From: Roughead, Gary ADM N00, N00
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 21:49
To: Roughead, Gary ADM N00, N00
Subject: US Code Title 10 § 654: Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces
Fellow Flag Officers:
In last week's State of the Union Address, President Obama reinforced his desire for the Congress to repeal the law barring open homosexual service in the military.
This afternoon during SASC testimony, Secretary Gates and ADM Mullen articulated the way ahead on this issue, naming GEN Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe, and the Honorable Jeh Johnson, DoD General Counsel, to lead a DoD working group on the effects of changing the current law and policy.
This working group is tasked to complete its work within a year and will examine three areas. First, it will reach out to the force and their families to understand their views and attitudes about the potential impacts of repeal. Second, it will examine all of the changes to policy and regulations that may have to be made if the Congress repeals the law. Third, it will examine the potential impacts of a change in the law on military effectiveness, including how a change might affect unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and other issues critical to the performance of the force.
I will work with my fellow Service Chiefs and the Chairman to provide the President, the Secretary of Defense and Congress our best military advice. I also expect your full cooperation with the DoD-wide review as we move forward.
We who wear the uniform have an obligation to abide by the current law and any future changes to the law. As leaders, we will work in a thoughtful and deliberate manner to provide our best military advice, and we will do so in the same professional and extraordinary manner in which we do all things in our great Navy.
Warm regards,
Gary
Don't forget - if you missed the DADT episode of Midrats - you can get the archive here.
133 comments:
He sounds like a Belgian admiral. You sure he's USN?
I will abide by future laws, ONLY when they become ACTUALLY Laws...
If the CJCS and CNO have their minds made up (toeing the line with the President), it appears as if a working group is pointless and they're merely going through the motions.
It's similar to the recent University of East Anglia climate research nonsense; a scientific conclusion was formed before research was completed and the data was manipulated to support the scientists' preconceived notions.
Knee pads and swallowing. Nope, not DADT, the way to make Flag rank.
what struck me was that the study of the impact "on military effectiveness and unit cohesion" was third on the list, after checking to see how the force and their families feel about it.
We've been upholding the law under current policy. Regardless of whether we feel it's a good or bad law. We will do the same in the future.
Odds are greatly against meaningful discussion when the conclusion is foregone. The factoring in of the advocates and activists who will overrun DoD, including those who would introduce gay advocacy curriculum in DoD schools, will likely be ignored.
Back in 1995, we were more or less told that the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines were much more open minded and "ready" for the change. Told, mind you. 'Tweren't so. Unofficial estimates were that re-enlistment rates would plummet, and officer resignations would be as high as 25%.
Now, we are again told that the force is ready for this change. Ready for gays to serve openly but quietly? Perhaps. But that is not what is coming, once the "diversity bullies" latch on. It is potentially a major upheaval of military culture that has a significant religious/family values component. Though meaningful debate on those issues is more than a bit lacking.
Those whose opinions differ from the mandated outcome of the "DoD-wide review" will be ignored or reprimanded, just as in the famous 1993 "bottom-up review" of that steely-eyed warrior of a SecDef, Les Aspin.
URR, I'm very dubious about those estimates on resignations. First, polls both in and out of the military show dramatic change in opinions on gay service since 1995 (i.e., today, even self-identified 'strong conservatives' are 50/50 on the question, even the population over 65 is now 50/50 on the question, and those are the least supportive groups). Second, it's always easy to answer a survey indicating that you would take a drastic action in response to something you dislike, but to not follow through (e.g., the % of Democrats who said they'd move to Canada if Bush were re-elected in 2004). In terms of the recruiting pool, attitudes have changed dramatically: among 18-29 year olds even a majority of conservatives/Republicans support gay marriage and support for open gay service is extremely high. Youth today have very, very different attitudes towards homosexuality than the did even just 15 years ago.
As for officers, without having said anything about my own views, I asked a class of O-5 students about the resignation question, and they had one of two reactions: half of them laughed at the idea, half of them looked at me in disbelief that anyone seriously believed that. Asking around other active-duty O-4 to O-6s I routinely work with, I can't find anyone who thinks the notion of a significant uptick in officer resignations is even remotely credible -- even among officers who are opposed to the policy change. To a person they've found the idea that many officers would walk away in the middle of a fight, walk away from all they've invested in their careers, over gay service to be ridiculous.
I don't doubt there will be a few resignations over it, but if it were going to be anything like 25% you'd think out of a couple of dozen officers I could at least find *one* who would say they could imagine a fellow officer leaving over the issue.
I may be pickin' nits here, but on a somewhat unrelated note....he signed the message as "Gary." Now, I know the message was for the FOs, but still....he acts like he's a corporate CEO instead of a full Admiral in the United States Navy. Would ADM King or ADM Burke have done that? Or ADM Moorer? Nope.
You're probably right. But what will happen is a downturn in recruiting.
What was interesting to me is Phib's connections :)
And I would think the bigger worry would be the effect on re-enlistments of the non-officer types.
The year-long period for studying the issues -- impact to force, etc. is justified. Some of the very complicated issues -- taking folks who were discharged back in, recognition of state sanctioned marriage, benefits, etc. will be thorny -- and perhaps some of them won't be "finalized" but may yet still evolve over time.
(Personally, I think DOMA is ridic, and will be challenged and overturned in the near future -- so that may be an issue that gets addressed by outside measures)
I look forward to the 2011 implementation. I hope Congress sees clear to vote for this -- the UCMJ is sorely in need of some updating.
ADM Mullen's testimony is laudable. We will be better as a force and a nation for this. BZ!
Ummm...
I don't know where you get the data to back upo the claim that a majority of Republicans/Conservatives support gay marriage.
Recent votes to over-turn gay marriage laws would indicate that the data set to support your conclusions is also based upon drawing conclusions then manipulating the data to support it.
Mullen is angling for post-service employment. Everything that has come out of his mouth the past 12 months supports that conclusion.
The issue to be answered is whether having homosexuals openly serve in the US Military is in the nations best interest. If it is, then the law(s) should be changes accordingly. However, if, as the law currently shows, homosexuals serving openly in the military is NOT in the nations best interest, then the system should remain as is.
Only Congress has the power to change the law. Not the military, and not the President. Congress alone. 2010 is an election year, and the odds of this issue being resolved anytime soon is unlikely.
And why would the Navy take these people back in? They willingly violated a legal order. Period. Full Stop. Would you take someone back who got caught with a couple of hundred pounds of weed, even though 5 years later it got decriminalized? A regulation backed by a legal order is just that.
Your reasoning on this is flawed.
Your understanding of the law is flawed. There's a difference between committing a criminal act and failing to meet eligibility criteria for continued service. Neither the DADT law nor the implementing regulations promulgated by DoD impose a legal duty on personnel to refrain from homosexual conduct. A more apt comparison would be to an officer who gets separated because he was passed over twice for promotion. He didn't violate any legal duty, he just failed to meet the set criteria for continued service. I'll take that guy back any day of the week before I take back a drug user. It's not even remotely the same thing.
AW1,
That was support among young Republicans -- only those under 30 years old. Among Republicans of all ages, yes, support is low.
My point was that among the population most relevant for recuiting -- 18 to 25 year olds -- attitudes on homosexual issues are quite a bit different than among those over age 40, and vastly different than those over 65.
I agree with URR.
The last time there was a comprehensive investigation of a change in controversial military personnel policy was with the combat exclusion for women. Most of the findings of the Presidential Commission were ignored. Many of the negative second-order effects predicted have come true. The force has not collapsed and weaknesses have been worked around, but this in no way validates the policy, especially since we haven't fought anyone remotely competitive. Moreover, working around weaknesses and constraints is not the same thing as not having them there in the first place. There have been many costs and no real benefits. Meanwhile, I'd argue that the same PC mindset that gives us all of these types of policies actively inhibits us thinking clearly about the nature of our enemies.
Regarding resignations etc, I don't think this will happen to any degree. People adjust to all sorts of things (and I think that for most their own commitment to the services will be greater than their anger over the policy). Indeed, the history of the 20th century is that people can be made to say and put up with almost anything. See the history of the USSR. What happens instead is a gradual and often less obvious weakening, of people losing a bit of heart here and there, and of not making as much effort. One day, it gets stressed and collapsed as the consequences bite everyone. We've seen the steady abandonment of standards and discipline in cases involving women. Enlistment might be more of an issue.
<span>milprof,
I am NOT wary of the numbers from the 1995 estimate. At the time I was a company grade officer commanding a firing battery, and the tenor from officers and enlisted alike from the rest of the regiment was that those estimates were conservative.
As I stated, they may be ready to accept serving next to gays openly, but the diversity and advocacy circus that will surely follow will not be so palatable.</span>
I am told that when he spoke at 32nd Street in San Diego earlier this week, he instructed that Sailors will NOT speak to the press on this subject.
Reminds one of budget discussions.
Reminds me of a drug using football palyer story, too...is this a trend?
Leaders who think they have the corner on exactly what to do, after they told their subordniates what to do, but....somehow...can't manage to do the same.
"leadership" = Politics now, for those with the bigges stick.
Honor = "What kind of word is that? It's so 80s!"
fully been able to convince courts that the law now calling this misdeameanors be applied to their felonies.
Now it's an issue of purposeful law breaking and wanting to undo the consequences.
Yep, a nation of law. No a nation of specuial and protected classes, "righting the wrongs."
WSS (W're so screwed!)
The Navy might if he was a kick ass running back and though the bag was filled w/ oregano and he REALLY liked cooking. /snark
"<span>They willingly violated a legal order. Period."</span>
"<span>Neither the DADT law nor the implementing regulations promulgated by DoD impose a legal duty on personnel to refrain from homosexual conduct."</span>
DADT, no. Article 125 of the UCMJ...that's a different story. Of course, this raises the question of why we still have such a puritannical law on the books. (Especially after the Supreme Court struck down the Texan version of this idiotic law). After all, if any of you red blooded American males ever got a BJ while you were on active duty, you were subject to "Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years." Not trying to advocate breaking regs here, but I think we need to have some common sense about which regs we are zero tolerance with and which (very few) ones we can allow a little fudge factor...being gay is about as close to a victimless "crime" as you can get, even in the military.
As for the "officers will resign, re-enlistments will go down, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!" argument, there will be some of that. There was some of that when Truman racially integrated the military (by Executive Order, by the way...not an Act of Congress). However, I fall into the "18-25 year old currently serving" demographic, and I agree with milprof. I think it's vastly overstated. I was born and raised Republican in the Midwest (although now I have a much more libertarian mindset) but being gay just isn't that big of a deal to me. I've got no interest in it, and the fairy gays who make a big issue of it annoy the hell out of me (just like anyone who makes a big issue about something about them that is unchangable...race, gender, etc.) but that's not a big enough argument for not allowing them to serve just because of who they find attractive.
Ultimately, it comes down to what CW over at Galrahn's place said: what is best for the military? He said (and I agree) that not allowing gays to serve is proving (and in the long run, will prove) more detrimental to our national security than the possible damage of allowing them to serve.
Just out of curiosity, what is proving more detrimental to national security by not letting gays serve openly than the possible damage of letting them do so? I'm not being sarcastic or rhetorical with that question. People who make that case argue there are major benefits that outweight any costs if current policy is changed. They argue that there are major costs now? What are they? How does one quantify them? How do they compare with the two other major changes that are often used to justify them i.e. race and gender?
I'd argue that there were comparatively low costs for de-segregation but much higher and on-going ones with gender. Eliminating DADT, I'd think would fall somewhere in the middle, maybe closer to desegregation, if handled properly, but I have no confidence it will be handled in a way that ensures that. Hence, I see costs, but not so many benefits.
how do you know a person is gay...and therefore protected? can u be gay once, then decide to be straight? if you don't like a senior, your orders, or something, can u claim being gay? how about promotions....currently pictures of "minority" is stamped on your photo....are we going to stamp "gay", to have the "proper" quota? while I am at it.....how many hours of GMTand seminar hours do we need? me thinks I need to start a 8a Gay Implentation Program for the services (that will be a great contract)
Was planning to provide a longer piece on this for the CDR on DADT and my observations of its real execution in the fleet, but I'll paraphrase for now. In my experience, DADT has not been a workable or adequate solution. I have had numerous experiences where good sailors with exceptional service records, who were liked by their shipmates, and whose shipmates were all pretty certain were gay and didn't care, have had to face administrative separation boards and risk loss of career and benefits because a bitter ex boyfriend outed them. The lengths commands went to to retain these sailors while gaming loopholes in the policy were sometimes comical. On the other hand, I've had clients claim homosexuality as a means of terminating their enlistment contract while still retaining their benefits and bonuses. So the numbers on who has been discharged under DADT are, I believe, skewed. I do not now a single gay sailor, with a good record, who WANTED to stay in, that was pushed out, but I know plenty of straight dirtbags who walked away from the Navy with full benefits by claiming to be gay.
And because no post by me would be complete without addressing Mr. Mirvish...if you are truly convinced that the presence of skirts and fags (though I notice you mercifully left "colored folk" off your list of blights upon the fleet, so maybe there's hope for you) is affecting military effectiveness, I will gladly give up my seat on my next deployment for you. I know you don't have any of my training, don't work in my field, and are...well...old. But I'm sure you can make up for it, what with the whole straight male thing.
your questions in a nutshell:
1. They can make a statement they are gay, be caught engaging in gay conduct, or be outed by a thrid party.
2. Yes. Frequently happens.
3. Dude. It's GMTs there will be at least 10 hours every fiscal year on this. Like EVERY OTHER GMT topic. click click click click click take test print certificate enter exit program.
AR .... send it on! Top of the fold is waiting for 'ya! 8-)
Was a bit busy this week. tell the fleet to stay out of trouble so I can get back to my writing!
Damn! Right off the top rope! Anthony, I think she's got you in her sights, and has well and truly bracketed you!
AR, If they let an broke down 58 year old man go, I'll take your place. I expect the ship could use an fairly experienced HT type ;)
Minds are already made up, jst like it was with the coed Navy. The coed Navy has been proven corrosive, so what's one more corrosive added to the mix.
Echo, when I was in in the early 70s we had two guys on my first ship who claimed to be queer to get out. Everyone knew they weren't, it was so made up it hurt. The CO and XO knew it was fake, but they couldn't prove it so out they went, and they went with General Discharges with "Less Than Honorable" on the skins. They could have been prosecuted for Fraudulent Enlistment, but that wasn't being done in the late Vietnam years, and those two knew it. They lost most benefits available to the honorably discharged. What you are seeing with stuff like this is just human nature in action. You will never repeal human nature either.
As for being "outed," why aren't they asking for proof of the status, instead of just kicking them out. This is another thing that can get the services into deep trouble if anyone wants to push it. There was an officer i had the dubious honor to serve under, who later got 6 men killed on the Belknap, who I would dearly have loved to find something on to get him roped out. If I'd tried "outing" him I would have provided a few laughs before I was sent to a special court martial. Why should it be any different now? have the legal rights of service members been so drubbed that you can just accuse and he's automatically guilty?
A number of people post here that "it just isn't big deal anymore" with the current youngsters. I have serious doubts of that based on direct observation. That may be true in those increasingly psychotic places we call big cities these days, or perhaps in the northeast, here in fly over country all I can say "you've got to be kidding." You're also going to have things past their parenst as well. Their parents ahve voted down the stuff that the activists have been seeking, even in the blue states. I've seen parents, including others like myself, who are telling kids to stay away from the military because of the PC BS and "leaders" like Mullin and Roughead. It will become a flood if DADT is repealed. Recruting is up and down now, all though it's a bit better with the economy down, but it will really be hateful duty if DADT is repealed.
"<span>That may be true in those increasingly psychotic places we call big cities these days, or perhaps in the northeast, here in fly over country all I can say "you've got to be kidding.""</span>
Read what I said below. I'm from the Midwest (Nebraska, specifically...went to school in Iowa), born and raised Republican (although I've modified that to more of a libertarian tilt over the years). I'm currently 23, a 2d Lt in the USAF, and I could give a rat's ass about whether someone enjoys banging chicks or likes playing the back 9 instead. I might be an outlier, but given the opinions of most of those I graduated/commissioned with, I doubt it. Generally speaking it was one or two loudmouths who always shot their mouths off about how they would hate to serve with "fags," while the rest of us just didn't care.
You're correct about Article 125 prohibting sodomy, but in the wake of decisions by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, it is largely unenforceable in cases involving consensual acts. There are a few situations where one could still be prosecuted for consensual sodomy, but every one of these would also violate some other article of the UCMJ (frat, adultery, fan room fun, etc.). Article 125 is really only useful these days to prosecute forcible sodomy, and I don't think it will be long before Congress just rolls that into Article 120 (sexual assault) and deletes Article 125.
Mike,
someday soon you will need to exercise your leadership and spell out to one of your junior airman.. what the policy is.. he may be your best and brightest and this may create a dilemma for him personally on his principles... he may leave... either way you will have to deal with it.. why is this neccessary now at this time? It isn't.. we have ships behind schedule, we have aircraft not built and at risk of failure, we have nuclear weapon programs at risk of falling behind and we have more pressing needs..
this is stupid, political grandstanding and the JCS and SecDEf need to resign...
AR,
with respect, a lot of these juniors, also see no problem with smoking spice, smoking weed, or going UA. this is the "reset" generation.. they "don't know what they don't know"... just because they have "no problem" with it doesnt pass the muster... they are too inexperienced to know.. and the differances across service will be telling... check with the Marines and the Army combat arms... not just the so called "Arab lingiuist" lies....
I also don't care if it's chicks or the "back 9" in someone's private life. Unfortunately, military service is not a Fortune 500, though it's starting to look like it. And the CEO's - including Roughhead & Mullen...why don't you camp at the feet of obamaton and political correctness as you're fricking embarassing guilty throwbacks. This one may make the mixed warship crew issue look simple.
I wonder if "The Youth Today" will still be OK with open active homosexuals as roommates sleeping in the bunk next to them and showering with them 7/24/365? I realize the educational system and Hollywood have been working on this for many years but I don't think the indoctrination will survive the reality. Besides, we really don't want those conservative traditionalist types in the Navy anyway right? It probably doesn't matter anyhow, the way things are going within a decade or so we probably won't be able to afford a Navy anymore.
The chances of an objective analysis of this issue by DOD seem somewhere between slim and none. The "correct" answer has been too clearly telegraphed.
However, Congress will have something to say, and there will be some challenging questions posed. With a change in Congressional demographics likely this fall, the final outcome is not a foregone conclusion.
Those conservative-traditionalist types need to be rooted out of the Service! We'll do much better with a military full of the types that think this is all fine. Progressive-liberals are well known for their warfighting spirit. No doubt, military readiness will soar and all our problems will be solved with the repeal of the "hateful" DADT law.
"<span>Those conservative-traditionalist types need to be rooted out of the Service!"</span>
Think maybe you are at the heart of the matter now.
AR,
No post by you would be complete without an ad hominem rather than a factual comment. Hence the crude insinuation of anyone who disagrees with the coed force or the repeal of DADT with opponents of de-segregation. Desegregation worked, of course, because standards, equipment and quarters didn't have to be changed. When we actually try that with women and accept whatever numbers result, I may revise my opinion. Until then, I think the facts are on my side. And, even a casual reading of this blog suggests that not everyone currently in the military or who has served disagrees with my position. What do you say to them? Even a casual review of the various scandals and PC-related activity that gets a hearing here and in other forums suggests a host of problems that you simply refuse to see.
I'm not anywhere near as old as Byron and have in fact spent my entire life in the world made by gender equality. I even work with women and respect them, shocking though that may be to you. What my life experiences have taught me is that gender is real, not constructed, and that it often matters. Perhaps as you mature, you'll discover that too. I have also learned that perfect plans and unintended consequences have a way of occuring even though everything sounded fine to begin with. Your experiences may differ.
I find your challenge interesting even though I have no idea what area of the Navy you work in (perhaps you can tell me). But, I'd take your offer if I could. Couldn't be a Hull Tech like Byron, but with two engineering degrees, 20+ years of small boat sailing (including all the navigation too), and knowing how to shoot and running 3 miles a day, I'm sure I could contribute something. I'd insist, though, that you change places with me. No doubt you could do my job just as effortlessly as I could do yours for exactly the same reason. And, I'm sure you'd make up for any deficiencies with that whole liberated feminist gal thing. No doubt that will go over well.
Oh Anthony...face it. You're a REMF. And that is why I will not listen to or respect your opinion on this issue. I will listen to those who have worn the uniform, though I will disagree in the end. But you, with your "studies" and your "book learnins" do not have what I have...combat zone experience.
For you, who have not been to Iraq, not been in the FDNF and not earned the decorations I have (which I choose not to list, as colleagues of mine also read this blog and it's a dead give away) to sit in your lumbar supporting desk chair and say I didn't belong there is laughable.
And of course things like smoking spice and weed and UAs should be addressed severely. However, it's not just the juniors who didn't have a problem with the alleged homosexuality. The support went all the way up the chain because...well...a good aviation mechanic who might go home and diddle another dude still can turn a wrench. Not so much with a doped up pothead.
By the way...you reference "spice". Are you in Japan by chance?
C'mon AR. Whether he has been there or not, some of AM's points have validity. I have my awards, too, but I can tell you that if we were truly to make an equal footing across the board, this would include females taking the same PFT as males, males taking the female version, or everyone taking something watered down and in between.
Point being, repeal of DADT will have some VERY problematic and unknown effects. Simply to state that it is in the best interests of the service even before this so-called "DoD-wide review" is absurd. And wait'll the diversity monsters start with the advocacy and activism from outside and inside DoD. For years, every third story will be about gay achievement or gay pride or gay rights. Also, no matter how severe the problems, they will be absolutely glossed over on the order of senior leadership, much as the gender integration of warships and other units in other services turned out.
<span>"...he may be your best and brightest and this may create a dilemma for him personally on his principles... he may leave... either way you will have to deal with it.. "</span>
Holy crap. Really? Like that same thing doesn't happen now where you have talented individuals, say interpreters, who are forced out because... well, I'm not sure why - It never made any sense to me.
I'm active duty - I've been shot at and shot back alongside gays. Did I care? Not a bit so long as they were competent.
Honestly, I'd rather boot out the bigots who can't deal with another person's sexual orientation.
<span>With here legal background I will defer to AR's discussion, but the existing law and regs say that in this area statements are treated as showing the likelihood to engage in activities. You can try to prove that you aren't likely to engage in such activities. If you are successful you might be retained. If you were drunk and it only happened once this might work. This is often called the "queen for a day" defense.</span>
Mike, you aren't the only person who has been shot at and shot back alongside gays. So cut the crap.
There are very large and legitimate issues involved with repeal of DADT. They are religious, societal, personal, legal, and practical. If you are insisting these don't exist, you are being intentionally obtuse. To say that any possible contrary opinion or viewpoint is held only out of hatred, bigotry, or intolerance, that is also crap. What is worse is the assertion that those who hold those opinions or views haven't the legal right or moral justification to do so. You should be careful in which direction you point the accusing finger when it comes to intolerance.
Why should I have to "deal" with a person's sexual orientation?
Mike, stop looking at this selfishly and from the point of view how this effects YOU.. look at the effect on the Service, the Command and the mission. In my hypothetical, my best and brightest might NOT be the gay and his principles may be compromised to the point that he will leave the service. This is called corrosion of mission.. you have enough gays to man the fleet?
Well, MTH, remember, Mike is USAF. So it may not matter to him what his fellow USAF members are doing in their hotel-suite-like accomodations with the Ethan Allen furniture. Or what they do on their "back nine." (Note the golf course reference. He's talking about his base.)
He may never have slept spoon style out in the field or lived in close quarters with someone hitting on him or subtly harassing him.
Oh, and I' sick of hearing about those talented linguists who got shoved out. They knew when they lied their way into the service that there were rules.
Andrew,
yes, that's correct. I gave a "nutshell" but you are spot on. A statement with no propensity = retention. an act with no likelihood of reoccurence = retention, but the burden is on the defense to prove it's warranted once a statement or act has occurred.
Mike,
You mentioned earlier how you are a 23 yo USAF 2nd LT.
Care to elaborate about where/when you've been shot at or fired on an enemy in the field? I'd really like to read your story.
I maintain that MA's position oversimplifies military operations. If all the military did was shoot guns and break things, then yes, superior strength is all that matters. But that's not what we do anymore. It's the same reason the draft would be ineffective in today's military. I don't care if my YN does 30 pushups or 300...I care if he or she can spell. I spent a year in the sandbox as part of a training and transition team and, while I won't say it's "because I'm a woman" per se, the fact that I had a vastly different negotiating style/attitude than my counterparts made me far more effective in certain aspects of the job. There's more to being a sailor in the year 2010 than how many pushups you can do. (FWIW, I do 70.)
Well, AM may not have any of your "cred", but I'd line mine up against yours any day. He is, as usual, on target.
I buy my fruit salad at the NEX Uniform Shop....
ActusRhesus,
I occasionally dealt with DADT cases during my time. I don't remember anywhere in policy or law that "outing" someone results in an ADSEP.
In fact, I went and refreshed my memory about what the law actually says. Perhaps you might do the same.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
<span>"A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations: </span>
<span></span><span>(1)</span> <span>That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that— </span><span>(A)</span> <span>such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior; </span><span>(B)</span> <span>such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur; </span><span>(C)</span> <span>such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation; </span><span>(D)</span> <span>under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and </span><span>(E)</span> <span>the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts. </span><span></span><span>(2)</span> <span>That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. </span><span></span><span>(3)</span> <span>That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex. </span>
I (the first 23 yo USAF 2d Lt Mike) am not the second Mike. I have not been shot at and I haven't been in combat. I'm an AMMO officer (IYAAYAS!). One problem I have with the "grunts in a foxhole" argument is that most of the military does not run around kicking down doors. This isn't to say that we don't need to be prepared to fight, or to die, but it's
just a fact of life. Look at the USAF for example...maintainers are some of the hardest working people in the military, but they still get to go home at night (after they work a 14 hour shift, of course, and "home" might be a tent at a deployed location, but still). To bring up that argument and say "but what about the guys in an outpost in AFG" is like me saying "but what about the semi-permanent waiver holder who never deploys." It's a bit of an outlier...the argument needs to be based on looking at the whole military.
"Why should I have to "deal" with a person's sexual orientation?"
Let me turn that around..."Why should I have to 'deal' with a person's race?" I'm not trying to directly compare the two, but there are parallels. Simply refusing something because you don't want to 'deal' with it is a bad argument. I could make the same thing against redheads, but it wouldn't be particularly valid. I need to shut up and color, or get out of
the military if I truly feel that way. I will say that we do have bigger things to worry about at this point in time (all of which MTH did a good job of listing above) but to me that's the only real argument in favor of maintaining DADT. Everything else is just a personal opinion that people are going to have to get over. I have the opportunity to discuss the issue with a Chief in the CF (air type, but spent the first 15 years of his career as a ground pounder, so he knows what it's like "in the field") today...when Canada allowed openly gay people to serve, there was a year and some change where things were turbulent, but after that it wasn't an issue. Canada isn't the U.S., but it's close. As I stated above, the turbulent aspect is why I think doing it now, in wartime, might not be the best idea, but ultimately it
is going to happen. That's just a fact of life.
(cont'd)
"They knew when they lied their way into the service that there were rules. "
Uh, I wasn't aware that they lied? DADT simply states that you can't be openly gay. Don't think they would've made it past the recruiter if they were openly gay. Granted, them coming out was a political act and they suffered the consequences of their breaking of the policy, but much of the civil rights history in this country consists of political acts that involved people suffering the consequences of breaking a policy...the fact that according to the law Rosa Parks deserved to sit in jail didn't make it right. I'm not trying to directly compare the two, because there are strong differences between the two situations, but using the argument that "rules are rules and if you break them you are wrong, period" is a really narrow way of looking at the world.
"He may never have slept spoon style out in the field or lived in close quarters with someone hitting on him or subtly harassing him."
I'm (not so) subtly harrassed on a daily basis...it's called being an AMMO troop. :-p Seriously, I don't understand why people think that homosexuals are this sexually crazed different species. It's not like you're going to have a bunch of San Francisco fairies wearing assless chaps and carrying whips serving in the military...there are plenty of gay people
just like you and me. These are the types who would serve openly if DADT was ended (and who are currently serving now). That argument doesn't hold water with me, and frankly, it's a little offensive, in that it assumes most homosexuals are unable to control their sexual urges.
(cont'd again)
Finally, for the record, I don't play golf. I may be a USAF officer, but the people I lead work their tails off every single day, generally working far away and unseen by most of the base. The only time anyone really cares at all about AMMO is the rare occasion when they don't get their munitions promptly...when that happens, we just work harder and find a way.
My people work in some of the oldest facilities in the AF (some of our storage igloos are Korean War vintage) but they accomplish the mission...our real world alert jets are supported 24/7/365. I don't know too much about Ethan Allen furniture, I'm more concerned with replacing the boiler in one of our buildings that is so old and unsafe that CE at one point refused to work on it. Sorry at the prickliness, but I don't take kindly to serious "chair force" barbs. We may not be the fittest military service, but our mission isn't to run 20 miles and kill a bad guy with a knife. We (in the MX world, anyway) turn wrenches to get airplanes up to support the ground pounders. Period. Everything else (including fitness)
comes second. You'll forgive us if going to the gym wasn't real high on our priority list after working a 14 hour day building bombs and launching jets.
Also, the CF Chief stated that there were MANY people in his military who bitched and moaned, moaned and bitched when they made the decision to allow homosexuals to openly serve, but then only a VERY small fraction of that number actually followed through on their decision. I see no reason to suspect it would be any different here.
"<span>"<span>Those conservative-traditionalist types need to be rooted out of the Service!"</span>
Think maybe you are at the heart of the matter now."</span>
Man, I hope that was a joke, because if you seriously think that, you are so far off the grid I don't even know what to say to you.
"They knew when they lied their way into the service that there were rules. "
"Uh, I wasn't aware that they lied? DADT simply states that you can't be openly gay. Don't think they would've made it past the recruiter if they were openly gay. Granted, them coming out was a political act and they suffered the consequences of their breaking of the policy, but much of the civil rights history in this country consists of political acts that involved people suffering the consequences of breaking a policy...the fact that according to the law Rosa Parks deserved to sit in jail didn't make it right. I'm not trying to directly compare the two, because there are strong differences between the two situations, but using the argument that "rules are rules and if you break them you are wrong, period" is a really narrow way of looking at the world.'
Before DADT, anyone who went in was specifically asked about homosexual activity. You either lied or you didn't to get in. After DADT, they couldn't be openly gay but perhaps they weren't asked outright about who they coupled with. But apparently that isn't enough for them. They have to "deny" part of themselves or something to serve which is too much to bear? Or they serve until the bullets fly and then announce they're gay and out they go. I understand both were issues. But at some point in the whole process they lied about who they truly were. If not in act, then by omission. So you can't argue it both ways.
And yes, I have a narrow way of looking at the world. Rules are rules. And if you break them especially knowing them, you are wrong. The laws of physics and gravity and such are also narrow. And if you break them, you're not only wrong, you're dead and other people too.
The point of everyone here, since you've missed it, is we KNOW gays serve. What we DON'T want to have is sensitivity training sessions and flamboyant manifestations of it that might cause even more disruption in the mission than there is already with all the other issues.
cont.
Those who are loud and proud of their orientation have avoided the military up to now for obvious reasons. Will the repeal of DADT change that in the future? What effect will that have on unit cohesion? Been in a high school (similar age and demographic) that has GLAAD and all those other gay student association groups? Do you know what happens when kids that age out themselves? Those who don't want to be suspected of being gay when they are hetero go out of their way to avoid those who are out and vocal. And that's the generation that supposedly "doesn't care." Try that on base or behind the wire.
There's a whole lot of laws of unintended consequences that will go into effect. If it ain't too terribly broke, don't fix it.
I don't know which Mike you are, but whichever one you mat be doesn't know history very well. Wouldn't be the first time a political party in power tried to make the service look like themselves politically.
The current SecState made no secret that she "loathed the military" (while First Lady), and her Ex-President husband expressed not once but several times that he believed a military career was a waste of time. So don't try to tell me people of that ilk, including Boxer and the like, wouldn't like to see every General sound like Wesley Clark.
URR, that name is spelled Weaselly Clark.
Throwing around unfounded accusations about how one political party, in general, doesn't like the military and is trying to change it really pisses me off because it does NOTHING to further the already toxic political environment in this country, not to mention the widening disconnect between the military and civil society at large. Are your statements about Hilary and Bill true? Yes. Do I agree with anything the Dems do? Nope. (But then again, I disagree with about 95% of what the GOP does as well, so that's not really saying much.) There still is a lot of (understandable) bad blood between the military and the left because of the (personally) unforgivable things many of them did during Vietnam, but continuing the meme that anyone on the left must automatically hate the military and want to change it really doesn't get us anywhere. CNAS (aka the Obama Administration's DoD brain trust) is filled with left leaning people who have proudly and honorably served their country. It's possible to disagree with people politically without automatically assuming that they are out to get you.
Btw, all of that was me (Mike #1)
<span>Throwing around accusations about how one political party, in general, doesn't like the military and is trying to change it really pisses us off more especially because there is enough legislative and executive history to show that the accusations are not entirely "unfounded."</span>
<span></span>
<span>And if you think the left stopped being nasty to the military after Vietnam, you have been in an igloo in Montana or wherever too long. And you certainly haven't been to any protest in the last 9 years and seen the left with their signs out in front of Walter Reed.</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
"<span>And yes, I have a narrow way of looking at the world. Rules are rules. And if you break them especially knowing them, you are wrong. The laws of physics and gravity and such are also narrow. And if you break them, you're not only wrong, you're dead and other people too."</span>
According to that line of thinking, blacks should still be slaves, women should still be property (and shouldn't be allowed to vote), segregation should still be policy, and welfare should still be as it was before the '90s. After all, those things once were all "rules." Comparing an inviolable concept (like gravity) with a construct of man (like DADT) is a non sequitur. You can make arguments against it, but condemning it on the basis of it being a "rule" doesn't fly.
The CF Chief addressed the "loud and proud" issue in our discussion as well...just because someone is gay does not automatically mean they are exempt from all other military standards (see comments above about most gays being normal, like you and me...not sex crazed maniacs). He actually had a troop who was a little bit..."flamboyant," and he addressed it as he would a personality issue with anyone else. The troop straighted out (so to speak) and continued to be the top notch worker that he already was. Repealing DADT is NOT going to lead to a rash of dandies running into military service worried about breaking a nail, anymoreso than allowing women like AR to serve.
I haven't missed the point, I just don't agree with it. If you are going to take that tack, that continuing them to serve in the closet is "fair" (nevermind that it REQUIRES them to break their personal integrity, which is absolute crap), the only way for it to be TRULY fair is if we require heterosexuals to not talk at all about their sexual preferences. I'm not just talking about raunchy bedroom conquests, I'm saying that there can be no mention of spouses at work, no bringing of significant others to military functions, etc., because that is the only way for it to be truly fair.
Of course, that won't be acceptable, because homosexuals are "different," which brings me back to my ultimate point which is that I suspect all of this has more to do with personal aversion to homosexuality than you might think. Which, if so, you are more than free to hold those views, just as you are more than free to be a racist in the military...just shut up and color and don't open your yap about it.
"<span><span>And if you think the left stopped being nasty to the military after Vietnam, you have been in an igloo in Montana or wherever too long. And you certainly haven't been to any protest in the last 9 years and seen the left with their signs out in front of Walter Reed.</span>"</span>
Using that logic, I should condemn all members of the GOP based on the behavior of the Obama birthers and neo-Nazis. The Code Pinkers are horrible batshit crazy individuals, and I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, but using them to condemn the entire Democratic Party is faulty logic, especially seeing as how most of them were at one point condemned by the Code Pinkers as well.
Look, I understand that there have been examples of Dem politicians condemning the military (and not just opposing the use of force, which are two different things). John (been a shitbag since 1971) Kerry comes to mind, as does Murtha. However, this does not automatically equate to all Democrats being out to get the military...it reminds me of all the talk that is still (!) going on at gun shows about how Obama is a secret Muslim and is going to take all of our guns, after he allows the U.N. to control the U.S. government. It's just sad.
What I am telling you, USAF Mike, is such is a fairly common occurrence. Read your history. Before this, what was the most recent example? McCarty's assertion that anyone who wasn't a rabid anti-Communist was a sympathizer. Many of those he pointed at were GO/FO who'd made their bones in WWII and Korea.
But since the 1960s? The radical left has had a resentment qand disdain for the military, only in today's climate they are too politically savvy to shout it like they did in the 1970s and even the 1980s.
And please don't lecture me on what "gets us anywhere" as if you have some special insight on where we are trying to go. I have been watching the budget battles and rhetoric regarding Defense Spending for almost thirty years. Those who have tried, and at times been successful, in gutting the DoD budget and greatly damaging readiness were indeed "out to get us". If you did some more reading and less lecturing you might find such things out for yourself.
As for your purely political opinions about gun shows and Second Amendment rights, read the opinions of Holder, the AG, our SecState, Arne Duncan, Schumer, Pelosi, Sotomayor, et al. The sad part is how little you know about what you pontificate on.
"<span>The sad part is how little you know about what you pontificate on."</span>
Without getting too OT on guns, suffice to say that all of those people you mentioned would absolutely love to restrict firearms, but they aren't stupid. They learned their lesson in '94 with the AWB. They don't have the political support now, and they won't for the foreseeable future...their Blue Dog Dem coalition is about ready to fall apart as it is. So I guess I do know "a little" of what I'm pontificating on.
What do you consider as the "radical left?" To me, it's the Code Pinkers, the World Worker's Party, and all the other idiots who gather together to protest and who are then ignored by about 99.9% of the Democratic Party. I'm not defending the Dems, as I despise them, but I don't lump the mainstream party in with the "radical left." I suspect you feel differently.
Where we are trying to go? I thought it was toward a country with a less toxic political climate and closer ties between the military and civil society...apparently I was mistaken.
I went to Houston and picked up a bunch of fruit salad from some dude in a CIA cap. Seems he's trying to get rid of a lot of bling!
I love to see you and AM go at it AR, but I tend towards his way of thinking. I've seen more issues w/ women in ranks than I've seen the wonderful woman. I also don't like the double standards extended. Treat us all the same and I'm good w/ it. Unfortunately, we are directed from on high to pretend and not believe our lying eyes. I just had a class facilitaed by an Army Capt, female type and she complained to me about her unit (largely female) and all the leadership issues she had w/ all the whoring, sleeping around and moodiness. While you may be a stellar troop, the lack of honesty from the FOGOs provides and atmosphere for poor standards and poor performance. Those not held to high standards often do not strive for them. Thus is the problem w/ many women in the force. Just a cynic's opinion.
I consider the "Radical left" the current Democrats. There is no Sam Nunn in the party. Their actions are their deeds.. look at the leadership.. harping against Bush Admin and conduct of the war led by Pelosi, Reid and make no mistake about it, MOVE ON was in the middle of it..
You want to knwo what you will be in 4 years? Look at your friends...
Not a moderate in the bunch.. lets take a look:
Shumer.. anti gun, loonie left
Boxer... call me Senator General I earned it
Durbin... Gitmo is run by Nazi's
Kerry... I am going to Syria bedamned
Those are just few of the Senators... there are more.. name one moderate... you cant.
as for the 2nd Amend fight.. they reason they have not pursued it further is the Heller decision timeliness and the american voice found during the August townhalls.. it will be political nuclear detonation to even attempt it.
Gun shows are a poor stereotype of republicans or conservatists... it is actually an insult to me Mike to compare my principles to your MSNBC talking points.
This admin is enabled by the loonies and the current social left congress. I get it.. you should also.
DB,
they will need to fix it PDQ when the majority, tired of this tinkering of social ideas with the military leave... and the first fight we get in, and we cannot muster the manpower (pun intended) to get it done.. the JCS will shit themselves trying to get a draft up...
<span><span>Mike, Umm they cannot "openly" serve... that is what DADT is all about..</span></span>
Why is the Gay card always played with the race card? There is a differance.. one you choose one you do not...
I think Mike is mad he can't invite his boyfriend to the family picnics without calling him his "cousin."
<span><span>Who is the "radical left"? Van Jones, Obama-appointed 'green jobs czar" and self-proclaimed Marxist. Bill Ayers, Obama friend and confidant, terrorist, Marxist, and founder of the Weather underground. Bernadine Dohrn, ditto. Anita Dunn, WH Media Director and self-proclaimed Maoist. Mark Llouyd, Obama-appointed "diversity czar", Marxist and admirer of Guevara. Adolfo Carrion, "urban czar", Obama appointee, rabid anti-capitalist and racist. Bernie Sanders, Socialist from Vermont. Rahm Emannuel, WH CSTAFF, anti-capitalist and Obama appointee. Eric Holder, Attorney General, Obama appointee, socialist and anti-2nd Amendment voice. Sonia Sotomayor, Obama nominee for SCOTUS, and outspoken socialist (read her grad school papers).
The list goes on and on. But, it is axiomatic that you are known by the company you keep. Which is why, I imagine, that the so-called "blue dog" Dems are perspiring fiercely</span></span>
MTH, such assertions that gay rights and civil rights are the same thing was not terribly popular with black servicemen I served with in the mid-90s. Maybe it is now, but I doubt it. Big difference between ethnicity and behaviors.
Yep! Still debating this. I know it is a foregone conclusion, just like global warming, but what the hell.
URR,
Concur. It is cowardly and a strawman tactic to lump a behavior with an ethnicity... this has been the facepalm reason why the democrats are losing...
Let me know if he has any cool MP broussards...
Back in 1995, during the first go-round with this, the equation of the civil rights movement to gay activism infuriated a great deal of some of the black Marines I served with. One SgtMaj, a pretty mild mannered guy, came just about unglued when that argument was presented to him by a local reporter. In two duty stations, one being the Drill Field, I believe that was the only time I heard him yell.
If you don't like my opinion, then why respond to it? If you can listen to veterans but disagree in the end, it's clear that you're not really listening to anyone. And I find your level of reasoning to border on the infantile; most of those "studies" and "book learnins" were produced or sponsored by the DOD, so I guess facts don't matter.
I'm curious if all the Forward Deployed Naval Forces in Iraq serve in combat? Or whether there's a difference between being in a combat zone and being in combat. A Marine infantryman in Fallujah might argue that point.
But, whatever.
DB - I think that is an excellent example of what is wrong with the current policy. If what you say is true (I have no idea if it is or not), you have just called into question Mike's career and his ability to serve his (our) country - all because he disagrees with you over a political issue.
And thus, you see the issue w/ trying to bring this up during war. The CJCS acted unprofessionally, the CINC pulled a political game at the expense of military energy, readiness and focus. Good job gentlemen.
I wont want my son to go to a "family" picnic and see Bruce and his "Cousin" Steve in their Fireisland 2010 tanktops.. that is what we are talking about.. the Impingment on the majority.... even if they are damn good "arab "linguist's""....
God bless the Marines!
COL (ret) Martin pointed out in his recent peice from the Strategic Studies Institute at the Army War College (available here:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB969.pdf )
that we managed to intregrate women during WWII, and the race thing didn't really get going until Korea. Neither was a minor item. Somehow we managed to win both of those wars.
<span>Andrew,
Race is DIFFERENT than sexual orientation or gender.. stop lumping everyone together it is disingenious and disrespectful to ethnicity.</span>
Repeal DADT and you can welcome little scenarios like this to base housing in the future:
(names changed to protect the innocent)
Sedate neighborhood in suburban southern state. Three houses in a row peopled by currently-serving or ex-Naval officers and their families. One couple goes on vacation and their 20-something son and his skeevy "male friends" takes over his mom and dad's house. Neighbor mom next door out doing yard work becomes aware of howls and screams of pain emanating from inside house. Goes to another neighbor and worriedly asks if someone is getting beat up or if the police need to be called. Neighbor assures her the young man will probably be okay. This was no quiet Brokeback Mountain "I can't quit you" tent moment. But it's a pattern of behavior from certain quarters that no one wants to acknowlege in polite society. Invite it openly to base housing and force polite society to have to explain it to young children on the other side of paper-thin housing walls. Complain and find yourself at the other end of a hostile work environment complaint and your whole family called in for sensitivity training. DADT doesn't stop gays from "living their lives" but it keeps their variety of life and their party ways away from the family hour. It's a very freewheeling lifestyle where "fidelity" is a fluid notion. Makes Skippy look tame.
Add the openly gay bars that will join the ranks of the usual skeevy dive bars outside the base gates. And the kind of people who flock to them. While the military gays may not wear the spiked dog collars and buttless chaps, them what likes them sure do! Come to my town and I'll give you a tour of such a bar district. Ain't pretty....
Again... laws of unintended consequences. Tell me this has anything to do with race. I never had to explain race to my kids, but being forced to explain why those men had each other's hands in their back pockets or why those ladies were kissing each other to a young child annoys me.
MTH- actually it's not. But in the unlikely event I am wrong, how about we compare it to religion, which is clearly chosen.
URR -
"degenerate hedonism"? I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and that you might just be trying to be provacative. That's getting more diffcult the more you post. I am sure that no young Sailor, Soldier, etc. would never be out picking up women on any weekend - it would conflict with their Bible study meetings.
Sorry, I can't continue this debate over the long weekend. I'm off to run an event for my church group to raise funds for a hospital in the Holy Land (no, really).
Have fun.
So Andrew, you think this sort of behavior doesn't exist?
Hetero and homosexual hedonism exists. But here is the difference: Places where that takes place in its heterosexual form can be placed off limits by a base commander. We shall see if such an option is viable for the homosexual variety, in light of what is sure to be law suits, public pressure, acceptance campaigns, cries of discrimination and persecution from the VERY powerful advocates.
<span><span>ActusRhesus</span><span></span><img></img></span>
<span>I maintain that MA's position oversimplifies military operations. If all the military did was shoot guns and break things, then yes, superior strength is all that matters. But that's not what we do anymore....</span>
<span></span>
<span>And I submit to you AR that your outlook (shared by too many IMHO) is part of the problem. Destroying the enemy is The Mission - everything else comes in a distant second. If you aren't a line animal at the point of impact then everything you do should be geared to supporting those at the point of impact. Everything else is just barroom bullshit. Humanitarian missions? OK - but they should be approached and executed as training missions for combat operations. Nation building? Fine, after we have destroyed every means of the enemies ability to wage further warfare and have obliterated their will to do so. As far as calling out the REMF"s - I can tell you that on at least one occasion my unit was spared heavy casualties because of a locked-on REMF who took timely and appropriate action. If you stick around long enough some REMF will probably save your ass as well.</span>
"<span>the Impingment on the majority"</span>
That's too damn bad...this country was founded on the rights of the minority. The Bill of Rights does not exist to protect the majority, it is intended to protect the minority, and the smallest minority is one person.
You guys and your continued drumbeat that all gays must automatically be assless chap wearing free love thinking "hedonists" (to use a term from above) sickens me. By the way, being gay IS NOT A CHOICE. If it is a choice, that means that today you could just up and choose to start being truly attracted to the same sex. Somehow I doubt that you could do that.
And DB, you're a lady and a regular, so I'm not going to go off like I'm sorely tempted to, but seriously...ad hominems questioning of my career and ability to serve (as Andrew put it) really aren't going to win you any friends or agreement. I noticed you had no comment to my response about the Ethan Allen/golf barb above. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but where I'm from we're AMMO troops first, whatever else we may be second. If you do your job well, I (nor anyone else) cares if you're black, white, brown, red, blue, purple, Christian, Wiccan (have some of those in the bomb dump), Athiest (have some of those as well), Muslim (have served with some of those), or anything else.
I'm sorry, Andrew. Perhaps I've been judgmental. Or I err in my definition of degenerate hedonism. Because when heterosexual sailors misbehave, they don't need to throw themselves a damn parade down Main Street to celebrate that fact. Or when sailors DO march, they look like this.
In Andrew's absence, I can present many more hundreds of visual aids and let the readers decide whether "degenerate hedonism" is a term that can be used in this instance, and whether there is any contest of one side versus the other.
Well, Mike, the Ethan Allen story comes to me firsthand from PapaBravo, who was meeting with the muckety mucks some years back to plan a joint operation. Maybe it wasn't your department head he was talking to, but they were setting up the operational parameters for some billeting of a joint task force in another country whose name really doesn't matter right now. PapaBravo's job was to make sure Navy had its financial ducks in a row and got everything it needed. He sat slack-jawed as the USAF clown put forth his requisition for his guys in a rather primitive place. No more than two to a room, Ethan Allen furniture, etc. etc. etc. No, he wasn't joking.
PapaBravo told him what he could do with his sand. This was during Clinton's "peace dividend days" when every penny counted. The stories of USAF setting up a base, building the O club and golf course first and going back and asking for funds to construct the air field were legend.
BTW, I was once married to a USAF officer. A sister once was one too. I'm familiar with it all.
While I'm really NOT looking for friends (I have plenty already, and if I need another one, I can take an ad out in the paper) I feel it is important to emphasize that a smart "minority" would do well not to make its behavior so odious or confrontational as to incite the majority. Which is what the hedonists in the gay crowd too often do. Do the gays have the right to take the St. Patrick's Day parade and turn it into such an unmitigated debauchery that children cannot attend? Do they have to do that EVERYWHERE they go? WHY?
I don't give a damn what color of the rainbow you are, or if you're the whole frickin' rainbow rolled into one. But other people have the right not to have that crazy spectrum shoved into their faces and into their children's faces with arrogance and audacity and disrespect for other people's values. There's gotta be more than one screw loose in a crowd that enjoys assaulting other people's senses like that. Do you want more pictures? I can find them all day for you and you can tell me how they are NOT hedonistic and disgusting.
Oh, and apologies to USAFMike. I admit there are no buttless chaps in this photo. My characterization of how they dress was an exaggeration and for that I am sorry.
Remember how I said I would never piss you off, DB? That goes double now....
So you're taking a very small minority (your pictures) and using that to condemn the majority...this would be like if I used what is going on at Annapolis to condemn the entire US Navy. It's a strawman argument, and if that is your idea of a logical thought process, I really don't know what to say to you.
Also, BEING GAY ISN'T A CHOICE. Jesus Christ, someone who is gay can no more choose to be gay than you could "choose" to truly be attracted to members of the same sex. But I suppose since that scientific fact conflicts with your "family values" you'll just ignore it.
As for the Ethan Allen story, did you not read any of what I said about my people? I've met some truly ignorant Marines (who told me in all seriousness that the only thing the USAF was good for was intentionally killing Marines), but you don't hear me go around condemning all Marines as ignorant fools who think every problem can be solved by killing someone. The "golf course before runway" legend is just that, a LEGEND. Anyone who truly believes that is really out in left field. Being married to an officer and having a sister who was in the serivce does not make you "familiar with it all." What career field were they in? There is a HUGE difference between the experience of a pilot versus a maintainer, not to mention the plethora of other jobs the AF has.
Is the USAF perfect? No, none of the services are. Blanketly condemning us all on one story about a prima donna (probably a pilot) is shitty reasoning...but about what I've come to expect from you.
"<span><span>Destroying the enemy is The Mission"</span></span>
Well, Gens Petraeus, McKiernan, McChrystal, and a whole host of other really smart dudes would disagree with you. I'd be curious how in AFG you expect to "destroy every means of the enemy's ability to wage further war and obliterate their will to do so." Sorry to say, the days of only worrying about the Soviets pouring through the Fulda Gap are long gone, and in the meantime we've grown up to care more than just how many enemy tanks and soliders we can destroy.
USAF Mike,
Then you must not have been on the radio in Fallujah, in a firefight, calling for CAS, only to have a spate of GBU-12s dropped from USAF a/c that did not detonate. Ordnance, many believe, was retrieved by the enemy and found its way into a number of very large IEDs that took Marine lives in Sept/Oct 2004.....
One time, you ought to try doing the fighting. Then you can throw around comments about just who you think is ignorant.
I stand corrected...I guess all the USAF is good for IS killing Marines. Airdrops in AFG saving lives by reducing the number of ground convoys? HH-60s (which are ancient, by the way) and PJs going in on countless MEDEVACs? Nope, not valid...all we do is kill Marines.
And since I've never been shot at, I guess I should just shut up. Hell, while we're at it, why is anyone allowed to live in this country if they haven't been shot? Let's just kick everyone out who hasn't been in the military and been shot at? Of course, then we'd have to decide what constitutes getting "shot at." Indirect fire enough? Probably not...but then again, why is just getting "shot at" enough? I think we should require anyone who wants to live here to have been wounded fighting for their country. If you haven't been wounded in combat, you just need to get out of these United States.
See how stupid that argument (and I use the term loosely) sounds? Maybe you can order a few Code Reds while you're at it...
USAF Mike,
That is NOT what I said and you know it. What I object to is your characterization of the "ignorant Marines" who are doing the fighting. Not just getting shot at, fella. You share that with everyone I served with in theater. But the people whose business it is to do the fighting. The Marines and Soldiers (and Sailors too) closing with the enemy.
Part of the problem with the USAF attitude is some there don't understand that EVERYTHING about combat support and combat service support is to give those heroes who locate, close with, and destroy the enemy everything they need whenever they need it. Ammunition, food, water, medical support, fires, all of it. And until you walk some miles of foot patrol in their well-worn moccasins, you ought to keep your imperious and ill-informed opinions to yourself. They are the customers, and if they are unhappy with you, perhaps you should spend some time with them clearing a line of fortified buildings.
Then, you may learn what you should have been taught already. Your opinion of them is inconsequential. Their opinion of you is everything.
Oh, by the way, you think your HH-60s are ancient? Your oldest 60 is newer than the newest CH-46.
"<span>Sorry to say, the days of only worrying about the Soviets pouring through the Fulda Gap are long gone"</span>
True. They're the Russians now. Just the same though, you might want to ask the Georgians what they think. And Putin, too.
Just sayin'.
Mike, mike, mike... you're awful touchy about some subjects.
Do you really think what I posted was one photo of a very small minority? Do you know how MANY egregious photos there are on the internet of similar public behavior? Which makes me wonder if that's how people behave in public, how BAD is it in private?
When enough people behave in a certain way that it becomes a staple of jokes and stereotypes, it's time to do some soul-searching. That is why our discussions about what is going on at Boat School are taken so seriously... a little too much smoke for there not to be some burning embers of truth that COULD affect the whole USN eventually. If it's happening there, what is going on elsewhere? Kind of like the photos of the parades.... if the hull has rust spots, how bad is it in the boiler room?
I didn't say the ex husband and the sister are the only people I know in the service. You know nothing about my background or the depth of my knowlege about anything. So you really can't know what to "expect" of me. I WILL say I have more familiarity with how other branches live and how much more they make do with much less in terms of housing than the USAF. I'll leave it at that.
Have a heart to heart with your "Rainbow Coalition" and tell them if they want more respect, then they need to get with the mainstream and clean up their act.
Damn, I spend two hours in the snow-and-ice "enhanced" DC traffic this evening and I miss all the fun.
Well, while we're in the "who said what" argument, I think a quote of mine from earlier might change your opinion regarding "walk a mile in moccasins, clear buildings, blah blah blah."
I said: "<span>We (in the MX world, anyway) turn wrenches to get airplanes up to support the ground pounders. Period."</span>
Soo...how is that in any way something other than giving the max amount of support to the rifleman on the pointy end of the spear? There are people in the USAF who God has granted an amazing amount of stupidity to, who hold the stereotypical opinions you stated above. They are in a very tiny minority, just as the idiotic Marines who said that all A-10s were good for was killing Marines (TF Tarawa in Nasiriyah...nevermind that the strike was cleared by the MARINE JTAC on the ground) are in a very tiny minority. However, the difference is that I did not attempt to generalize those Marines' (we're talking 2-3 people here) stupidity to apply to anyone but themselves. You on the other hand did. I think I'm well within my rights to condemn someone who, with no hint of irony, states that USAF A-10s (the best CAS aircraft around) are only good for killing Marines. Apparently you disagree.
DB,
http://www.pinkpistols.org/photos/BostonPride.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30988351/ns/us_news-military/page/2/
You found pictures on the internet, I found some stuff on the internet. The first features some very normal looking members of the Pink Pistols marching in a rally in Boston...and, *SHOCKER*, there is an AMERICAN FLAG on the entry behind them. I figured teh gheys, with all their anti-america-ness and such, would burst into flame at the sight of an American flag. The second features a combat decorated USAF Lt Col who was outed for being gay...prior to this, no one suspected him. He is continuing to serve post-outing while fighting the discharge. He played by the rules for 18 years, and he still got burned because of this idiotic policy. Surprisingly, he has somehow managed to still show up to work in the proper uniform now that he is out of the closet...given your assertions, I figured that once he was out he would be prancing around like the fairy he is. /sarcasm.
Oh, and regarding housing? I apologize, we actually try to treat our people well instead of shitting all over them like I've seen some of the other services do (i.e. Army barracks at Bragg that should've been condemned).
May your life depend on one of those Marines one day. By the way, a report from an Air Force Major quotes Gen Conway, our MEF commander:
"Fratricide (was) caused by our inability for the Air Force A-10 pilot to look
at a vehicle and have an immediate recognition, friend or foe."
Learn your 9-line procedures.
I've pretty much stayed out of this argument seeings how I'm a career civilian, but I would like to make these points:
1) Humans are hard-wired by evolution to do these things: Protect ones own life, create new life, protect the new life
2) As a subset of creation and protection of the new life, men are hard wired (the hetero ones, that is) to protect the children (for they are truly the future of the species) and to protect the women, who hold and grow the future of the species.
3) Hetero men and women look at homosexuals as a deep aberation to the genetic imperative (see #1), since homosexuals cannot create life (as a hetero man and woman can).
Hetero men and women are hard wired by millions of years of evolution to reject and disdain homosexuals. Period. Dot. Socialization has tempered that emotion somewhat, but deep down inside the animal part of the brain, it's there. Unfortunately, the one place where the anti-gay emotions are going to rise to the surface are in men engaged in combat (people in the armed forces, and the closer to actual combat, the more it will come out) Women with children are also going to feel very uneasy around gays since lifestyle is anti-child rearing.
Now, having said all this, do I think the military has a snowballs chance in hell of stopping the repeal of DADT? Not really. It will happen. But as URR has been trying to tell us, there WILL be repurcussions, some of them very ugly. Get ready for that. And what AR said about base housing is also going to get ugly. And last but not least, the minute there is an anti-gay incident, the special protections for a minority group shit storm will hit the military a LOT worse than the Diversity Bullies are right now. So yeah, sometime soon you'll see the "Gay Rights Awareness Month". Should go well with next months Asian/Pacific Islander Month".
Byron, I hope you have your Nomex underwear and Kevlar on, you're gonna need it once a couple of the folks here read that. :)
An old saying/joke comes to mind: "The reason I like banging my head against the wall is that it feels so good when it stops." I fear the head banging is about to commence, with no way to stop in sight.
GOH, it is what it is. I don't have a dog in the hunt, so to speak, and in principle, I don't agree with the repeal of DADT. I don't have a vote in it, though, even if I know it's going to be ugly. And I could give a rat's ass if I made a wet behind the ears 23 year old Lt. upset. He doesn't have a clue, and probably never will. Oh, by the way: Mike, the Marines would really appreciate it if you Air Farce guys would transfer over all the Hogs to Marine Aviation. It'd kill two birds with one stone: first, Marines would feel a hell of a lot safer, and second, a hell of a lot more bad guys would get the one way carpet ride to the 72 goats.
Degenerate hedonism, public misbehavior, shameless outfits, sexual misconduct, parades through the streets - can we stop talking about New Orleans Mardi Gras and keep to gays in the military?
Hey, cut dem Cat'lics some slack, you! Dey gots 40 days a' eatin' catfish an' grits, you! :)
USAF Mike,
Excellent. Let's cancel the F-22 as you seem to have a better view point than the rest of the AF. The other services could use the money to fund those programs that close with and destroy the enemy or at least influence them.
Or are you going to drink the Kool Aid?
The first time in this whole conversation I laughed out loud.
Glad I could be of service, ma'am :)
How many people or families in base housing or downtown Baseville would want Mardi Gras, gay or straight, in front of impressionable children or those whose values and beliefs would be offended? Not in New Orleans, but brought to them and in constant view, continuously advertised and made the focus? I doubt many.
The community would never rightfully stand for the former (straight) display. The activists and advocates will ensure they have no choice on the latter (gay) kind.
Yes. This.
I never claimed my role was a combat role. However, given the nature of modern combat zone ops, not everyone in a combat zone is in a combat role. There are no clearly defined front lines anymore. Something you'd know if you weren't a REMF.
And I find it funny that in the same breath you accuse me of ad hominems, you call me infantile.
REMF.
As to LT B...I agree there are problem females. However there are also problem males, problem blacks, problem whites, problem latinos etc. Just look at the court-martial statistics. I agree that we should crack down on the problems and stop "special treatment" I have always agreed on that point.
Where I disagree is when someone says that even though I've performed well, I should have to surrender my commission because someone else couldn't shut her legs. Especially when that someone has never served a day in his life.
oh, and FWIW, I've been to fallujah too.
GBS...
thanks for the condescension. As I said, this was a "nutshell". I am well aware of the current MILPERSMAN provisions on homosexual conduct. Separation processing is mandatory upon credible information that a servicemember is gay (e.g. being outed by their boyfriend/girlfriend). However, mandatory processing does not mean mandatory separation, which is where the "queen for a day" provisions you cite come in.
Try not to be a prick next time.
and to clarify...by outing, it would involve a "credible" statement by a third party claiming the servicemember engaged in homosexual conduct, not merely a claim they were gay.
And your admin board has to get through to the 3 Officers sitting in panel.. I would not be convinced....
MTH is right...though for enlisted sailors, there may be senior enlisted members on the board, as long as the senior member is O4 or higher. Just because the queen for a day defense is on the books does not mean the board has to buy what counsel for the respondent is selling.
So, outing by a third party most certainly can lead to getting kicked out. It's mandatory processing, and from there it's in the board's hands. Really, how this all plays out is extremely complicated and, while it's good that some are able to cite the us code, it's better to look at the milpersman for the rules on how it's all carried out in practice.
that would make most sense. except for the whole "a team of retarded ass monkeys could write a better piece of legislation than the current 120" thing.
I personally have never had problems w/ gays. Being that I consider life a competition and chasing females CERTAINLY is a competition, the more gays there are, the less I have to compete for female affections, even if I do not shop w/ them.
Additionally, gays have and do serve in the military. Some are pretty open, but do their job and are not bothered. The problem is when they become the exalted ones and are protected and not lumped in w/ the rest of the troops or held to the same standard.
As for the AF, they suck too much of the budget for what they do. The other problem is they have not fully embraced their biggest role in combat support is close air. They fought the design of the A-10 and still want to spend far too much money on their uber fighter the F-22. Many aspects of the AF are positive and they serve, albeit in a less trying manner than most other troops (Kadena is considered a deployment... PLEASE).
If the homosexuals want to join, then God bless them, but the problem is they will expect the military to adjust to them (like women) rather than the other way around. Not all mind you, but the political pushers on this one will. The slippery slope has steepened and become more slippery since we let women in. Repeal of DADT will be a problem not because there are gays in the ranks, but rather because the political officers (diversity schmucks) will have another wedge with which to fracture team and unit cohesion.
Byron - I spent many Mardi Gras in NOLA in my mispent youth. The 5 day minimum at the hotels made Lent easy.
Post a Comment