Just an old Vet's take on DADT and gays in the military...

[rasputin1952]

First, the obvious, gays have always served in every army and navy throughout time.

With that said, the rest is relatively easy to comprehend; there is no valid reason to keep gays from serving within the uniformed services or any other branch of government. What has been used in the past is the same thing that was used against blacks and others from serving, through some odd thought processes, it was thought that blacks "weren't up to snuff". Today, we see that as ludicrous, but at one time it was taken as if it were written in stone. An aside here, but during the Revolution and the Civil War, black patriots proved their worth many times over, only to return to a status far below that of their brothers in arms. The travesty of that cannot be overstated. During the Spanish American War, WWI, and WWII, basically the same thing happened, although to a slightly lesser extent. Truman and Korea set the stage for desegregation of the services. Truman's move was a bold one, but it paid off, just as it would have paid off if desegregation had taken place earlier.

Throughout all of this, gays served, hiding their orientation. The discrimination was overt but an individual's sexual orientation has little to do with his/her ability to perform what is necessary in combat, combat support or rear echelon duties. When one is in a firefight, all you care about is whether the individuals you are with can shoot and move to take the position you are obliged to take. It comes down to...your life is the hands of competent people, and their lives are in your hands...you are out there fighting to keep each other alive, and gender, color, religion, place of origin or sexual orientation has nothing to do with the equation. We've learned over time that gender, color, religion, (or lack thereof), and place of origin were absurd reasons to keep individuals from serving; this last barrier must be taken down as well. Gays have served with distinction in the past and the present, there is no valid reason for discrimination any longer, (actually, there never was).

Gays have bled on battlefields across the world, many of them are buried in our military cemeteries, many of them have been awarded Purple Hearts, and the high decorations for valor. They accept these awards from a grateful nation, yet remained silent about a part of their lives. We, as a nation, owe it to these men and women to remove this barrier from their lives.

For those who are willing to sacrifice their time, limbs, lives defending this nation, we owe it to them to ensure they are not treated like second class citizens because of their sexual orientation. We are fighting for Equal Rights for all when we fight for the basic Human Rights each and every man woman and child are born with. To deny Equal Rights to anyone, denies them for all.

The military has been the vanguard for many social changes, I believe it will be again on this issue.

:patriot:

[DevonRex]

1. This veteran agrees.

:patriot:

[CLANG]

2. So does this one!

[sarge43]

5. As does this vet.

Well said, Ras.

:patriot:

[Ernesto]

6. me too!

[PSzymeczek]

16. As does this one!

A rare agreement with Barry Goldwater. You don't have to be straight to shoot straight.

[HawkerHurricane]

17. I'll throw another "Me Too" in.

SM1(sw) USN, 1984-2004, ret

[JohnnyLib2]

19. And this one.

Rec.

[bluescribbler]

37. And another veteran says, "Hell yes!!!"

:patriot: :applause: :fistbump:

[BR_Parkway]

47. So does this gay veteran

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

70. and this one too...

USN, 1967-1970

(And always treated well by civilians during this time. )

[Lasher]

62. I'll salute that.

:patriot:

[Bobbie Jo]

78. ...and this one too.

Although I cringe at using the word "old." I prefer "mature." ;-)

:patriot:

[vaberella]

3. I agree. The US was able to gain it's independence b/c of a well known gay general from Prussia.

Freidrich Wilhelm, Baron von Steuben. Homosexuals in the military date back to antiquity. For the concerted effort to marginalize a people based on sexual orientation is absurd and disgusting. We are supposed to be a group who loves to tout our conceit about how we are the "free world" and yet we don't act upon it. Ridiculous. Thanks for your statement. I agree with you.

[Cha]

4. Thank you, for your OP, Ras.

The republicons are just playing wedge politics being against the Repeal of DADT and they're going to lose.

[kmac3]

43. Great Article

Is anyone surprised that the Repubs are against the Repeal ... Pretty evident that their goal for 2010 is to make Obama fail. Definitely "THE PARTY OF NO"!

[Fire1]

7. Great post ras! K&R. n/t

[Orsino]

8. If they can't stand up to each other, how can they stand up to al-Qaeda? n/t

[mstinamotorcity]

9. I am not a veteran

nor have I ever served in the armed forces.I am not gay.Somehow if I were in the military and on the battlefield or any where else that a united effort must be put forth for the success of the mission I truly believe I would not care if the person was gay or not only that they were a qualified soldier and on the same side.If bullets were being shot at my ass I am not going to ask the person next to me are they gay before they engage in battle to save our lives and that of our fellow comrades.I am going to ask their ass do they think we can take them and get out alive.The whole thing seems pretty stupid to me.I have never figured out what someone's sexual preference has to do with the ability to be a good corp person in the United States military.

[rasputin1952]

12. One need not be a vet to see what's right and what's wrong...

like every other aspect of society, one can choose whom they want to hang out with during their off hours. Granted there are times in the military when things are considerably different than during civilian life, but all things considered, except for the regimentation, things are pretty much like out in the real world.

What may seem odd, is that the military has truly been at the forefront of social change on many occasions. Mostly through changes pushed by politicians, like Truman and his desegregation order...but also when the 101st Airborne was sent into AL to stop the AL National Guard from blocking the doorway to school. That was an amazing thing, and one of the few times during peacetime that the Army was called out on US property to enforce a USSC and presidential order. Eisenhower had his faults, but he stood by the Constitution...:)

[handmade34]

10. long overdue

...as a granddaughter, daughter, spouse and friend to a long line of military people, I agree. It will be a fine day indeed when the military acts. Yours is a fine post and the issue has been on my mind a lot.



While out driving a few minutes ago I was listening to a discussion on NPR about DADT. Elaine Donnelly (Center for Military Readiness) was guest representing the side against. I am embarrassed to be a member of society that includes such small minded, ignorant people. The critics have reduced the argument to a chart...

http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/CMRPolicyAnalysis%28WEB%29-January2010.pdf

[Ron Green]

11. Curiously, one of my only gay experiences was when my First Sergeant, drunk, sneaked in

to my hooch to try to put the moves on me in 1967. He didn't ask.

I didn't tell.

[anachro1]

39. Atta boy

We are proud of you.

[northofdenali]

13. Thank you.

This veteran agrees, as well. As do many of the active duty men and women I worked with over the past few months. As do any sane, rational and intelligent US citizens.

Semper fi!

[MadMaddie]

14. rasputin1952 thanks for sharing the truth

I wanted to share with you something I have been thinking about for DADT. Many of the DU veterans I think will find it interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7635810

I was an Army Reservist, Sister a Seargent in the Army, Dad retired Air Force and an uncle a Captain in the military.

I agree with everyone here DADT needs to be repealed.

MadMaddie

[Voice for Peace]

31. that's a great theory

I hope you're right

[slackmaster]

15. As a non-military member of a multi-generation military family, I agree

K&R

:kick:

My brother will be promoted to the rank of Captain in the Navy this year. I salute all service members, past and present.

[TexasObserver]

18. Recommend

[The Wizard]

20. roger

Rasputin

[Tyo]

21. Thank you for saying this so well. rec. n/t

[bertman]

22. Great post, Rasputin. When I saw and heard Admiral Mullen respond to Senator Sessions

yesterday I was blown away. I NEVER thought I would hear those words spoken by ANY high-ranking U.S. military officer. I think that his comments will go down in U.S. history as the beginning of a new era.

The irony of the opposition to allowing gays to serve openly in our military was driven home to me a few years ago when I was watching a program on the Military channel. There was a platoon of Marines who were being given a big pep talk by their CO. These guys were all OORAHH for everything the CO had to say. Obviously they were used to him pumping them up like this. As his grand finale, the Captain started talking about how his Marines needed to think of themselves as Spartans. He reminded them that the Spartans were one of the best fighting forces the world has ever known. They were totally committed to their duty and were willing to die in service to their country.

What the Captain didn't say--maybe because he didn't know--was that the Spartan military culture was built on homosexual relationships between the older warriors and their young recruits. It was part and parcel of their method of building one of the best fighting machines the world has ever known.



It is interesting to me that the Pentagon wants a year to "study" how to make the transition. As Colonel Victor Fehrenbach stated last night, the U.S. has 25 allies whose militaries are functioning well with openly gay members. All we have to do is use their systems as a template. The one year wait is just another effort to stall the inevitable.

RECOMMEND.

[offog]

86. Wasn't Admiral Mullen great?

He came across so well - sincere and reasonable. As opposed to the Republican Senators who spoke against his view. Those guys came across as jerks trying to find reasonable excuses for their fear and bigotry. One of those Senators even had the nerve to accuse the Admiral of trying to exercise "undue influence". Seriously?! This coming from a Republican after all the abuses of power from the Bush/Cheney administration?

[rasputin1952]

87. I think he did an excellent job, and with the backing of Powell

and Shalishkavelli, there is some extremely powerful weight behind him.

On the other hand, McCain was medically retired as a Captain in the Navy, and he holds no weight whatsoever in military circles...except the Chickenhawk Brigade...:hi:

[jaysunb]

23. Another Vet in agreement

:thumbsup:

[billancourt]

24. dadt

as a veteran having served in the us and french military, i agree wholeheartedly, with the soldiering as well as philosophical aspect of your comment. bill o'reilly, speaking on the subject said something along the lines of " it's just the problem of openly gay people parading around in the barracks". i don't really think that in the macho and predominately anti-gay milieu that is the military, a soldier that happens to be gay, is going to be prancing about and trying to make "friends" in the barracks. this is just a simply ridiculous argument to what is actually a non-starter. i worked for a guy that was gay, the man was honest intelligent and also one good looking dude. the subject never came up and outside of his circle of gay friends you'd never know the difference. the military should stay asexual and apolitical. one of the best battle tested colonels i had was gay, so what, we still kicked ass under his orders.

[jaysunb]

25. Welcome to DU

My very first CC was gay. Kind, humorous and tough as nails. He made us all better soldiers.

[rasputin1952]

29. Welcome to DU...

:hi:

I'm a straight male, and was in for quite a few years...I was there for the transition when the influx of women was begun...and long before that as well.

I'll be the first to admit it was awkward, this was a cultural change that came on rather quickly, and I'll also readily admit, we tried to placate the women as this was new to us. This situation lasted a remarkably short period of time, as we soon realized that females were just as tough, often tougher, more disciplined and often better soldiers than their male counterparts. I still chuckle at how we "changed" our tone, less cussing, more bravado, and some other stuff...right up until the women proved to be equals in cussing and physical stamina...(with the added benefit of generally being a tad smarter than the average GI...:D ).

Anyway, it all worked out for the best, and the services were happy to have them, as initially, since they were in support roles, it freed up many males to move into more combat ready modes. Now, they are almost fully integrated into just about everything but the combat arms, like Infantry. We lost one female chopper pilot in Iraq, and a female Medic was awarded a Silver Star for her actions during a firefight over there, (only the second woman to ever receive the award). We've had female POW's and never once have they let the Army down. My daughter was on the carrier USS Carl Vinson, which launched the first attacks against Iraq.

As far as O'Reilly, or any other RW blowhard...where is their service record? Oh that's right...Chickenhawks don't have DD214's, they have nothing more than a bullying attitude based on their glaring ignorance because of their absence of military service. Their lack of said experience somehow fosters the notion, (in their own minds), that they actually know what they are talking about. Whenever I come across people like this, the first thing I ask is, "when did you serve?". It really gets their goat and I love hearing all of the excuses...and then the inevitable, "but I've read Ollie North's book!"...:rofl:

The hundreds of times I've stood guard on cold nights, or been Sgt of the Guard, or in a parfox or listening post, (often w/gay soldiers)...I have never once heard of or encountered a sexual situation. There are more important things when duty calls, like making sure you and your comrades stay alive during what often becomes a very serious situation very quickly. These men and women, regardless of orientation, have never let me, or any soldier I know of down. Their sacrifices have been just as real as everyone else's, and their dedication to duty is unquestionable from my point of view.

[sarge43]

34. Welcome to DU

Keep in mind O'Reilly, Lumbaugh et al never spent a day in service. They have no idea. I don't even buy the "I know how the troops feel/do" from an officer. No sir/ma'am, you don't. You haven't lived the life. Plus, we enlisted don't tell you how we feel or what we're doing because you in truth don't want to know.

Barracks are self regulating. If the gang doesn't like what an individual is doing in the crib, individual is informed to knock it off. Usually a quiet word from ranking inhouse noncom is sufficient or if individual persists, a no notice shower with scrub brush and scouring powder will affect the desired behavioral readjustment.

Among enlisted I've encountered very, very few are raging homophobes. If there is any negative attitude, it's more ignorance, not hostility. 99% of the time the 'tude is what has been expressed here: Sure I've known gays and lesbians in the service. They did their jobs; that's all that matters.

Best summed by my spousal unit, another lifer noncom, about canceling DADT, "Who gives a rat's ass."

[MindandSoul]

26. I'm not a veteran, and I'm not gay. . .but I wholeheartedly agree and thank you for your honesty

and your fairness!

[rasputin1952]

36. I'm not gay either, but I am a human being...

that is the common bond among all of us, regardless of any "distinctions".

I fully admit I am late to cause, since I am not gay, I thought it "wasn't my issue". I was wrong, it is an issue of Human Rights, and I have firmly stood for Human Rights for many a year...I was a fool not to see this w/GLBT Rights. Such is the past, but now that I see this in the light, I stand by the GLBT community in their struggle for Equal Rights. No "group", (whatever that means, we are all human beings), should ever be treated as second class citizens...:hi:

[Moonwalk]

58. What you realized does you credit. I hope the military helps us to get more of the U.S. to--

--realize it. It was what I (a straight female) kept knocking my head against with that evil Prop. 8. :grr: That this was an issue about human rights and human beings. Meaning it's everyone's issue. :rant: But people want to put on blinders and think voting on gay rights is like voting on whether to raise taxes. I don't know if they're just fools who don't see, or they do see but refuse to because then they couldn't hold to their cherished biases. But they're all so shocked and surprised when they see rallies of angry gays (and non-gays) after they vote for such things. They're amazed that there's a backlash because it never occurs to them that what they did affects actual people...after all, they vote "no" on raising taxes and there are no boycotts afterwards....

:banghead: Stupid fucks!

Just a rant there. But this sort of thing is and has always been inexcusable. Because if you can take such rights away from one group, you can take them away from any group. To make people second class citizens in this way is to work against your own self-interest. Because you're making sure what can be done to them can be done to you. Just ask a few Jews about the Nazis or a few blacks about Jim Crowe laws....

Which is all to say :fistbump: We non-vets are right there with ya, man. It's our issue, too.

[rasputin1952]

61. Rant on!!!

Great rant...:hug:

[MindandSoul]

81. Does anyone know if there is a group of "heterosexual for gay rights?"

or something like that?

Like "Hockey mom for gay rights" or "Humans for gay rights?"

If it exists, I'd love to join! I have been supportive of gay rights for many years. . .but never really did enough I think!
And I believe that this kind of support may make a difference.

[old mark]

27. Another vet in solidarity. It's about time to realize that gays in the military

are patriotic Americans who wish to serve our country.

Give them the credit and respect that they deserve.

mark

[era veteran]

28. This vet agrees

In my tank battalion most of the medics and about a third of the spoons (cooks) were gay, 1973-1977. They did a good job. Everyone deserves the right to defend our country.

[MrScorpio]

30. You know that this vet agrees

[Christa]

32. K & Highly rec'd

I don't know you, but I love you after reading this post. We need more people like you.

[babylonsister]

33. Rec'd! nt

[euphoria12leo]

Thank you

from me and all the members of my family that have served/serving in the military.

:applause:

[euphoria12leo]

35. Thank you

from me and all the members of my family that have served/serving in the military.

:applause:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. Can I recommend this thread only ONCE?

Damn. OK. Fine. But if I could, I recc. this thing again and again.

Well said, and thank you (and the rest of the vets here at DU) for your service.

[pasto76]

40. Everyone in my squad got a fair shake

Which included a few females in a combat role. A gay troop would be no different. I built my squad on duty, integrity, respect.

SGT PASTO

[sarge43]

41. There's only one question that may be ask of anyone who serves.

Does that individual honorably do their duty as it is given to them to do? Everything else is irrelevant.

Hand salute, Sergeant and thank you.

[jmowreader]

42. The Right is putting forth an argument that proves they don't know about the military

The argument goes, "what if a commander had to order his beloved into battle?" This is a fallacious argument to any real soldier, for two reasons.

First, the Army has a lot of "dual military" couples--ones where both spouses are in the service. Some of those couples are officer/enlisted--maybe husband's an artillery sergeant, wife is a helicopter pilot. As far as is practical they assign them so the senior member (we're talking rank here) doesn't have command authority over the subordinate.

And second, there are already very good, very effective ways to deal with fraternization--senior personnel dating juniors in their chain of influence. Why anyone seriously thinks these fraternization regulations would not apply to same-sex relationships, I have no idea.

The other "problem" I have heard is the barracks situation--can you room a heterosexual with a homosexual? Fucking Combat Arms weenies who don't have to deal with coed units don't have a clue. Combat Support and Combat Service Support unit personnel can answer this real easy: I don't put a male and a female in the same room. I don't put a smoker and a nonsmoker in the same room. I do my very best to not put a Country Music fan in with a non-Country fan--man, can you imagine putting a Beyonce fan in with a guy with a large collection of country CDs? I'd be bailing him out of the Mental Hygiene ward at the hospital on a weekly basis! So why the fuck would I put a heterosexual in with a homosexual? If anything, the gay guy would be more stressed out over the situation than the straight guy would. And forget the "sex" angle--they don't allow sex in the barracks now, why would they allow it after DADT is lifted? Considering some of the troops I've had working for me over the years, I think a gay guy can probably control his dick better than many young straight guys.

I remember a conversation I had with a colonel in Norfolk while the Clinton-era hearings were going on. We had a TV tuned to CNN in the workspace, and this colonel was ranting about gay people (which he called "fags," of course) possibly being allowed in the service. Then he made the mistake of asking me what I thought about it. I told him: I have a whole platoon at Fort Drum. The fuckers can't soldier. They can't shoot, can't search, can't pass the language test, can't read a clock, can't maintain their equipment worth a damn, can't hardly do anything but look pretty, and half of 'em can't even drive because they had DUIs. I'll be more than happy to trade you my entire platoon for one "fag" who can do his damn job. He got the point.

[rasputin1952]

46. Generally speaking, the military is known for it's sloth-like pace in

which it changes.

During the Civil War, incredible technological changes were made, to include excellent repeating rifles and carbines. The "wisdom" of the day kept Union Infantry fighting w/muzzle loaders...the "explanation"..."soldiers would 'waste' ammunition"...:wtf:

It is that mind-set stupidity by some in the higher echelons that have not served the military well. It still exists, far beyond any reasonable thought patterns. Pearl Harbor was a serious disaster because the Navy was still in "Battleship Mode"...it didn't occur to them that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack by seaborne air power.

One good thing...the military is changing for the better. Even 20 years ago, I can recall being asked my opinion on several aspects of how "things should be done". They finally realized that those on the ground, in the lines, knew more than they did...;)

[jmowreader]

49. Sloths are quick compared to some of the technological changes the military does

The 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) was activated 13 February 1985. On May 15, 1992, elements of the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) were still using IBM PC-XT computers. Our company laptop had a 286 in it. (Could be worse, though: the division artillery had World War II-vintage M101 105mm howitzers.) We tried to get new computers--the commanding general was all for it; he had an XT on HIS desk and didn't like it either--so he had some of us make lists of the computers our soldiers had. Information Management Division said we didn't need any new computers. Of course, THEY had 486s in their shop.

[rasputin1952]

53. I know what you mean...

Speaking of 105's...it may seem odd...but those guns were worth their weight in gold AFAIC. There was something "soothing" about outbound rounds. The 8"ers were something as well...I still can "hear" the whoof, whoof, whoof" as the traveled overhead...and then, the distant rumble as they reached their target.

Another thing that never ceased to amaze me was naval gunnery...if you had a good gunnery officer, and the turret crew was on top of things, they were incredibly accurate. Going back to Normandy, the 16 & 14" guns did damage, but it was the 5" guns of destroyers that made a real impact. One destroyer captain, seeing the carnage on Omaha Beach, took his ship in close, (we're talking to the point of about a foot draft!), and unloaded w/her 5"ers, several rounds went right through the ports of pillboxes...much to the joy of the soldiers pinned down. Some Rear Admiral wanted the captain to face a Court-Martial, but Ike literally told him to "fuck off", some days after the landing...:D

[jmowreader]

69. I never really liked 105s for some reason...

I think it's the 11-kilometer range at Charge 7 and the fairly small projectile it fires. The 155mm howitzer is a MUCH more suitable tool.

And for real entertainment, introducing the new M795 155mm howitzer projectile: 80 pounds of steel, 23 pounds of TNT. You can fuck some shit UP with one of those!

[sarge43]

48. All the arguments are fallacious.

I outrank my husband. The fact we were in two very different career fields solved any potential command problem. In some other time/space contin if I had to order him into battle I would; that would be my duty and his. Everyone ordered into battle is someone's beloved. No less or more than mine.

As for the "There'll be buggery in the rigging!!" hysteria, I like the answer one gay gave, "Straight men vastly overrate their attractiveness." Yes, there may be a handful of instances and when DOD gets equally hot eyed and tight lipped about instances that servicewomen routinely get from heterosexuals, then I may take that concern seriously.

Unit cohesion: Still waiting for an example of a unit or mission that fell on its ass because gay or lesbian was assigned or in the chain or on station or somewhere within shouting distance. I know from personal experience that a unit or mission can be adversely affected by the discharge of a key individual for sexual orientation, not any action, just orientation.

One of my faves from the days when we were crewing pterodactyls: They can be blackmailed and that's a security risk! Of course again, no examples and no one in service has ever ever done anything that might not do well in the light of day. Also, who is making orientation black mailable?

[rasputin1952]

50. I remember this...

"They can be blackmailed and that's a security risk!"...:eyes:

A complete absurdity.

In fact, the complete opposite happened. Heterosexuals were blackmailed in instances where they had an affair w/someone who turned out to be a spy. I have direct knowledge of 3 such situations, all involving classified information. These 2 officers and one high ranking NCO were serving in Germany at the time. I had a Top Secret Clearance, and when I heard about it, I did the only thing I could do...I turned them in. This may not seem like the "right thing to do", but it was, my ties to the Army itself were far stronger than my ties to an individual that had compromised the lives of my fellow soldiers.

[sarge43]

51. That 'argument' didn't last too long.

It was the right thing to do. They didn't give a damn about anything beyond their appetites.

[jmowreader]

57. Yes, you're absolutely right

Sexual improprieties were ALWAYS one of the best ways to blackmail people into becoming spies--maybe the best. People think offering money is the best way, but a spy who's in it for the money will tell you to go fuck yourself if the money isn't there anymore, and they get greedy. "That information used to cost you a thousand dollars. This time it's two thousand." You tell a guy you've got a picture of him screwing a male KGB officer and you'll send copies to his battalion commander and his wife if the guy doesn't start providing information, and you'll get everything you want for free. You don't even need the picture!

This can backfire on the KGB occasionally--the story the Counterintelligence people liked to tell was of the dude who lost his virginity to someone who was actually a KGB officer. They apparently didn't investigate this guy very closely because they told him they were going to send the picture to his wife, which he didn't have one of. He told them he wanted a copy of it, though, because no one in the barracks believed he got laid.

(On edit: Another war story. In 1982 I worked for a man named Jack McGuinness. We called him Cactus Jack, and everyone on post who wasn't an MP loved him. For some reason he and I were in the operations office and the subject of gayness came up. Cactus Jack said he wished one of his troops would admit to being gay. We're all like "he would throw him out, hang him from a yardarm, whatever." Nope. Cactus Jack went on to explain that if someone admitted he was gay he would never have to worry about that soldier becoming a spy--as anti-gay as Reagan was, there'd be no way to blackmail someone who admitted being gay.)

[rasputin1952]

60. ...

:rofl:

That's great!!!

[jmowreader]

66. Old spy stories are always good...

Ever hear of a guy named James Hall? One of the most prolific spies of the Cold War era? (Not gay. Just greedy.) Most spies are at least a LITTLE discreet--this fucking guy had buyers in the Stasi, the KGB and the GRU. He was selling shit at a rate that made the head spin. Unfortunately, he forgot what he was selling and started passing the same documents to the Stasi he'd already given to the Soviets--and the Soviets didn't like his double dipping.

[Puppyjive]

44. This vet concurs

This vet is full agreement.

[Glorfindel]

45. Thank you, fellow veteran, for saying it just right!

n/t

[Moonwalk]

52. Of Course, it's more than just in combat that the absurdity of DADT has become apparent, and--

--I think it's those not in combat that have made the most powerful impression on civilian and political minds. You mentioned "When one is in a firefight, all you care about is whether the individuals you are with can shoot and move to take the position you are obliged to take" and I take you at your word that this is absolutely true, as you're a vet and I'm not. I think male and female soldiers have been long convinced by being in combat with their "don't ask" gay counterparts that DADT is absurd.

BUT what I think has been getting the attention of the rest of the civilian population lately are the translators and others who are not in combat, but doing a rarified job of gathering intelligence. When they get kicked out of it thanks to DADT, it makes news headlines and actually scares the civilians. Sad that we need to scare people into doing the right thing, but there you are. You've got one guy who's fluent in this strange dialect and capable of getting information that'll stop another 911 or save the lives of hundreds of troops and you're going to send him home because of his sexual orientation?

That certainly makes people think twice about whether DADT is interfering with the military doing its job in protecting our nation. Because doing something like that sounds, to me, like sabotaging the mission. And I think when chickenhawks like O'Reily and others present their opposition to rescinding DADT, we should ask them why they hate America, don't want to support the troops and want us to lose "the war." If they're not willing to let the military use every weapon at their disposal as they see fit to win the war--including troops and translators who happen to be gay --then they're traitors. And should be branded as such.

[rasputin1952]

56. I've always held Chickenhawks as traitors...

I do not decry the fact they never served, but when they start to talk about the military as if they were at one time a member of it in some form, that's what gets my dander up.

When some slug like O'Reilly talks about gays in the military...the first thing I think of is..."I grew up in NYC, I know NYC, there are plenty of gays there...Hey, O'Reilly! Go into a gay bar and start spouting off your bigotry face to face with those you would disparage. You won't, will you stinking coward!".

The thing is...he, and all like him squeal from behind protection, like all bullies. He hasn't the guts for a one-on-one face off, he never has, and he never will. Even on the radio and TV, he can't offer a good rationale, all he can do is fall into bully mode, and get louder and more hostile...he knows hes a cowrad, so he covers it in bluster.

I've known many a fine man that now rests beneath the sod...been to many a military funeral. O'Reilly and his ilk would not even spend a dime on honoring these men and women who have sacrificed so much...so they can speak w/"authority"...bunch of damned hypocrites...Hannity and "Ton-o-Fun" Limbaugh are even worse...:grr:

[sarge43]

67. Excellent rant, Ras.

:applause::yourock:

Congrats on coming up a hundred recs :wow:

[Toasterlad]

54. I Agree With Most Of Your Argument, But Your Last Sentence Is Ridiculous

The military has rarely - if ever - been the vanguard for social change. The military has ALWAYS been behind the curve on emerging social issues, and, indeed, remains woefully behind the curve on many issues today that the rest of society has more or less come to terms with (the role of women being a particular example).

[rasputin1952]

59. It was the military that led on integration, under the orders of ...

Truman. That single act catapulted a rise in integration nationwide. Eisenhower followed up a few years later when he called in the 101st to uphold the law in AL. With each, "Changing of the Guard" in military leadership, the military, out of necessity has led in many social changes, sometime overtly, and certainly succinctly. Many soldiers never knew people from other parts of the country existed until they were intertwined in the military. You give the military far less credit than they are due on this issue...;)

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

79. Interesting. I Guess You Can't Say That The Military Has a Problem With Bigotry

Even if you've seen and experienced it with your own eyes. I guess the best way to fix a problem is to pretend it doesn't exist.

[sarge43]

65. It's spotty.

The UCMJ had a Miranda article since 1951 long before the Supremes told the civilian world to have one.

Yes, racial integration was only du jure for far too long, but at least after 1948 there were no separate drinking fountains. How long did it take for civilian sector to catch up?

I enlisted in 1962 and yes there were too many restrictions on servicewomen. However, the service was perhaps the only place I was guaranteed equal pay with my male counterpart. At the time a woman O-4 was among the top ten women wage earners. One of the very few places I could supervised men and make it stick. If I hung in, I could retire at 39 with half pay and a tidy package of bennies. The GI bill got me my degree. In 1962 how many women could look forward to that? After mid 70's and most of the restrictions were removed things got even better. They're still not great, but in 1963 if someone told I'd see the day when a woman, an African-American woman, would be a rear admiral and command a naval task force off the Horn of Africa, I would have said something rude and crude.

[Toasterlad]

74. I Can't Deny the Rules On Paper

However, per my post above, it's been my experience that the atmosphere of the military is very much contrary to the esprite de corps we're sold in enlistment commmercials.

Granted, I was a sailor 20 years ago, and I've no doubt that things have changed somewhat. Unfortunately, from what I've seen through my acquaintance with a few young military people of today (in the Philadelphia area, which tends to be rather liberal), things haven't changed nearly as much as they should have.

[sarge43]

75. Well, all I can say in answer is

in or out service things are never as good as they should be. As said in another thread, rescinding DADT will be a major battle won, but the war is far from over. However, we can and must keep going.

[Toasterlad]

80. I Certainly Agree With That.

[liberation]

55. My take has always been that any Armed Forces which feel threatened by "teh" Gays....

... should not feel entitled to over 50% of our hard earned taxes. Because if they feel so powerless against homosexuals from their very own country trying to help them in the fight. Imagine how useless they must be against battle hardened foreign heterosexuals trying to actually battle them...

[kestrel91316]

63. +100

[Permanut]

64. Well said, Rasputin

- From another old vet.

[Joey Liberal]

68. This veteran agrees too nt

[defendandprotect]

71. This is simply more exploitation to keep the civilian exploitation going :: profits involved

Capitalism is based on exploitation --

this is simply more of it -- to benefit the few.

Patriarchy's male-supremacist religions teach this intolerance to separate us

and to give license to human exploitation according to various "myths" of inferiority.

The sooner we all come togethere, the better off we will all be!

Nice OP!!

:)

[Crowman1979]

73. If abolishing DADT gets rid of the fundies, then I'm all for it!

Because in tough situations I want solutions, not prayer.

[sarge43]

76. Indeed

If they mean what they say and they bail out of the service if DADT is spiked, a great extra benefit.

[KeepItReal]

77. Roger that.

Well said!

[NanceGreggs]

82. Damn! Too late to rec!

FABULOUS piece, Rasputin!!!

:applause: :patriot: :applause:

[Number23]

84. I'll co-sign you on the rec I gave it yesterday

:)

[NanceGreggs]

85. Thanks - and I'll co-sign a "rec" for you in future!

Been off DU (due to work) and didn't see this until it was too late - DUH!

:hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Thanks for saying it

and saying it well. You got it said.