Fascinating report in today’s Globe:
An article in the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal calls in unambiguous terms for lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, arguing that the military is essentially forcing thousands of gay men and women to lead dishonest lives in an organization that emphasizes integrity as a fundamental tenet. The article in the upcoming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, which is published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was written by an Air Force colonel who studied the issue for months while a student at the National Defense University in Washington and who concludes that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness….
“After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,” writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.”
Wow, strong words — and this is coming from inside the military! Read the whole thing. It’s hard to see how anyone can make any sort of credible case for maintaining the status quo after “Joint Force Quarterly” publishes a report like this.
And then read this part (emphasis mine):
Representative Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat and Iraq war veteran, is lobbying for a hearing – possibly later this year or early next year – on legislation that he has proposed that would repeal the ban. The bill has 176 cosponsors; there is no similar legislation pending in the Senate.
And coincidentally, also today, we learn this about the Senate’s newest member:
[T]op Senate Democrats placed Kirk on two committees with jurisdiction over issues crucial to the Bay State: the Armed Services Committee, which supervises the military and plays a role in defense spending, and the Homeland Security Committee, responsible for supervising the nation’s defenses against terrorism.
Now I’m no expert on Senate procedures, but it sure seems to me that the Armed Services Committee would be the place from which to launch a bill putting an end to the miserable existence of “don’t ask don’t tell.”
Senator Kennedy was one of the country’s leading advocates for gay rights — he was one of what, two (anyone else but Russ Feingold?) Senators who supported gay marriage, for instance. Seems to me that, if Senator Kirk wants to carry on Kennedy’s legacy, he could do a lot worse than start the DADT wrecking ball rolling in the Senate.
This nitwit is in the the US Air Force. For those of you
who have never served in the military–the US Air Force is now kinda/sorta of the military. At one point in time they didn’t even have weapons training and that may or not be the case at present. They have the least intensive and the least demanding “recruit training.” Aggression is not
emphasized as a positive attribute. “Unit cohesion” is not esential to the air force mission because the air force is a collective of individuals attempting to perform a simple task that another sister service could perform with half the amount of warm bodies at half the expense. The USAF requires air conditioning in any enviroment over 78F, otherwise it is unable to function, and an air force member must have a single or double room and three squares and a rack with clean linens, a BX and a geedunk within walking distance (less than 50 yds). The USAF does not function at expeditionary airfields. Any service that can fly an aircraft from N Dakota to Louisiana full of atomic bombs (and be ignorant of that fact) has bigger problems than “unit cohesion”.
<
p>Nothing a USAF officer or sand crab writes related to suvival, combat tactics or unit cohesion is to be taken seriously.
<
p>Incidentally, here is something of interest taken from the Small Wars Manual circa 1935 — ” try to be nice, but if they don’t go along with the program, manipulate them. If that doesn’t work, kill them, every one of them.”
Most folks that have served in the military—did their four years and got out. They have no idea what went on in the different outfits within their own branch of service let alone in the sister services—–and then there is the US Air Force.
<
p>And you do? Forgive me if I don’t take your word as gospel on this matter, given your many distortions elsewhere on BMG. Perhaps if you actually did know much about this nation’s military, instead of trashing an entire branch of the services, you’d realize that the Air Force and its members have been and are a crucial component of America’s national defense.
<
p>Anyway, let me take your original question and ask it of you:
<
p>
They go home at night! The US Army and The United States Marine Corps and to lesser degrees the US navy face cohesion issues because small and large groups of people are affected by life and death issues. The USAF does not and cannot place their troops and aircraft in high risk areas because the aircraft and their masinmtenance facililities cannot be placed in jeopardy. If the USAF lands an aircraft–they have a ground loiter time—once that time expires–they are outa there—ergo—by and large—USAF folks face minor danger to life and limb—do a little research on Medal of Honor, Distinguisged Service Cross, Navy Cross, Silver Star awardees post WWII and ascertain which service has the most recipients and which the least. The folks who are in harms way with rounds snapping by their heads have “unit cohesion” concerns.
<
p>And yes–I retired in 1994 after 28 years of service. It’s been a while. The more things change—the more they stay the same. And no—as I have stated on numerous past occasions—-having openly serving gays is not necessarily impossible–but as soon as someone touches someone—no matter how innocuous—there will be fratricide. And for someone like me who had hundreds of troops to worry about–
having scores or hundreds of young men to worry about minimizes problems. Throwing women into the mix–ratchets up problems exponentially. Throwing gays into the mix is just an issue that I would refuse to deal with because like dealing with women—it was a no win situation. The fact that the Chinese have 3 million folks under arms is beginning to make much of this a moot point.
<
p>And lastly—since few of you folks have any idea what I am talking about—this is an exercise in futility.
<
p>Just as Barack Obama has no idea how to deal with the military and that is about to blow up in his face. FORTY THREE young Americans have died in Afghanistan since Gen McChrystal has asked for reinforcements. WHERE IS THE CAVALRY? WHERE? What is Obama doing—Oh ya—he is in Copenhagen shilling for the Chicagao Crime Family. While Americans die in Afghanistan—–our Commander in Chief is attempting to make more money for criminals.
<
p> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54807
<
p>You have the temerity to make snide remarks about George Bush—when this incompetent and impotent fool is allowing our troops to be slaughtered as the consequence of his new Rules of Engagement? Spapre me your outrage. Where are the liberal and Progressive MSM when the bodies and pices are flown into Dover. Oh yes—since it is now their hero—the “Beloved Leader” who is responsible for the nonfeasance and malfeasance that results in unwarranted death and dismemberment of our young heroes (yes–real ones)—NOW it is not an issue—just the happenstance of war.
<
p>I’ve had a large bone stuck in my craw since 1968. I remember as if yesterday what the “LIBERALS”, the Hollywood and Intellectual Elites were responsible for when my friends were murdered in Vietnam. Je Me Souviens!
MCRD, I want to thank you for your service to our country.
<
p>But I want to point out to you that Dr. Strangelove was a parody, not an instruction manual.
you (assumingly) served years and years ago. After all, you seem desperately interesting in taking out the knees of this air force scholar. If that member of the air force can’t understand today’s “unit cohesion,” how can you?
If he had a round pass by his head he would likely shit himself. Armchair generals writing drivel about what they know not. Common—-very common.
<
p>I may add that there is a USMC general that is catching a lot of heat from retirees because he is /was making decisions in theatre and he never served as a platoon, company commander in battle. That is a BIG deal. He had never been in imminent danger of meeting his maker in his entire career. So don’t sit there and think that anyone is being picked on. Unless you served in actual combat with folks bleeding and dying around you—-you had better give serious thought prior to giving orders that will have the potential of endangering lives. And if and when you do issue those orders—you had better be responsible and accountable for those orders—which in this instant case—this general was not.
I have friends at both the USAF academy and at their ROTC and this line of argument is complete bunk. They have uniforms, they have assigned units, their units train as a team, I see no way at all that the USAF encourages anything but unit cohesion. My friend was incredibly stressed out, hazed, and basically broke down and quit because the training was so tough and he wasn’t a pansy at all. Your line about air conditioning is just factually incorrect as is the line about no air bases serving in forward area expeditionary zones.
<
p>
<
p>Its spelled survival shithead-also my godmother’s first husband who was shot, captured, and killed in Vietnam while serving in the USAF and the many other Airmen who have fought valiantly for their country never made it home.
<
p>I am sure it’s easy to be a desktop general when you are sitting at home in your momma’s basement spouting homophobic slurs and attacking our troops (wasn’t that something good Republicans never do?). I am sure the closest you got to military training was your keyboard-I also suspect that’s the closest you’ve ever been to a woman as well.
And just a bit of info–in 1969 when I was at Quang Tri combat base—we had a USAF Jolly Gren Giant that sat across from us to fly up north in the event an aviator was shot down. The crews whined and pissed and moaned because the heat was too much—so the USAF had geberators flown up and they installed A/C for the “whiners”. One night we got hit and the incoming sirens went off. Everyone heard the incoming except the USAF—unfortunately they took a direct hit from a NVA 122 MM rocket and died where they slept—in the wonderful and refeshing air conditioning. Big investigation afterward. Solution: pull the USAF out because it was unsafe. They flew up everyday from Danang after that. My cousin who was a Sandy pilot ( USAF) in Pleiku wrote me letters that he was enjoying the officers pool between flights. If you knew anything about logistics —you’d know that one of the largest problems our military now faces is transporting creature comfort crap when a tent and C rats/MRE’s will do just fine. Let me tell you something son—you telling me about the military is like me telling my wife about labor pains and menopause.
<
p>I have some great pics of me at the battle of Hue City—wanna see em?
You ignore the entire discussion, but instead try to promote FUD by denigrating an entire branch of the military?
<
p>Not well played, sir. Not well played.
<
p>P.S. Both my father and my father-in-law — disabled Air Force Vietnam Vets — could beat the snot out of you, and they’ve each passed 60 years of age. My brother-in-law, an Air Force Desert Storm vet? Yeah, he could do some MCRD rearranging too. None would though. They’ve got more cohesion and more class than you.
that DADT isn’t a strictly political decision. Just about everyone knows it’s stupid policy, even (probably) a lot of the bigots. Unfortunately, the bigots don’t care about good policy and politicians don’t always care about logic and facts, especially when they’re trying to woo the votes of the bigots. IF this becomes a huge issue and Democratic Senators pounce on it, then there’s a chance this could be a “fatal blow” and a “coup de grace,” but if that’s not the case, there’s almost a 100% chance that this report is buried by the media today and long forgotten a few months or a year down the line.
But they used to have cover from the Pentagon. Now they don’t. That’s why this study is important, and why it would be a good time for someone with nothing to lose — like Senator Kirk — to take a stand.
It’s important if it’s used. If it’s ignored, then it’s not important, no matter what it proves. If the politicians use this study and make a big deal out if it, it’ll get played in the media and become that much more important. But I have my doubts.
To me this report along with the litany of retired Generals, some with very conservative stripes, who have endorsed overturning DADT demonstrates that this is just sound good policy from a military readiness perspective. We have turned down almost 13,000 committed, qualified, and patriotic soldiers just because of something so insignificant as who they seek sexual relations with? This isn’t have morals on one side and advancing gay rights and gay tolerance on the other, it isn’t even a question of gay rights-it’s a question of what is best for the US military and there is no evidence that demonstrates why kicking out so many people over something that has no tangible effect on their fighting ability is a worthwhile endeavor.
<
p>In the words of Senator and conservative icon Barry Goldwater “We’ve had gays in the military since the time of Caesar-you don’t need to be straight just shoot straight”
You want to bring gays out of the closet in the military?
Not to be intemperate—but what are you going to do with males who mince, flit and prance? I’ve worked with males and females in the service who I had suspicions about. It never became an issue because #1—they minded their own business —ergo it never became an issue—and it was none of my business or anyone elses, and they conducted themselves in an appropriate military fashion–ie their primary mission was to kill the enemy.. When Pvt Jeffery “Mary” Jones gets stuck in an infantry outfit—and decides to put on his mascara and do his hair prior to lugging ammo cans—or minces about the unit area—-all I can say is that Pvt Jones is going to have a very large or a very small and abbreviated medical record. You can moan about the injustice all you want—Pvt Jones is where he shouldn’t be—no matter his intentions.
<
p>BTW—it’s not for nothing that USAF wear USPS uniforms.
<
p>The USAF pilots in RVN paid their dues. Ground crews worked hard. Not many casualties—except dropping a wrench on someones head or mixing agent orange.
that’s a pretty good argument for changing the policy.
<
p>
<
p>Exactly so. So why shouldn’t those folks be able to mention that they’re gay (say, if someone asks) without being kicked out?
<
p>Your silly “mascara” hypothetical of course has never happened, and will never happen. Your other point, though, is exactly why DADT should be repealed.
Whether or not someone attempts to show up to formation “in drag” is rather remote. The problem starts after sixteen thirty at the club when the alcohol begins to flow and Pvt Jeffrey Jones shows up arm in arm with Pvt Danny Divito. That’s when the murder and mayhem begins. You have apparently never have been in a US Navy, US Army or USMC enlisted club. I’ve seen noses and ears bitten off, heads split open, and ribs broken over disputes related to which platoon can kick the most ass.
The military brigs are full. The commanding officer get send someone to the brig as the result of NJP ( non judicial punishment) If you think that the military justice system is anything like the civilian sytem I suggest you read the Articles of War and Rocks and Shoals.
<
p>Going back to the original premise—you give people and inch–they take a mile.
<
p>Oh—Gore Vidal had interesting observations re gay males a few days ago—you apparently failed to read the article.
<
p>Let’s be clear. The inch wasn’t given. Civil rights aren’t granted by man, they are bestowed by our creator. The mile was taken away (no gays) and then some of it returned (DADT). Once DADT is removed, that mile will be returned to it’s rightful owners, American citizens over 18 years old physically and mentally capable for duty.
would be humorous if they weren’t so damaging. First off, there are rules and regulations about what soldiers can and can’t wear whilst on duty which are wholly unrelated to sexuality — I’ll assume mascara is on the list.
<
p>However, even were that not the case, pray, tell, why would anyone who “comes out” start behaving unprofessionally? Get over your stereotypes, dude. As JoeTS has pointed out here before, some of the most macho men to have ever lived (and served) in existence were gay.
Would you suggest that the mincing males in P-Town are atypical or was the circus in town the few days I was dispatched to that unfortunate locale?
on p-town in the early 90s? One of the few places in the early 90s where gay people could live openly?
<
p>It amazes me how someone with such little intellectual curiosity bothers to discuss politics at all.
You know, sometimes I forget how awful it is to deal with this nonsense from people like MCRD all the freaking time. Sometimes you shrug it off, sometimes you laugh at it, but I’m sure sometimes it wears at you.
<
p>I’m sorry, and I hope you keep fighting the good fight with care and respect, even when the other side has neither.
That country allows gays to serve AND has done a stellar job defending itself for 60 years.
http://www.breitbart.com/artic…
<
p>The Navy’s not just a job—it’s a joke! No wonder Obama
can’t make up his mind what he must do in Afghanistan.
He had an anchor clanker making the rules of engagement for the Grunts. Or–the Naval Officer finally got the message and is aware that someone is about to open the sea cocks on the Obama Administration—very shortly.
so not only is the air force, according to you, laughable, but so is the Navy?
<
p>Apparently, only people in the army have balls or something. Go away.
The same bigoted arguments were made against tearing down the walls against racism and sexism — often by the same people. The US military is far stronger today because those bigoted arguments — and the bigots who made them — were ultimately and belatedly ignored.
<
p>I will therefore resist the temptation to engage in one of those bigoted arguments upthread.