Dis about DADT
The liberal mind either cannot or will not comprehend the military. Military goals are anathema, military culture, an anachronism, and military thought, an enigma to these reality challenged induhviduals. In the few instances where some light breaks through, what passes for the liberal mind curls itself up into a little ball of denial and refuses to even admit the need for sheep dogs because it so desperately needs to deny the existence of wolves.
Thus the failure of the liberals driving the DADT repeal fiasco to fully comprehend the realities of the changes they are proposing.
Thanks to Resa LaRu Kirkland over at Publius Forum, we have the full text of a letter from someone who both knows from first hand experience and writes with a clarity and logic that will surely send any liberal reading it into a fit of apoplexy. In other words, a cogent member of the military actually on the sharp end of the stick has provided an analysis of the situation that stands out with a forceful lucidity that will infuriate opponents. Truth does that to liberals. (If you really want to have some fun with a liberal, point out that because homosexuals cannot reproduce, they are an evolutionary dead end and therefore would have been eliminated from the population if evolution is true. Then watch them melt down as they try to reason, “If evolution is true, then there should be no homosexuals…but there are homosexuals, so evolution is not true…but evolution is true, so there should be no homosexuals… um…aaah…!#$%^&*!!!”) As Ms. Kirkland did, I will reproduce the letter in its entirety below, but I will highlight what I consider some of the more important points, and insert some comments of my own.
The logical place to begin this discussion is in describing the purpose of the military. Despite recent mission changes that reflect a greater focus on stability operations, ie., nation-building, the primary purpose of the military is to violently execute political goals that cannot otherwise be effected through diplomacy and other non-violent avenues of approach (sanctions, boycotts, etc.). We exist to destroy those who would threaten our political and economic existence. Any change to the military, whether it is in training, equipment, doctrine, or social norms, should be to enhance the lethality of our Armed Forces.
Right out of the box, this soldier lays it on the line. Here is the starting premise that liberals reject because they reject the reality that makes the military necessary. Wolves are out there and they really don’t care what you feel about them. It is no great challenge to understand them. Their goal is to KILL YOU and yours! That is all you really need to understand about the enemy. Once this premise is accepted, the deduction regarding the direction of any changes follows logically. And the political goals that are referenced need not be, and in the case of the United States, are not those of “imperialistic expansion.” This first paragraph does bring to mind the words usually attributed to George Orwell, but which may have issued forth from Winston Churchill. Regardless of who said it, they ring true:
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Having laid this foundation, our soldier next turns to a more detailed analysis of the reasons DADT works by providing some observations about the realities of military life, some of which those who are not in the military may find unpalatable despite their necessity. They are highly relevant to the issue.
Soldiers are trained to fight as a team, not as individuals. If you look at something as simple as the construction of sectors of fires in a defense, you understand immediately that the primary goal of individual fighting positions is to protect your team members to the left and right of your position. It is not to defend your front. Your front is covered by your buddies to your left and right. In other words, trust and reliance on your team members are absolutely essential. Soldiers live together- at times in conditions that most civilians would find completely uncivilized- sleep together, eat together, shower together, and even defecate together in open slit trenches, in order to accomplish the mission. It is a very strange relationship they share because their lives are so open and inter-connected. During combat, the intensity and necessity of that relationship grows. You must believe that your team members have your survival and well-being as the second highest priority during battle. Notice that I said, “second highest priority”. The top priority of any military action is to accomplish the mission.
When Congress or the military attempts to inject social engineering, specifically open homosexuality in the ranks, into this relationship, it is a disaster in the making. Now instead of mission accomplishment being the top priority – it is individual rights and relationships that become the priority. I find it to be very ironic that Congress and the President are choosing to deal with this issue in the midst of a two front war on Global Terrorism. It is very revealing that the top military concern of the Democrats is allowing open homosexuality into the ranks rather than defeating the enemy in our wars.
Yes, indeed, such a focus in times like these is very revealing. Let us not forget this November, or in 2012. Another point not made is that social engineering from an external source that has not even tried to understand the military, let alone serve in it, is yet another example of the towering hubris of the liberal mind as it intolerantly demands tolerance of its own worldview, rejecting all others in its mad dash to a suicidal posture it believes to be morally superior no matter what facts may contradict.
If we take homosexuals at their word, they did not choose to be gay. They are, according to them, born gay and are biologically attracted to people of the same sex. If that is the case, what impact does sexual attraction have on military teams? It has a huge and devastating impact. This is even true with heterosexuals and is why the Army has rules against establishing relationships between heterosexuals within the same chain of command. I have served for 26 years. One of the things that I have noticed is when a female is thrown in the mix of a male-dominated world, the males naturally begin competing for her attention. It is not, necessarily, that they are trying to sleep with her, but the natural tendency for heterosexual males is to attract the attention of the opposite sex. It throws a wrench in the relationship between the males. This is why men who serve in Combat Arms branches do not prefer to have women fighting on the front lines. The presence of a female skews the male mentality. Men, by nature, choose to protect women at the expense of protecting their male counterparts. Again, this has deadly consequences when the bullets are flying. If gays are biologically wired to be gay, than they, too, must have this desire to protect the males to whom they are attracted. Instead of focusing on accomplishing the mission and protecting the men to their left and right, they would be more concerned with protecting their attraction.
I will not belabor this point here because our soldier is merely accepting the homosexual assertion as a point of argument, and then showing that even if they are correct, the results are still disastrous. However, as someone in the medical field myself, I can say that there is no evidence, only unsubstantiated assertion, that homosexuality is genetic. Moral questions aside, behavior of almost any kind is a choice, and homosexual behavior is a choice. Yes, I know about the one article of an alleged scientific study published several years ago that supposedly discovered the “gay gene.” What the mainstream media (MSM…hmm…in the medical world, MSM means men having sex with men. I wonder what significance there is that these are also the initials for mainstream media? But I digress.) didn’t trumpet quite so loudly was the retraction that journal published a few months later when re-evaluation of the data from that study by independent analysts demonstrated a failure to support the original conclusions. It also came out that the principal investigator was himself “gay” and thus not exactly an unbiased interpreter of the facts (not that such an individual couldn’t be an unbiased interpreter; just that in this case, given the more critical evaluation of the data, the lack of bias was noticeable).
The soldier’s above paragraph also brings to the front facts about differences between men and women that the liberal mind also wants to reject, and specifically, the fact that the genders are different. Note too that our soldier shows first how heterosexual behavior is also a problem. Does one really believe homosexual behavior would be different in the proposed environment? Why should homosexuals get preferential treatment? Wouldn’t that be unfair? Thus, although he has not brought this to the forefront yet, the underlying point is that this is not about rights, it is about getting the job done with the maximum efficiency when the outcomes are such a matter of life and death. Any effort which takes the focus off of killing the enemy and onto oneself and one’s sexuality, in this context, is just plain stupid and wrong. Next, some very relevant questions are asked:
And how does Congress propose to house gay Soldiers? Are they going to billet gay men with females? What would Congress say if the Army started housing heterosexual males with females in the barracks? Is it not the same thing if you house openly gay males with heterosexual males or other gay Soldiers? Why should they be given special treatment? (I am quite certain that most heterosexual males who were housed with females would consider it special treatment…in a good way.) If the plan is to provide gay barracks, then why are they allowed to live and sleep with their sexual counterparts and heterosexuals are not? We are also talking about a very small minority of Soldiers. If gays are housed separately, then they would enjoy more living space than heterosexual Soldiers. If you have one gay in your company, does he get his own tent or own room, even if he is a Private? Is that just?
Has the military surveyed Soldiers to see how they feel? I receive dozens of surveys from the military in my email every year. I have never been given a survey on this issue. Why? Why has the military refused to even ask those who would be the most affected by this policy? Why are generals more concerned with appeasing politicians than doing what is best for those who fight and die for this country? I am trying to be unemotional about this, but what is occurring on Capitol Hill and even within the ranks of the senior leadership of the military is a disgrace. Thank God the Marine Corps Chief of Staff spoke like a Soldier. But when an Army general echoed the same sentiment as the Marine, he was disciplined.Why? Who in the Army leadership thinks that a general, who is echoing the majority sentiment of Soldiers, should be disciplined for stating an opinion that defends what Soldiers believe?
How and why indeed! The consequences, unintentional and otherwise, have yet to be thought through and brought to light. Here we have some light being shed.
The heart of the issue boils down to this: Congress and the President (and I fear some in the military leadership) are more concerned about the sexuality of Soldiers than the efficacy of the military in destroying our enemies. This focus is so far off track and incredible that it is difficult to find the appropriate words to describe. It is further proof that American culture is in decline. I would be just as opposed to any move to make heterosexuality the primary focus of the military rather than destroying the enemy.
Yes, it needs to be said again. This is not about rights! And it does reflect the total cluelessness and fecklessness of the liberal worldview relative to the purpose and mission of the military.
I acknowledge that gays have served in the military since military forces were created in ancient times. I have no issue with someone who is gay and serves in the military. But I do not want to know about it and I do not want my squad, platoon, or company to know about it. It is a divisive issue that destroys team integrity. And it will most certainly do this if a homosexual Soldier decides it his “right” to flaunt his gayness. I was most disappointed to read an article a few weeks ago when an alliance of milbloggers came out in support of open homosexuality in the service. I understand why they might make this decision. It is, in my view, based on the fact that we all know gays who have served. But I think people who are not currently in the tent, shower, foxhole, latrine…the fight…forget the detrimental impact that openly gay Soldiers would have on the front lines.
Here we see the balance of this soldier, along with an accurate grasp of history and the realities of warfare. Based on the previous data, these statements are ones with which I can agree wholeheartedly.
It is truly a sad day in our history when the most talked about issue of our Armed Forces, in the midst of two wars, is about the sexual preference of Soldiers. I think it is a sign of just how self-centered and immature the “adults” who lead our country have become. We are more concerned about satiating our sexual desires than we are about ensuring the very survival of our civilization. Don’t ask, don’t tell is a policy that has worked. It allows gays to serve in the military. It prevents elevating a Soldier’s sexual preference above mission accomplishment and what is best for the military. Today, a gay, male Soldier can receive the Medal of Honor, reach the rank of General, and serve in any military occupation to which he is qualified. There are no restrictions placed upon him, other than the fact that he cannot announce his homosexuality. And why should he? Are gays so insecure in their sexual preferences that they must demand that others accept what, statistically, is deviant behavior? What benefit does the military derive in allowing open homosexuality? How does it make the military better, more effective, and stronger? If the answer is that it allows gays to feel better about themselves, then that is the wrong answer. The military is not about making gay or straight Soldiers feel better about themselves. It is about defending our nation. It should be about making our service members feel better about our nation. (But the Cult of Diversity, to which the homosexual debate belongs, has seriously damaged even this aspect of the military culture. See Gen. Casey’s remarks after the Ft. Hood jihadist killed 13 people.) If the answer is that allowing open homosexuality does not make the military better, then we should not even be having this discussion. It is the topic of self-centered, immature “adults” who choose to identify themselves by a sexual act rather than the character and qualities that make a person, gay or straight, a truly responsible and mature citizen of this nation.
Bingo! The above clearly hits the nail on the head. Here we have some of the root causes for why we are even having this debate, and they are not pretty. Mix multicultural political correctness with narcissistic self-gratification and try to throw it into the military culture and you have a recipe for disaster that will eventually take us to the brink of extinction by rendering our military an empty self-absorbed shell. The underlined sentence is the key one in the above paragraph.
So I said it. I apologize for the length, but as you can tell, this issue seriously concerns me. Trash it if you want. Again, I did not mean to offend anyone. My concern is the effectiveness of our forces. This debate has nothing to do with improving the military. In fact, it is detrimental to the military…in my view. I would appreciate anonymity on this. Isn’t it sad that I have to fear retribution for simply stating an opposing view to the gay lobby?
Well said, Soldier! Indeed, this letter really needs to go viral.
Let me conclude with two summary points that are the true framework of this discussion. They are derived from this first hand report and common sense (something currently in short supply on the left side of the aisle).
First, there is no “right” to serve in the military. Thus, the gay agenda which seeks to frame this debate in terms of rights is simply wrong. It is an honor and privilege to serve, and there are associated responsibilities in such service. However, those without the necessary mental and physical characteristics have no right to serve. (Please note that neither of us are saying gays can’t serve. Don’t throw up a straw man based on emotion and deliberate misreading of anything here. There is no “hate” here.) To allow them to do so is to endanger the lives of all those who serve with them. Personally, I never served in the military and there are times now I truly would like to do so. But I know I can no longer meet the physical demands of soldiering at my age. Should I demand my “right,” pointing to age discrimination? Should I demand a lowering of the standards so I can qualify? To do so would be the height of self-centered stupidity!
Second, something those who haven’t served frequently ignore is the fact that those who do serve in the military voluntarily give up multiple “rights” to do so. Ask any member of the military how many “rights” they had during their basic training. Ask yourself why the word “sacrifice” is so often associated with military service. The very command structure of the military does not allow for “rights” of anyone to do anything he wants. So even if we were to grant the gay agenda their “right” to openly pursue their sexuality anywhere, they relinquish that right when they enlist just as the heterosexual relinquishes his right to pursue his sexuality when he enlists. There should be no double standard, and we should expose and reject such with as much vehemence as we can. I’m sure we will continue to see many from the Left in the ensuing days and political campaigns. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.