I was in the military, I joined when I was about to graduate. I was in the military for a term. Well while I was in the military I had two tires slashed and at least 1 death threat on me. Right before my death threat, I heard about a guy getting killed for being in the military and being gay. Which was one of many that had happened near me. I was completely shocked when I had seen how easily the military covers things like this up.
Well my questions is this: What are your thoughts on "don't ask, don't tell." How many people have been, are in, or will be in the military in the future? What are some of your experiences as far as Gay and in the military?
I would not recommend that any gay person serve in the US military. The level of hate and intolerance is just unacceptable. I'm all for social progress, but I'm concerned about the safety of gay men and women under arms. I doubt we'll see much positive movement in our lifetimes.
I briefly dated a guy in the Military from the Sacramento area a few months back and unfortunately the fear of being caught made him pull back. He was/is very well established in the Air Force and said the whole "don't ask, don't tell" policy was bullshit. He said that private witch hunts still do exist. If you're even mentioned as potentially being gay you are watched very closely and once it's on the table it's very hard to shake. He personally made it a point to avoid being associated with any other fellow military he thought could be gay. If we exchanged text messages, emails or even used a chat client to correspond I was told to be very careful. I stupidly assumed DADT covered him but he told me stories where that little game was all just politics on paper and protected no one actually living the secret in the military.
We probably still would be dating but after a casual encounter out one weekend together with a fellow officer of his ( we ran into him at a restaurant ) he suddenly pulled back. I had to respect his career. That was a part of the package he offered when we first started dating. After that night I watched him yank his profile off myspace and gay.com which he kept on private to avoid being found and if he had one here he probably would have yanked that as well. It was pretty obvious he was freaked he was seen out at a restaurant with just a guy. Scott is a great guy and my heart goes out to him and all the gay military guys who want to serve our great nation but to do so means living a very closeted life.
I served for 8 years in the Marines. The way things are, it's pretty much depends on the unit you are with or where you are located. I was always fine- other Marines had "proof" of my "straightness". And even though some may have suspected, I was always somewhat protected/left alone because they knew I had access to better lawyers than they had, it wasn't too far fetched for me to call a Senator if anyone messed with me, and most of the time I was the only one in my unit that did my job, which meant they would be royally screwed without me. Some services I know can be more lenient- friends in the Air Force say they are. 60 Minutes just did a report saying that DADT enforcement has become more lenient. I wouldn't advise anyone to join the military (and I was a recruiter myself at one point) if they didn't think they could handle the mental stress of being closeted. That being said, I did hookup with other gay Marines/soldiers, even in Iraq.
And how did you find other like-minded guys? Did you switch to "standard" techniques in your civvies? Were there military or Marine specific things you relied on in addition, when in uniform?
Screw the military. Join the more tolerant Peace Corps instead. They do more good work, without all that icky killing. If you prefer the killing, I cannot help you. If you love your country, there are plenty of other ways to show it.
An officer's wife, going to strip clubs, a Hooter's girl, and ahem, I'll stop there. And I wasn't the only Marine present. And I won't discuss how I found other guys, since the DOD could be reading this site now.....
Gays in the military is a far more complex issue than one might think. I was in the Marines for ten years, during the inception of DADT, and it didn't actually help anything, I still ended up getting kicked out because of rumor.
During my time, most of the rank and file fell into two camps - those that really didn't care, and those that were absolutely bugshit rabid about their hatred of faggots. Not much middle ground, and the folks that didn't care pretty much kept their mouths shut because the haters interpreted a neutral position re: gays as a sign of homosexuality in and of itself.
The officers I knew had a more nuanced position, but it came down to this: The military needs young, aggressively masculine men, and lots of 'em. These are the kind of guys that are usually the most homophobic and ignorant about gay people and issues. Officers understood that gayness was not in fact a detriment to anything except morale and recruitment of lots of aggressively masculine men. In other words, being gay is actually OK, but it must be SEEN as not OK, in order to attract and retain the kinds of soldiers needed for combat.
It seems that things have changed a lot recently, but there is a quite defined age component to homophobia in the military. Those under 40 (the overwhelming majority of those in uniform) think DADT is a joke that must stop, and those over 40 (a small few but they are running things), well, you get the picture. This is actually a good sign, because it means that the haters will eventually be gone as their generation goes into retirement, which is mandatory at 65 regardless of rank.
I actually served for 12 years in the Army, but it was before DADT became law. I was a NCO.
At that time there were quite a few other gay men in the Army, but the UNOFFICIAL policy was DADT.
Most people at that time who knew did not care. Occasionally you would run into some homophobic asshole, but most guys were ok with it (Hell - most guys I knew didn't believe it when they did find out).
I was there to do a job, not ogle my buddies. I worked hard, gave 120%, did more than anyone else, and advanced rapidly.
Actually it wasn't until a couple of years after joining that I finally came to deal with my own sexuality while I was stationed in Germany. A senior NCO knew all about me long before I did.
But the unofficial policy was to keep you 'indiscretions' one hundred miles from the post.
We did (figuratively at least) and had no problems.
The 60 minutes clip that Yaleytoons posted is quite interesting.
I'll also say that the featured gay guy in the clip is quite hot -- that should get folks interested ;)
The poor guy defending DADT needs to shave that cheesy mustache. If they let gays in the military, fashion mistakes like this could be eliminated, saving countless lives.
I have disliked the B.S. implications of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" since its inception, but came to see it as a necessary first step in allowing gay men and women to serve in the military along with everyone else.
That said, I think it has long ago outlived its usefulness. Unfortunately, the acceptance of gay people as valid human beings is unevenly spread through the U.S. It will probably be several years yet before gay people are allowed to serve on the same terms (i.e., without having to hide who they are) as their hetero brethren, but I hope not.
XRuggerATX saidScrew the military. Join the more tolerant Peace Corps instead. They do more good work, without all that icky killing. If you prefer the killing, I cannot help you. If you love your country, there are plenty of other ways to show it.
While I agree with this in some sense, being in the Peace Corps has its own problems. While the Peace Corps itself maintains a nondiscrimination policy and you can be open with other PC staff, it's almost universally true that the countries that volunteers get placed in are extremely intolerant of gays. Gay PC volunteers have to be just about as closeted as our counterparts in the military because of the cultures in the countries we serve in. But at least we do have an outlet in our other volunteers that those in the military don't have.
Interesting clip. I wonder if that guys is from Kileen, the local base here in central TX. His boyfriend had a shirt from our gay bar, Rain.
I have a couple friends in the military. Both are very serious about their military career. Both, I could not imagine hiding their sexuality fully. One is going to Iraq next month. Its been a rough ride, but both these guys are very serious about their job. I think it would crush them to be discharged. They obviously are able to find some comfort int their situation. I assume to each their own. I would not be able to live the military life separate from my real life. But there are those out there that can.
DADT is such a lame law. They need to lift the ban completely and work on creating a safe military situation for homosexuals serving their country, rather than pouring all this money into investigations to discharge valuable members of a faltering military.
There is no problem with being gay in the military, unless the military finds out. So keep it a guarded secret and you won't have any problems. It's always been like that, even before DADT.
I have heard rumors of an "accident" where a "queer" was severely injured. It happened in one of the Infantry Battalions, a guy's leg was crushed off from being run over by an Armored Personel Carrier in the motor stable.
On one occasion I overheard three NCOs, drunk NCOs, at the club. One ordered a Daiquari. The other two said that a Daiquari is a "Fag Drink". The guy ordered it anyway. All three were straight as far as I could tell. The guy who ordered the Daiquari got the snot beat out of him. I knew all three of them, they were tank mechanics in my Troop.
Then there's the sad case of Barry Winchell, he was beaten to death in his bunk by another soldier at Fort Campbell. The Army prosecuted his killer.
With that said, the Army was a great career and I hated to go. Being silently gay had it's little advantages, like scoring higher on the APFT than a lot of straight guys, scoring higher on gunnery and marksmanship than most straight guys and the satisfaction that came with it. One year I scored in the top five for the whole Army on the Skill Qualification Test for an E-5 19E20 (Tank Crewman). That's a lot of straight guys. I just couldn't tell anyone. It was still a privilege to serve.
DADT is a flawed policy being used to placate the fear and misunderstanding associated with the concept of homosexuals serving in the military.
The question we (society) should have addressed was: in the process to prepare for and fight battles (hyper masculine) how can a homosexual (perceived as lacking masculinity) soldier be an effective one? Or from the ladies side: can we accept a woman possessing the skills and physical strength we associate with the hyper masculine male soldier? Can years of evolutionary behavior be undone to the point that we (men) are not threatened by a female soldier? i.e. one who may be able to defeat us in battle.
Specific examples of heroism and acts of bravery by gay soldiers in a campaign to educate all persons (those serving in the armed forces and the general public) combined with a strict policy against soldier-on-soldier violence would have been a smarter route, but far more complicated to implement and WAY more expensive than DADT.
This policy hit the social snooze button on America's ringing discomfort with our collective sexuality and all related subjects - nudity, gender roles, stereotypes, icons of strength and aggression, etc. When DADT was implemented, we institutionalized the most anti-gay (least offensive-sounding) policy in history: pick up a weapon, but don't share who you are with others. War demands the strongest of bonds be formed. When we seek to control or restrict how bonded our soldiers are, we put them at greater risk. Not knowing, caring for, or respecting your fellow soldier is a greater risk than your enemy's gun.
I get sick when I hear of soldier-on-soldier violence. You don't often hear about it... not because the military fears you'll learn about a beaten or dead homosexual soldier, but because it illustrates just how little control we have over someone we've taught to hunt and kill in the name of our Country.
I'm safe and secure, but, John, it's not because the military is doing anything, despite your belief in the power of the kool aid you drink. That shit for brains outfit can't find one guy, and they can't win any of the wars they're engaged in.
Well personally I think everyone in America should do 2 years in the service, it would for sure help with the fat problem America has. I'm not saying long term service is for everyone cause obviously it isn't. Secondly I don't think anyone can speak about the military unless they have personally been in it. Makes no sense at all to me. Because honestly how can you talk about something you personally have no experience in. You don't go to your neighbor to treat your family when they are sick, so why would you ask someone whose never been in any military service about advice. I served in the Army for 3 years ended up going to Iraq for a year. Honestly I loved being in the Army it was fun, though tons of idiots are in charge. But i'd say if you're gay your best bet would be to go into the Medical Corp of any service. It takes you to your limits and even shows that limits can be surpassed. Homophobia is everywhere guys, but today you'd be surprised alot of units are becoming more tolerant of gays. The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is gay but really you join the military to work not cruise. So you shouldn't be flaunting yourself in the first place. Heterosexual couples aren't allowed/ or suppose to hug or kiss while in uniform it's against regulation.
"Secondly I don't think anyone can speak about the military unless they have personally been in it. "
Ridiculous! That's like saying you should critize art or music unless you're an artist or musician. Nobody should criticize politicians unless they've been in politics. Utter nonsense.
McGay said"Secondly I don't think anyone can speak about the military unless they have personally been in it. "
Ridiculous! That's like saying you should critize art or music unless you're an artist or musician. Nobody should criticize politicians unless they've been in politics. Utter nonsense.
It's not utter nonsense how can you talk about something you don't fully understand, or been in. Because all you know is what people have told you. There is no way you're gonna tell me people don't overexaggerate in any way, shape, or form. Because if you do i'd have to think that maybe you've been in a cave for most your life. And i do think you shouldn't critize any Art unless you can do it yourself. Cause that's like making prejudgements on someone you've never met before.
I bet the Army has enough gay and lesbian troops for a whole division. There's an idea, the Rainbow Division. One Airborne Brigade, one Armor Brigade, One Light Infantry Brigade, and accompanying Divarty, Aviation, and support units and all gay or lesbian.
Can you imagine the Taliban losing a firefight to a Company of Lesbian airborne Infantry?
"It's not utter nonsense how can you talk about something you don't fully understand, or been in."
There is no mystery about the/a military. One can talk about it and never have been in it. One can fully understand it without having been in it.
"And i do think you shouldn't critize any Art unless you can do it yourself. Cause that's like making prejudgements on someone you've never met before."
Wow! No, it's not. I'ts making a judgement about the art, not the artist.
I think this is actually a complex issue (now?) because you must ask about DADT in the context of the Iraq-Afghanistan occupations. Personally, I think it was a bit pandering to even take the rhetoric to this level and it speaks to the power of the religious right/fundamentalists that gays have been targeted in this way (with DADT). I wonder if in the context of endless war (which is really what the war on terror is, read in 1984) an all-volunteer army can really work.
That said, if gays want to go off and help serve US imperialist aims, they should have the right to do so openly.
McGay said"There is no problem with being gay in the military"
What about the embarrassment of being part of an organization with such a failure rate?
You have got to be kidding The US has fielded the most powerful, and successful war machine on the planet for at least the last two hundred years. The only war machines to ever be more successful were probably - arguably - Alexander, the Roman Legions, Temujin, Shaka, or perhaps the al-khulafā' ar-rāshidūn.
Any minor failures it has ever experienced are directly attributable to NCA, political posturing and interference, and an overly bureaucratic Pentagon.
The 'Failure Rate' of the Armed Services to carry out their missions is negligible. I would happily back any given American unit, from a Army Ranger Battalion to X Corps to USPACFLT itself, against any comparable power on the face of the earth.
The fact is that there isn't a comparable force anywhere else on earth. While we may no longer meet the 2 1/2 wars criteria, the ability of the US armed forces is undeniable.
The real question is - and always has been - to what direction those abilities should be directed.
As our current president has found out, it is relatively easy to conquer a country (Hell, there hasn't really been anything stopping us from conquering the entire world for at least the last 20 years; except for a price we are unwilling to pay - turning into that which most of us would despise.). It is far more difficult to bring about peace, establish democracy on infertile ground, and stamp out the opposition of die hard extremists.
I for one have never been embarrassed of the US military, on the contrary I am extremely proud of the amazing men and women who serve.
John43620 saidOne year I scored in the top five for the whole Army on the Skill Qualification Test for an E-5 19E20 (Tank Crewman).
Did you know they got rid of the SQT around 93-94? I wish it was still here. So many people get promoted way to quickly and it's causing big problems. It's funny that the military is willing to put the dumb and ignorant in leadership positions, but if he/she is gay, fuugetaboutit!
I was in the military for 10 years, I came "out" when after graduating from West Point, to all my LT buddies, non of them had an issue with it. They all brought their girlfriends and wives to the gay bars with me so they could hang out.
When I was offered to take a command at about my 5 year mark, i declined, when my COL asked me why, I asked him if he wanted to know the truth, he said yes. I told him my lifestyle was not conducive to what the military said a soldier should be, at which time he told me to not say another word. He then told me that he wanted to check with JAG to see what he would have to do if someone made a statement to him and that he would get back to me in a week.
A week later, he told me that if someone made a statement 1. They could have a court martial 2. They could get a honorable discharge 3. He said you can stay in and finish your term (i had a bout 3 months left) 4. He said I could stay in and take a command for him.
My dealings with the gay issue in the military was mostly positive although they did screw me a little on my discharge....I was honorably discharged..but they owed me somethings
McGay said"It's not utter nonsense how can you talk about something you don't fully understand, or been in."
There is no mystery about the/a military. One can talk about it and never have been in it. One can fully understand it without having been in it.
"And i do think you shouldn't critize any Art unless you can do it yourself. Cause that's like making prejudgements on someone you've never met before."
Wow! No, it's not. I'ts making a judgement about the art, not the artist.
Good god, man, what did they do to you in there?
lol, they didn't do anything to me, i'm an Artist thus I like most other artist i've ever met. None like it when someone who can't do that field in art comes up and judges our work. Talentless people sure can have an opinion and can say it; but should keep it to themselves unless the Artist ask for it. It's what i personally think on most matters. Likewise you have yours. To each there own.
Paradigm said Well personally I think everyone in America should do 2 years in the service, it would for sure help with the fat problem America has. I'm not saying long term service is for everyone cause obviously it isn't.
it really wouldn't though. because okay they'll be fit for awhile, but obesity in america has more to do with portion sizes, bad choices, and the fact that everything is so overly processed that there's barely anything left of the original nutrients.
now to actually contribute...
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but don't other countries hold up just fine without a "don't ask/don't tell" policy? so what makes it so different about the US military environment that our lawmakers can't just get rid of it? implementing it seemed to be a mistake in the first place and now they're more or less stuck with it because of the power the religious right wielded.
also jack said " I wonder if in the context of endless war (which is really what the war on terror is, read in 1984) an all-volunteer army can really work.
That said, if gays want to go off and help serve US imperialist aims, they should have the right to do so openly."
one of the quotes i immediately thought of was this one from george orwells 1984.
"The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact."
Paradigm said lol, they didn't do anything to me, i'm an Artist thus I like most other artist i've ever met. None like it when someone who can't do that field in art comes up and judges our work. Talentless people sure can have an opinion and can say it; but should keep it to themselves unless the Artist ask for it. It's what i personally think on most matters. Likewise you have yours. To each there own.
Once something is in the commons, the creator has no right to expect or demand that it not be critiqued and judged, because experiential knowledge of a craft or a policy is equally as faulty as academic knowledge. The military and it's policies are a part of the commons and every person should feel free to critique it, to study it, to understand it, regardless of their experience as a part of it or as being separate from it. It is an absurdity to suggest that it is only experiential knowledge that can allow a person to understand a topic or an entity and critique it.
I haven't read other responses, so I may be repeating someone. And I haven't been in the military, so my response is just my own conjecture based on what I've read and conversations I've had with military friends.
I believe the anti-gay policies of the military sets a tone that condones hostility and even violence against gays.
The Pentagon and the White House say that the military isn't ready to accommodate gays in the military and it would be bad for morale and unit cohesion to allow gays to serve openly. However the same things were said about allowing blacks to serve together with whites. It wasn't until Eisenhower mandated it that the military was forced to accommodate blacks.
The same will be true of gays. Standards of conduct are set out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can include an anti-harassment policy. If standards of conduct mandated by commanding officers are being ignored, then that is prima facie evidence that we already have a problem with unit discipline.
Military leaders say its not ready for openly gay troops, but many of them show no inclination to move things in that direction.
Those opposed to gays in the military always argue that "now is not a good time" to try to make reforms, but they're playing both sides of the coin. In wartime, it's not a good time because it's too drastic a change. In peacetime, it's not a good time because it's unnecessary and the military doesn't have a shortage of troops that would need to be filled by gays. To those opposed to gays in the military, there will never be an appropriate time to examine the issue.
Bottom line is this: the military could end anti-gay discrimination tomorrow if the commander in chief along with top military leaders wanted it to be so. Just like Eisenhower did with blacks in the military. But so far, we have had presidents and military leaders who have a personal anti-gay sentiment and they enforce their personal beliefs on the entire military system.
We know some of the arguments against repealing DADT are bogus because U.S. troops have conducted joint operations with British, Canadian, Israeli, and Australian troops and all four nations allow gays to serve openly. So our U.S. troops have already served with gay troops, without incident.
There is no longer any justification whatsoever for maintaining DADT except for personal animus against gays.
Anti-Gay Motive Questioned In Beating Death of a Sailor NY Times By ERIC SCHMITT, Published: February 27, 1993
A quiet siege: the death and life of a gay naval officer. From: Harper's Magazine Date: June 1, 1993 Author: Dubus, Andre He was a Navy pilot in World War II and in Korea, and when I knew him in 1961 for a few months before he killed himself he was the Commander of the Air Group aboard the USS Ranger, an aircraft carrier,
Framed at Sea How Navy officers tried blame 47 deaths on a sailor by calling him gay REVIEWED BY Dan Blue, Special to The Chronicle Sunday, June 13, 1999 Remember when the Navy and its ENTIRE brass tried to frame Clayton Hartwig with killing dozens of fellow sailors after an explosion where he himself was killed because they put out a rumor that he was distraught after a homosexual affair went sour?
THIS is the crap that we're up against It's very serious any ANY MORE time that we stay hidden will continue to cause deaths
Yale had a key point in that it depends on the location where you serve. The tolerance levels vary widely, mainly due to leadership. And because, for the most part, you can get assigned anywhere without protest, you run the risk of going to a hellish location.
But after volunteering with SLDN and following the progress in congress over the years, you can clearly see the momentum in canning that policy. Retired Admirals and Generals are sounding off, but of course the active ones are reticent to do so. When the SLDN Executive Director at the AEN meeting recently, I asked him about Colin Powell, knowing that getting him to speak out against it would certainly carry some weight. He said they've actually begun that dialog, and hinted that it would be coming. http://www.sldn.org
Don't Ask Don't Tell is flawed. Clinton should have gone all the way with it after he got re elected.
In Peace time they will have groups to hunt down gays on line Ask Tim McVeigh (no not that one) who was in the Navy, had an AOL profile saying he was Gay they drummed him out. Today you can have anal sex while the Company is at Attention, and if in a Stop Gap MOS nothing is said.
Who ever the Democratic Nominee is thaey should is they should change it YOU PURSUE YOU LOSE That is the commander tries to find out He gets Cashiered NO PENSION things would change.
I believe, that as creatures who claw our way out of a womb, we have the right to criticize anything at all. That that criticism turns into action or somehow law, is a whole other issue. Voicing criticism of anything is everyone's right. Critiquing something, in the final analysis, often equates to "I like it" or "I don't like it". I've never built a car, but, I know which ones I like and which ones I don't like and why (cup holders). That I pay taxes that go for paying for certain things should grant me other rights which for all of my life have been denied because I'm gay. The right to criticize is free. Other rights are doled out on a nepotistic basis. You're name is Bush or Clinton or Kennedy? You get to be a powerful politician, your children will have that same right, whether or not they use it. You're str8? You get to marry and enjoy all the benefits that go with that. You get to serve in the military and not risking being killed by your fellow countrymen for that fact. You're not str8? You have no rights and all you have is granted you through the generosity of other people. Now, you may read all that as a critique if you wish. That is my right and your right.
Redheadguy, you are right. Taxpayers have the right to be critical of where their tax money goes. And as a member of the military I am willing to give my life so that others can chose to be ignorant. (and I don't mean you Redheadguy! ) To say that the military can not win a war shows a total lack of understanding of history. The military did everything that they were asked to do in combat and did so in a phenomenal way. Where did things go wrong? Civilian leadership got involved when they should not have! In Vietnam it was civilian leadership all the way up to the President who tied the military's hands and would not permit them to fight the war in needed to be fought. Pres Johnson would personally select targets to bomb or not to bomb!! In Iraq the military asked for over 450,000 troops to do the job knowing that it would be easy to defeat the Iraqi military but to that level of force would be needed after the war to stabilize the country. It was Rumsfeld who kept telling the military planners to keep reducing the total number of troops. It was Rumsfeld who volunteered the military to conduct nation building which is not what the military is designed for, that the State Dept's job! To say that the military can not win a war not only shows ignorance but is an insult to those in uniform who are out there risking their lives every day so that we can sit back here and criticize their actions.
As far as DADT, I have been in the military for over 13 years now and have never felt any sense of homophobia or discrimination. The few people I have told have been completely supportive of me and all wanted to meet who I was dating at the time. I agree DADT needs to go, but I don't really think I will act any differently than now. Its not like I am going to show up at work one day with a big rainbow flag and body glitter. My personal life is my business and no one else's. I like having my personal and professional life completely separate.
"To say that the military can not win a war shows a total lack of understanding of history. The military did everything that they were asked to do in combat and did so in a phenomenal way. "
Who's talking history? I'm talking current events.
The military is not what it was. The current military cannot win any of the current wars it's involved in. If they could, they would have. Don't play that patriotic bullshit with me. It's no insult to anyone in a uniform.
Here ya go, "Uncle Joe". This just can't be displayed enough.
joeindallas said "Clinton should have gone all the way with it after he got re elected"
Clinton didn't purposely go in with that intention. His flaw and his mistake was making a campaign pledge that he had not fleshed out, and he forced a compromise to salvage his political standing. Pretty lame, yes, and it was similar to DOMA. He knew if he didn't sign, Bob Dole might have had more support. In the Senate, it passed 85-14 and in the HoR, it passed 342-67.
As for Clinton's generating DADT, there's one important thing it did, and that's put an end to Dishonorable Discharges, provided there was no blatant sexual misconduct or similar. That's something that was so damaging and lasting to those kicked out previously.
Funny enough, I do agree with McGay. The US Military as it is today can't win the wars it's fighting. Why? Because of people like McGay. If you want us to fight a war, let us do it our way. Remove the civilian oversight. Then see how we fight wars. If you want control of the military, by paying taxes and what not, and then restrict their ability to do what they are trained to do, then you are the one hampering their ability to win a war. Civilian oversight stopped armor from getting to my unit in time, until several legs, hands, and heads had been lost. Civilian oversight stops soldiers and Marines from pulling a trigger, because they always second guess their actions, fearing a media scandal or court martial. If you want us to win the war, don't bitch about the tactics we use. If you want us to get rid of DADT, let us deal with it.
The military is, always has been, and always will be merely the final extension of politics. Military action comes only when the civilian leadership has decided that it thinks that all options have been exhausted and force is required. War is politics, military action is politics, everything that we do is politics. Stop believing the actions of the military are somehow separate from politics; those actions happen only because of politics. In a free country, it is not the military that makes the decisions, even in a time of war. It is civilian leadership. If we had let the military have its way in all of our past wars and military actions, it's likely that we would have all been annihilated in a nuclear war already (the Cuban missile crisis comes to mind).
The military serves at the behest of civilian leadership. You can state all you want that the military would have won the wars if not for civilian leadership, but as the military analyst scandal (which has been woefully underreported) shows, military officials were just as complicit in the flawed decisions that occurred as any civilian leadership.
yalemarine saidFunny enough, I do agree with McGay. The US Military as it is today can't win the wars it's fighting. Why? Because of people like McGay. If you want us to fight a war, let us do it our way.
Wait a minute...is George Bush a civilian leader or a military leader?
If Al Gore were our president, perhaps we'd be in Afghanistan, but I doubt we'd be in Iraq.
So I'll agree with you both. Never let a civilian oil executive run a war.
Getting back on topic, our current world situation is similar to the world of the 1930s.
At that time the US was involved in the little banana Republic wars, until FDR took over. The Nazis and the Japanese were building extremely capable military forces, and the west was complacent.
Today we have troops in relatively small actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa. The Russians and the Chinese are rather quietly emerging as major military forces and the west is once again complacent.
The Western and American military organizations will need all the troops they can get. This I think will be the downfall of DADT and organizational oppression of gay and lesbian troops.
coolarmyguy, I remember when the SQT was discontinued, I thought it was a bad move too. One of the great things about it was, a soldier actually had to study the manuals. One thing that always pissed me off was how the SQT was never used for promotion points and the highly subjective NCOER always counted.
I was listening to 2 marines and 1 naval officer talk about DADT when we went out one night, and the consensus was that it has tempered prosecution of Gays but not necessarily stopped it. And of course if you openly indicate you are gay (certain public displays) even if you don't say anything you are subject to prosecution.
I have a few friends who have been kicked out because of it. One (marine) is being kicked out now, he has consulted with the SLDN to try to minimize the impact but is pretty sure he will get the boot just years away from retirement. He is just an all around good guy. It has really been bugging me and my roommate especially as he was a former naval officer. Its enough to worry about them getting killed in IRAQ without having to worry about things like this too.
I also understand it can really depend on who you report to and what service you are in as far as getting prosecuted. I think medical professions seem to be the most lenient. A young navy corpsman buddy of mine make corpsman jokes .. don't mess with those "few good men" lol One of my boyfriends was USMC, and one was a Naval Flight Officer
I really think things will change especially as the younger generation moves up.
By the way, there is a real good documentary Carrier on pbs .. http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/ that has a little segment with being Gay and DADT .. there are some pretty hot guys on it too!
Civilian oversight?!? Is that a punchline? When told in an interview that 2/3 of the American people were against the war in Iraq, Dick Cheney replied "So?". What kind of civilian oversight do you think that allows for? Only the kind that puts bigger profits in his pocket.
Get real. Civilian oversight. Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late. HAHA!
McGay saidCivilian oversight?!? Is that a punchline? When told in an interview that 2/3 of the American people were against the war in Iraq, Dick Cheney replied "So?". What kind of civilian oversight do you think that allows for? Only the kind that puts bigger profits in his pocket.
Get real. Civilian oversight. Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late. HAHA!
McGay, you do realize that the President, Vice-President, and anyone else not currently an active member of the military is considered a civilian, correct? I didn't say citizen oversight; just civilian.
It was yalemarine's mention of civilian oversight I was addressing.
Also, the POTUS is Commander in Chief.
Here are the first 3 definitions of that title I found:
The president's main duties as commander of the nation's armed services are to defend the country during wartime and to keep it strong ... www.worldbook.com/wb/Students
the officer who holds the supreme command; "in the U.S. the president is the commander in chief" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A Commander-in-Chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces. In the latter case, the force element may be defined as those forces within a particular region or those forces which are associated by function. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander in chief
It was yalemarine's mention of civilian oversight I was addressing.
Also, the POTUS is Commander in Chief.
Here are the first 3 definitions of that title I found:
The president's main duties as commander of the nation's armed services are to defend the country during wartime and to keep it strong ... www.worldbook.com/wb/Students
the officer who holds the supreme command; "in the U.S. the president is the commander in chief" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A Commander-in-Chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces. In the latter case, the force element may be defined as those forces within a particular region or those forces which are associated by function. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander in chief
Ah, sorry, I was a little confused at who you were replying to.
And even though the POTUS is considered "Commander in Chief," he serves in that capacity as a civilian, and not an active member of the military.
I have to say thank you to those who have replied. I want to thank even more of you that have emailed me personally to share your or someone you knows story! I have been working with SDLN for about six months. If anyone needs support let me know as I can kick in the door to help get the names out.
ActiveAndFit: As for you, I am deeply sorry to hear of such dismay. I can not believe that those of us that want to serve can get kicked out for loving someone, not flaunting ourselves around.
I believe in time, we will over come this nonsense. It will be the people that support our military and the few that are fighting back to get their voices heard in stopping the madness.
While the POTUS may not be wearing a uniform or carrying a weapon or look like anyone remotely resembling a soldier (that is, until he needs a photo op to accompany some ridiculous claim of "mission accomplished"), he's not really a civilian, in the sense that he's not down low on the decision assistance totem pole. In that regard, he's a civilian like Congress or the Senate are civilians. When decisions of war are made, it's not us the military looks to, but our elected officials, who then may and often do operate rather outside the desires of the populace.
By civilian oversight, I not only meant the POTUS, but the many many bureaucrats in the DOD and other gov't agencies that can exercise control over military policy, and change the way we do things. And as we have seen, the current POTUS is more than happy to delegate those responsibilities to those people. Paul Bremmer, for example, who as Reconstruction Director dissolved the Iraqi Army, against the advice of all the Generals under him, without even informing his bosses at the DOD that he intended to do that. And he was not an elected official, nor are most other bureaucrats. Civilians make the decision, the military deals with it, no matter how wise or unwise.
McGay said"To say that the military can not win a war shows a total lack of understanding of history. The military did everything that they were asked to do in combat and did so in a phenomenal way. "
Who's talking history? I'm talking current events.
The military is not what it was. The current military cannot win any of the current wars it's involved in. If they could, they would have. Don't play that patriotic bullshit with me. It's no insult to anyone in a uniform.
Here ya go, "Uncle Joe". This just can't be displayed enough.
The ability of any democracy's army to achieve success on the battlefield is severlely hampered by the reality of the Information Age. Do any of us think for a minute that WWII could have been successfully waged if there had been TV cameras and the internet in 1945? War is ugly, brutal, horrific, and folks not in uniform didn't really understand that until Viet Nam when they saw it on the evening news for the first time. If you think that civilian casualties and "collateral damage" were something new in SE Asian, you are fooling yourselves. There's a reason that GI's returning from combat really don't want to talk about it, because they have had to do atrocious things in order to achieve victory. Firebombing of Dresden anyone? Mustard gas in the trenches of France anyone?
People watching a war on TV will not tolerate messy wars with lots of death, and honestly there's no other way to do it.
It really must be hard being Gay in the services anywhere I guess and I feel for those who have to go regbardless. here in Turkey if they find out they discharge you straight away and if you are an officer your life is finished especially if you happen to be married. I know a young guy who just did not want to go and he was brave enough to admit to the Dr he was Gay! I did advise him not to as I really don't know if they say anything to his family or not but he seem's to be ok so far?
I served in the military for 8 long years. I was already out before I joined and I knew the consequences before joining. Both my folks were in the military and they already knew about me (duh) and just wished me the best. I never had problems while being in the military but because of the way certain people thought I elected to keep certain things in my life private. That was my choice.
I was able to be openly gay simply because I didn't act gay (never have and never will). From the people that I dealt with I found alot of them are actually ok with your sexual status depending on how you act. Since I didn't act like some Flamming June or a Fag I was left to my own devices and never really had any problems. Some of you here might think I was being a poser but that's no the case at all since I never really acted that way to begin with and people already knew about me. I was respectful of my actions and they were of theirs so in the end things worked out. I didn't agree with alot of things I heard about gays while I was in the military but i didn't voice my opinion on the subject alot because I never wanted to cross the line of devulging too much info...that was my buisness.
I also never mixed business with pleasure. A very classic mistake for those who want to stay openly discreet about their business. I saw stuff like that happen all the time during deployments and TDY's and frankly it sorta disgusted me how hypocritical some people were especially the married types talked crazy nonsense about gays but next you know you hear or see them getting action with another guy. I guess I'm a very lucky person for having the friends I had while I was in the military (both gay, bi, and str and in knowing myself and what I wanted things ended well when I got out. Personally, I don't think a person should have to hide their sexual preference nor do I think that a person's preference should have any effect on whatever job they have. As I said before people knew about me but in all honesty they couldn't believe because I didn't act like a typical gay person. I just wasn't reaised that way and I certainly never hid it. The way I saw it was that I wasn't the one with a problem to begin with.
Even though I can not serve, nor do I agree with all of the military positions, I will ALWAY back my fellow American Fighters. We are proud of you and you know who you are! Bless each and every one of our heroes in uniform!
im currently serving and ive noticed a great deal about the DADT policy, considering it only applies when they want it to.
having been in the infantry, i had a team leader that was OBVIOUSLY gay. no question about it. in fact, i know of a time he got caught giving head in a watch tower to another soldier.
but, nothing happened to him. he wasnt ousted or threatened. apparently, it only matters if it gets under the wrong peoples skin.
given, he was godlike at PT. he outran anyone and was a great team leader. so no one could really say anything considering "the homo could out PT anyone." pretty funny situation.
equally, i havent had any major problems either. of course, im still bound by secrecy. however, i would say im relatively successful, thus far, despite my recent injury in iraq.
i have had a few "encounters" with some other guys who dont acknowledge what theyre doing as "gay" but let it slide considering the circumstance. its alot of fun im by no means "flamboyant" so i never get any flags anyway.
at any rate, i dont necessarily agree with the DADT policy, but i do think your sexual preference should remain well kept. theres no reason to go flaunting your choice and wearing your characteristics on your sleeve. its like going to a manson concert and complaining about noise pollution.
liquidschism saidim currently serving and ive noticed a great deal about the DADT policy, considering it only applies when they want it to.
having been in the infantry, i had a team leader that was OBVIOUSLY gay. no question about it. in fact, i know of a time he got caught giving head in a watch tower to another soldier.
but, nothing happened to him. he wasn't ousted or threatened. apparently, it only matters if it gets under the wrong peoples skin.
given, he was godlike at PT. he outran anyone and was a great team leader. so no one could really say anything considering "the homo could out PT anyone." pretty funny situation.
That is a funny story.
In the case of the my friends mentioned earlier, one was ratted out and got 6 months in the brig, another was outed by a jealous ex during OCS, and one was outed by a fellow homo who put a profile posting on the "right persons" car. The arbitrary nature of the application of DADT just shows how unfounded it is on the belief that somehow "homosexuality is incompatible with military service"
That a homo would sabotage another homo and totally fuck their career like that really gets my blood boiling.
Anyway I am glad some people like yourself are fairing well. Oh, get well soon in regards to your injuries.
you know youre right and the idea that some of us would outright sabotage each other is sickening. especially in the army, we need all the support we can get from each other (...secretly). can never put yourself in the position to get screwed with this job or you'll be fucked beyond belief.
Actually the policy is dont ask, dont tell, dont harass. The harass part came about after a guy was beaten nearly to death by his room mate. His roommate found makeup in the guys locker and assumed it was his and he was gay. Turned out the makeup was bought while overseas and was for the guys mother.
I honestly think it is the worst policy ever created and has cause more complications for gays in the military then it has helped. I served in the navy, which honestly is more relaxed then some of the other branches, even was part of the seals til i blew out my knees and refuse surgery. I never had a problem and not complications every came about, well until it was time to get my clearance and even then I just had to sign an affidavit that the allegations that I was gay would not affect me and would be a possibility for blackmail should anyone else find out. I recieved my Top Secret SCI clearance and went about my job as an electronic technician specializing in satcom. I am now medically retired from the military but had a great time while in and sometimes miss it.
My suggestions are as follows though. Dont join the military with current administration or even future administration should McCain enter office. Dont join if you have feminine characteristics or actions. Even guys who are straight but have feminine attributes about them end up having issues.
If you do join go navy and even better go submarine force. Homophobia isnt an issue for subs. Men are in close quarters, bodies rub to pass each other in some spaces, and people who are homophobic dont last long.
I admire any gay or lesbian who joins the military because that is their dream career. I have always gravitated towards so-called "straight dominated" careers such as airline pilot (lousy eyes) or air traffic controller (no openings when I applied). I at one time contemplated joining the Canadian military (navy).
The military's excuse that it is bad for morale is the same sorry one used by sports teams. It is what I call a "red" herring to cover up what is likely the real reason. Some straight guys would feel less "macho" if they had to serve beside gay men. Ah the foolishness that is generated by insecure hetero males!
Military forces around the world need motivated, intelligent and disciplined volunteers. Why would the military brass discriminate when they have to compete with other career choices? It is especially reprehensible when gays in key jobs such as Arab language translator are kicked out. Talking about putting prejudice ahead of national security!
To sum "don't ask, don't tell" is a policy that is bad for gays, bad for the military and bad for national security.
)
and in knowing myself and what I wanted things ended well when I got out. Personally, I don't think a person should have to hide their sexual preference nor do I think that a person's preference should have any effect on whatever job they have. As I said before people knew about me but in all honesty they couldn't believe because I didn't act like a typical gay person. I just wasn't reaised that way and I certainly never hid it. The way I saw it was that I wasn't the one with a problem to begin with.
