12.04.07
Action Alert!
This is an action alert from Military.com. It would seem that congress is once again pondering repealing the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy that governs conduct in our armed forces. While I am all for gay rights, I am also a veteran who has seen first hand what the military environment is like, and I can say with a high degree of certainty that the damage that would be caused by repealing the policy would far outweigh any potential benefit.
What it comes down to is congress trying to pander to a minority special interest group without considering the ramifications of their actions.
Follow the link below to go to the Military.com legislative action center and fill out their form letter and automatically send it to your representatives in congress. I would urge you to tell your congresspeople that repealing the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is not in the best interest of our military.
Grizzly Groundswell » Action Alert said,
December 4, 2007 at 6:29 pm
[...] Cross posted from Pro Patria [?] Share This Sphere: Related Content [...]
BuckShot said,
December 4, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Is it really “trying to pander to a minority interest group” when ALL polls consistently show that the majority of the American public want DADT repealed AND a majority of service members either want it repealed or don’t care if it is repealed (Zogby, 2006)? Maybe you should spend less time on military.com and a little more time on dictionary.com to figure out the meaning of pandering. It’s not pandering if the majority of America wants a change… we call that democracy! Don’t ya think that former JCS Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili knows a little more than you when he says it’s ok to repeal DADT now without affecting the military?
ProReality said,
December 5, 2007 at 4:31 am
It seems you’re living up to your blog’s subline, guy, as your claims are indeed illogical. How would repeal be detrimental to the military? Would a soldier really start disobeying orders just because an openly gay individual was serving next to them? And if that soldier did start disobeying orders, is this the type of individual you really want serving in our military?
Outside the wealth of government sponosred reports supporting my position and the dearth supporting yours, I can tell you from firsthand experience that an openly gay soldier would not be detrimental to the United States military, and in fact increases unit cohesion, etc, because of the improved environment created by the decreased necessity of dishonesty. Kids enlisting today for the most part do not care about the sexuality of their peers, and those that do tend not to act in the extremes that you insultingly believe they would.
We know that repealing the ban would be vastly beneficial, we know that keeping the ban is damaging the military. It is misinformation spread by individuals like yourself that is detrimental to the military.
viciemonkey said,
December 5, 2007 at 5:39 am
Why is being gay so important? Who cares? Don’t Ask Don’t Tell says that in BIG BOLD WORDS. Your being gay doesn’t matter and is nothing that should ever enter into any conversation at work. That you choose to live your lives honestly and have finally had the courage to “come out” does not mean that I give a rip or that anyone else should. Puh-leeze.
arclightzero said,
December 5, 2007 at 7:11 am
First off, I will say that anybody who has not served in the Military should have absolutely no say in the matter - and that goes for congress. It would be like somebody trying to coach football who has never even seen a game played.
You can pull poll data all you want, but in the end poll data is bullshit. It always is. Statistics and poll data mean exactly squat.
The reality of the situation is that many people in the military would not be OK with it. You can’t forget that a vast majority of the military is hard-core religious (fighting for God and country) and many of those people are absolutely morally opposed to homosexuality. Do you think that somebody who is morally opposed to another person is going to put their life on the line for that person? Do you think that you will have good unit cohesion and brotherhood when you have strong moral differences like that?
You people can have your warm and rosy feelings all you want. You can assume things based on polls (and who gives a shit what the American public wants anyway) but the military is not gay-friendly nor will it be anytime soon. As long as the vast majority of soldiers and sailors are Southern Christian rednecks, you are going to have problems.
Having lived on a ship, I can tell you that we live in very close quarters, and I can assure you that people who are openly gay would cause some big, big problems… And they are problems that won’t be resolved by forcing tolerance on people. The fact of the matter is that the US Military is an all volunteer force, and you can’t force tolerance on volunteers. They will simply stop volunteering. And I can assure you that the gay population is not going to make up for the numbers lost.
And if you don’t think this is pandering, you need to think again. A special interest group wants something, but why? Just to say that they have it? How many people who are demanding the repeal of DADT would actually turn around and enlist? Very, very few. This is all about appeasement and has very little to do with what is actually in the best interest of the military.
ProReality said,
December 5, 2007 at 9:27 am
I served very recently, with open gays, and I can tell you, again, it was not a problem. At all. And you still fail to address the problem of reconciling reality with the hypothetical. That is, if someone had a problem with gays, how would they REALLY react? This type of hypothetical situation would only occur amongst a group of piss-poor servicemembers or under failed leadership (before you spin this to imply that I declare anyone homophobic as piss-poor, I’m refering to actions rather than personal belief). This is not representative of the vast majority of the military, and I have to ask how recently you served on a ship.
This spread of misinformation is a waste of everybody’s time, and our national security can only suffer because of it.
I’ll also have to add that a good many pushing for repeal have served and are willing to go back, considering over at least 36,000 opted not to reenlist because of the law. Over a million veterans are gay and lesbian, and don’t forget the 65,000 serving already who by law don’t have a voice in this debate.
BuckShot said,
December 5, 2007 at 11:27 am
Viciemonkey… I think your point is a very valid and important one, and shows some insight that others don’t show. You’re right, one’s private life should NOT enter into conversations at work. But DADT is just a sound byte, remember! It sounds very sipmle and easy, but federal laws are never that simple. The PROBLEM with DADT is that you can be serving in silence, not telling a soul, never speaking a word, and someone can happen to out you and you’re discharged. Someone can see you coming out of a gay bar in freakin’ Timbuktu and can turn you in and get you kicked out.
DADT is just the simplistic sound byte. Don’t assume that the law is that simple. Gay people don’t want to be out in the military, they don’t want to make any statement or flaunt anything at all. They just want to get rid of that cloud of fear hanging over their heads that they can be fired at anytime if someone happens to find out.
BuckShot said,
December 5, 2007 at 11:38 am
Arclightzero… I have to laugh when I hear people say stuff like that. Not sure what the Navy is like, but I can tell you that in the Army, where I served, talk about God and Jesus is the absolute last thing that a bunch of young soldiers want to hear anyone talking about. I’m from the supposed hard core religious Southeast and people entering the military may be from religious backgrounds, but the overwhelming majority of them are not Bible thumpers by far!
They want to talk about going out and drinking and screwing girls, and they want to curse, then they want to go out and actually drink and screw girls. The much bigger threat to the cohesion of a bunch of soldiers is someone coming up in that mix talking about some church stuff.
“ProReality” has hit the nail on the head in saying that if you really do think people’s order and discipline will break down if DADT were lifed, you’re saying they would commit something tantamount to treason! They’re seriously going to stop disobeing orders b/c someone working beside them is gay or lesbian??? Come on! Who is that insane? And if they would become insubordinate, they shouldn’t be in the military to begin with.
John said,
December 5, 2007 at 1:41 pm
First off, I will say that anybody who has not served in the Military should have absolutely no say in the matter - and that goes for congress.
Only if they want to make a mockery of their enlistment oaths. This isn’t a Banana Republic, but the volunteer military takes orders from the President and obeys the laws passed by Congress. If anyone has a problem with that arrangement, they shouldn’t enlist. You are, of course, free to persuade Congress as you see fit just like the rest of us are.
and who gives a shit what the American public wants anyway
Now this is revealing. If that’s truly your attitude than turn in your uniform or don’t put it on in the first place.
The fact of the matter is that the US Military is an all volunteer force, and you can’t force tolerance on volunteers. They will simply stop volunteering.
I doubt such persons are of the caliber the military requires. Tolerance is indeed demanded for military service, approval isn’t. This “Southern Christian redneck” is free to believe that gays will burn in hell, their relations are disgusting, etc. just as they do about non-Christians and for a few, non-whites. What they are not free to do is impose their religious beliefs on others, particularly through force of law.
How many people who are demanding the repeal of DADT would actually turn around and enlist? Very, very few.
Then what are you complaining about? If there will be “very, very few” gays serving your “Southern Christian rednecks” can rest easy.
micky2 said,
December 5, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I’ve met some pretty tough gays. I would trust them in battle as little or as much as anyone else, so why bother bringing it up ? Its negligible.
If hes gonna cram it down my throat so he gets some kinda preferential treatment. He’ll get preferential treatment, trust me. As much attention as anyone who made their race an issue.
John said,
December 6, 2007 at 6:50 am
Such a person also will not last long in a military environment, which is as it should be. Military service isn’t for everyone, there are not only physical requirements the general public does not consider but mental discipline. Those folks who lack self-control and wish to be a ‘rebel’ (or the “look at me! look at me!” crowd) are weeded out through proper application of the UCMJ, regulations of the various branches, peer pressure or just a tough NCO who stays on them until either they “get with the program” or get out. I would expect that gays will be treated the same as straights, just as the military does regardless of race. Those gays and straights who cannot hack military life I frankly don’t want wearing the uniform.
ProReality said,
December 6, 2007 at 7:27 am
Micky2:
I don’t see how not being forced to live under a cloud of fear that any day could be the day the wrong person finds out about your sexuality - either indirectly or directly - can be considered ‘preferential treatement.’ And I believe Buckshot already addressed your issue with sexuality being ‘crammed down your throat’ in an earlier post. Regardless of the inappropriate response you imply in your threat of your own kind of ‘preferential treatement’ - which doesn’t even make sense considering, again, no preferential treatment is given - I would have to say your post seems a bit petulant and irrelevent.
arclightzero said,
December 6, 2007 at 9:58 am
Perhaps I was a bit harsh in my wording, so let me explain things a bit…
First off, I have no problem with gays in the military; so long as they do their job and don’t cause problems. What do I mean by that? Well, as expected, we all take away different experiences from the military (and I just recently got out). My experience was that there were some big problems with the “protected classes” in the Navy. Maybe on the battlefield things are different, but on board ships we had big problems with women and minorities. My fear is that by allowing openly gay people to serve, it will create another “protected class” of people that will make life difficult for everybody else. As always, this is not a problem with everybody, but there are those who ruin it for everybody, and those are the experiences that I took away from my time in the service.
I formly believe that everybody in the service should be treated as equal. There should be no protected groups. There should be no groups who get offended at certain language or actions. There should be no groups that get special or preferential treatment. Yet, not only did I see it regularly, I had to deal with it as an NCO with people under me. Again, maybe this isn’t a problem in the Army or other branches of service, but in the Navy there were some real issues - and in response I think that many of the “rednecks” reverted to stereotypical behavior and we had lots of racial and sexist issues to deal with. Would dealing with openly gay people add to this? Maybe, maybe not. But we had enough problems to deal with that I don’t know if I would be willing to experiment.
As for some of my other comments, John, let me explain:
Perhaps a bad choice of words. What I meant by this is that the military serves the American public. As such, the overall public has no idea how the military is run or why. It pisses me off to no end when civilians who have never worn a uniform try to butt in and tell the military how things should be based on the biased media reports that they see on TV. The American public should be happy that our all-volunteer military force is out there, serving them and should leave well enough alone. When I was active duty, nothing pissed me off more than dealing with people who didn’t understand what I was doing trying to tell me why I should be doing it differently.
I agree. They are not free to impose their moral or religious beliefs on anybody. But they also do not have to be tolerant, and there should be no law that forces them to be tolerant - only civil. All I am saying is that if people begin to get disgruntled with military policy, there is nothing that keeps them from getting out. There was a lot of talk while I was in from people who considered reenlisting but were rethinking that because the “kinder gentler” military that the Navy was becoming was a bunch of bullshit. Many times it felt like we were being told that being “professional” and “politically correct” took precedence over our actual job - and when the job (role) of the military gets muddled, that’s never a good thing.
Again, is this military-wide? I don’t know. I can only base my opinions on my own experiences.
Like Micky says, there are plenty of gays who would make fine soldiers and sailors. I worked with a few, and I knew it, but i never asked, they didn’t tell. It was just something we knew… But I can tell you when we started talking trash (like all good sailors did) and somebody called another guy a “fag,” the gays I worked with didn’t pipe up and complain about being offended… And often joined right in. But that would change if they were brought in as a “protected group…”
John said,
December 6, 2007 at 7:44 pm
If by this you mean given preferential treatment in differing standards, quotas, etc. than I myself would be opposed to that. Yet this is not what gays are asking for. Most would prefer just to have NCIS off their backs and being able to serve without some prejudiced dillhole turning them in and wrecking their career.
Believe me when I say that understand the senitment, I share it at times. Yet it still boils down to the fact that military service is voluntary and policies governing such are subject to the will of the People.
Eh, depends upon the person. I wouldn’t have a problem with it among friends and served long enough to be able to give it right back. You’re always going to run into the hypersensitive and a-holes, you learn to adapt. Besides, it’s not like there aren’t a gazillion other things to poke fun at.
arclightzero said,
December 8, 2007 at 11:40 am
I know that this isn’t what gays are asking for. It is for this reason that I am not against gays at all. But more often than not, it’s not the groups that demand preferential treatment, it’s the militant outside supporters and the crazy politically correct crowd that impose these things on people. It’s the people (mostly democrats) who go out and tell people that they are different and need to be treated differently than so-called “normals.”
That is true. There will always be the hypersensitive people who ruin it for everybody else. It’s not the gays that can serve alongside everybody else and act like anybody else you might run into. It’s the minority population who refuse to do this and make it their life’s purpose to be oversensitive pains in the ass. This applies to any other group out there as well, and sadly the policymakers cater to them over the vast majority who just want to do their job and fit in. It happened with women in the military. It happens with minorities in the military. And I fear that it will happen with gays as well.
I have no doubt that the average gay can serve openly alongside others, although I still have doubts as to how the bigoted crowd will handle it… But that is neither here nor there. My primary concern is the inadvertent creation of yet anther oversensitive protected class that will add to the eggshells that people already have to walk on to avoid being slapped with absurd racism or sexism allegations.
arclightzero said,
December 8, 2007 at 11:45 am
one last thought:
Interestingly, I served with 3 gays that I knew of while I was in the Navy, and they all served with or under me. I knew, they knew I knew, and they also knew I could be trusted. We “casually” talked on occasion and I never once heard talk of fear of being outed by NCIS or having their careers ruined. They knew that it would probably be a bad idea to have “the boys” over to the barracks for some fun or to videotape their activities…
Rather their fear was in being outed to the bigoted, uber christian crowd and being beat in a dark corner of the ship. It wasn’t the UCMJ that they feared; it was the no-neck redneck jock who calls everybody a “fag” because he thinks it’s the ultimate insult to a “real man” and feels that he is morally right because the bible told him so.