Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Harmonic convergence?
I thought this was interesting:
This is my favorite thing about Giuliani: his potential to bring out the social liberal in the Republican Party.
By the same token, my favorite thing about Hillary Clinton is her potential to bring hawkishness to the Democratic Party.
If this is right and the 2 frontrunners become the nominees, the 2 parties will become more alike and more to my taste. I'm finding that very odd.
It will take a lot to make the Democrats more to my taste -- they need to stop using business as a whipping boy, for starters -- but nevertheless I generally agree with this observation. The sooner openly gay American soldiers with loving husbands at home start killing jihadis, the better.
27 Comments:
By 
Fritz, at
Wed Oct 31, 10:14:00 AM:
"The sooner openly gay American soldiers with loving husbands at home start killing jihadis, the better."
Well put!
By 
, at
Wed Oct 31, 10:24:00 AM:
"The sooner openly gay American soldiers with loving husbands at home start killing jihadis, the better."
Would you be happy if your daughter choose to attend a school that only had Coed gang showers. It would be a non-stop bacchanalia.
I agree that Republicans should not be afraid to moderate their social positions, but fostering conditions for a licentious military will not help national security.
By kreiz1, at
Wed Oct 31, 11:19:00 AM:
By kreiz1, at
Wed Oct 31, 11:24:00 AM:
Especially like your "business as the whipping boy" comment. It's so laughable- wasn't Hillary on Wal-Mart's board of directors, for god's sake? Gimme a break. I love WalMart and so does she. I'll tell you- and she won't (where's Wally Mondale when you need him?).
By , at
Wed Oct 31, 07:06:00 PM:
Whoah. If you are being sarcastic, please ignore this comment.
I usually agree with your views, but on this, I am not sure you are looking at all the pieces. First, I have served both as an enlisted Sailor and an officer. I have known gay Sailors. I was in charge of my boot camp division and had to look out for this one homosexual Sailor who was in complete quandary. He never showered, was an emotional wreck, and went around getting crushes on the more vulnerable, younger guys. It was only through constantly managing him and keeping him away from a young guy that he made it as far as he did. I feared that one of the younger guys, who was less secure in his identity, would hurt him.
War is not a time to play around with social engineering. There are moments in the military where you have zero privacy. We were always "nut to butt" in line, not because we were gay (with the above exception, and perhaps others), but because that is how the military works.
People will die with gays openly serving. And those dying most probably will be the homosexual ones. War is violent business. Pushing hot buttons like that, I am sorry to say, will cause some guys to snap.
Don't ask, don't tell protects the gay people. A lot of folks know of their lifestyle, but it also keeps their flamboyance in check.
I don't believe I am alone in these ideas as compared to my brothers and sisters who serve.
By , at
Wed Oct 31, 09:05:00 PM:
Anon is right. Gays don't mix with combat.
As far as Hillary goes, her lesbian girlfriend Huma Abedin has ties through her parents to Wahabbist nutcases in Saudi.
Hillary would follow her Muslim girlfriend's demands for catering to Muslim terrorists rather than Americ.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Oct 31, 09:16:00 PM:
Well, I am against using the military to promote social change, so I do not have strong feelings about allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the American military (I am a stronger supporter of lawful gay marriage, but that's another point). However, maybe you guys against it can explain this to me: How is it that both the British and the Israelis have managed to recruit openly gay soldiers and allow them to serve without all these horrible consequences? I mean, given all the complex social stuff that American soldiers have to deal with, especially when waging a counterinsurgency in several Muslim countries, do we really think that they can't deal with showering with a gay guy? That seems completely illogical to me.
By Fritz, at
Wed Oct 31, 09:36:00 PM:
"People will die with gays openly serving. And those dying most probably will be the homosexual ones. War is violent business. Pushing hot buttons like that, I am sorry to say, will cause some guys to snap."
This is a real gem. The worse way to take it is that it is attempting to excuse murder. The more charitable way is that it is motivated by a desire to protect those poor helpless gay people from themselves. I'm not gay, but I strongly suspect that most gay people would much rather be permitted to serve openly, even at risk to their very lives, than to have to have to hide who they are.
By , at
Wed Oct 31, 10:36:00 PM:
"This is a real gem. The worse way to take it is that it is attempting to excuse murder. The more charitable way is that it is motivated by a desire to protect those poor helpless gay people from themselves. I'm not gay, but I strongly suspect that most gay people would much rather be permitted to serve openly, even at risk to their very lives, than to have to have to hide who they are."
Two things in response to my post. First, in no way do I excuse murder. You will notice that I say that I would be sorry to see such a happenstance. Two, I am not interested in protecting "poor helpless gay people from themselves," I am interested in not seeing them killed by their shipmate one rack over who is being driven nuts by their flamboyance/come-ons/promiscuity/gay remarks/etc.
I have known 4 gay people in the Navy (who told people about it.) One, the boot camp guy from my first post, was a mess. The second was at "A" school, he got kicked out because of mental problems. The third and fourth were seeing each other. The third was one of the smartest people in my enlisted job that I ever met, but he could not stop talking about gay stuff on the military chat channels where we communicate with the war-fighters. He was later discharged after the logs of the chat were looked at and his out-of-control behavior was exposed. The fourth is quiet about it. Great Sailor. I never knew until someone told me.
In terms of Israel and Britain, Israel has mandatory service, so I am not sure it is even an issue with them. Everyone pretty much serves. And Britain, we all saw how their Sailors responded to the Persian Gulf crisis recently. But in all seriousness about the UK, I would highly doubt that an open homosexual carries a stressful combat rating/MOS or serves on a close quarters ship.
I have no problem with gays serving. But I am all for them keeping it to themselves. On the boat, there is no private space. And no room for throwing around one's sexuality. I know many men who would love to be berthed in the women's berthing, but it just is not going to happen. Stress brings up everything under one's surface. Again, social engineering has no place in our military.
By , at
Thu Nov 01, 12:54:00 AM:
I have no problem with gays openly serving in military, but enacting such a policy would cause a massive uproar in the military community. I'd be willing to bet that support for this doesn't run any higher than 10% amongst those in uniform, if even that. The backlash would be very ugly.
By Fritz, at
Thu Nov 01, 01:32:00 AM:
"I know many men who would love to be berthed in the women's berthing, but it just is not going to happen."
Anon: why is it that you think that men can be trusted to behave professionally on a boat while serving alongside women, but gay men cannot be trusted to do the same around other men? Being openly gay doesn't mean that you are unprofessional in any job, soldier or sailor or otherwise; hitting on your colleagues is always unprofessional, and in the real world as I'm sure you know frequently results in dismissal from that job. Why would it be different in the military?
What you are saying has a really disturbing implication: you seem to think that openly gay men necessarily don't have the same measure of control over their behavior that straight men do. That's (unconscious) bigotry, pure and simple.
By , at
Thu Nov 01, 06:59:00 AM:
"Anon: why is it that you think that men can be trusted to behave professionally on a boat while serving alongside women, but gay men cannot be trusted to do the same around other men?"
Have you ever been on a boat? The berthing areas are segregated. When I am serving with a female Sailor, I am not undressing one foot away from them. And I am not sleeping two feet away. I also know I would not be sharing a rack (ie: hot-racking in 12 hour shifts) with them.
"What you are saying has a really disturbing implication: you seem to think that openly gay men necessarily don't have the same measure of control over their behavior that straight men do. That's (unconscious) bigotry, pure and simple."
Please see my response to your first statement. Let's see how much control a male Sailor has when at war, working 7 days a week, and living 2 feet away from a hot female Sailor. If all male Sailors can accomplish this without problems, then I am indeed a bigot. If not, I am just a practical man, looking to serve my country honorably and protect her from all foes external to us. We do not, at this time, need to ratchet up the internal pressure.
By , at
Thu Nov 01, 10:12:00 AM:
"you seem to think that openly gay men necessarily don't have the same measure of control over their behavior that straight men do. That's (unconscious) bigotry, pure and simple."
Hetero's do NOT have more control than Gays. Thats why the military has sex segregated showers and sleeping areas. To deny the military segregates by sex is stupidy, pure and simple.
By Unknown, at
Thu Nov 01, 01:16:00 PM:
If Homos serve their country while concealing their problem, I consider them patriotic and nobel. However to many its is an erotic episode and therefore a perversion.
There are reasons the military sets standards which include intelligence, physical, social and moral miniums.
To you armchair theorists find a topic more suitable for debate...like navel lint.
By Fritz, at
Thu Nov 01, 03:17:00 PM:
Lee: "To you armchair theorists find a topic more suitable for debate...like navel lint."
You and Orval Faubus would have gotten along splendidly, I'm sure.
Posts like Lee's are so dispiriting. There are so many, many people in this country who hold the belief that "Homos" have a problem, that their sexual orientation is an immoral "lifestyle choice" or that they need to be "cured of their disease."
Conservatives deny that people like this make up their base, but I don't think that's true: this kind of ugliness just keeps on rearing its head among their supporters, in different situations and in different guises. How can I possibly even start a dialog with such persons? They and I might as well be from different planets.
By , at
Fri Nov 02, 12:46:00 AM:
THE HAWK,THE CHICKEN and the DONKEY and the donkey runs away from both of them
By , at
Fri Nov 02, 08:26:00 PM:
I am consistently told in the gay marriage debate that there is no difference between a man who loves another man and a man who loves a woman. That the feelings and everything biological in between are the same. If this is true, then I would not trust a man living in a room full of twelve other men. I imagine myself in such a situation, with me living in tight quarters with 12 women. Then I would stop being a hawk, thanks commenter above-bird of paradise, and morph into a fox. (Oh lucky me, for then I would find myself in a real chick coop. . .)
This is called having your pink cake and eating it too. Are gay men full of miraculous self-control or are they just like hetero men? And would they struggle in the chicken house? Once again, don't place them into that situation. It favors no one. If you are gay and want to serve, God bless you. Keep it to yourself. We have a unique military, analogous to no other. We are stretched all over the world, in situations far from home. We serve in an amazing variety of posts, exceedingly more complex than our nearest rival.
Thank you to everyone who responded to this issue, either way, who cares enough about the military to speak up. If I thought it were practical, I would accept it in a second. I am all for happy military members, just not gay ones who wear it on their sleeves. . .
By , at
Sat Nov 03, 10:29:00 AM:
"The sooner openly gay American soldiers with loving husbands at home start killing jihadis, the better".
Dear Tige, Not 30 seconds after feeling wistful about my own passed on Dad I get this above treasure trove of blinder-wearing-uncommonly non-common-sense-hideously-liberal-we-are headed-for-the-historical-trashheap mama-at-full-speed statement from one as traditional as yourself. Have you ever met any gays with husbands? Why would they suddenly wait at home gor a spouse at the war. The utter promiscuity of the breed is well known and the reason they die decades earlier than the traditional male/female opting groups that have advanced the world for lo these many centuries. Take a certain Senator with a wide stance as an example, or a certain Representative whose young boy antics make the prospect of an openly gay boy scout leader such a travesty. How dare you be fooled and how dare you spread that totally pie in the sky prospect on a peace seeking world. The "Ol Perfessor
By Cassandra, at
Sat Nov 03, 10:44:00 AM:
How is it that both the British and the Israelis have managed to recruit openly gay soldiers and allow them to serve without all these horrible consequences?
That argument is (dishonestly) used re: women in combat too.
*sigh*
Are you trying to aggravate me into blogging again? :p
By Eric, at
Sat Nov 03, 12:31:00 PM:
I'm a former enlisted Army veteran and I support allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. There would be a transition and adjustment period, as has been the case with all of our integrations, but given the fact there are already gay soldiers serving honorably, I don't think it would be as problematic as some make it out to be. In college, I had to confront the gays-in-the-military issue as a military and, more specifically, ROTC advocate on campus. Interestingly, one of my fellow ROTC advocates was an openly gay former Army infantryman.
For me, the military socio-culturally represents selfless service, sacrifice and duty, the ties that ought to bind our ENTIRE citizenry. Those values should be shared and borne equally by all groups. For our socity to enforce a double standard for those values for one group, as we do now, undermines them for everyone.
By Cassandra, at
Sat Nov 03, 01:33:00 PM:
Eric:
My objection to openly gay servicemen and women serving has nothing to do with them serving and everything to do with the difficulties of figuring out how they will sleep and shower, etc.
The fact of the matter is this: we do not bunk men and women together because we know that in combat, strong bonds are formed. Add sexual attraction into the mix and you have all the ingredients for an affair that undermines the rank structure, unit discipline, and morale. And that is assuming the most benign condition - two mutually consenting adults of about equal rank.
But there are a whole lot of other bad permutations on this: the senior abusing his/her rank to prey on junior enlisted or officers. Heterosexuals do this now, AND IT CAUSES REAL PROBLEMS TO COMMANDS (ask any officer who has ever commanded a battalion or a company) but at least we don't bunk them together. What kind of naivity does it take to "assume" (with the emphasis on the first syllable) that gays have some special moral wonderfulness that keeps them from committing the same follies their heterosexual brothers and sisters do?
Now take increased opportunity due to proximity into account. Hmmm... do you think the incidence of adultery during long deployments, fraternization in the ranks, and sexual harrassment is likely to go up? Or down?
All of these things cause MAJOR problems for commands.
It never ceases to amaze me that people insist on depicting objections to gays serving openly in the ranks as prima facie evidence of homophobia. But many who object don't think gays are any different than we are. In fact, they expect gays will behave exactly the same as heterosexuals do. IOW, we assume they are just like us: i.e., human beings with all the same human strengths and failings as their hetero brothers or sisters. It is not a question of their worth, but of their essential humanity, which we all share. No one is immune to temptation when it is shoved in their face, day in and day out, especially in a combat zone and especially when you consider that we are not primarily interested in equity for individuals but in the combat efficiency of a large organization and behavior of a broad group of people under difficult conditions.
Hence, our objections.
We assume there would be problems because we would not bunk men and women together, either.
Period. It's that simple.
By Cassandra, at
Sat Nov 03, 01:47:00 PM:
Oh, and re, this:
For our socity to enforce a double standard for those values for one group, as we do now, undermines them for everyone.
No, not a double standard.
The SAME standard.
We do not bunk people together who we have reason to believe would be sexually attracted to each other because fraternization is illegal under the UCMJ and because there is no way to ensure their privacy in such close quarters.
Civilians have a hard time understanding this because they assume that anything that goes on between consenting adults is "OK" and also because they have never had to live in a barracks or out in the field where there are no portapotties or showers. They should try being in the desert for a few weeks where you have to relieve yourself in full view of God and man. In the military, both fraternization and adultery are not 'alternate lifestyle choices'. They are punishable offenses under the UCMJ.
DADT has its flaws, but it allows gays to serve because so long as no one knows they are gay (or they don't flaunt their orientation) there is no discipline problem. It is actually a brilliant compromise to a tragic social problem and I for one support it.
The double standard comes when yo somehow assume gays will behave differently than heterosexuals do. That is totally unrealistic, as well as being completely ungrounded in human experience. Gays should not be demonized, but neither should it be assumed (as you seem to do) that they will somehow be immune to the same feelings and temptations we all experience.
By , at
Sat Nov 03, 03:41:00 PM:
I could not have said it better, Cassandra, thanks.
Eric, please think about Sailors and Marines when you consider this issue. Go check out the berthing on a carrier or go to JO country on a small-boy. There is zero private space. You guys get cool camping gear to sleep in, we have hot-racks. . .
By Eric, at
Sun Nov 04, 02:07:00 PM:
Cassandra, the military-related values I'm talking about are selfless service, duty, and sacrifice. No one should be exempt from them and no one who's physically and mentally fit to do so should be disqualified from their full expression, eg, honorable military service. When we imply those values mean less to one group of citizens because of their sexual orientation - not because of their ability or willingness to do their duty, serve selflessly, and sacrifice - then we weaken those values for everyone.
Granted, I was a soldier and I can't speak for the living conditions of sailors and Marines. As a soldier, I slept and worked out of 2-man tents and larger communal sleep tents, tracks, Humvees, on the cold, wet ground and other uncomfortable places, but it's true I never was berthed on a ship. I've seen it, haven't lived it.
But I did go through a co-ed Basic Training and AIT, and my MOS - 96B - had a high proportion of female soldiers. From the day I arrived at Basic Training to the day I ETS'ed, I served with women.
And yes, I know there are controversial sex-related issues within the co-ed Army. I experienced some of them while working with female peers, NCOs, officers, and at the tail end, subordinates. I can tell cautionary tales, too . . . but I also can tell stories about some of the best soldiers I served with, who happened to be women. I can also talk about racism (some folks just can't bring themselves to trust a Chinese-American MI troop with TS:SCI access), abuse of rank, negligence, and other bad things that happen in the community that don't have to do with sex, things that happen sometimes when a diversity of not-all-upstanding humans live and work closely together in a stressful bubble.
But you know what? We deal with it and continue mission. That's what Respect for Others and Equal Opportunity classes, UCMJ, and old-fashioned military discipline and leadership are for. That's why our drill sergeants give that speech about all of us being green (dunno if they still do that with the new uniforms).
Like we're taught with Worth's Battalion Orders, any soldier who engages improperly with another soldier should be disciplined, for his/her sake, the sake of the other soldier, and for the sake of the unit. That should happen whatever the interpersonal frame of the offense. Professional soldiers, gay or straight, are supposed to act like it. If they fail to do so, they need to be put back in line. If they can't be re-trained and corrected, then they need to be put of the military - you know, there are soldiers who simply can't hack the job for reasons having nothing to do with sexual orientation.
For the soldiers who are uncomfortable serving with an openly gay battle buddy who performs his/her duties in a military manner? I say get over it; that's not a good enough reason to lose a good troop, especially not when we're at war. I say the same thing about race, gender, religion and all the other outwardly expressed differences among soldiers that mean less than the common green that flows in their veins.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Nov 04, 05:33:00 PM:
"But you know what? We deal with it and continue mission. That's what Respect for Others and Equal Opportunity classes, UCMJ, and old-fashioned military discipline and leadership are for. That's why our drill sergeants give that speech about all of us being green (dunno if they still do that with the new uniforms)."
If all of these issues are so easily handled by EO reps and pep talks, why are men and women still housed separately?
By Cassandra, at
Sun Nov 04, 06:25:00 PM:
If all of these issues are so easily handled by EO reps and pep talks, why are men and women still housed separately?
Bingo.
Eric's comment sounds fine until you stop and think about it. It also sounds like it was written by someone who has never commanded a company or battalion or had to investigate an allegation of sexual harrassment (founded or unfounded - and there are just as many of the latter as the former) :p
Waving your hand and saying 'we're all green' doesn't make those types of problems magically go away, just as it doesn't make the problem of women getting pregnant on ships go away. Just because an organization can deal with something doesn't mean it should have to deal with it. You can load the military up with burdens it "can" deal with until it can't fight efficiently anymore and people with any sense refuse to join. But who will benefit from that?
... the military-related values I'm talking about are selfless service, duty, and sacrifice. No one should be exempt from them and no one who's physically and mentally fit to do so should be disqualified from their full expression, eg, honorable military service.
Eric is still placing individual equity at a higher premium than unit readiness. 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.
I used to think women should be allowed to serve in all MOS's. I don't anymore. It's not a question of "fairness" to individuals. It's a question of not making a special purpose organization jump through hoops to try and achieve some social engineering end that no one else in society is forced to meet.
By Eric, at
Sat Nov 10, 07:02:00 PM:
Cassandra,
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.
Dawnfire82, 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.
