Video: Gravel finds surefire way to improve military effectiveness

posted at 2:27 pm on August 8, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via our pal Ian Schwartz. Turns out it’s six months old but it was news to me. What a pity they cut Gravy out of the debate last night; we might have been in store for another golden moment like this.

Exit question: Isn’t this actually an argument for co-ed combat units?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Mike Gravel, the man with rocks in his head.

And before anyone else says it…

This…is…HOT AIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

MadisonConservative on August 8, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Someboday tell me again…who the hell is this nitwit?

Jaibones on August 8, 2007 at 2:33 PM

There are some people that argue for an all male and hetero military.

I don’t know of anybody that would argue for an all female military or an all gay military.

I ask, why is that?

TheSitRep on August 8, 2007 at 2:34 PM

I think when he heard about a time when there were tail gunners in the military, he was thinking of something else rather than bombers.

firepilot on August 8, 2007 at 2:35 PM

That’s it! Get those damn hetero freaks out of the military before they ruin everything! Send in the fighting 69th Hair Stylists Brigade and the 101st Interior Decorators, and see what happens when those terrorists really get it in the ass!

morganfrost on August 8, 2007 at 2:37 PM

New “THIS. IS. SPARTA!!” Video on YouTube in 5…4…

John_Locke on August 8, 2007 at 2:39 PM

This post is in dire need of a 300 movie image

jp on August 8, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Armed and fabulous?

Bad Candy on August 8, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Yeah Uhh…Study history…the Spartans LOST!

ronsfi on August 8, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Armed and fabulous?

Bad Candy on August 8, 2007 at 2:41 PM

BWahahahahahaha!

Pilgrim on August 8, 2007 at 2:43 PM

The Spartan’s trained their people to be homosexuals

….and all along we’ve been told by the left that they are born that way……

sbf

subbottomfeeder on August 8, 2007 at 2:48 PM

It doesn’t surprise me all that much coming from the dude who stared into the camera for over a minute, and then threw a rock into the water, and called it a political statement.

This guy is just weird.

nailinmyeye on August 8, 2007 at 2:49 PM

OT: That giant lego man that washed up on shore, linked in the headlines, is pretty cool. Creepy, for sure. But cool.

nailinmyeye on August 8, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Somebody once said, “there are no athiests in foxholes”
Sorry.

captivated_dem on August 8, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Someboday tell me again…who the hell is this nitwit?

Jaibones on August 8, 2007 at 2:33 PM

This nit wit is the guy generally credited with getting the campaign rolling that withdrew funding for the Vietnam thereby causing our withdrawal.

LakeRuins on August 8, 2007 at 2:55 PM

“You fight for the people you love.” Well yeah that’s a part of a bigger truth.

You also love the people you face death with. If only he had fewer small rocks in his head he might understand that sex only cheapens the platonic love that comes with shared hardship. And if he really thinks, as his words imply, that sex and love are the same thing then he needs to get out more.

Les Aspin was the most qualified person that Bill Clinton could find who also believed that gays should serve openly in the military. Watch Blackhawk Down again to see how that worked out.

TunaTalon on August 8, 2007 at 2:58 PM

In my head I keep seeing the fight scene at the end of Blazing Saddles.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

LB - the one that isn't LaShawn Barber on August 8, 2007 at 2:59 PM

“It’s not the Country, it’s my partner. Go see the movies on war…”

Nuff said.

Swinehound on August 8, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Did the Spartans have a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy?

Kini on August 8, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Here’s the situation, and it goes for gays and females in combat units. It’s the classic argument for which the only response is, “That would never happen.”

You are a squad leader engaged in combat, and one of your teams (approx. 4-6 soldiers, depending) is cut off, pinned down, with little or no chance of immediate rescue. You, as a squad leader, know that your remaining team is not enough to succeed in allowing the pinned team to safely withdraw. You know that the right answer is to keep both teams in place, and to engage in no rash action that would result in more men being killed. But can you be expected to make a rational decision if you’re, say, sleeping with a member of that pinned down team? Can you hold discipline and order in the team your are in control of if someone in that team is sleeping with someone in the pinned down team? Let’s say that you order your team to stay put, and the other team suffers multiple casualties. What impact is there on morale when it goes from, “Your actions led to my friend’s death” (an acceptable feeling that can be corrected (I’ve seen it), to “Your actions killed my lover.” That’s a whole lot harder to deal with. And that’s why sexual couples don’t hang out together in combat arms. I don’t give a rat’s ass what the Spartans did 2300 years ago.

Spc Steve on August 8, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Spc Steve on August 8, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Fine points, all.

Swinehound on August 8, 2007 at 3:06 PM

they didn’t ask any “gays in the military” or “gay marriage” questions last night at the afl-cio forum last night either, did they?

jummy on August 8, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Dear God…

And I’ve already watched my copy of “300″ a number of times…

Corky on August 8, 2007 at 3:18 PM

I knew shenanigans were going on between forrest gump and bubba! Shrimp. Indeed.

lorien1973 on August 8, 2007 at 3:21 PM

And I’ve already watched my copy of “300″ a number of times…

You got teh ghey.

lorien1973 on August 8, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Good point. I wonder if this moron’s parents had any kids that lived…

Corky on August 8, 2007 at 3:21 PM

In my head I keep seeing the fight scene at the end of Blazing Saddles.
LB – the one that isn’t LaShawn Barber on August 8, 2007 at 2:59 PM

You can’t fire me, I work for Mel Brooks.

Allahpundit, This is at least as much on topic as Gravel saying he’s trying to be the POTUS.

TunaTalon on August 8, 2007 at 3:33 PM

The Spartan’s trained their people to be homosexuals

….and all along we’ve been told by the left that they are born that way……

sbf

subbottomfeeder on August 8, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Nice!

I was so upset when Gravel was not in the debate last night. I really missed the comic relief.

ericire12 on August 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM

… and see what happens when those terrorists really get it in the ass!
morganfrost on August 8, 2007 at 2:37 PM

That’s the best idea I’ve heard all day.

logis on August 8, 2007 at 4:03 PM

To the person who said the Spartans lost – no, they did not lose.

They held the Persians at bay so the rest of Greece could get their military act together to whup the Persians. They were fully aware of the suicide nature of their mission and performed it anyway.

The battle may have been lost, but the war was not.

Try again with real history.

Mommynator on August 8, 2007 at 4:09 PM

A couple of points.

-Gravel thinks homosexuality is something that can be taught. I wonder if that is the NEA’s policy.

-Who would join an army of homosexuals. Other homosexuals. That leaves a recruitment pool of 2% of the population. Unless the NEA starts cranking them out of the public school system.

Bill C on August 8, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Spc Steve on August 8, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Nicely said.

BadgerHawk on August 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM

…go see the movies on war…

Because if you’ve seen it in a movie, it must be true!

Well, at least he’s willing to admit where he gets his views from…

taznar on August 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Apparently, according to Gravel, the Spartans had a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Because You Know I’m Gay policy. Does that mean the movie 300 will be remade some years from now to reflect this politically sensitive truth*?

And no, that’s not a Barry Bonds asterisk.

Seixon on August 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM

I saw 300. The Spartans didn’t look very gay to me. The Athenians did however. Maybe Gravel is confused.

saltydogg14 on August 8, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Maybe Gravel is confused.

Maybe?

highhopes on August 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM

I can’t download the video right now so I have one question:

Does he also point out that the Spartans were pedophiles? Somehow I doubt it.
And if we are going to follow the Spartans’ examples we must also trade in our democracy for a race-based slavery system. I loved the movie, but the historic Spartans were not fighting for democracy or freedom for anyone else, only their own freedom and ability to dominate their own slaves. Which does not diminish their courage or audicity in the slightest.

Lancer on August 8, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Two points:

One, it was the Thebans, not the Spartans who encouraged homosexuality (The Sacred Band. Google it) as a means to promote unit cohesion. In a unit that fought en bloc and organized so that lovers stayed together, it was a passing good idea. Phillip was said to have wept after, ahem, wiping them out to a man.

Secondly, this unit only worked because it was organized with this structure in mind from the beginning. Don’t ask me to prove it ’cause frankly I don’t have the time, but it would make sense to me that any really bad breakups would result in immediate transfers. In a modern army with the required fluidity of staffing (average time at a unit: 3 years), this kind of “closeness” is a recipe for disaster along the lines that Spc Steve pointed out.

The kind of love you see in a military unit is agape, the love of choice, not only to one’s fellow soldiers but to the unit as a whole. Eros (erotic love) would (and does, hence the prohibition on marrying or even dating someone from the same unit) screw up this dynamic in ways that would severely affect a unit’s fighting ability, and not in a good way. At the very least, lovers’ quarrels in the barracks can lead to decreased morale and all that goes with it. At the worst, you end up with sloppy decision making in the field that gets men killed all because, let’s face it, men think with the lower of their heads almost as often as the upper.

The whole hetero male army thing is supposed to minimize that particular genetic quirk.

Militant Bibliophile on August 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM

It would bring a whole new literal meaning to it when they say:

“We got caught with our pants down”

Kowboy on August 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Since this guys is extolling the virtues of the Spartans to promote gays in the military, would he do the same if he knew what the Spartans would have done to their equivalent of a Scott Thomas Beauchamp (or John Kerry, or any other slanderer of warriors) in their day?

I can’t imagine a Spartan version of Scott Thomas Beauchamp would have been spared after slandering his fellow warriors. I can’t imagine his death being very pretty, either.

thirteen28 on August 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM

I am told, by a number of feministst, that the problem with gender bias against women in the military is not because of them being women but because men as they are conditioned now, can not handle a woman among them.

My response to this is, well, this is partly right. However, the statement above is itself 100% gender biased against men, and the kind of subjective standard feminists are arguing against.

The point is that this statement is exactly the opposite of the current gender bias against women, in which we foolishly expect women in military uniform to act like men.

Is it men only that need conditioning? Or is it both men and women? Or, is the point that it isn’t wise to mix men and women in combat situations? How much conditioning does it take to drive the sex-drive out of the average human being, man or woman?

A woman fighter pilot flying in combat is one thing. A woman infantry soldier stuck with a man in a lonely, dirty, stinky fox-hole is something quite different.

If we place women in the same military job as men, it stands to reason that they should both be measure by the same objective standards. But it does not stand to reason to place men and women in a situation which seriously temps and hampers their ability to succeed.

If we can’t trust men to control their emotions around women, then we shouldn’t be putting women in a situation with them that sets both the men and the women up for failure.

Not to mention the fact that women are also human and to try to condition the human emotion (eg: sex-drive) out of women is just as silly as trying to condition it out of men. But this is exactly what we are trying to do. And it doesn’t work. Unless we turn all our soldiers into eunuchs, or if we implant some kind of robocop control chip in their heads, we will never resolve the personal interaction problems associated with place men and women together in combat.

Lawrence on August 8, 2007 at 5:13 PM

Priceless,I’ve seen Mike Gravel before in front of the cameras and he never seems to disappoint.
Here we go,back to Truman and it’s only been two days.
Was Mike Gravel confused with Truman intergrating African
Americans or homosexuals into the military,after all it was
the 40′s,world war two.

canopfor on August 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Last paragraph to my previous post.

If we take the same understanding of gender issues between hetero men and women, and apply that to gender issues between hetero and homo of either gender, we end up with the same type of unsolvable problems.

Lawrence on August 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Gravel referred to Laura Ingraham as “Dr. Laura” several times during a live interview.

Laughing academy graduate. Top O’ his class. Gravel has Ron Paul poster above his bed. Gravel thinks Ron Paul invented Almond Joy.

saved on August 8, 2007 at 5:30 PM

This nit wit is the guy generally credited with getting the campaign rolling that withdrew funding for the Vietnam thereby causing our withdrawal. “…and for having put into the public record the Pentagon Papers in 1971…” wiki

LakeRuins on August 8, 2007 at 2:55 PM

All righty then.

Jaibones on August 8, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Spc Steve on August 8, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Definitely agreed.

Gravel scares me in many ways. I was about to say, “Stop talking. I preferred it when you were staring me down and throwing rocks in a lake,” but then I figured that no…no, I didn’t.

emmaline1138 on August 8, 2007 at 5:57 PM

When Gravel began public service in Alaska, they had what, maybe four or five dudes for every gal? So who’d know homosexuality better than an old Alaskan?

radjah shelduck on August 8, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Gay Spartans? That’s a historical image I’ve never imagined. Now how in the hell do I get that image out of my head? That’s one of the craziest thing’s I’ve ever heard of. Maybe that’s where the limp wristed javelin throw style that Lamar Latrell used in Revenge if the Nerds came from.

KCtheKat on August 8, 2007 at 7:07 PM

There could be some things to be learned about warfighting by studying the Spartans but I don’t Gravel has found any. How about that you actually kill the enemy instead of attempt a “shock and awe” demonstration and hope they give up without fighting.

Resolute on August 8, 2007 at 7:14 PM

There could be some things to be learned about warfighting by studying the Spartans

Resolute on August 8, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Yep, like: show no mercy, take no prisoners, never retreat or submit.

KCtheKat on August 8, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Militant Bibliophile very good point. The Spartans more than other Greeks actually DISCOURAGED sexual relationships within the army, because of moral reasons, and because they felt sexual relations should not get in the way of meritocracy.

Xenophon writes about this. Lycurgus, the legendary law-giver of Sparta, had very conservative views about sexuality and homosexual activity. People should understand the Greeks had a mixed feeling towards this, the love-education between men and young boys was considered good, any sexual relationship generally bad.

Nepotism was a big problem for the Spartans, with their ideals of merit based armed forces. If I remember correctly it was a major political issue with one of the kings and his favoritism towards his lover during the Peloponnesian war. I even read somewhere they didn’t put lovers in the same place in the Phalanx.

The Thebans come later than the Spartans with their gay fanatical sacred band.

A few more points:

1. The Spartans did lose the Persian wars, in the sense that the Athenians emerged as the victors and dominant power in Greece. This later led to the Peloponnesian war (that Sparta ultimately won, but that wore down both cities). Morally Spartas reputation was helped by the last stand of the 300.

2. Greeks did not practice homosexuality, men who only were with other men. They like other cultures had wide-spread bi-sexuality, where men occasionally have sex with other men, but also (and often preferably) with women.

Anyone who tells you homosexuality was the norm in Greece/Ottoman empire/Mamluks is demonstrating a shallow knowledge of history.

3. What annoys me most with Democrats is the combination of ignorance and arrogance. “Anyone who doesn’t know Spartans were gay is ignorant about ancient history”. Yeah, except anyone who actually read through a couple of books about Greek history would know it was much more complicated. A little knowledge is worse than no knowledge, if it makes you overestimate yourself.

4. The core of the issue: Regardless if the Thebans made it work, it was in a completely different culture. Democrat politicians should care about how things work given your American culture today. All fighting armies need the macho mentality of young men, especially an elite volunteer force such as the US Military. In America 2007 gay=not macho. End of story. People that risk their life for the rest of society are not toys for leftist social experiments, their wishes should be respected.

Tino on August 8, 2007 at 9:19 PM

Militant Bibliophile on August 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM

I think it’s philios, not agape. Otherwise agreed.

TexasDan on August 8, 2007 at 9:37 PM

So he’s saying that the gay bomb wouldn’t have helped?

- The Cat

MirCat on August 9, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Militant Bibliophile on August 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Tino on August 8, 2007 at 9:19 PM

Damn, I jumped into this late and most of my points have already been made. I’ll just add that the most successful armies of the ancient world, the Spartans and the Romans, took a dim view of the kind of man-on-man love liberals are obsessed with.

The Romans in particular would severely punish sexual relationships between leigionaires, even killing them, as it tended to screw with unit cohesion and morale.

Grim determination, not flashy theatrics, wins wars. Thebans died at the Hot Gates as well, but it’s the Spartan lambda on our tanks. (That’s the upside down V for you uneducated morons;)) Uniform equipment was another Spartan innovation. Remeber, the United States was founded as a republic, based far more on Spartan values than Athenian ones.

ticticboom on August 9, 2007 at 9:34 AM

TexasDan on August 8, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Upon further consideration, you may be right. My Greek is more than a little rusty, unfortunately…

Militant Bibliophile on August 9, 2007 at 2:32 PM