Night ops

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Don't Care About "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" But The Headline Is Wrong

Misleading headline: Senate votes to overturn military gay ban . The issue was not one of the military's making, but rather a matter of legislation - in other words, the legislative branch has decided to change a policy it enacted.

The military will obey the law - as it has been all along.

Now, let's see that big race to the enlistment office.

Meanwhile, to all you liberal "Ivy League" types - shut up. Really, I can assure you that almost no one in the service thinks this is as big a deal as you do.

Now, about those ROTC units that are not on your campuses . . . who will be the first to step forward and invite ROTC back?

That's what I thought . . .


UPDATE: A useful discussion at the Naval Insitute's "From DADT to DKDC". Read the comments, too.

UPDATE2: Ok, some "Ivies" are moving on ROTC.

7 comments:

  1. Bullseye.

    I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2010/12/re-dont-care-about-dont-ask-dont-tell.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, the law was created to prevent the government from asking it's soldiers their sexual preferences, registering a minimum standard of evidence of homosexual behavior during service that can initiate an investigation, and to outlaw the harassment of gay soldiers. The initial law was enacted as a compromise to give homosexual service men and woman a measure of protection against being investigated without probable cause.

    The law itself was fought by most of the military leadership at the time of it's enactment, as it allowed gay service men and women to serve as long as they didn't engage in any homosexual behavior- a huge change from banning homosexuals altogether. President Clinton was aiming at allowing gay men and women to serve openly. So it might not be the military's law, but they helped write it.

    The gay men and women who serve this country are already serving in the military- they've taken the brave step to both protect their fellow citizens AND lie about their fundamental selves to be allowed to do so. To act like homosexual men and women were waiting for a green flag from congress to serve there country is ridiculous. You are right: there won't be a rush to the recruitment office- they have already enlisted. It's a cheap shot that seeks to minimize gay soldiers' contributions to our national defense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are wrong, Brock.

    As you state, there are already gay service people and have been for a lot longer than DADT. Most have served well, some poorly. Just like everyone else who ever put on the uniform.

    That most gay service members currently serving signed up while DADT was in effect means that they should have gone in with their eyes open. No surprises if you know the rules before you join.

    I will not/did not judge "quality of service" on the basis of gender, national origin, sexual identity, race, age or on any other basis except on the ability do the job or not. Are you suggesting I should have some other standard?

    My point was that the military was not in control of DADT or its repeal (even if they had input). That is/was strictly a Congressional responsibility.

    Most of the protesters who have supported this change will now move on to some new cause and will not "race" to the recruiters, which was my point. Nor will all those colleges who have asserted that they took the "high moral ground" by banning ROTC, often in violation of other federal law, race to offer up space to the ROTC program.

    Meanwhile, service men and women, whatever their backgrounds,will go back to doing their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous5:07 AM

    Homosexuality has no place in the Modern U.S. military, period.
    Our mindless politicians have yet again foisted on to us a useless ruling in the form of so-called self-styled compassionate compromise that will only serve to pit individuals hither to united in proper purpose against each other at the most fundamental level, namely the belief systems of one group vrs. the perverse sexual proclivities of another group.
    There is NO place in the military for sex, or sexuality at all. The military is most certainly NOT the place for people to grandstand their sexuality. Some can insist that including all manner of sex (the inevitable end result of all this "openness" "tolerance") will have no negative impact that forcibly including open sexuality in all is endless variety into mainstream military life will be a zero sum game and makes no difference one way or another but those people are dreadfully wrong.
    And of course those that impose their politics won't be there to suffer the results of their naivete.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon:

    That ship has sailed.

    However, your comment about "belief systems" is off base - service members do a pretty good job of dealing with belief systems that hold views contrary to their own.

    The old wardroom adage about not discussing religion, politics or sex is a good rule for keeping the peace.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous4:01 PM

    Sir, I'm going to respectfully disagree.
    The military has made great strides in modifying other forms of less than admiral (and very expensive ultimately) behavior, ie smoking, drug and alcohol use etc on the basis that such activity is unhealthy, not moral and not in keeping with the "values" of Honor Courage and Commitment. Yet here we are, introducing what is no doubt one of the very most BASE of human behaviors to the mix. To what possible positive purpose could this be? No. There is none. Years ago now we stopped experimenting on our troops with LSD and syphilis. Why on EARTH would this social engineering experimentation even be considered as appropriate now? It's irrational.

    As for the adage about talk of "religion and politics" in the mess, no doubt, it still holds true, now more than ever, but that's precisely the point. Now it will be wide open (for some) and I don't see how old adages will hold back the water. When two individuals with radically opposed personal / religions views are now faced with one being granted leverage to publicly present with immunity their view the other being cowed into silence, nope, not too many war-fighters are going to stand for it.
    The men that take to heart all the talk (and it looks increasingly like little more than lip service at this point) of Honor Courage and Commitment are really going to being to wonder if the whole danged system is now off base.
    I for one will not back down. I simply can not. My religious views are the basis for my belief in my country and the Constitutional form of government I've sworn (in a very religious way) to uphold. If I were to be asked to "ignore" my faith that would be in effect asking me to ignore my rational for maintaining my belief in the ethical foundations of our country in the first place.

    Sure, "times" change and "things" change, but the word of God is not a thing it is timeless and it NEVER changes. Those that hold themselves to the level of Honor Courage and Commitment required by religious faith are bound by a higher authority and by faith they don't want to ever be told that the words Honor Courage and Commitment WERE little more than just words, were "flexible" and little more than lip service.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Harvard's official response endorsing a return of ROTC was by mid-day on Monday. Was that first? You didn't say which Ivy league school you were expecting to be first. Was it Harvard?

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/12/faust_says_rotc.html?p1=News_links

    ReplyDelete