The end of 'Don't ask, don't tell' in US Military
Rob
Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
in Discussions
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020103711.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews</a>
For a bit of background for those who don't know and would like to apply TLDR:
For awhile now, the US Military has had a policy concerning homosexuals which basically forces them to keep their sexual orientation secret. Anyone who spills the beans is severely punished, especially if the information was pried out by someone else. This was done to combat the hazing that would be involved due to such knowledge being in the open. The argument against it now is that homosexual soldiers can't serve with pride because they aren't allowed to be themselves.
I'm pretty sure you'll see a big spike in hazing, and possibly severe injuries or deaths, after this is fully enacted. My main point against this, however, is that the military isn't supposed to be a platform for individual expression. Certain branches force more homogeneity than others - the Marines for example are still very traditional and have a lot of conformity; it's where most of their pride comes from. It's also why the Marines have several generations of service from the same families. Call it nationalism if you want, that's not what I want to point out.
Part of the change on the table is how, if at all, homosexual soldiers will be allowed to express themselves. This is crazy because self expression is already very restricted in the military. There are good reasons for this, especially in boot camp where the individual's will has to be 'broken' in order to build the soldier on top of it. One of the most important things a soldier needs to learn is that his buddies are the most important things he has. That's a much easier lesson when everyone's the same.
Any thoughts?
For a bit of background for those who don't know and would like to apply TLDR:
For awhile now, the US Military has had a policy concerning homosexuals which basically forces them to keep their sexual orientation secret. Anyone who spills the beans is severely punished, especially if the information was pried out by someone else. This was done to combat the hazing that would be involved due to such knowledge being in the open. The argument against it now is that homosexual soldiers can't serve with pride because they aren't allowed to be themselves.
I'm pretty sure you'll see a big spike in hazing, and possibly severe injuries or deaths, after this is fully enacted. My main point against this, however, is that the military isn't supposed to be a platform for individual expression. Certain branches force more homogeneity than others - the Marines for example are still very traditional and have a lot of conformity; it's where most of their pride comes from. It's also why the Marines have several generations of service from the same families. Call it nationalism if you want, that's not what I want to point out.
Part of the change on the table is how, if at all, homosexual soldiers will be allowed to express themselves. This is crazy because self expression is already very restricted in the military. There are good reasons for this, especially in boot camp where the individual's will has to be 'broken' in order to build the soldier on top of it. One of the most important things a soldier needs to learn is that his buddies are the most important things he has. That's a much easier lesson when everyone's the same.
Any thoughts?
Comments
Every argument for or against any military policy is a glaring indication that the whole thing needs to be reformed from the ground up if not completely eliminated. "We can't get rid of the policy because then our wonderful military will beat them up." Seriously?
If the answer is anothing other than "Absolutely, everyone must be treated equally by the organisation empowered by the people of the US to defend the values of liberty, equality and justice for all", then gtfo out of my modern society and go back to the dark ages.
I don't care about how things are done, or were done. The militiary is given a very important responsibility and it needs to kotow on its knees to the wishes of the US elected representivies without even the hint of resistance.
Every argument for or against any military policy is a glaring indication that the whole thing needs to be reformed from the ground up if not completely eliminated. "We can't get rid of the policy because then our wonderful military will beat them up." Seriously?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe most of what you said, but far from brainless. And it wouldn't be the fact that they're ###### haters that would bring on more hazing, it would be just that they are different. There's a significant portion of soldiers who are what you describe, but changing the military isn't going to magically make those people different. In fact, I think it's pretty arrogant for us to think we could change them at all.
And that's quite an abrasive post, there. :P
But our army will be much more <!--coloro:#FF00FF--><span style="color:#FF00FF"><!--/coloro-->fierce<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm pretty sure you'll see a big spike in hazing, and possibly severe injuries or deaths, after this is fully enacted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most ###### soldiers are known to be ###### by their fellow soldiers already. Just like with race, even if there is a 'break in' period the armed forces will get over, if there are even issues to start with. As with any other over the top behavior, flamboyant behavior won't be tolerated in regular duty times so business will proceed as normal during work hours.
The excuse that there will be retribution against them for coming out is baseless. People are way more tolerant than they used to be, and the military is a younger profession.
No, it is socially responsible to expect people to obey the law, not arrogant.
The arrogance is assuming that some people have earned the right to disregard the common law of the land.
Yeah, that's about the point. It's a segregational policy, and no matter what the arguments for it may be, it's all it perpetuates, and that's all it is.
<!--quoteo(post=1750254:date=Feb 2 2010, 03:15 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Feb 2 2010, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750254"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe most of what you said, but far from brainless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mindless obedience is at the heart of military discipline.
<!--quoteo(post=1750254:date=Feb 2 2010, 03:15 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Feb 2 2010, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750254"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And it wouldn't be the fact that they're ###### haters that would bring on more hazing, it would be just that they are different.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bigotry, in other words. It's what homophobia is.
<!--quoteo(post=1750254:date=Feb 2 2010, 03:15 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Feb 2 2010, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750254"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's a significant portion of soldiers who are what you describe, but changing the military isn't going to magically make those people different. In fact, I think it's pretty arrogant for us to think we could change them at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's kind of my point. The system is very clearly broken.
<!--quoteo(post=1750254:date=Feb 2 2010, 03:15 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Feb 2 2010, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750254"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And that's quite an abrasive post, there. :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you. I sincerely hope it's offensive, due to the grain of truth in it.
<img src="http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comics/029.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
And look! If you put "######" in an image it gets past the filter! I'm such a <i>rebel.</i>
You can't get "gаy" past the filter, silly.
The arrogance is assuming that some people have earned the right to disregard the common law of the land.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[sarcasm]That's right! Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr and every other civil rights activist who broke the law are clearly arrogant jerks who assume they have some right to disregard the common law of the land. Let's make sure them homosexuals are denied equal rights because the law says those rights don't apply to them.[/sarcasm]
I think we should clarify that we are in agreement when referring to basic human rights laws and not just laws in general :)
Honestly I don't know which is a better idea, enforced asexuality for all soldiers, enforced openness for all soldiers, enforced omnisexuality for all soldiers, or whatever the hell you like.
There's arguments for or against all and as I really don't get what would make someone go kill a bunch of people and get yelled and shot at for crappy pay in the first place I can't imagine how such people would react to anything.
Currently per law being found to be ###### in the military may cause you to be dishonorably discharged, so his blanket 'expected to follow the law' statement could easily be taken other than what he intended, per my sarcasm statements.
Did you notice that I pointed out that I was aware of that in the first post and that I was simply commenting on how it was worded?
I'm hearing a lot of ridiculous words, like Military and Brainwashing... which only people who've never served, say things like that. Have a little more respect for the soldiers who defend... well... whatever it is we defend. The people who join the military are not joining to be brainwashed or to create some singular sexual force. Actually, just the opposite. If there's anything we're brainwashed into believing is that our Superiors have a conscience and a good set of integrity and morality. Which more odds than none, isn't the case.
I joined to do what I thought was protecting my family, loved ones, and possible future. I expected to keep my good morality, as that's not something the Army couldn't change. I didn't join and magically start wanting to conquer other countries. Nor, do I think I could ever point my rifle at another American. INTEGRITY is the word folks. I said it before and I'll say it again... it's up to everyone to utilize your morality and integrity for your personal positives. Whoops. Off Topic.
But, that's where it ended up. We go from talking about a Policy that needs to change. To blaming everyday soldiers for the woes of leaders who can't handle the change. And to think... a majority of our older leaders have been around since the Jim Crow Laws of the south. But hey, since we're on the topic. Let's put blame, where it belongs. In the US Court Systems. In our Judicial Systems. Where there isn't much justice anymore. Which leads me into, "obeying the law".
In retrospect of laws... some of them are a bleeding joke. Based on unrealistic terms which only serve the purpose to the society, during the time period they are created.
<div align='center'><!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Ridiculous Laws<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></div>
<ul><li>-In the state of Alabama, if you put salt on a railroad track, death is the punishment.</li><li>-In Tombstone, Arizona, it's illegal for citizens over the age of 18-years-old to have more than one tooth missing when smiling.</li><li>-In California, which has always been a little bonkers, it's a misdemeanor to shoot at game from a moving vehicle, with the exception of a whale. </li><li>Hell, even in my own state! - In Lewes, Delaware, it's unlawful to wear pants with a firm-fitting waist.</li></ul>
I don't believe that disobeying the law, makes you a criminal. The Army isn't about always obeying either. At least, what the Captain doesn't know won't kill him. But there are plenty of silly laws in the Army too. Such as: Sodomy. (Which by military standards, involves any action with a person of the same or opposite sex. What she does to you and what you do to her is unfortunately included. Think 69, except one at a time.)(<i>Sorry</i>, apparently some scientific words have been censored too.) And cheating on your spouse is ALSO illegal in the military.
The "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy is the best thing we've had, despite the large amount of discrimination. It was the military's way to stay neutral... which is right where it belongs. If there's any discrepancies we should be concerned about... it's the people writing our laws and our judicial system which still racially and sexually profiles individuals under "God" and the Courts Ruling.
In my opinion... you don't win anything in court, if you don't have the money for a good lawyer. That's the way to win in court today! SHOW ME THE MONEY!
It's a sad and utter disgrace that our generation sees how fudged up our parents and grandparents were to allow the world to mold them, in such a paranoid manner. But I feel it needs to start on the mainland, before you should expect to see changes being made in the military. If anything, our military is becoming too soft. And that's without the "Don't ask Don't tell" situation, but more so, how we train and what we expect out of soldiers. Our military becoming watered down. Homo-sexual or Not... in my book you gotta be tough to serve. I could careless either way, but we gotta toughen up.
But yeah. That's my feeling. Full of holes and all over the place. I think I would make a great politician.
This article actually makes a good point, even though I feel bad for saying that. At least, it makes a good point if you make a few assumptions to start with. I'm not a military man, obviously, and even if I was I'd be in the UK army which is (from what I've heard from people who have served in each one, and interacted with the other) different in it's culture to the US one, so everything I say is going by what I've heard in various places.
1) Unit cohesion is extremely important.
2) Many soldiers, especially (it seems) the older and higher ranking ones, are anti-g<b></b>ay
3) Therefore having openly g<b></b>ay people in the military is going to really screw with unit cohesion and probably cause some dangerous performance drops.
I dunno how much of that is true. It rests on the assumption that many people in the military, both basic soldiers and ranking officers, are anti-g<b></b>ay. Whether or not this is true, I dunno, but given the opposition to openly g<b></b>ay people in the military *by* the military, I have to conclude that there's a sizable portion in there.
It seems like a catch-22. Letting g<b></b>ays openly serve would cause problems because, frankly, a lot of people are bigoted and are ######. In most situations this isn't a problem; you force a factory to not discriminate against g<b></b>ay people and the worst that is likely to happen is the first few g<b></b>ay people who work there will put up with some bullying for a while. But in the military the worst that can happen is people die, through miscommunication (because the people don't gel with each other) or even outright malice.
But the only real way to change that is to let g<b></b>ays openly serve and wait until it becomes the norm. The trouble is, there's going to be a period of dangerous turbulance before it does become the norm.
At least, that's my cynical take on it. I could be underestimating many people, or overestimating the influence of certain groups.
This article actually makes a good point, even though I feel bad for saying that. At least, it makes a good point if you make a few assumptions to start with. I'm not a military man, obviously, and even if I was I'd be in the UK army which is (from what I've heard from people who have served in each one, and interacted with the other) different in it's culture to the US one, so everything I say is going by what I've heard in various places.
1) Unit cohesion is extremely important.
2) Many soldiers, especially (it seems) the older and higher ranking ones, are anti-g<b></b>ay
3) Therefore having openly g<b></b>ay people in the military is going to really screw with unit cohesion and probably cause some dangerous performance drops.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes a terrible point, as shown by the UK military which worried about the same kind of issues prior to their allowance of openly ###### soldiers, which turned out to not be a big deal at all. Plus, 'unit cohesion' was also the reason in the US for segregating black and minority soldiers to their own units, and we have seen that can be overcome.
Good point. What I would be most against, though, is any provision in this repeal that would allow openly ###### soldiers to "express themselves" with items on their person. The most you'll find in the military is a wedding ring and a mustache. I think they <i>might</i> let you wear a religions artifact during normal duty, but I'm not sure.
They should be as free (and restricted) on their accessories as everyone else. There are plenty of military regulations on how hetero couples interact, what can be worn, etc that would be the same for homo couples.
I never said people wouldn't get over it. I'm saying that it'll cause trouble for the first few months/years, and the last thing the US military needs right now is more trouble.
Really? We are losing translators when we need translators due to DADT, we are losing soldiers that we need on the front lines because of DADT and we are at a point where we need every capable soldier available. Now is the best time to repeal the policy, well trained soldiers won't cause any additional trouble.