Repeal DADT for non-combat roles, but keep it in place for combat troops. What’s wrong with that? OK, I know what’s wrong with that — it is politically incorrect. But it conforms to military polling. Unless you think that’s irrelevant.
48 thoughts on “Am I Crazy?”
Comments are closed.
I bet you offended the left more than the right. Leftists think of compromise as treason, as reflected in the boiling hot reactions to the Obama/GOP tax deal.
I said the same thing, so if crazy you have company.
Yours,
Tom
And how many times in the past have ‘non-combat’ troops wound up in combat? More than a little bit. Women traditionally have been in non-combat roles. We see how well that’s worked out.
You’re not crazy, but there are a couple of counter-points.
(1) there’s not much in the way of non-combat roles any longer. A lot of that stuff is now done by contractors, and in a war where
war criminalsinsurgents mix into the population and attack civilians, there aren’t many places where you can avoid combat.(2) It’s unclear to me that the polling is all that informative. Back when DADT was passed, I did some digging, and I couldn’t find a single example of an argument against DADT that hadn’t been used against integrating blacks into the service under Truman. Certainly some specific ones used were “it’ll affect unit cohesion”, “the combat soldiers don’t like it”, and “but then they’ll have to shower together.” And yeah, there definitely were some issues with officers and senior NCOs not coping well. But we got through Korea somehow anyway. The thing is that now, sixty years later, we wouldn’t take as dispositive a poll that said “white troops don’t want to serve in combat with black troops”.
I did some digging, and I couldn’t find a single example of an argument against DADT that hadn’t been used against integrating blacks into the service under Truman.
Yep. In fact, those are the self same arguments used by those old stick in the muds who aren’t in favor of integrating women into combat units. They won’t accept that in the intimate environment of infantry combat and training – including group washing, waste elimination and in the field intimacy- would be greatly enhanced by the wonderful social and sexual tension generated by your nude gay b*tt buddy or hot gal next to you in the shower or comparing equipment in the latrine. The term “foxhole” would take on a whole new meaning. Imagine the electric thrill for new recruits when the DI yelling “Your a** is grass and I’m the lawnmower!” is no longer just a metaphor or empty threat.
Another advantage is that the large majority of folks who join the military are those troglodyte Judeo-Christian throw backs of all races, and I can’t think of a better way to deter their recruitment than the assurance that they will be privy to lots of hot boy on boy – boy on girl – girl on girl action. They can be easily replaced by the new type soldier with far more interesting reasons to join up than just “honor and country”.
Is that so? Then what’s stopping your enlightened prospective warriors from signing up now?
Yeah, you’re crazy (but in a nice way.) I’ve never personally had any problem with openly gay folks but they’ve all been conservatives. That however, is not likely to be one of the distinguishing characteristics. I can imagine some wanting to join to agitate. Not good for an institution that has a particular job to do. Look at how the left wanted to reinstitute the draft (but only if the right gets blamed for it, they wouldn’t even vote for their own bill.)
What is it that gays want to do that they can’t do now in the military? Make out in public? We all have secrets. The soldiers have been working with gays with no problems. It’s not the same as skin color or gender except for this… they’ve all been excepted. They all can be expelled for being stupid.
Sometimes ignorance [even willful] is bliss.
I’d say completely repeal DADT, and then strictly enforce (spamming word) Harrassment. If a gays man is making advances that make a straight combat soldier feel uncomfortable, then that gay man should be removed for harrassment.
Sure, there is room there for abuse, but more than likely, it will be abused in the opposite manner and called (spamming word) discrimination.
Repeal DADT, punish bad behavior, and drive on with the US Militarys’ mission: Defending the US.
I am a combat veteran (air, and ground), and I can’t begin to explain how little I care about people’s sexual orientation. I don’t agree with homosexuality, so I don’t practice it.
If some 18 year old 11-Bravo is uncomfortable by the very idea that someone in the barracks might be ‘checking out his junk’, he can just man the hell up and learn to live with what every Tiffany-Marie, who’s genes blessed or cursed with early and ample development has had to learn to live with since puberty. It’s irrelevant to the mission.
Under the current DADT policy Alexander the Great couldn’t enlist in the U.S. Army or Marines because in all probability he had a long-time gay lover named Hephastion, who also happened to be one of his subordinate commanders. Remember, Alexander conquered everything from the shores of the Med to the borderlands of India, including that perpetually troubling place, Afghanistan.
Absurd.
There are already plenty of gays in the military with DADT so all the histrionics about gays staring at your junk is pretty irrelevant at this point. In fact, there are gays everywhere staring at your junk. In fact, there are hetero women everywhere, staring at your junk… well, not all of you.
Back in the early 1990s, a sailor under my command complained of same-sex sexual harrassment. I might have believed him if he hadn’t gone UA for 20+ days to shack up with his pregnant (by another man) girlfriend.
There’s a shitbird in every command, and repealing DADT will give them another excuse. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. Regarding polls – civilian control of the military means the soldiers do as we tell them to.
You are not crazy.
The CDC says the rate of new diagnoses of HIV is 44 times greater for MSM (men who have sex with men) than for heterosexual men. Who wants to serve in combat next to someone at a high risk for a fatal blood borne pathogen? Gay men in combat will be shot by the enemy. Blood will spray. They will be wounded. They will scrape their knees and cut their fingers. They, like everyone else, will leave a trail of blood wherever they go. Combat is dangerous enough without risking catching HIV from some stray blood.
JW, everyone in the military is tested yearly for HIV, and everyone is issued appropriate protective equipment for treating wounds….Your argument is specious at best.
In fact, those are the self same arguments used by those old stick in the muds who aren’t in favor of integrating women into combat units.
I’m not clear how agreeing the arguments are the same and repeating them is supposed to be convincing.
Flight-ER-Doc,
I’m 100% onboard with what you say. And the thing you didn’t say was that the zoomies, troops, squids, grunts and coasties already know who is and who is not gay in their unit, they knew the same thing about their last unit and they know there’s a good chance there’ll be someone gay in their next unit.
And that includes the combat units out on the front lines NOW too.
Both my sons found the same kind of thinking. The younger one was a Marine Combat Engineer. My older son is career Navy. I’ve met their friends from the military, I know the kids they grew up with. I don’t find many that care about someone else’s sexual orientation in either group.
Doc, I’m not sure when you were in, but here’s my memory from 1977 to 1982 when I was in the Navy. The same guys who had ‘trouble’ with gay guys being in the military, also had ‘trouble’ with blacks, Filipinos, Asians or anyone else that wasn’t ‘normal’ or a WASP.
I’ll go you one better than now and 35 years ago. My father met my mother while he was in the Air Force in the late 40’s, through a guy he worked with who’s wife had her kid sister in tow. The kid sister became mom, the older sister became my aunt, the guy Pop worked with became my uncle.
Most of the guys Pop worked with were surprised my uncle HAD a wife…they all thought he was QUEER! (Pops word not mine and not that they were creeped out or reported it to higher command, my uncle was a WWII vet and all of the knew it and certainly if the enlisted guys suspected it, could the officers be far behind)
Here’s where it takes a twist.
Shortly after my parents got married, my aunt and uncle separated. She stayed on Long Island, he moved to SAN FRANCISCO, and it was NOT for the bread!!
So to the naysayers, most of whom think there are no / were no gays in the military, I have personal experience with the FACT of homosexuals in the military going back to at least my uncle’s enlistment in 1943, he was not drafted, he joined on his own.
I’ve seen more unit cohesion problems from drugs, alcohol, inter-unit sexual affairs from wives and girlfriends and “my best friend”, and in two cases over religious cults even, but I never saw any from cohesion problems from gays being there among any of us.
I honestly think this whole thing is the smoke and mirrors to get our eyes off the economy and this abortion of a ‘Bush Tax Bill Extension’.
I honestly think this whole thing is the smoke and mirrors to get our eyes off the economy and this abortion of a ‘Bush Tax Bill Extension’.
Agreed. DADT will not be resolved during this session anymore than it was immediately after Obama took office, or years earlier when the Democrats took control over Congress. This is a political smoke bomb issue for Democrats to throw out when the base gets upset. It’s pretty much like abortion for Republicans. It is a distraction for politicians more so than the military.
I will put in one caveat. Because of the unjustice of DADT, there is one major distraction to the military. Simply endind DADT by judicial fiat of “unconstitutional” would be human resource disaster for DoD. Everyone that has been put out of the military because of DADT will have an argument for unjust treatment. Had DADT not existed, other charges may have been used to dismiss otherwise inappropriate behaviour (see the recent story of a heterosexual CO/XO of a minesweeper being relieved for something probably less than sex). With DADT in existence, it was likely the most expedient means of dealing with a discipline problem. This could be a major distraction for the administrative side of the military, but it can easily be avoided by Congress acting rather than the Judicial Branch.
Except this “smoke screen” was something Obama explicitly campaigned on, and on several occasions in 2009 liberal groups were complaining about the lack of action on it.
Flight-ER-Doc, everyone in the military may be tested yearly for HIV, but I bet military dentists still don latex gloves before working on everyone. Tested yearly just means you may have HIV for a year before you know. And while everyone may be issued proper gear for working on wounded people, there isn’t always time in combat for such niceties. Even a bloody nose or a blister that pops during PT is a biohazard with gay men.
@Ken Anthony
It’s not what gays–and more broadly gender activists–want to do in the military as much as what they want out of it. Specifically, they want command to impose additional severe changes in the services’ barracks culture, a conservative, rough, and fraternal culture that the integration of women into the ranks has failed to eradicate. See K’s comment for reference.
Except this “smoke screen” was something Obama explicitly campaigned on, and on several occasions in 2009 liberal groups were complaining about the lack of action on it.
Exactly! He campaigned on it and won the political victory. Once in power, he shelved the concept rather than act on it. Now, having not campaigned with it and lost in 2010; he’s dusting it back off to regain political capital.
@Jardinero1:
While aesthetic distaste for other people’s sexual preferences is both real and understandable, the larger issue concerns the workplace integration of an open homosexual minority into a predominantly heterosexual, male environment. If you think diversity efforts in the services are intrusive and oppressive now, just wait until the military is forced to redraw the bright line around sexuality.
@Leland:
So which is it. Can ending DADT lead to disaster or not. If so, then why are we even bothering with it?
@Flight-ER-Doc: +…2?
Historic moment: I’m agreeing with Chris G. 🙂
So which is it. Can ending DADT lead to disaster or not. If so, then why are we even bothering with it?
Have you ever considered that ending DADT can be done by Congress getting rid of the law they passed? If so, have you ever considered the differences between Congress repealing a law and a Federal court ruling the law unconstitutional?
So others might have a laugh at the irony; might you ever have said; “selected not elected”?
Leland – no, he didn’t shelve it – the House voted on it months ago. Thanks to Senate obstructionism, we’re getting around to a re-vote now. All of which ignores that, unlike a bad movie, you can’t do everything all at once.
Presley – Congress repealing a law can set an effective date, giving the military time to re-write whatever regulations they need to. Regarding integration – welcome to the 21st Century. We had exactly the same arguments with race. The military will get over it.
Darkstar – What’s next – cats living with dogs? 🙂
It’s not as simple as some have suggested, to repeal DADT for non-combat troops only. It’s pretty much all or nothing. The problem is that, with very minor exceptions, nearly all uniformed troops will deploy to a combat location at some point in a five or six year cycle. Currently the services manage the different combat-supportability of men and women essentially by running parallel assignment systems with different quotas for different specialties in different locations. If you have to consider two more pools (gay men and women), you’d really break the system.
In order to hit their promotion gates, people have to rotate to an operational unit so they can be evaluated in-the-field. Women partially authorized for operations and partially not make this tough as it is
I think most uniformed folks like me who have apprehensions about repeal are mainly worried about an expansion in sensitivity training and another set of unproductive behaviors that will have to be tolerated for diversity sake.
> We had exactly the same arguments with race. The military will get over it.
Well, race and sexuality are not the same. Wildly not the same. I don’t buy it, and one of the reasons I don’t buy it is that it has been much, much harder to integrate women into the military than it has been to integrate blacks. That’s one reason I like this compromise. We have not integrated women into combat units. The expansion of their roles into closer and closer combat support has been gradual and allowed the military to adjust. Perhaps we can even make it explicit. ‘Out’ homosexuals can only serve in the same roles as women. Furthermore, homosexuals in combat roles who are outed should not be drummed out of the service, but instead reassigned to a non-combat role.
Eventually enough combat troops will have served with outed homosexuals in non-combat roles to be able to decide whether DADT should be repealed for combat roles.
We do not have to do everything all at once.
Yours,
Tom
they want command to impose additional severe changes in the services’ barracks culture, a conservative, rough, and fraternal culture
Yeah, they’re called fighting men. We ask these young men to kill.
If you’re saying they want to change that for some social experiment then you just lost any persuasive argument you might have had with me. I personally don’t care if someone is openly gay or not, that’s a personal choice. But I do care that the people we ask to fight our battles are not also going to be asked to be guinea pigs. The color of your skin makes no difference. Your gender does but we’ve worked those issues out over millennia.
We live in a different culture from the ancient Greeks. The argument regarding Alexander the great doesn’t consider the difference in culture at all. That difference is important. You may have heard our warriors fight for god and country. Gays are never going to have the acceptance they want without destroying foundational beliefs currently held by a majority of those serving in the military.
I repeat, what do they want that they don’t already have? We believe in equal justice for all. But equal justice doesn’t mean everybody gets their personal fantasy. It just doesn’t work that way.
I agree (I think) with Flight Doc and Gerrib. Get rid of this dumb ass law, and enforce what I presume are existing parts of the UCMJ that prohibit screwing up and down your chain of command, sexual harassment, or generally speaking any inappropriate behaviour when you’ve got a job to do.
To the extent the Republicans have held this up, I think they’re first-class idiots, which of course they’re just as capable of being as the donks. Long ago it should have been yeah, no problem — but we want to make damn sure that any captain (of either sex) coming on to a lieutenant (of either sex) in his command should have something severe happen to him.
Obviously, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about repeal in the first place.
Humor me. From where did all this potential for disaster that DADT repeal advocates swore up and down would never befall the military?
@Chris:
And what regulations would those be?
Unless racism took on a sexual dimension half a century ago, I fail to see how the two are analogous. The most similar antecedent–in terms of barracks issues and minority rate of participation–to this latest round of social experimentation is the gender integration of the force.
Humor me. From where did all this potential for disaster that DADT repeal advocates swore up and down would never befall the military?
Humor me and rewrite this into an comprehensible question. As it is, I have no idea what you are asking.
Gerrib, twice in one thread. Must be the holiday season to agree with one another.
@Leland: Simple. Why is it that repealing DADT is risk free but having a court strike it down will result in disaster?
Equally simple, as Gerrib points out, Congress repealing DADT provides a date of effectivity.
As I understand the situation, several people, who were discharged for being gay, are ready and willing to file lawsuits to regain their positions if a judge will just rule that the law is unconstitutional. If such a finding by a judge was upheld, then all of the cases filed would have merit. The DoD would end up having to respond to these cases, which will cost time and money beyond just dealing with the new policy caused by the ruling.
However, if Congress simply repeals the law that they passed, then DoD needs only deal with the new policy. That won’t be easy, but it’s far easier than dealing with unnecessary lawsuits.
Presley – And what regulations would those be? – I’m not a military lawyer, so I’m not for sure. I would assume that the sexual harrassment regs would have to be at least looked at for gender-neutrality. The other question to resolve would be what to do with folks who were kicked out on DADT. Do they get to come back in? If they got an other-than-honorable discharge can that be upgraded, which is important for VA benefits?
@Leland:
Which has what to do with anything? We’ve been told constantly that dropping DADT will not disrupt the force (gays are already serving, the warfighter can tough it out). Now you’re saying that unless Congress gives DoD time to “do something,” then it *will* be disruptive. What is this “something” that needs to be done, and why should we believe dealing with it is worth the trouble of accommodating homosexuals in the first place?
Explain to us how Congress repealing the law frees the DoD from dealing with persons separated under it.
I’m not qualified to comment on your sanity or lack there of, Rand, but I do think you’re wrong. Let’s look at the issue, noboby’s arguing that the military has a need for openly gay troops, that repealing DADT will improve military effectiveness or readiness, in fact the opposite is true. The best case scenario is that repealing DADT will only add a few minor problems, but what if that’s wrong? The people pushing for repealing DADT are doing to reward a political ally, and possibly to punish a political enemy (the military does tend to be more conservative). What that tells me is that when problems do arise, and you know they will, politics will take a backseat to military effectiveness, especially when you consider that many of the supporters, to be kind, hold the military in a very low esteem, John “Winter Soldier” Kerry, and Bill “I loathe the military” Clinton being two prominent examples. There are a lot of known issues that are going to arise, things like partnership benefits and gay marriage that nobody seems to be considering, and what about the first time the SECDEF gets summoned before Congress to explain why there aren’t enough gay general officers? How are we going to handle having openly gay soldiers in Muslim countries? There are also going to be some “unknown unknowns” that come up. The only thing we have in favor of repealing DADT is a flawed study that indicates that the problems resulting from it won’t be that bad. I don’t think that’s enough for anybody to hang their hat on.
What that tells me is that when problems do arise, and you know they will, politics will take a backseat to military effectiveness, especially when you consider that many of the supporters, to be kind, hold the military in a very low esteem, John “Winter Soldier” Kerry, and Bill “I loathe the military” Clinton being two prominent examples.
Bolded should read “military effectiveness will take a backseat to politics”.
Regarding the comparison to integrating blacks, it should be noted that blacks had been serving openly in the military for nearly 100 years before the military was desegragated. Using that logic, DADT has another 80 or so years to go.
We’ve been told constantly that dropping DADT will not disrupt the force (gays are already serving, the warfighter can tough it out). Now you’re saying that unless Congress gives DoD time to “do something,” then it *will* be disruptive. What is this “something” that needs to be done, and why should we believe dealing with it is worth the trouble of accommodating homosexuals in the first place?
You are misreading me, and I’ll give the benefit here that you are not doing so to be purposefully obtuse. I’ll try and simplify as best I can.
I don’t care if DADT is repealed today and the effectivity date starts tomorrow. I just think it ought to be repealed by Congress rather than ruled by the Judicial branch as unconstitutional.
The effectivity date means that an orderly change in the law occurs on a given date.
A court ruling of “unconstitutional” means the entire time the law was in effect, it was unjust. Every person wrongfully treated by the unjust law deserves to be compensated for the injustice.
Most people in the military understand you live by the rules, whether you like them or not. You say “aye aye” or “yes, sir” and do your job. Many of them will understand, whether the law was unjust or not, that it is better to move on from a certain point rahter than rehash the wrongs of the past. Again, moving on can start immediately, but provide a date of effectivity rather than making the military go back and review every case of dismissal based on DADT.
Explain to us how Congress repealing the law frees the DoD from dealing with persons separated under it.
The same way people were guilty of speeding when they drove over 55 when we had a national speed limit. Despite the repeal of that law, those found guilty when the law was in effect are still guilty of breaking the law on the books at that time.
If Congress repeals DADT, then DoD continues to treat people separated when the law was in effect the same. They violated a law that was on the book during that time.
@Leland:
I’m not going to be so generous. I’ve asked you three times what does it matter how DADT ends if you believe open homosexuality in the ranks poses no risk to the force.
I really don’t care what you think “ought” to be or not to be. I just want an answer to my question.
“Orderly?” So you’re saying that open homosexuality in the ranks will be disruptive.
So what? Isn’t that what gay activists believe, period?
Regardless of how DADT ends–if it does–courts will be determining remedies for separated personnel for years to come if DADT is found to have been a violation of constitutional rights at any point in time. Try again.
So you feel free to spit in their faces and dump on the culture. Gotchya.
Is it your argument that a national speed limit was unconstitutional?
CNN: Senate votes to repeal DADT 63-33, bill goes to Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/18/senate.dadt/index.html?hpt=T1
Hey, Congress can do their job.
As for Cannady:
So you feel free to spit in their faces and dump on the culture. Gotchya.
So you beat small children with hammers until they are dead.
@Leland:
No, though after 654’s repeal I imagine you’ll need more repugnant conduct to defend.
@Darkstar:
Now comes the fun part. The civilians will pretend that another a series of stifling regulations to chip away at the fraternity of the force will liberalize the force. The military will pretend to go along. And the gay serviceman or woman–80 percent who couldn’t tough it and self-reported their own violations of 10 USC 65 to check out with an honorable discharge–will no longer have a way out of an institution that fundamentally doesn’t want them around.
Welcome to Israel. Or France for that matter. Should be interesting.
Wow. The cost of straw in Cannady’s world must be cheap. He’s building an army that match China’s terracotta warriors. Is there any myth he won’t create to justify his hate?