have to personally deal with now or in the future.

Then what exactly are you describing? Having to live in close quarters with somebody who's gay seems to be at the nut of your argument---you analogize it twice.  Then the old "well, then if some dude gives them low marks on a review and they claim it's because they're gay".  Isn't that something that the military already has a grasp on with black soldiers? Or Mexican soldiers?  Or Puerto Rican soldiers? 

As for the military's opinion on the matter?  I dunno.  I'm pretty sure they work for us---in as much as we elect their boss.  That, and I'm pretty certain that most Americans are of the expectation that the US Military will (albeit late to the party) exhibit societal norms. 

 

 

I don't say all this because I expect the military would reject it. Quite the contrary,

So what's the problem? 

 

on May 31, 2010

But I don't think a gay person is naturally more prone to problem then anybody else.

I agree. But new problems will arise never the less, that is undeniable. Anything that takes more resources in supervisors time away from the mission is not, IMO, a good thing. If you understood the amount of whatever you want to call it, nurturing, coddling, or baby sitting, is provided in the military you would see my point. Too many people, regardless of sexual preference, have a hard time believing they are their to perform a job. It is something you have to see for yourself. Like I said, if todays military wants that additional burden, that's fine. Nobody seems to want to find out what the military wants. Equal rights, but only for my cause seems to be the battle cry. That is the issue I'm discussing.

on May 31, 2010

The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement. Why the rush?

I've been following the DADT policy for some time and was glad to see your article.

Why rush?

Two reasons: because it's all political....December is after November and Obama is already in campaign mode.

and because the report should contain info about the real issue of homosexuality which would make the military absolutely nuts for forcing soldiers to bond with open homosexuals in military life.  I think it's a no brainer that this simply does not work.

If it passes, I will not encourage my son to go into the military.  

 

 

 

 

on May 31, 2010

Then what exactly are you describing? Having to live in close quarters with somebody who's gay seems to be at the nut of your argument---you analogize it twice. Then the old "well, then if some dude gives them low marks on a review and they claim it's because they're gay". Isn't that something that the military already has a grasp on with black soldiers? Or Mexican soldiers? Or Puerto Rican soldiers?

I gave you my perspective on the subject before moving on to the main issue, and that is what you want to focus on, my view. Never mind that the article is about getting input from the services, that doesn't fit with what you want to talk about. That's fine. Writing an article to express your views is easy, and you are free to do so. I will briefly humor you on a couple of issue you want to talk about, since my view is more important to you than the underlying issue of listening to everyone concerneds opinion.

As for privacy issues, glad it doesn't bother you. I hear some guys enjoy other men watching their wifes undress too. Real team players.

About the about the favoritism and blackmail, it happens now, but the more the merrier right? Let's not leave anyone out of that fun.

I didn't know being Black, or Mexican, or Puerto Rican was a lifestyle. Your analogy is interesting. I know gay activists are trying to equate their "struggle" with the civil rights movement. What ever works to get what you want, right?

I take it you never served. If you did you would realize a large portion of time is spent administratively dealing with personal issues, it is a huge burden. If they want more, great, go for it. Perhaps they feel under utilized. I can't speak for them currently. Like I've said, I've known people of questionable sexual preference on active duty. We had one guy that would take his smoke break during shower time. Like most everyone back then he had a nick name (which BTW I never called him) Sweety Keaty, he didn't mind (he kept doing what he enjoyed). But nobody asked and he didn't tell (this was prior to DADT). Most people paid him no mind, but does that negate the persons rights that are bothered? Apparently so these days. The needs of the special outweigh the needs of the not so special. If something was to happen, and 99.9999% of the time it won't, the offendee was probably asking for it, right?

So back to the main point of the article. You support no input from the people that have to deal with the issues? I don't yet know because you haven't mentioned your position on it. Just so we are clear, I want what all our military people want, be it for or against, as long as they choose it. Ask them.

 

So what's the problem?

Yep, supervised plenty of people not unlike yourself. Had to explain it several times, do it for them several times to show them after they had been to school for the particular skill. So here is is one more time:

The problem stated as clearly as possible for Dan_l: Nobody cares what the people serving think or want, because nobody is asking them.

Will you understand it any better if I write it again?

on May 31, 2010

 

Why rush?

Two reasons: because it's all political....December is after November and Obama is already in campaign mode.

Agreed. Nothing is done with due diligence anymore. It's all about getting votes and/or campaign funds. The drafters of these legislations don't have to deal with the issues or details.

Make it mandatory that everyone has to serve two years. Then they will think harder about it. The people pushing the hardest will never be in the military.

and because the report should contain info about the real issue of homosexuality which would make the military absolutely nuts for forcing soldiers to bond with open homosexuals in military life. I think it's a no brainer that this simply does not work.

I'm not going to pass judgment, on whether it's wrong or right (everyone is free to make up their own mind on it). Gays are there, always have been. Most do a fine job. I know the military will make it work if so tasked. I also know there will be problems. This is about joining to do a job, not a place to talk about your personal life (sure it happens). Will some flamboyant folks join just to make a statement? You bet. Right now a person can speak of what ever they like as long as they are not asked "Are you gay" or state "I am gay". How hard is that? I've never heard anyone feel the desire to proclaim their "heterosexualities". Gay's can talk all they want about their partners as long as they don't say the three words. I'm not into special protection for classes of people. Treat all equally, ask nobody their sexual preference.

I really want to focus on the military people not being asked their feelings on it. That is the real tragedy going on here.

If it passes, I will not encourage my son to go into the military.

It will certainly be a different environment from what some may be used to.

on May 31, 2010

Just so we are clear, I want what all our military people want, be it for or against, as long as they choose it. Ask them.

I have 5 brothers who served in the military...two of them retired Navy and Air Force. I also have several nephews who are currently serving in the Marines...none of them want the DADT ban repealed.

The Armed Forces are our warriors and when off duty, they need down time to relax and recharge. Can't do that when they have to be on constant sexual alert.

 

on May 31, 2010

Gays are there, always have been.

Ya, there, but not OUT while there. Big, big difference.

I really want to focus on the military people not being asked their feelings on it. That is the real tragedy going on here.

The Veterans are speaking to this issue. Check out this website: www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com

So far, 1,050 high-ranking retired military officers signed this statement, "We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, (affect) leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

 

 

on May 31, 2010

If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).

Like I said,

The Armed Forces are our warriors and when off duty, they need down time to relax and recharge. Can't do that when they have to be on constant sexual alert.

This is no way to run the military.

on May 31, 2010

There really aren't many good arguments against gay folks in the military. It just doesn't seem to fall in line with my perception of the military. Maybe I'm just one of those fun Americans who believes that the military is largely made up of competent, trained, 2 war-fighting professionals capable of unleashing a tremendous amount of ass kicking on somebody at a moments notice. If this sort of grabasstic "OMG SOMEBODY MIGHT BE A GAY" type stuff is really that big of a fear, my perception is entirely wrong. Very sad.

Dan_I,

Regarding the highlighted... It's already been acknowledged that there are already "gay folks' in the military  but the issue with the repeal of the ban concerns having  "open gay folks" in the military. It adds a whole new layer of complications as DADT is NOT based on who homosexuals claim to be, but rather on what they do. 

Actually, there are indeed many good arguments against having "open gay folks" in the military.

Those Veterans whom I would deem are voices of experience have already given some of those valid arguments.

 

on May 31, 2010

I didn't know being Black, or Mexican, or Puerto Rican was a lifestyle

Well, depends on what you define as a "lifestyle".

Gay isn't a lifestyle, it's a sexual orientation. It's with who you sleep, not the way you live your life. It might influence the culture you will be exposed to and your political inclination, but then again, so does being black, mexican, or puerto rican.

on May 31, 2010

Dan_I posts:

There really aren't many good arguments against gay folks in the military. It just doesn't seem to fall in line with my perception of the military. Maybe I'm just one of those fun Americans who believes that the military is largely made up of competent, trained, 2 war-fighting professionals capable of unleashing a tremendous amount of ass kicking on somebody at a moments notice. If this sort of grabasstic "OMG SOMEBODY MIGHT BE A GAY" type stuff is really that big of a fear, my perception is entirely wrong. Very sad.

The Military being able to destroy the evil adversary is but one part of the whole military. The other part is enforcing the highest moral principles of discipline, valor, uprightness as well as personifying self-sacrifice. Our soldiers are willing to die for others. This is why, in my view, in order for the public to keep its faith and trust in the the Military, it must continue to operate in an atmosphere where evil and good are clearly defined and keep relativism out ..out of its policies, out of its practices and out of its life. 

 

Nitro posts:

I didn't know being Black, or Mexican, or Puerto Rican was a lifestyle. Your analogy is interesting. I know gay activists are trying to equate their "struggle" with the civil rights movement. What ever works to get what you want, right?

BINGO! 

Hijacking the civil rights movement is being employed once again. We must realize that the homosexual movement is a moral revolution aimed at changing societies' view of homosexuality. And that's why the largest homosexual rights group, Human Rights Campaign has spent millions in lobbying the lawmakers. In other words, they know exactly what the repeal of DADT will accomplish---normalizing homosexuality.  Homosexuality had always represented the opposite of military honor and undermined self-discipline and thus the military's prohibition of it. If the Military falls, so will the rest of our nations institutions.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on May 31, 2010

I have 5 brothers who served in the military...two of them retired Navy and Air Force. I also have several nephews who are currently serving in the Marines...none of them want the DADT ban repealed.

Great! I appreciate their service. That's want I want, those serving to be heard. Shouldn't they know best how this would impact them? The House majority doesn't think so. 

[quote]The Veterans are speaking to this issue. Check out this website: www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com[/quote]

Yes I'm aware, but that is not what I'm advocating. I want Active Duty personnels voices to be heard.

Gays are there, always have been.

Ya, there, but not OUT while there. Big, big difference.

Sure, again I agree. I believe DADT protects everyone, gay and straight. Ones sexuality shouldn't be pushed on anyone. I am under no delusions as to why activists want this so badly. They feel it will open doors for them and force acceptance of their lifestyle to people that are not inclined to recognize it. But why should they care if you or I "like" it? Some may, some don't, it's all about benefits, real and perceived.

I never was a big supporter of special treatment for any group and I always did my very best to evaluate a person based on their ability, appearance or mannerisms (other than those related to military bearing) where never a consideration. I've had many former subordinates tell me much later (even to this day) how much that meant to them. If I helped anyone learn that, I'm happy.