Poking the DADT bear
It amuses me how upset everyone gets over DADT while there’s a war going on. The Secretary of Defense and his staff were in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee telling the world that they fully support the President’s policy, which is nothing more than jumping in bed with butt-hurt gays. For what? How will this improve our strategic position in the Middle East?
I don’t see legions of gay people milling around outside of recruiting stations waiting for DADT to fall by the side of the road so they can do their patriotic duty. I hope when (notice Isaid “when”) DADT finally ends they keep statistics of how many gays join just because there’s no more DADT. I’m guessing “none”.
Take our buddy dicksmith at Vote Vets; three out of the first six posts over there have to do with who is an American and who isn’t depending on their support for ending DADT. Is that really an issue which bears that level of scrutiny and discussion WHILE THERE’S A WAR GOING ON?
I’ll admit that we’ve had a large number of posts related to DADT this week, but it’s only because we love to watch you guys sling snot all over your computer screens. It’s called showmanship. But dicksmith takes this shit seriously, like he’s never going to get laid again until DADT is rescinded. I’m guessing he’s a bottom boy.
But, WHILE THERE’S A WAR GOING ON, there’s the Secretary of Defense snot-eyed in front of the likes of John Kerry professing his undying love for gays (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and the flamboyant lifestyle. Admiral Mullen said;
“I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Mullen said. “For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
Can’t escaped being troubled? That’s a bit flamboyant, too. This isn’t a policy that forces people to lie, it’s a policy that forces people to follow the rules. Is everyone forgetting that before DADT gays were forbidden to serve? DADT was an effective, moderate compromise – but the gay community doesn’t want to compromise. And that’s why they shouldn’t have a voice in the discussion. They won’t quit until there’s a digital-camouflage-patterned feather boa in the 670-1.
Just like the whole discussion of Sikhs and their turbans – they couldn’t wear their turbans in uniform because certain combat conditions might result in their death. But that didn’t stop them from making completely vacuous arguments and the Army caved. I don’t see the Army’s ranks swelling with Sikhs either.
Gates told the committee;
“I fully support the president’s decision,” Gates said. “The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we … best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly.”
Fine, that’s why you’re SecDef, you should support the president’s decision and that should be the end of the testimony to the Senate Committee. There was no need for Mullens to get teary-eyed and dramatic. Salute. Move out. But spare us the editorializing.
I just think it’s damn awful that Gates and Mullins can see the evils of DADT, but they’re absolutely blind to the threat that Nidal Hassan posed to military members.
So what do I think of DADT? I could care less – both sides are being disingenuous. I feel the same way about gays that feel about women in combat – if they can make the standard and follow the rules, they’re welcome. But gays haven’t proven to me they can follow the rules. My objection isn’t moral – I just don’t think they can behave themselves and i certainly don’t believe that the repeal of DADT is the solution to all of our manpower problems.
And there’s more important shit going on in the world that our military should be worried about than having our Secretary of Defense and his staff sitting in front of John Kerry telling him how much they approve of sodomy in the ranks. But that’s just me.
Category: Military issues
Dude, get on message, the gheys will be cross dressing, marrying each other and all joining special forces so they can hump unsuspecting physically fit males. Don’t you read the blogs?
I don’t even have time to read my blog these days.
And, as you note in the title, it is only a matter of time until the gays are poking bears.
As long as they are the same sex, I can’t ask you about it.
Jonn, believe you’re on point with a lot of this but I do care about the repeal. The american people are not convinced this needs to happen (Prop 8 and the success of DOMAs around the US testify to that) and it has real and palpable repercussions for all.
A couple of other things:
1. How does one “openly” serve?
2. Is the logical extrapolation of “openly” serving, marriage? If so, it would it be federally constituted and recognized?
3. If #2 happens, what about states rights? What about the DOMA’s that have passed in every state they’ve been brought to a vote?
4. WRT 1 and 2, once it’s decided “how” one does that, what “educational” programs will we see spring up in DoD classrooms, daycares, initial entry training, officer courses, War College. How many millions $?
5. What will the impact be on Christians and chaplains? If I intimate to a “open” soldier that his lifestyle might be “fill in adjective here” will I be subject to hate crime (homophobia) legislation?
6. How many GO’s will DoD go through before they get those they need to get behind this measure and get it passed?
BLUF: for this to happen, the law must change. Right now, no senator up for reelection is going to vote for this radioactive topic.
Can we say open a can of worms?
Why yes, yes we can.
Nothing like abandoning a perfectly workable compromise in DADT. Cant wait for the unintended consequences to strike here–ought to be a real laugh a minute–NOT.
And I thought women on submarines was a bad idea…just wait until you’re in a firefight with a guy who says, “But I can’t shoot him, he looks FABULOUS!!!”
Isn’t DADT then the perfect solution…..I mean it is a compromise. One side wants teh gheys banned, the other wants them to serve openly, sounds like DADT meets both right in the middle, or it did…now the goal posts have moved and where DADT was a middle of the road compromise it is now “one of the sides” Interesting how the other side never shifted…..
Old Tanker, agreed. It’s the best solution.
“Dude, get on message, the gheys will be cross dressing, marrying each other and all joining special forces so they can hump unsuspecting physically fit males. Don’t you read the blogs?”
Yeah, that’s why I can’t argue with people like you. I’d like to have a serious discussion of policy, how this will affect military readiness, combat effectiveness, manpower requirements and morale. You want to take the snicker-and-eyeroll approach to the deabte. No one talks like that and no one is making those arguments.
Ben, let’s put it this way…am I “defined” by my sexuality? Do I let it control who I am? No, not really. The homosexual lobby, OTOH, does. Acceptance of homosexuals isn’t enough for them–they want us to condone their lifestyle. Sorry, but that ain’t happening. I was channel surfing this evening and got stuck on MSNBC (Ed Schultz) while Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) was on. He used the most specious arguments to allow gays to serve openly, claiming we’re allowing “violent felons” (his exact words) to serve but not homosexuals. Well, that’s not true in either case. Felony waivers are granted, but they’re far less common than one would think, and not for violent felonies. Additionally, homosexuals CAN serve–just not in a feather boa or assless chaps. Finally, the whole thing boils down to a question of “good order and discipline”. How is having openly gay/lesbian troops going to affect that, from both the gay and straight service members? SecDEF and the JCOS sure as hell don’t know.
“…and i certainly don’t believe that the repeal of DADT is the solution to all of our manpower problems.”
Understatement of the year. Not only would it not be the solution to manpower problems, it would be the CAUSE of manpower problems!
Ben,
You’re a fucking idiot. I support repealing DADT as much as the ghey’s do because I believe that it’s fundamentally discriminatory, but I can make fun of all the fucking idiots on the left and the american idol watchers who have no idea of the difficulties and nuances that need to be taken into consideration to effectively repeal DADT.
TSO is a shining example of how one can be fundamentally sound yet evisceratingly sardonic. He may or may not support DADT but he’s able to make a difference between making fun of the “messengers” and the actual “message” itself. I’d tell you more about how much you’re a douche, but i would have depress my lips from TSO’s nut sack.
With respect Chris, I disagree. How does one experience discrimination under DADT? It is not an outright ban on homosexuals. There are just as many restrictions on who can and cannot serve, and in many circumstances, those who are found to have enlisted or received commissions under false pretense are in many cases separated. The point is that DoD is not actively going after gays/lesbians. If you want to take away DADT, fine, but it’s not carte blanche for the homosexual community, a fine point which I think they fail to recognize.
And yes, you’re right when you say I don’t believe those inside the beltway, both civilian and military, really have no clue what’s going to happen if and when the DADT ban is lifted. Do I think it will improve readiness and morale? No, but those are just my opinions.
Right. I’m an idiot because I want to talk about the issue and TSO takes the snarky sarcastic non-argument approach. I guess that makes me a “douche”.
Sounds like the SOD and several high ranking officers are closet gays. I would not serve under the fools (read your bible) and neither will my offspring if I can stop them. My immediate family has over 50 years of military service but as far as I’m concerned the line stops here.
I agree with the idea that the time has come to do away with “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” It was a moronic policy from the get go, and only a Clintonista could have come up with such idiocy. Yes, it’s long past time for this policy to go… and for the old policy of not allowing homosexuals to serve in any capacity to re-assume it’s place. This wouldn’t even be an issue if those running the military hadn’t been required to sell their souls to get their jobs. Much has been made today of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen’s testimony: “’allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do” I take a somewhat different perspective because, yes, I will openly call the Admiral’s motives into question for such a pronouncement and ask the question that I have yet to see anyone else ask: How many minutes would it have taken for Obama to fire Mullen if he had presented any other position? And what is the likelihood that passing that particular litmus test item was a requirement for Mullen to get the job in the first place? That is part of why I believe we’re long past time to quit screwing around with this nonsense in the first place. There is absolutely nothing compatible with the military service and the homosexual life style. Nothing. There is no requirement in this day and age to close our eyes to an abhorrent conduct, particularly when the basis for such a decision is nothing more than political pandering. Never forget that the military discriminates against people every day. Half inch too tall or too short? Weigh too much or too little? Commit a crime? Sustain an injury or wound? Fail to get promoted fast enough? Have severe acne? Any one or all of these will find you out, no matter how long you’ve been in; or in the alternative, keep you from enlisting in the first place. Yet, no one seems concerned about these institutionalized forms of discrimination… because THAT kind of discrimination is OK…… Read more »
If/when DADT is repealed, will all of those who were kicked out for DADT violations and are clamoring for it to be repealed be told “Have your ass back to work Monday morning”? And will they show up?
And are recruting numbers that bad? I heard some talking head sputtering on and on about how “We can’t afford to turn anyone away right now. We need everyone who is willing to serve……”
And if/when it is repealed I expect that there will be screaming hissy fits (sorry couldn’t resist) about any and all regulations that might be enacted to preserve good order and discipline as an ‘unconstitutional’ restriction of free speech/expression.
thank God I’ve only got 5 more years to 30
As I believe I heard SecDef Gates say on the radio last night about this DADT (pre-ordained?) “study”, there will be many aspects to be looked at: spousal benefits, housing, (whatever the rest of the list was).
IMHO, this DADT is a fine-enough compromise, even if it did come from Clinton. The military DOEN NOT CARE about your sexual leanings. Just STFU and do your job. If DADT repealed, I will do my best to discourage any young person from joining the military.
The Law of Unintended Consequences has been invoked. You have been warned.
Its gonna be repealed, I don’t think there is any question about that. The opinions of soldiers are not and have never been of any consequence to the people deciding this issue. The gay lobby isn’t interested in national defense, they are interested in winning another fight, actual defense be damned.
The ridiculous arguement about how many gays have been discharged has become an axiom of gay oppression. But, if 1000 gays are discharged this year, and DADT is repealed today, and next year 1500 soldiers do not reenlist because of the repeal, then what have we accomplished. We lost a understrength battalion is what we accomplished. Folks like Scrapiron are my worry. Generations of military service coming to an end.
Here’s the insanity of the homosexual lobby.
First they express their opposition to DADT in terms of manpower. Something along the lines of, “How can we chapter out all of these perfectly good soldiers just because they’re gay? We’re in the middle of two wars! We need every soldier we’ve got!”
Then, when you point out that the number of troops who will leave the military because of the change in policy is far greater than the number being chaptered out for homosexual activities, they immediately change their argument. “Who cares how people we lose? It’s a discriminatory policy, blah, blah, blah.”
“Discriminatory” has many meanings, and not all of them are bad. Nonetheless, you can see that their first “concern” (manpower requirements) is actually a smoke screen. They don’t give a rat’s behind if our military can recruit/retain soldiers.
By the way, as I have already linked, ten percent of troops say that they will definitely not reenlist if this policy is ended. Another fourteen percent (in addition to the ten percent) say that it may cause them to leave. Ten percent is bigger than the Marine Corps! According to Wiki, the combined strength of the Marine Corp’s active duty and reserve components is 243,000. Using a little public school math, I can see that the USMC represents 8.3% of the total US military.
So go ahead and repeal this policy if you think “it’s the right thing to do”. (It isn’t, by the way). But there’s no way in hell you can make the manpower argument. Absolutely absurd.
I don’t really like DADT, primarily because it promotes deception and my experience is that never works. I hated it from the start. WHEN you get outed, career’s over, wasted. The people you cared most about and who cared most about you are out of your life, hurt not by you being gay- but the LYING.
OK, BUT IN THE REAL WORLD….but to think of something better? I got nothing. There isn’t anything that works better. If a man or woman wants to serve, needs to serve, they are going to do what they’ve done through out history and that’s cover up their sexuality.
Fair? Not Fair? Who cares? the military discriminates. yep. that’s the way it is.
OldCav is right, the LIFESTYLE is not conducive to service.
Like Jonn, this is not keeping me awake nights. The military is politicized, and always will be. As much as it CAN maintain it’s integrity and separate-ness, the better.
When I pointed out that the Anti-DADT forces were making up stats out of whole cloth, and it makes that side look weaker you went after me. If we can’t agree that there is no evidence supporting the proposition that there will be 3x the misconduct charges, I have nothing left to discuss with you Ben.
I swear to God that all your arguing and refusing to accept that that is a ludicrous statement has only forced me to the other side of the issue. If someone can’t even see made up shit for what it is, I wonder what validity the rest of their argument holds.
Now, go root out cross dressing Generals, and I will work on my next post.
If/when DADT is repealed, will all of those who were kicked out for DADT violations and are clamoring for it to be repealed be told “Have your ass back to work Monday morning”? And will they show up?
It was in a previous thread and I forget who brought it up but it was to point out (anecdotally) that he believed that a fair number of the chapters came from soldiers that just wanted to get out/not deploy and outed themselves. Get back to work Monday morning? I think your premise is right, not too many would show but the few who were “outed by someone else and really loved the military and wanted to stay…….but how many would come back and expect back pay, time in service, etc… Maybe none, but I have to ask the question.
BTW, snark is the strong suit of TAH, that’s why I love coming here!!
Back in the day, when we had a piss test, it was always one NCO admin’ing the test and one watching the pee leave the body and entering the cup. I betcha’ I know who’ll get that job from now on. I think that is one job suited for those ghey folk.
[…] ALSO SEE: Poking the DADT Bear […]
After DADT is repealed then you will see crusty older NCO’s forced to go along or be forced out. You will only lose the worlds most combat experienced Soldiers. No big deal, they just could not adapt to change. Get outa here.
While I’m out so I don’t have a dog in this fight, I say if you repeal it, then you have to get rid of any separation by sex. If a ghey gets to look at something in the shower he wants to jump, then throw the women in there so the straight guys get to as well.
Piss the women off, thatll change the rules quicker then what we’re arguing about.
Wow, this is pretty funny. Jonn and Operator Dan had some good questions about timing and logistics. Then, well I am not quite sure what happened. I mean I know I am not going to change your readers minds, but damn at least they could deal in reality. Most of these other points just go to show that many people/readers have misinformation about gay people. How can I blame you though, the high speed gay soldiers you served with weren’t allowed to tell you, so you have a twisted idea of what gay soldiers are since you don’t reference real people but made up ideas in your head of what open gay soldier will be like (hint: like open straight soldiers). Not to mention that there seems to be a complete disconnect about what DADT asks gay people to do. If I asked you to live under DADT for one week would you even know what to do besides not go to the Renny Fair?(that is ALL you straight people, all you) You got one guy saying clicking “yes” on a poll is the same as actually leaving the military, another claiming there will be feather boas, another claiming states rights but then asking questions about federal marriage law as if he doesn’t understand the relationship and some other guy comparing felons and shorties, who can’t be trusted or can’t reach, to gay people who are already doing the job. Another thinks hate crimes are actual crimes and not sentencing provisions, and the states rights ones can’t seem to imagine what open gays will be like (2nd Hint: like open straight people), and then there is quite a few who think a compromise is when you start with “if someone knows you are gay you get discharged” and change it to “if someone knows you are gay you get discharged”. And don’t leave out that all the gay guys who are already in the showers not checking your dick, are all of a sudden going to accost you? And the pièce de résistance ? “The military DOEN(does) NOT CARE about… Read more »
Reminds me of the pussy that wanted out of basic so he told his Drill Sergeant, that he was gay. They marched him into the Senior Drill’s office and had him repeat his assertion. The Senior Drill Sergeant, SFC Valdez, lifted his shirt, undid his belt, dropped trousers and stated: “Prove it.” The kid declined and was hounded until they booted his whimpey ass out. I always wondered what would of happened if he had taken the Drill’ up on his offer?! Inquiring minds want to know…
Jen,
Since you hit on a couple of my points, I’ll jump back in.
For the record, the policy requires gays to be dishonest. That is incompatible with our ideals of integrity and honor.
However, as noted here and at BlackFive, serving the military is not a right.
Aside from the legal, logistical and administrative questions WRT implementation, there are, of course, the emotional components.
I would like to point out two:
1. Generations upon generations of, both deeply secular and stridently religious, families have raised their children with a point of view and belief in the propriety of the homosexual lifestyle. Those beliefs are emotional and speak to an individual and familial identity. Something not easily overcome by a day or two at “cultural immersion training” at AIT. Great emotion, indeed.
2. Watching the homosexual lobby absolutely destroy and treat with great contempt those in opposition to Proposition 8 in California should give pause to those who think that this is simply about being “accepted.” They are angry, feel entitled and have the money and key mouthpieces to berate those with whom they differ. Great emotion, indeed.
If Gates, Mullen and the intelligentsia believe that the 19 year old infantry private and his platoon sergeant can (and will) engage in nuance-laden, deeply analytical and non-judgmental conversations about rights and policies that they conference about from 30,000 feet, they are wrong.
IMHO, this decision should be put to the American people. Conduct a nation-wide referendum on the issue. Do it 2012 with the POTUS election.
If it’s the will of people we’ll see. And I’ll accept.
I doubt it would (see the success of DOMA’s) but at least that way all votes would count.
Sticky issue that doesn’t end well for all parties.