No accident a Navy guy support this.
Is it brave to advocate what your boss wants? Bravery is what the usual media pundits call Admiral Mike Mullen’s support for gays in the military. But , to me, that is sort of like the Fed Ex ads where everybody likes the idea when the boss says it, cutting out the guy who actually suggested it.
True bravery would be to resign in the face of a decision clearly bad for the military and the nation.
Instead, Mullen just helps the Obama administration in their attempt to gut the military that they, rightly, view as a threat to the ultimate takeover of the country by the forces of progressivism.
So they want to gut the military and make it something that no parent will want their kids to join. Turning barracks into bath houses would do just that.
Mullen, a careerist at core, is all too happy to help as thanks for elevating him to the ultimate spot in a military career. Never mind what is good for the military or the country.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:44 am
Is it “clearly” bad for the military? How specifically is it bad for the military? Rhetoric such as turning barracks into bath houses doesn’t persuade me because it seems an unlikely result. Real evidence of how a person’s sexuality adversely affects the esprit de corps would be more persuasive. My observation is that our current culture’s acceptance of homosexuality changes the arguments against gays in the military.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:46 am
It doesn’t ruin the military, it just isn’t good for the military.
The military doesn’t lack for recruits. There is no need to accept ANY recruit that can harm the mission or unit integrity.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:50 am
I’ll ask the question again, HOW is it bad for the military? I didn’t suggest it would ruin the military, I asked how it would be bad.
Also, I don’t think the argument for abolishing “don’t ask, don’t tell” is because it’s holding back recruiting, so I don’t understand the insertion of it into the debate. Please clarify why that’s relevant.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:02 am
Lets use woman as an example…
I saw, first hand, many cases of women using sex to their advantage. And I saw, in fewer cases, but enough, interest in sex, shape how small unit leaders treated female soldiers.
It is bad enough when sexual relationships happen between soldiers in a unit that are male and female. It was certainly a cost of letting females join. Now multiply that into potentially ANY unit as any man could be interested in any other man.
Finally, there will be a loss in quality recruits as a result of this. Mullen talks of “gain” but not of what the military will lose. Parents will not want to send their sons into this environment. And some number of recruits, of high quality, will be lost. For what in return?
Frankly Mullen was a bad pick, and this is just more proof of it.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:09 am
I’d add, that Paula, as my wife, knows full well how well I get along with gays. Having seen me do it when we lived in Dupont Circle.
This view isn’t about MY view of gays, which is “whatever”.
My view is based on my experience in the military and sports with boys and men. And on my experience living among gays. I’ve been hit on his showers, and saunas, and the street, and the grocery store, by men. Sure women experience that all the time. That is how MEN are. And they don’t stop being that way when they are gay and in the military.
Some would say Mullen has more military experience, true, but I’d say that experience is offset by being a boot-licking strap grabber that isn’t the “right” kind of experience.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:48 am
I’m really asking these questions to keep you “honest” in your debate. I know you could care less what people do in private.
I can concede that women in the military was social tinkering at the expense of the ability of the military to do what it physically needs to do. I still continue to believe that women can serve effectively in certain capacities. It may be that today’s military vs. the military you were in 20 yrs. ago has adjusted to the physical and social changes that females brought to the table, and will continue to adjust.
I would posit that your view of recruiting and unit interaction criteria is based on what I will call our “fuddy duddy” stage of life. My observation is that being gay is more widely accepted by the population. New recruits and their parents would have a different comfort level than your parents would have had 28 years ago.
The avoidance of risk is an unwise strategy in making policy (risk of unwanted advances). Are there policies in place that address sexual harassment and the reporting of it? There would be less chance of unwanted advances between men of somewhat equal physical strength than that of a man upon a woman in the same unit.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:03 pm
My concern was based on losing good recruits AND on negative effects of more targets of romance in the unit.
Policies cannot overcome nature. Only keeping them out will do that.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Our society’s acceptance doesn’t make it acceptable in combat. Any thing “bad”for performance, individual or group, like smoking or being different, must be trained out of a person expected to kill other people. Perception is very important here. If gays are perceived as too “different” they will be ostracized, especially in small isolated groups. This is what’s “bad” about openly gay policies for the military.
No service is capable of training this out of the recruits when the country tolerates it civily but not as a core belief. Integration suceeded because people felt it was inherently wrong. Not so being gay. All the studies and public high level statements are biased in favor of a new open policy. that doesn’t help the small group leader cope with any problem, thus it’s “bad” for the military.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:06 am
I concur with TR. Society accepts lots of things the military can’t and shouldn’t.
But… I don’t think gay acceptance is as high as you say. Just look at the continuing failure of gay marriage statutes.
Ultimately, just cause you watch Bravo channel doesn’t meant the country is going gay.