I'm somewhat conflicted about the decision to scrap the US military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy concerning homosexual servicemembers.
I'm basically in favor of the decision, because I can see no reason why, in today's world, there should be any discrimination against anyone on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Many armies in Europe have long since discarded their earlier discriminatory policies, without any apparent ill effects on morale or fighting ability. I see no reason why the same shouldn't apply to the US military as well.
As for the fighting ability of homosexual persons, I think any question in that regard was settled conclusively more than two millennia ago by the Sacred Band of Thebes. Even Philip II of Macedon and his more famous son, Alexander the Great [who was himself openly bisexual], held them in such high regard as to amount to veneration. After their deaths at the hands of Philip II's army in the Battle of Chaeronea., he exclaimed, "Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly!" He is believed to have arranged for their ceremonial burial after the battle - confirmed through 19th-century archaeological excavations - and Thebes subsequently erected the Lion Monument over their grave. It's shown below, and still stands.
On the other hand, I'm forced to acknowledge that there probably will be an effect on US military effectiveness, at least in the short term. I believe that many of the more 'macho' members of the military will not want to serve in any armed force that offends their sensibilities in this way, and will therefore not re-enlist (or may not enlist at all). This may lead to a loss of between 10% and 20% of the current, combat-experienced personnel in the US Army and Marines, who are most likely to face this loss. I don't know how that can be offset. Furthermore, there will have to be new policies developed concerning acceptable conduct between service personnel, base housing allocation, etc. It's going to be an administrative minefield for a while, and it'll be made worse by senior NCO's and officers who don't want to change their way of thinking and/or operating to accommodate the new policy.
Perhaps Jim Treacher has the best (and funniest) take on it:
The Gitmo detainees already go out of their minds when addressed directly by a female with her whole face showing. Just think how these 12th-Century dip$#!+s will react when they get their butts kicked by some gay dudes. It’ll just add to the humiliation.
Peter
We made a mistake when we integrated females into most units several years ago. The purpose of the military is to serve as the big stick if being nice doesn't work. Having been in both strictly male units (Field Artillery) and a mixed units with male and female soldiers (MPs and brigade HQs) I saw problems which had an adverse effect on unit cohesion and moral(love triangles with armed soldiers anyone?). I have come to the conclusion that any advantages are out weighed by the disadvantages and mixed units should be strictly limited. If anyone says there is no problems they are either clueless or a f***ing liar. I will be surprised if we don't have many of the same problems with openly gay soldiers.
ReplyDelete"Administrative nightmare" pretty much sums up the next couple of years. There WILL be incidents such as "blanket parties" and the like, but I believe they'll be few. records WILL be kept so the bureaucrats can report to various civilian leaders that progress is being made. The problems with logistics (housing and facilities) and legalities (benefits for gay partners) will cause turmoil for some time.
ReplyDeleteI thought DADT struck the best balance.
Leatherneck
I wonder how many of the legislators, administrative officials and "senior military personnel" who ran this through have ever served in a submarine?
ReplyDeleteMichigammeDave
CPO(SS), USN, Ret.
I am going to respectfully disagree here.
ReplyDeleteHaving served in a combat arms unit with homosexual soldiers (even with DADT, we knew), in an Intel unit with females and homosexuals (of both persuasions), and in an HQ unit that also had females and homosexuals, I can say that in no way was our unit cohesion or morale affected.
In fact, I can only think of one incident where soldiers let their personal lives overflow into their professional, and that was a case of a senior NCO's wife that was going to bars and picking up younger men, and just happened to get one of the young PFC's from her husband's platoon.
The worst part about this for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines is going to be the forced "sensitivity" training they will have to endure.
Know that if you served, no matter which branch, no matter which MOS or specialty, no matter conventional or SpecOps, no matter surface or submarine fleet, you served next to and with a homosexual at some point. All this legislation has done has made it so sexual preference can no longer be used as a weapon against people that are serving their country.
I'm afraid I must take issue with Bill N's assessment. The issues he describes are real but they are not gender issues and they are not sexual issues, just like 60 years ago when they were not racial issues. They are behavior issues. There are rules regarding "fraternizing," and if the rules were obeyed, these problems would all but disappear. The real problem is that sadly there are some people in our military whose "honor" is conditional. They will not honor a code with which they personally disagree, and they must be sheltered from temptation and coddled into behaving honorably.
ReplyDeleteThe military recognizes rank as the ONLY inequality among its warriors. Anyone who cannot commit to that mindset for a few years, should not enlist. The military does not conform to the individual, the individual conforms to the military.
If a soldier can't get over his personal prejudices long enough to serve his country, then by all means, let him get the hell out! This is not a man I want watching my son's back. Honor is honor. Anyone who tries to fake it is useless when lives are at stake.
The Thebes unit was strictly gay not intermixed. That is the main difference.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't a European army that could successfully invade Rhode Island so that doesn't really count either count.
Funny, I don't think it really matters.
RBM
I think some of the "macho" soldiers will be very surprised which of their number admit to being gay. Some of the most macho men I've ever met are gay--in fact, they're supermales. Maybe it's to prove something to themselves, or to others, but I bet you'll see a fair number of Special Forces types come out.
ReplyDeleteAntibubba
As a "medically retired pastor," your Biblical studies must have overlooked several unequivocal scriptures, such as 1 Corinthians 6:v 9&10, regarding the consequences of homosexual behavior. Of course, the consequences of homosexual sin are no different from the consequences of heterosexual sin, or any other sin, which basically means eternal separation from God, unless the sinner through faith and obediance, accepts the grace and forgivness of the Savior, Jesus Christ. Now, I know this discussion was not about "religion," however it is pertinent as much of modern law is based on Judeo-Christian standards. An interesting quote I recently read: "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." - Frederic Bastiat. For people who do have a "moral sense" which they will not compromise, how are they to deal with such a policy that obviously contradicts morality? I already anticipate some of the names I will be called by some of the other commenters, and I will state up front I am "politically incorrect" and extremely proud to be so. Sticks and stones, etc. As another Bible quote says, "THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE." I am grateful that I am the judge of no man, but I do know what scripture tells me the ultimate Judge has said. Kentucky Jones
ReplyDeleteKentucky Jones, the policy does not contradict morality, even yours. It does not promote or permit ANY immoral behavior. It simply makes sexual PREFERENCE irrelevant to military service. As it should be; it does not impede anybody's ability to serve.
ReplyDeletesuz, This is one of my favorite blogs, so I really mean no disrespect to the author or anyone else. I knew I would be quickly attacked by other commenters for a perceived desire to impose my moral beliefs upon everyone else. Ultimate truth exists, no matter how much either of us might want to deny it. I have NO fear that the recent decision to rescind DADT would in any way affect MY morality. I am 61 years old and have not always believed as I do now, not even close at times, but my beliefs are unshakable. History tells me that moral decline has preceeded and lead to the eventual collapse of every great nation/society to date. I have three grown children and four grandchildren. It is THEIR world that I am very concerned about. When our government has "endorsed" homosexuality, either directly or indirectly, it WILL have an effect upon society at large. Just look at the perverted curricula that is taught in some grade school classes currently. I can't understand how an argument can be made that government promotion of the idea that homosexuality is as legitimate and normal as heterosexuality, does not affect morality?
ReplyDeleteP.S. To MichigammeDave, I am a "plank-owner" of the USS Bluefish, SSN-675, and later a crew member of the Finback SSN-670, as a TM2, SS. One of my most cherished accomplishments was whan I became "qualified" in 637 class submarines. Most readers will not readily understand your objection to changing this policy with regard to submarine crews. A 4 month long submerged "patrol" makes crew compatability a "must have." Merry Christmas to all, Kentucky Jones
I knew I would be quickly attacked by other commenters for a perceived desire to impose my moral beliefs upon everyone else.
ReplyDelete...It's not a "perceived" desire when you go on to assert that you are absolutely right because the universe as a whole makes you so and therefore the United States government should make policy according to Biblical proscription. It's an actual desire that you justify by reasserting your divine authority. Calling you out on this is not exactly unfair persecution, it's a statement of observable fact.
Of course, the consequences of homosexual sin are no different from the consequences of heterosexual sin, or any other sin
And if you actually believed this you wouldn't be here pre-announcing your martyrdom. If the government prohibited all sinners from serving we would very rapidly be left with no military whatsoever.
This is entirely about "we're not disapproving of gay people hard enough and some people have the gall to say this is unfair". Don't pretend otherwise.
Kentucky Jones, it seems your morality is different from mine, as is your understanding of ultimate truth. Fortunately, the Constitution allows us to disagree, and prohibits either of us from imposing the will of our beliefs on anyone. I thank God that I was born in this country.
ReplyDelete