In today's WSJ, Brian Hughes, a former Army Ranger twice awarded the Commendation Medal, makes a powerful case for ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":
I was a line infantryman in the Army's Ranger regiment from 2000-04, earning a promotion to sergeant within three years. In that time, my platoon performed dozens of combat missions on the front lines. Our lives depended on complete mutual trust.As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." As President, he has not lifted a finger to overturn the ban. This is disappointing. As Hughes notes, public opinion is strongly against the policy, and there is real reason to believe that, if anything, maintaining the exclusion on openly gay servicemen and women compromises our security and defense.Several of my colleagues knew I was gay. We lived in the closest possible conditions. When there were showers, we showered together. When we were out overnight on the cold, bare mountains of Afghanistan, we slept huddled together for warmth. It should go without saying that there was nothing remotely sexual about these situations. We had uncomfortable experiences — we were at war, after all — but my buddies were never uncomfortable with me.
The reason I didn't come out to more of my comrades wasn't out of concern for morale. I was worried about losing my job.
Since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came into effect, some 13,000 service members have been fired for being gay. Thousands more decided against pursuing a full career in the military and let their contracts expire. Replacements can be recruited and trained — at a cost of more than $36 million per year — but each individual's institutional knowledge is lost, to the detriment of the unit and the mission. . . .
Straight and gay soldiers have been fighting side by side in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond without incident. More than 20 of our closest allies have integrated gays into their ranks, including all of NATO except Turkey. American troops work and live with these forces without incident.
Here at home, every government service is integrated, including the paramilitary sections of the CIA that work hand in glove with the armed services. The presence of gays in these organizations is a nonissue. The idea that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines would have any greater difficulty adjusting is an insult to their professionalism.
At the same time the Obama Administration has not taken any steps to reverse the policy, it is simultaneously neglecting to defend existing policy, as embodied in a federal statute, in court. As the WSJ reported earlier this week, the Administration failed to file a petition for certiorari to challenge a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held the military's policy should be subjected to intermediate scrutiny. The decision prompted a vigorous dissent from denial of en banc, and could eventually result in the invalidation of the law. As Ed Whelan notes, last year the Justice Department argued that the Ninth Circuit's decision "creates an inter-circuit split, . . . a conflict with Supreme Court precedent, and an unworkable rule that cannot be implemented without disrupting the military." Now, however, the Solicitor General's office has decided not to file cert on the grounds that it's an interlocutory decision. So, as a consequence, the military will have to defend a policy that the Administration opposes under a more rigorous standard of review than may be warranted under current law (and leaves in place a highly contestable precedent that were certainly affect additional cases in the Ninth Circuit for some time).
It seems to me that the Obama Adminsitration has it wrong on both counts. The Administration should ask Congress to repeal the law. We don't need to lose any more Daniel Chois. But until the law is repealed — and I am assuming that the Administration cannot end the policy unilaterally through an administrative edict — the Justice Department has an obligation to defend the laws that are on the books, particularly where they concern the military. Perhaps the argument for leaving this "interlocutory" opinion in place is more powerful than I recognize, but I am skeptical. It seems to me the Administration is ducking a controversy, perhaps even hoping that the courts will do its dirty work to end the law. Our military and servicemen and women deserve better. Even if one opposes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" — as I do — one should not want military personnel policy run by the courts.
UPDATE: Brian Hughes e-mails:
Prof. Adler: Thank you for featuring my article. There was some interesting and profitable discussion before the flame war broke out.Note: Due to the aforementioned flame war, I closed the comments to this thread.I would like to clarify one thing (column space in the WSJ is limited): I was not discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I served out my four-year contract and was honorably discharged when I chose not to re-enlist.
Aside from changing a pronoun here and there when my buddies and I would discuss our sex lives, DADT did not affect me nearly as much as it has others. I would not be speaking out against it if I were not firmly convinced that it is detrimental to our national security.
The normal rationale (unit cohesion) don't really apply to a man in a training situation, so I'm really at a loss as to why we should piss away millions here.
Because following every piddling arbitrary rule gives the bureaucrats their jollies.
Well sure, but they don't have an obligation to appeal every adverse decision all the way to the Supreme Court, no?
And I'm not sure why law that "concern the military" need to be defended more vigorously than laws that concern the general population. One would think the opposite would be true.
On the other hand, it seems like the main opponents of DADT are those who either were in the military, politicians, civilians who have never served, or people like Dan Choi, who would take up the cause while serving, even at the risk of being discharged. I think the worst thing we can do is turn this into a political wedge issue, because it's more of a policy dispute. I don't hear a ton of opposition from the people who have to institute DADT, or would have to deal with the fall out (if there is any) should it be overturned.
I think Obama got backed into a corner saying he would overturn DADT. I don't think he has enough of a consensus to just go after the policy, and he should've thought about that before making that campaign promise.
I'd rather the military make the call, not politicians. There are people who have said they don't think it should be there at all, there are those who said gays being in the military didn't affect them, but it could affect unit cohesion overall, and according to a Military Times poll, there are some who would discharge from the military if it is overturned. They have to think about that, too. 12,500 soldiers have been kicked out under DADT. Imagine losing that many soldiers because it was overturned, plus the added risk of people not enlisting in such high numbers because of the policy.
The courts have brought on gay marriage elsewhere, so Obama perhaps rightly believes they can be counted on to do something similar here, as well.
Why fight the battle if you don't have to?
Most of the dischargees are using DADT as an escape hatch. If you'd rather commit an unnatural act than be shot at, it seems only logical to do so.
If you'd rather be shot at than commit an unnatural act, however, it may be tough to have to accept those who feel the opposite. And as Spock would say, The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
You are wrong, Smith. Discipline, even obedience (that hissing ex-virtue), are utterly necessary to a military machine. Otherwise you just have a bunch of berserkers.
Article 78 Accessory After the Fact
"Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
and
Article 125 Sodomy
"(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Its law, not policy that is the source of DADT. Unlike civil law, in the military you don't get to 'look the other way' under Article 78. That is a direct undermining of good order and discipline. Letting the military choose which laws they'll follow and which they will not has amply been demonstrated by 4000 years of history, not to be a good idea. Congress further reiterated its position on the issue through Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 37, para 654.
Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
Missed in all this special interest rendering is the fact that hundreds of straights are discharged and courts martial for fraternization, adultery, and sexual harassment every year. These action do destroy unit cohesion and good discipline. Currently, while straights face both Bad Conduct and Dishonorable Discharges for their acts, and the subsequent loss of Veterans Benefits, gays usually are administratively separated with a General Discharge and retain their benefits. When you get Congress to debate the repeal of the existing law, be prepared to accept that gays will still be kicked out of the service, but now with punitive punishment just like straights. Just call me a cynic, but it doesn't take much to grasp that the same special interest group will decry that fact and demand they be exempted from 'equal' treatment because in the end its not about fairness or equality, its about power and privilege.
How could they have committed perjury if they weren't "asked" and didn't "tell" at the time of enlistment?
Except that both Fehrenbach and Hughes have all been in active combat for many year. Fehrenbach has served in 3 (or 4, if you count patrolling DC after 9/11) different campaigns. He's perfectly willing to get shot at, irrespective of whether you judge his sex life to be unnatural (or him yours, for that matter).
This isn't about personnel that don't want to be in the military using DADT to get out, this is about people that love their jobs, love defending their country and are being forced out against their will.
(1) Let N be the number of male servicemen that have had anal or oral sex with their girlfriends in the past 6 months.
(2) Let N_d (~=0) be the number of same that have been discharged or punished for that behavior.
(3) N - N_d (=~ N) is the number of times the military has violated the law by looking the other way.
One of the following conclusions must be true:
(A) Don is incorrect about military law.
(B) Don is incorrect about the discretion afforded the military in enforcing military law.
(C) The military is in egregious violation of military law.
For all those who use, "the law is the law and that ends the discussion" as the rationale for retaining DADT, how about advocating that it actually be followed by everyone, not just gay servicemembers?
That said, how do you reply to an 18-year-old recruit from Oklahoma who asks, "Hey, if a gay guy can shower with me, can I shower with the female recruits?"
Seriously. One of the social advantages of heterosexuality is that it's possible to segregate people during what would otherwise be intimate situations: bathrooms, showers, sleep.
Your statements appear to conflate two different things. The sodomy provision punishes acts that are committed. DADT discharges don't require that the subject actually commit a homosexual act.
I would expect gay service members caught violating fraternization to be punished just as severely, though I've also seen numerous stories that the adultry provisions are only enforced within chains of command and not when the adultry is between a service member and someone not connected with the military.
Tell him that the odds are overwhelming that he's already showered with a gay guy in his high school locker room, and that it didn't kill him then and it won't kill him now.
Perhaps you should RTFA?
Combat veterans like myself instinctively understand that the injection of sexual tension in to a combat unit severely corrodes unit cohesion. The one of the lessons of history is that combat units that do not eliminate sexual tension degrade their effectiveness to a large degree. People often cite the the Romans as being tolerant of gays. They were, to a degree. But the legions learned the hard way that sexual tension in the ranks is tantamount to suicide.
Think of it this way. You are a combat commander leading an attack. One of your units must make an assault that will take high casualties. Casualties are highest in the leadership. Are you going to choose the unit led by your lover?
Gays and women in combat is an issue that derives from narcissism. "The Army is all about me." Combat, however, is a "we" thing.
BTW - Ranger, Capt. RA, Maj. USAR
Sexual harassment is rampant in the military. It goes something like this:
A male soldier harasses a female soldier. If she resists his advances and threatens to report him, he threatens to start a rumor that she's a lesbian. She can't do anything about it unless she wants to end her career.
I do not think the issue is whether or not showering with a known homosexual will "kill" someone.
The argument is simply saying that you can not, on the one hand, say that we segregate men and women because we are afraid of fraternization; and then also say that we can go ahead and insinuate homosexuals into a unit but that we are not afraid of fraternization in that instance.
It is of a piece with the argument against SSM by saying that there is no intellectually honest way to allow SSM and at the same time prohibit polygamy.
It seems typical that when challenged logically in this way, the gay lobby, rather than answering logically, responds in that defensive, snarky, look-everyone-he's-a-bigot! way.
Do you really imagine, can you seriously conceive, that this nation would be powerless without homosexuals defending it? The greater peril historically is when homosexuals HAVE been defending; viz., Burgess &Maclean - Brits of course, but why would the situation be different for us; if homos are no different than hets, why would British homos differ from US homos? - just the most prominent case that comes to mind.
Homosexuals are security risks, affect unit cohesion, and their very presence within the military is an offense to good order and discipline. It's nothing personal. I've known gay men and got along with them fine. I've also known Communists, like my old nurse at summer camp. A nice lady. But she should not be employed in any office of trust or profit by the United States Government.
Sometimes things aren't as we want them to be. It's often very sad but there it is. Everybody wants what they want. In the military, what you want is supposed to come second.
It is possible that Choi, Hughes, etc. may have felt they dishonoured themselves in some way at some point or another, but I'm curious: How specifically do you think they have done so? Have they done something disreputable, say ... like accusing people of felonies without any evidence to back up such slanderous accusations?
Cheers,
Again normal low key homosexuals are NOT the problem. The only way to stop the ones that ARE a problem is with DADT.
If Obama is serious about repudiating DADT, he could reject gay dismissals on that legal basis. If that doesn't work, why can't his SoD accept and abide some lower court decision/injunction wherein DADT is rebuked on equal pro or privacy protections, pending SCOTUS review?
You obviously haven't been in the military - you go out on missions with male and female service members very often. An unit cohesion depends on fraternization. (do mean this as a friendship and association, right?)
It is of a piece with the argument against SSM by saying that there is no intellectually honest way to allow SSM and at the same time prohibit polygamy.
Which is obviously bogus since marriage equality is about letting all citizens do what some can already do (have a male or female spouse) and having more than one spouse is something we don't let anyone do.
All this free floating anxiety - they are already serving with gays, knowing who they are means you really don't have to associate with them when you don't need to as part of the job. They're in the shower, well you deal with it the same way you would if there was someone you owed money to in the shower - you don't go in until they're gone! I mean this isn't rocket science. The commander isn't going to have to decide to send his lover into battle because he won't have his lover under his command, just like when male and female officers tango - one of them goes to another command structure.
I was in the army 13 years, went in the field often, every one and their brother knew I was gay there at the end - no one cared! The occasional snide remark, the witty comeback, everyone laughs - its over.
DADT needs to go, it needs to go now, and as far as I'm concerned its my 'litmus test' for the Obama administration. Do something or just brand yourself like the other guy.
Accepting the premise arguendo, why does DADT apply to NON COMBAT units like our Air Force TRAINING INSTRUCTOR?
Sexual relationships between an officer and his subordinates are already forbidden. This is a ridiculous objection.
What, zuch, being gay/enlisting while gay isn't good enough for ya? How about getting discharged from the armed forces? Is that disreputable?
I think it's also disreputable to criminalize opinions as you apparently seek to do, but that's just me.
Anon, so that kind of blackmail is a real problem, but "okay, faggot, now give me the tracking numbers for the nuclear warheads or I'll out you" isn't?
And, LarryA, why not just answer the guardhouse lawyer, "Blow me?" Same abuse of authority. Same negligible risk of discovery. Plus, you get head.
Oh please, watch more movies - in the military there are many many many ways to deal with anyone acting like an asshat, a gay one would just be a variation on an existing theme.
Except that, by all accounts, he is a superior pilot to whoever would have replaced him. Hand-chosen, I believe was the term.
The consumed training resources expecting to use them to serve their country. Being homosexual is not forbidden by military rules -- they assumed no one would ask and they wouldn't tell and they would serve honorably like everyone else. This was instigated by the military trying to out them, not them outing themselves. Fehrenbach said numerous times that he never wanted to be outed in the first place (and certainly didn't "tell" anyone).
Bob VB, since Pres. Bush never promised you anything, and Pres. Obama promised you the moon (and will not deliver), isn't Obama actually WORSE than Bush? IMO Obama likes you less as a human being than Bush did - probably more bigoted personally. Any respect given is due to your position as a power bloc within the party. He'd probably wash his hands if he ever shook with you.
I amend my statement - free floating anxiety AND hostility.
Except, you know, the part about how using any of them would be considered a Hate Crime.
Um, that kind of blackmail is entirely due to people having to stay in the closet due to present policies. It wouldn't exist if gays could serve openly. Your replies so far haven't shown that you're particularly interested in having a serious discussion of this topic, though.
Obviously that can't be, or else your unit would have degenerated into berserkers and gone on a rampage.
Asshats are protected? Who knew. I mean seriously - you don't think that's true do you? PDAs of any kind are proscribed for men and women by unit policy already - what exactly is this out gay person going to do that isn't already proscribed by regulation anyway which would be so terrifying?
Have I mentioned all the free floating anxiety this thread seems to contain?
Oh I misunderstood - I had the impression gays in the military was supposed to interfere in their ability to berserk and rampage.
I feel like I'm misunderstanding this statement--who else is there? The only opponents are civilians, ex-military, politicians, and people in the military who feel strongly enough about it to get discharged? Sounds like a pretty inclusive group.
Mr. Hughes did not perjure himself, because of DADT. He did not sign up for a "free education": he was already a college senior when he first thought of signing up. And he certainly did not join the Rangers because he wanted to "quit anytime the heat gets too hot". If there is a problem with gays in the military, it is a problem with homophobes in the military. And Mr. Hughes is telling you from his personal experience that this problem is much smaller than we civilians would imagine.
Distinctions invisible to the unaided eye. If he had been stricken with cancer, they would have filled that seat just fine without him. If he were shot down they would have replaced him. No one is irreplaceable.
It's a comical premise - they were caught, weren't they? Are any of them DENYING they were gay? - and even barring the regs cited above, even barring the notion of them committing themselves on the one hand to chastity a la the priesthood, OTOH to successful sneaking and deception, why would they be witch-hunted if they were so very valuable to the war effort?
My guess is, eliminate the discharges, but put them in some kind of punishment/danger slots for the remainder of their enlistments, like wiping windscreens in Alaska or being test subjects for experimental vaccines, and watch discharges drop like a rock.
Pay attention DADT allows 'gayness' in the military, the 'deception' is a requirement of the legislation.
Except most, if not all of the service men and women who have been kicked out via DADT are normal low key homosexuals.
Uhm, notice that no one is given the boot because they're straight. Just because you're gay doesn't mean that you are automatically guilty fraternization, adultery, or sexual harassment. They should be held to the same standards as straights, not singled out using different ones.
Ever hear of Harvey Milk? Anyway, let's turn reality on its head and say I am anxious about or hostile to gays. Easier to replace one of you than ten or a hundred of me. QED. Bye now. Buh-bye. Don't let your preserved benefits hit you in the butt on the way out.
Nobody said gays can't be vicious killers. Look at Dahmer, Gacy, Leopold &Loeb, etc., etc., etc.
Then you're right, cancel DADT and go back to whatever they did under Reagan...or Eisenhower...or FDR...or Wilson...or Lincoln...or Washington, Jefferson, Madison. OK by me. It was thought, I guess, that you'd like DADT better. Better put some ice on that!
Is this a trick question? The answer seems pretty obvious.
Because of people like you.
Except that the people who are like you have other cognitive &behavioral problems as a rule too. The military would probably be better off without 10 of you QED.
Ono! I have failed to satisfy Jay! Now I must die, or be discharged from VC.
How about we compromise? I won't ask you what you think, and you don't tell me.
I'll put my IQ up against yours or any Internet randomnite any day of the week, Sunshine. As for behavioral, you've already admitted that you were unfit to serve - i.e. that you are homosexual.
You did this when someone pointed out that, by definition, no one under DADT could have "perjured" themselves, since the whole policy involves not talking about sexual orientation. That you're doing it now to my earlier comment--ignoring the substantive point I made about blackmail in favor what I guess you think is a witty rejoinder--just reaffirms my point.
You'd better draw me a diagram. Bob says I have cognitive problems. Explain how the VHSC (Vast Hetero-Sexual Conspiracy) works.
As if that was the issue - remember YOU are the one that used your self as an example of hostility to the the decreee of acting 'al le' Harvey Milk.
It is rare that you have an uncontrollably 'hostile' individual to one personal attribute as an isolated effect. In the military the violence-prone homophobes are the racists and misogynists too as well as being just bad for general moral. People who can't direct their anger are a liability to the military and routinely mustered out.
As for behavioral, you've already admitted that you were unfit to serve - i.e. that you are homosexual.
Again, DADT says they are NOT unfit to serve so you are wrong once again. (still?)
Cheers,
It's a problem. And it's a problem the armed forces don't need, and one they can just screen against more easily than trying to work through it.
If I'm fat, bald, nearsighted and old, but want to be a Ranger or a fast-jet pilot, why not just enlist me, (eye-surgery*) me, (de-fat*) me, (re-hair*) me, and send me to a spa? - OR - you could enlist people who QUALIFY.
*LOL:
so I won't use the actual words for the common surgeries and therapies. LOLOLOLOL!
Ignoring Nekulturny's obtuseness about my prior comments to him:And where have I done such a thing? Be specific now. If you can't find any evidence for such, I think it should be obvious to all and sundry here that you're simply a serial liar, reading-impaired, or quite possibly both. And if so, we'll just dismiss and ignore subsequent emanations from you.
Cheers,
Do tell...
Yeah, there are the wisearse comments and petty harassment. Everybody gets that, based on whatever vulnerabilities they have. Men show respect to each other by shitting on each other.
According to mt f(r)iends on active duty, the attitude at the pointy end of the spear can be approximated by "Yeah, he may be a Fag, but he's a damned fine machinegunner."
Not the issue? You cited cognitive problems. In small words, the kind you seem to need, that means brains. Of course this latest missive of yours shows that you can't even spell, but I'm guessing we have you at the point where you're so mad you can hardly type, rather than that you are a dummy. Though "al le" throws me entirely. Can you possibly mean "a la?" (You're welcome.)
Anyway, the point about Harvey Milk (and I see you are ignorant of this as well) is that he was once introduced to a fellow at City Hall, a homophobe I suppose, and the guy offered to shake hands with him. Milk said something like, "Do you really want to shake that hand? You don't know where it was."
Milk being this big gay lib figure, I supposed using humor in his vein was OK, rather than showing anxiety or hostility. But anyway, you were off the rails form the moment I suggested that Obama was probably homophobic in his natural inclinations. If this seems so very improbable, do note the demographics on the Prop 8 vote.
I was talking about YOU here. Did you serve in the time of DADT or before?
Yes, that's why they still manage to "have gay friends". Master, indeed...
yes.
ORDER THE CODE RED!!!!
in the cops we just assign them to burg/larceny detectives.
i'd rather swallow glass than work as a burg/larceny detective.
I was talking about YOU here. Did you serve in the time of DADT or before
I went in before I'd even had sex, had no idea I was gay, and even during the couple year time they didn't ask about homosexuality at all anyway (they had a 'homosexual tendencies' question they used to ask that was actually blacked out on the form - took a couple years before the replacement arrived.)
Once you're in its article 31 time - you are guilt of only what you get caught actually doing, not 'intent' or 'tendencies' and you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to, just like the real world.
As others have pointed out and this thread itself illustrates - the problem are the people with a problem with gays, not the gays themselves.
Everyone always offers glowing stories of how homosexuals are accepted by everyone except the big mean bureaucracy and the "brass" but the truth is that the military gets its recruits largely from young men who want to prove something about their manhood and masculinity.
Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military would be a fiasco. It will remove a lot of the draw to the military that the bulk of recruits join for.
As my poor friend Jon (he graduated HS with me, went to West Point, SF, Staff College in KS, did a number of things he couldn't tell me about, just died last year) would have told me to say: I outrank you, I am a civilian.
In '89 when I graduated I was slim and had my hair, but was still insanely nearsighted. Military service did not therefore seem an option (I was only interested in a combat MOS and particularly wanted to fly). I did call him up in late '90 to ask if I should drop out of college and enlist for Desert Storm, but he told me I would never see combat - the war would be fought with existing resources, no callups needed - s I didn't see the point in joining up.
After 9/11, I tried, but was not wanted. Fat bald old etc. If you can speak a word to a recruiter and get me waivered in, please email me.
Meanwhile, allow me to remind you that if I weighed opinions based upon rank, I would have to consider Benedict Arnold's opinions well before yours, as he was a general.
Yeah the only time I saw something like that was when there was actual violence involved in the infraction. There was this guy beating up on one of the medics - you can't imagine how someone could land on their face so many times tripping down the stairs... (NEVER mess with the medics... people who depend on them take that kind of personal...)
in the cops we just assign them to burg/larceny detectives.
i'd rather swallow glass than work as a burg/larceny detective.
Yes and there are many such jobs in the military - how many times can your platoon leader have you spin shine a tank? Toothbrush the treads?
"Ah you're done - think you can go back to the platoon and play nice? if not we have another tank…"
"Yes sergeant!"
You do know the name of our 44th President isn't "B. Hussein," right?
If you were 18 when you graduated HS in 1989, you'd have been 30 in 2001, and the army was accepting recruits up to 34 or 35. After Iraq made recruiting difficult they increased the top age, and waivers were possible for older persons. I know a lawyer with no prior service who became an army reserve JAG officer after age 40. Don't know about the other services, or which would have rejected you. Weight may have been a barrier but I'm pretty sure "bald" was not the reason- if you have hair they like to take that away from you at the beginning anyway.
I'm not convinced you can/could ever make it into Ranger school, but the modern army has a more practical and less bureaucratic view of what qualifies and what doesn't. Homosexuality is not a hindrance to doing the job of a Ranger or pilot. It also doesn't appear to be a hindrance to one's companions doing their jobs (as Hughes and many others have shown).
Let me ask a simple question: why is it, when we have gay soldiers coming out and getting in trouble, that the trouble never seems to have come from their comrades?
For those that advocate letting homosexual servicemembers serve in close proximity to the gender that sexually attracts them, shouldn't you also be advocating letting men and women share quarters and showers? After all, you're not saying that homosexuals are better at controlling themselves than heterosexuals, are you?
(a) review the blatant idiocy in this thread; and
(b) read the article in last month's Harper's about the rise of the Bible-beaters in the military, and their agenda.
Dumping DADT is the right thing to do. But then again so is legalizing medical marijuana (or just "marijuana").
I may not get to the promised land with you.....
For the 18 millionth time, GAYNESS IS NOT DISQUALIFYING SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT "TELL" ABOUT IT.
Sure, but we'd be out $25M due to that cancer/casualty -- but I'm not getting the logic that because some injury might not be fatal we should self-inflict it?
I know scores of soldiers, female/male/straight and one queer, who have served in the Israeli military (quite probably the 2nd finest in the world) under exactly those conditions.
Of course, I would also demand that qualifying tests/trials be kept in place to an objective standard even if they have a disparate impact because, well, they're supposed to have a disparate impact.
Reality check: they already do, legally.
... and probably in ratios roughly proportional to the general population. That train has left the station.
In fact, nearsighted people can become Rangers, as can bald men(!). The Navy and Marine Corps will also give corrective surgery to aspiring aviators. And god knows how many recruits need help to meet the fitness requirements. What was your point again?
Cheers,
Once we have the psychs clear you of the antisocial disorder, sure.
Cheers,
Curiously enough, I wasn't addressing you. But stay, you may have a valid opinion. Are you a psychiatrist? A psychologist? A psychoanalyst?
Or are you more like a plain old psycho?
In any case I am guessing you are of no actual use to me. I'll take any test or battery of tests you will take, whether for social disorders or STDs. So, whatever.
In heaven's name, why?
Please take a chill pill (or some poppers: whatever floats your boat), and try again from the beginning. I am working now and will get back to you later if I see anything worth addressing.
Putting aside the dubiousness of this assertion, if true, then this is just one more reason to get rid of DADT. Why let people out of their commitments under false pretenses?
Nearsightedness (if correctable) is not disqualifying. (I believe the Air Force is still evaluating corrective surgery for aviators, but the Navy and Marines have already approved it, and MOS/ratings will allow you wear corrective lenses.) Baldness, as I'm sure you're aware, is not and never was disqualifying. Neither is being out of shape if you're capable of and willing to get in shape. Not knowing the rest of your medical history, I can't evaluate your chances of being offered an enlistment, and of course I'm not in a position to "get you in," but the military isn't nearly as strict in its standards as you seem to imagine. It can't afford to be.
We don't have enough highly qualified candidates to turn people away without good reason. We shouldn't be keeping anyone out for being gay if it doesn't interfere with doing their jobs -- and all the good evidence I've seen suggests that it doesn't.
He has a new notion of perjury that includes not volunteering information that the recruiter is forbidden to ask in the first place.
These are your exact words:
Do you stand by that statement?
Completely untrue. In modern times, you are not asked this question when enlisting - it is prohibited. Thats the entire idea of DADT. And these guys want to continue serving. Your rhetoric seems more passionate than logical. Spock would not approve.
If you think I will do better with some other recruiter and won't just be wasting my time and his, do let me know. You can either believe or disbelieve my statements as I have made them. I am happy to clarify.
I had baldness confused with gray hair, which I recall to have read about in some Tom Clancy or other as being 'disqualifying for flight status unless you can cite adverse genes'. Apologies made to whoever pleases - though OMG will some people harp on a nothing!
BTW, how about if I memorize the eye chart and fake 20/20? Maybe that would be a better analogy.
And openly in Israel and all our NATO allies excepting Turkey.
2000
"Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue."
I'm pretty sure my leading petty officer in the Navy was gay. An incredible leader in an very tough job doing things beyond the abilities of the vast majority of the population. No one cared, and this was back in the early 90s. People care a lot less now. I'm not even sure we'd have an Air Force if all the gay airmen went away (yes, thats a joke)
The other big problem with DADT is that straight people use it to punch out of obligated service. I witnessed this myself and it was a complete travesty. Luckily, our CO didn't buy it and that he wanted to see GRAPHIC proof to process the discharge.
I'm not sure why you feel your opinion on military matter should be taken seriously if you actually thing this is true.
Any particular reason you have some a problem with gays?
I'm perfectly willing to believe that you tried to enlist and were not accepted. But if you think that a recruiter today (officer or enlisted) would turn someone away for having flat feet, then you don't know much about the modern military.
Even if you think being gay is a negative quality in service members, do you really think it's worse than the rapists and felons who have been admitted in recent years to make up for recruiting shortages?
imo, that's the kind of creative self-motivation i like to see in future warriors.
i recall some famous military person who supposedly had his flight helmet ground to match his glasses prescription.
not sure if that's anecdotal or not.
fwiw, many police agencies used to require 20/20 or at least 20/40 UNCORRECTED vision, even after the ADA was passed (blatantly unconstitutional). i know a few cops who wore contacts in for the vision test, but claimed they weren't wearing them (they don't check).
Maybe it doesn't impress you, but it impressed him. He had me take off my shoes, stand up, stand on the edges of my feet, then told me that I could 'get by' - obviously (or so it seemed to me) concealing my ailment, whatever it means to have flat feet.
So no, it didn't seem like a laughing matter.
Of course, 9/11 changed everything. But I was noplace with the recruiter in 2006, he didn't even want to ASVAB me. I guess the recruiters are fat dumb and happy on Long Island. Or else the Army has enough felons, gays, whoever, to serve all their IT needs or whatever else I could have done for them.
So - what did your CO tell them to do? I remember a joke along these lines, which perhaps I cannot tell here.
Is it really that simple, if I want out, I just offer to blow the sarge or my CO, and I'm out on a general discharge? Or do I actually have to violate one of those above quoted sections, and be caught doing so? How does it work exactly?
Not by concealing it at all. You'd have had a rather thorough intake physical. If your feet were too flat, presumably you would not "get by" and have been told "thank you very much."
My flat feet never kept me out of the Infantry, nor did they interfere with my ability to hump an overweight ruck for insane distances.
There are some things, like being gay, that you can hide. There are others, like having only one leg, that you can't.
He can't repeal the statute by executive order, but he can exercise his stop-loss authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12305 to "suspend any provision of law relating to . . . separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States" to suspend enforcement of DADT.
Meanwhile, through I am sure no intended conspiracy, we are off the subject here. Obama is selling gays down the river and I have nothing to do with that - except laugh, and laugh!
thanks
Cheers,
We're supposed to wait until the uncultured Slob Nekulturny returns from Uranus with new bon mots, but I have the feeling we'll be disappointed.
And with that I'm done trashing our uncultured Slob. It's not longer sporting.
Cheers,
I want to see the results for a skin conductivity test in relation to homosexual imagery and then compare them with the general population of servicemen. Five bucks says your anxiety levels are way, way higher than theirs are. Increased anxiety in the amygdala can selectively impair certain cognitions and judgments in the prefrontal cortex. I wonder if a cuff test would be even more interesting?
You know, I'm not gay, but I'll meet you halfway: You can blow me.
@LarryA: (golf clap) Well-played, sir.
How 'bout that Obama betraying all your asses?!?