Mil tidbits

Haitians want US to take over
Not just relief efforts, the Government US mil politely refuses.
- Over 45 years ago I was aircrew on two hurricane relief flights into PortauPrince. From what I read, things havent changed much at all. I blame the French.

Iran promises epic event for the 31 anniv of the great Islamic revolution.

One assumes they mean to start up one of those 'Nuclear Power Plants'
Navy moves ships in to shoot it down.


Pelosi requisitions Mil flights to haul her kids around?

When I was in, {before Viet NAm} high ups 'hitched' on cross country training fights. There was speculation as to whether the flights were planned before the need to travel or we just let Andrews know the schedule... whatever, we didnt fly families of, without the biggety on board.
Is anyone here really surprised if that's true?

 

re: Flights for families

It's old news. In the 80's, we saw lots of college aged kids who flew to Europe for vacation on military "Space A" flights just because they were related to someone in the gov'ment. And yeah, sometimes it meant that military families didn't make the flight and had to wait for the next one.

 

DADT

heh... after a long while something I can agree with Powell on.. let gays declare.

Oh, there will still be the occasional queer beat-down, because a few wont be able to resist cruising in barracks, but very seldom 'just because'.

Ironically, the main reason times have changed relate to heightened awareness on 'sexual harassment'.

Thank the femi-nazis!

 

RE: DADT

I thought 'don't ask don't tell' was the perfect compromise, especially in a community in which lack of privacy is so common, except between genders. If the rule is repealed, it will get very very unpleasant for any military gay men who 'announce themselves', especially in the lower enlisted ranks. Basic training would be especially tough, almost unlivable.

It's not so much prejudice, per se, but 18-24 year old males, especially, tend to feel very uncomfortable about being naked around gay men. We separate the genders in the military to avoid that kind of 'discomfort' and I fear it would lead to some severe unpleasantries that if persecuted too hard and too publicly will have a negative impact on military recruiting (as the military already tends to be more conservative than the national average).

 

Re: RE: DADT

Sorry Andy, DADT was a good idea in practice that didn't work in execution -- that's why we are looking at it today.

I changed my mind on this one so much that I qualify to run for office. I think, once it is all said and done, that gas will be allowed to serve openly in the military, and the mission will not suddenly screech to a halt. One thing about lower enlisted ranks is, they have to listen if someone higher than them tells them to cool it. In that sense, if the top brass wanted to end this policy way back when, they could have done so.

 

Re: RE: Re: RE: DADT

Don, to be fair, I read what Andy wrote as laying potential incidents on the doorstep of ignorant and/or immature 18-24 y.o. straight guys. Not accusing gays of "causing disruption".

Steve makes a good point though. If the brass take a zero tolerance approach and enforce it, they'd avoid major incidents (outside of a few initial ones while a precedent is set...some folks have to learn the hard way). Policing the constant little needling and harassing stuff could prove very difficult but as I understand it, DADT is pretty much a misnomer as most gays in the service are much suspected and usually outright known. So you'd have to think that level of abuse would remain status quo to what you have today.

I have a hard time buying that Arab theory (unless you're saying that was before DADT) b/c we have established that they couldn't boot out Middle Eastern people they wanted to be rid of, such as the gobshite that shot up Hood. I have a hard time buying any kind of focused initiative to eliminate an existing subset of the military. Bureauocracies just don't tend to be that efficient or effective, and certainly aren't good at keeping it under wraps.

 

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: DADT

I would propose modifying DADT so that "coming out" only becomes a barrier to enlistment and re-enlistment; i.e., not as grounds for discharge and even then, it could be up to the discretion of the commanding officer (for re-enlistment).

People are free to make their own personal life choices, but, especially for thing like Basic Training, keeping such decisions private would be a good thing, IMO.

And to reiterate, FulhamAg is correct - I'm not blaming gays for any disruption, it is a reaction that young males have that causes the disruption but I don't see that reaction going away without segregation, which is going in the wrong direction.

As for "junior enlisted do what they're told" - the WORST thing you can do for any individual in Basic Training is single them out for a "special protected status."

 

Where I understand the principle behind DADT is that every single soldier I saw that came out of the closet, frankly, I didn't want them anywhere near an operation involving me. The bottom of the barrel as far as soldiering, and the stakes are rather high in that line of work.

I think I said this once before, but of the soldiers that came out when I was in Iraq (I can think of 3), one was a 19 year old girl in my platoon who I am sure was willing to be a lesbian for a few months so she could get shipped to the rear. She was just homosexual enough to get out of Iraq. Once she was home, I have no doubt she found out that guys were a whole lot better.

What that means, I guess, is up to individual interpretation. You will always have someone flaking out, DADT or not. But I can't write it off entirely as coincidence that the soldiers I saw as willing to come out were not ones I would want in my squad.

 

Don. So you're saying that it's not ok for guys to feel uncomfortable showering with those who are attracted to their gender? I would submit that that's a far different proposition than racial integration.

The argument could be made that, if you are fully integrating gays in the military, there shouldn't be any gender segregation of quarters and facilities. Is that where you want this to go?

 

Go figger.. here I go siding not only with ' My Country first, My race second, My party third' Powell.. but Don, as well...

I said DISTINCTLY:

Which is what I meant.

Those who came out under DADT once they got 'In Country' have nothing to do with it, anymore than someone who suddenly found they were conscientious objectors when finding they were in the line of fire, as opposed to just on a meal ticket to tuition reimbursement.
OF COURSE you dont want to trust your six to them.

And in the sixties, 'racism' was still rampant in the services... the worst offenders were of course those from the white ghettos of Boston, NYC and 'Bal'mer.' Not the hick country boys and not as far as I recall Suthrens.

Viet Nam, by the way, was the great 'leveler' when it came to racial acceptance in the services. I was in before VN, my brother said that once units got in country things were a whole lot different.

Imagine if you were both black and gay.. happened in my squadron. The other gay in my squadron, at least the scuttlebutt went, was one of the Brooklyn racists.

I would hope that the one year time frame to eliminate DADT is to find a way to cull out the rabbits.

 

This is where the argument gets silly. Do you really believe that any gay people you know are so loaded for bear that as soon as they get in a men's room shower they are going to pounce on anyone they see? Please.

For those young men who do believe this, this is where the CoC comes in (if they see fit). If Private Snuffy has a problem with someone who is light in the ass, he can think what he wants, he just can't do a thing about it, or he can face punishment under the UCMJ. That happens in a lot of areas in the Army. Servicemen do not enjoy all of the freedoms that they are serving to protect. That is how it is. If homosexuals where in the military, this would be one more example.

 

SteveM. I'm not talking about the gays being attracted to them INDIVIDUALLY, but to their gender. A major reason for the current gender segregation in quarters and facilities is so that, from one perspective, no one has to get naked in front of someone who is attracted to their gender. i.e., the assumption is that men like women and vice versa so segregating by gender avoids anyone feeling inordinately uncomfortable about undressing.

The argument could be made that a gay man walking into the shower room being used by another man is sexual harassment; i.e., his actions (walking into the shower when man #2 was naked) made the other man feel uncomfortable. It's a clear case if a man walks into the womens' shower and it would not require a top shelf lawyer to make the case if its a gay person walking into the same-gender shower.

 

If you're gay and want to serve, then you should be allowed to.

But I'm finding this debate, both here and everywhere, lacks context while delivering on principle.

According to a WaPo story, there are an estimated 65,000 gays and lesbians in the military. The number could be higher or lower -- thanks to DADT we can never know.

According to several sites, there at least 3.3 million men and women serving in the armed forces: be it active, reservist, or paramilitary.

So by my math that is about 1.92 percent of the total military.

Besides the point? Perhaps.

 

If you're gay and want to serve, then you should be allowed to.

But I'm finding this debate, both here and everywhere, lacks context while delivering on principle.

According to a WaPo story, there are an estimated 65,000 gays and lesbians in the military. The number could be higher or lower -- thanks to DADT we can never know.

According to several sites, there at least 3.3 million men and women serving in the armed forces: be it active, reservist, or paramilitary.

So by my math that DADT affects about 1.92 percent of the total military.

Besides the point? Perhaps.

 

Did you ever consider this

 

Don. It's not even a matter of "Gay haters." I have male gay friends, but I wouldn't want to share a communal shower with any of them any more than I'd want to share a communal shower with some random women off the street. It's an issue that fits FIRMLY within the Federal Sexual Harassment regulations.

Timmy. I agree in principle that gays should be allowed to serve in the military, but what I liked about DADT is that their preferences were kept confidential. You can't feel uncomfortable about being naked around a gay guy if you don't know he's gay. "Suspecting" he is isn't good enough and that's why, in principle, it was enacted in the first place.