Gen. Casey: I have “serious concerns” about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” right now

posted at 3:11 pm on February 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

A little something from today’s Senate hearing to balance last night’s poll numbers. The argument’s simple: Yes, let’s study the possible effects of repeal, but don’t go tinkering with military effectiveness in the middle of two wars without first knowing what you’re getting yourself into. Or as a certain prominent “true conservative” recently put it:

The military may be a microcosm of society in some ways, but it most definitely is not a democracy. Individuals don’t have the usual rights that we honor in civilian society and, in fact, forfeit their freedoms when they wear the uniform.

If you want to test your free-speech rights, try criticizing your commanding officer…

More questions remain than can be posed, much less answered, in this space, and Gates may need every minute of the 11 months he has requested to study the issue. Whatever one’s personal opinion, the guiding principle should be only what is best for military effectiveness.

“Be all that you can be” was a nice recruiting slogan, but the military really is not about you. And the right to serve belongs to no one.

I don’t mind them taking their time to study the issue, although as I said last night, the conclusion is a fait accompli politically, especially if The One is in trouble with his base ahead of 2012. They’re really just studying how to implement the policy most effectively, with as little disruption as possible, not whether they should or will implement it at all.

As for the identity of the author of the blockquote, didn’t you already guess? Exit question: Does this post mean HA’s officially conservative again?

Update: One follow-up thought to Parker’s point. While it’s true that you don’t have the same free-speech rights, privacy rights, etc, in the military that you have as a civilian, you don’t “forfeit your freedoms” in their entirety. A presidential order commanding the military to segregate along racial lines might well violate the Equal Protection Clause (or the Fifth Amendment version of it), although I can imagine a separation-of-powers Article II counterargument to that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

As for the identity of the author of the blockquote, didn’t you already guess? Exit question: Does this post mean HA’s officially conservative again?

Why the quotes around “true conservative” when referring to her? And, no, it doesn’t mean HA’s officially conservative again; it just means you continue to quote Conservatives. That’s like saying HA’s liberal, because it has quoted numerous liberals. The determination lies in the inherent slant of the site writers, themselves; not with whom you quote.

Virus-X on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

You have no more “right” to join the military than you do any organization.

You do however have to show a Birth Certificate…..

/runs off……

RealMc on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

gator70 on February 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM

No clue? Really? Is that your argument?

heatherrc77 on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I said gay or straight. A gay person should not be turned back because of their preference.
heatherrc77 on February 23, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Are you familiar with the term good order and discipline?
Some people and groups of people are turned away because they will not be able to adjust or will adversely affect morale (like proselytizing is a big no no) of everyone else. Openly homosexual personnel will adversely affect morale and increase the number of problems that the military has to deal with.

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Navy and Army BEQ’s to my knowledge.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Cindy Munford on February 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM

My wife’s is amazinly accurate but that comes from her close friendships with so many gay men.

thomasaur on February 23, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Openly homosexual personnel will adversely affect morale and increase the number of problems that the military has to deal with.

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Say it again YEAH. Spot on LtH

RealMc on February 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM

All I know is, from a lot of experience as a curious child, fixing things that aren’t broken is how you break things. Clock radios, and military organizations. If they work, leave them the hell alone.

RBMN on February 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Do gay men attack?

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Do women? If we’re all supposed to be adults here and realize that the military isn’t about sex, why not put men and women together as well?

You do realize that in many places there is no stall, or no door to the stall, do you really want to see some random dude’s face as he piches off a big ‘ole loaf?

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM

It’s not always that much different from another face they make during something else I am supposed to see.

That said, I’ve never been in a bathroom without stall doors and wouldn’t want to even if it were filled with all women.

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Well those situations are probably the forward-forward deployed areas. In which case, there’s a bush, go behind it.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Dude you obviously have NEVER been to Afghanistan or Iraq or even to half a dozen military bases I could name.
Bush Ha Ha

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Gay or straight? Don’t ask, don’t tell and I sure as hell don’t want to know.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:03 PM

I remember showering in bays in basic. There was one soldier who refused to take off their skivvies in the shower for the first week. You get over it.

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 4:09 PM

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Why oh why do we have to get into the “You OBVIOUSLY have never been deployed” contest.

Listen, if you have been to Afghanistan/Iraq. Good on you.

If you were in Iraq 10 yrs ago, things have changed.

I’m going off of what I know and I know that if there is a major presence in an area, it isn’t a situation of “everyone go to the bathroom at once in this pit”. If you are in the woods, you find a bush and do your business.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:11 PM

and by “good on you” I mean “thanks for your service”.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM

And I’ve been to quite a few installations. I’ve never had to sit face to face with a guy doing his business in the bathroom as I do mine.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM

RBMN on February 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Exactly, why screw with the one part of the federal government that actually works properly?

“Justice” Department – Reading undybombers their “rights”
CIA – Amazlingly incompetent
Dept of Education – Burning $100 bills like blunts
Congress – More clowns than Barnum and Bailey
Etc.

But by all means, lets f**k with the military so soon they can be as ineffective as the rest of the fed govt.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Combat arms units do not have fraternization problems. If an 11b infantryman wants to get some action, he goes to the support unit next door. Support units, on the other hand, have enormous problems with fraternization. Its not just the cut and dry Staff Sergeant X is sleeping with Private Y problems either. Its the daily soap opera of this Private was sleeping with that Specialist and now they broke up and they keep fighting because now the Specialist is dating the Private’s roommate. Its a huge drain on command’s time and resources.

Combat arms units simply do not have those problems. Repealing DADT will cause problems where problems do not exist. It will therefore have a detrimental effect on combat readiness. End of story.

BohicaTwentyTwo on February 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM

and by “good on you” I mean “thanks for your service”.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Nice correction. :)

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Agree but I personally like to hear or know as little about other guy’s personal lives as possible.

I hate the soap opera gossipy nonsense, that’s why I like the DADT. Should apply to everyone.

Airing of personal likes, dislikes and other individualities is WAY overrated.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM

I figured “good on you” could be taken as sarcastic. I’m genuinely thankful to those who have served.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:18 PM

“Niccce military you have thhere…

… it would be a ssshame if I gave it such a pinch!”

Seven Percent Solution on February 23, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Gay or straight, everyone has the right to fight for their country.

The military is not a democracy. Serving is not a “right”. Getting a drivers license is not a “right”. My God, do ours schools not teach anything these days? I was in the service 45 years ago when it was still “This Man’s Army” so I know I may be considered a chauvinist dinosaur but, I don’t think 18 y/o boys have changed much. They will vote with their feet after one enlistment if homosexuals serve openly. I have had “heart to heart” talks with several homosexuals over the years and they ALL said that heterosexual men are all capable of “turning” if and when they meet the right “man”. Open homosexuals simply would not be good for discipline and good order among the troops. I’ll go further and say we need a draft which would be a cost savings measure and reduce our dependency on women and “in the closet” homosexuals.

scullymj on February 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM
The reason for the comment was in response to your forward deployed assertion. There are trees and bushes in Iraq and Afghanistan but they are few and far between. And if you are “outside of the wire”, you are supposed to be patrolling not breaking a biscuit (I understand emergencies happen); the locals usually just find a nice wall to lean against and let fly. But on base trying to use the outdoors, is like copping a squat downtown conceptually you could do it, but it would be in front of everyone and there would be repercussions.
As for installations I have never been face to face but I have seen stalls without doors on many. Not the visitor’s latrines but the ones for Soldiers to use and/or in the barracks.

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:21 PM

They’re also looking into how to put women on submarines.

To be completely inclusive, I think we should also station toddlers and the elderly on Tridents as well, so they can get free health care.

Maybe a few prisoners too so they can get three hots and a cot.

We need submarines that “look like America”.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:22 PM

I figured “good on you” could be taken as sarcastic. I’m genuinely thankful to those who have served.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Yeah, it did somewhat sound like that the way it was written, which made the correction a little light-heartedly funny, to me anyway.

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Reposting from the CNN Poll thread. I think she hit it out of the ballpark. And if you click on her name you can see she has the military experience to know this is true.

The vast majority of Americans don’t know what they are talking about when they respond to questions about whether they support gays serving openly in the military.

They think the question is merely one of gays not having to hide their relationships. But the military isn’t like civilian life, where we can all choose to keep our thoughts to ourselves and exercise tolerance by avoidance. The military operates on affirmative principle.

One of the best guides to the way this will play out is the Army’s performance in affirming non-discrimination against Muslims. The reason that the people who were aware of the many red flags concerning the Fort Hood bomber didn’t report them, and make a big deal about them, is that they understood they would have no support from the chain of command, and in fact would be putting their jobs in jeopardy.

When gay organizations demand that the Department of Defense celebrate Gay Pride Month, and that uniformed officers make public affirmations about it, remember the record of PC lockdown in the Army that prevented early intervention in Major Hassan’s flashing-neon warning signs.

We should not have been surprised by the top-down affirmation of non-discrimination that resulted in absurdly wrongheaded priorities. When the military sets out to be non-discriminatory, it acts affirmatively. Acceptance of openly gay service will mean the military will be choosing to assume, for the purposes of all conflicts and judgment calls that may arise, that gay practices and culture are eligible for the same command support as any other.

It doesn’t matter that the great majority of gay servicemembers won’t be interested in setting up conflicts that require adjudication. Enough will be that this will be an issue. Gay legal activists can’t recruit plaintiffs in the military today, but if DADT is repealed they will be able to. They already have a large number of lawsuits going against other federal agencies, and against state and local government entities along with suits against private organizations.

The purpose of DADT was never to keep gays out of the military. It was to prevent the military becoming the battlefield for attempts to make same-sex orientation a pretext for institutional privilege. With DADT in place, the military doesn’t have to take an institutional stand on homosexuality. If it’s repealed, the military will have to take such an affirmative stand.

In the military, that means no matter who you are, your prospects for promotion and assignment will depend on you toeing the institutional line on homosexuality. If you think that won’t have to affect everyone, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

This issue really gets down to what we think government and its institutions are about. Is it truly important to us that agencies of the US federal government affirm sexual orientation as part of their institutional charter? If so, why? How is that a proper function of government or government agencies?

Imperfect as it is, DADT has allowed us to avoid answering that question directly. If it’s repealed, we will be requiring our servicemembers to face a reckoning the great majority of us can avoid throughout a whole lifetime. You don’t have to affirm homosexuality as a positive good, as acceptable, as something it is wrong to object to, merely by tolerating it through inaction. But those in the military will.

J.E. Dyer on February 23, 2010 at 1:01 AM

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 23, 2010 at 4:22 PM

You do however have to show a Birth Certificate…..

/runs off……

RealMc on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

LOL, snarky!

Califemme on February 23, 2010 at 4:25 PM

If enough gays sign up, think about the savings to the Government – no pregnancies, therefore no housing, etc. etc.

msflea on February 23, 2010 at 4:26 PM

In the military, that means no matter who you are, your prospects for promotion and assignment will depend on you toeing the institutional line on homosexuality. If you think that won’t have to affect everyone, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

J.E. Dyer on February 23, 2010 at 1:01 AM

And that is why they are so intent on this being forced through.

sharrukin on February 23, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Combat arms units do not have fraternization problems…. Repealing DADT will cause problems where problems do not exist. It will therefore have a detrimental effect on combat readiness. End of story.

BohicaTwentyTwo on February 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Actually, there is plenty of drama in the combat arms over who is sleeping with whose wife while they are on deployment.

I’m pretty sure you agree there are already gays in the combat arms. Do you think repeal of DADT would herald the onset of barracks orgies and relationship dramas in those units?

I think it more likely that combat arms soldiers would choose to continue to keep their orientation private, just as they do now. Repeal of DADT would give them a choice, though.

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 4:26 PM

In the military, that means no matter who you are, your prospects for promotion and assignment will depend on you toeing the institutional line on homosexuality. If you think that won’t have to affect everyone, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I have my latest FITREP right here. Rated on “Command or Organizational Climate/Equal Opportunity” – I got a 4.0 (above standards).

She’s exactly right. What CO is going to turn down the opportunity to have a cake cutting ceremony for Gay Pride Month?

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:29 PM

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:21 PM

LOL. I’m sorry, I wasn’t being clear. What I was trying to say was that if you are in a less permanent installation, then you can in fact do your business in reasonable privacy (“reasonable” being subject to the location and logistics available).

I have been in schools where they had removed stall doors in the bathroom. Fortunately, I have never seen a BEQ or other location without stall doors. Had to take a group shower a few times, but that was it. (I’m not a big fan of group showers.)

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:29 PM

msflea on February 23, 2010 at 4:26 PM

No missed deployments.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Note to Obama: We’re actually fighting a war. Let’s worry about launching a new regulatory war when the real fighting stops

R Square on February 23, 2010 at 4:31 PM

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:29 PM

4 on a Fitrep? Good job!

For you civilians out there, 4′s are hard to get. 5′s are darn near impossible.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Why, are gay men not men? Are gay women not women? You do realize you could be sharing a bathroom with a gay pretty much any time you go to a restaurant, don’t you? Does that present a problem?

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Only when I catch them trying to sneak a look at the urinal.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Honestly, I think straight guys forget that they are with women when they are in bootcamp/OCS.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM

That wasn’t my experience. Ditto when deployed, although I was never in fighting. There are those who unfairly flaunt what they’ve got, whether it is appropriate or not.

I think that having open homosexuals will be contrary to good order and discipline by breaking up the teams (rivals for interesting targets or not wanting to be near open homosexuals), and thus should not be tried. The problem with this discussion is that all servicemembers should be asked their opinion, and there is probably not a way that it can be done without looking as though a particular answer is wanted or their will be problems if the wrong answer is given.

Kevin K. on February 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

DON’T DO IT CASEY.

This will kill the military.

This is not what your troops want or deserve.

RealMc on February 23, 2010 at 3:15 PM

There are lots of gay troops serving our country. Our soldiers should be able to serve openly without having to live a lie. We loose good skilled people with this ridiculous rule.

Where do you think San Francisco got it’s first gay community?

lexhamfox on February 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Gen. Casey: I have “serious concerns” about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” right now

Bigot! Homophobe! Intolerant!

/MadisonLiberal

2Brave2Bscared on February 23, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Exit question: Does this post mean HA’s officially conservative again?

Not on this issue. Throwing an ambiguous bone that you promptly cut holes in as part of the commentary doesn’t undo things.

Rocks on February 23, 2010 at 4:36 PM

The urge to have sex is pretty darn strong. And, it causes a lot of stupidity. We had to put male guards on the female barracks in Saudi during the retrograde from the Gulf War. We did it because guys were climbing in through the windows at night. Some invited, some not. We caught guys under the wood slat floor of the female shower tent on the pier in Pohang Korea.

Now I’m going to assume that if the heterosexual drive is this strong the homosexual one is as well. This will end badly.

Also, most of the American military is Christian. You derive your values from somewhere, and for a lot of us, that’s the place. The Bible is pretty explicit about homosexuality, and short of the second coming and a new revelation, that’s not changing. So, the people that share those values won’t mesh well as a team with homosexuals, pedophiles, practitioners of bestiality etc.

Bottom line is that good order and discipline, teamwork and morale will suffer. It will affect operations on the battlefield, and result in a less effective military. And we want to do this why?

SoonerMarine on February 23, 2010 at 4:45 PM

And just what the hell would he know about it?
Sorry….. too easy.

JeffinOrlando on February 23, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Where do you think San Francisco got it’s first gay community?

lexhamfox on February 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Nordstrum’s I think.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:48 PM

There are lots of gay troops serving our country. Our soldiers should be able to serve openly without having to live a lie. We loose good skilled people with this ridiculous rule.
lexhamfox on February 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

And we have lots of soldiers smoking dope and for some reason the Army tosses them out by your logic we should stop that rule as well.
And what about fat soldiers? Fatties should be able to serve as well.
And what about people with disabilities should they be denied their chance to serve?
There is no “He’s a good soldier but…” You either are or you are not a good soldier.
And your argument is weak.

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Kevin K. on February 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Well my point was that in certain circumstances (like getting your butt chewed) you tend to put less priority on getting in with the opposite sex/same sex.

Yeah. About drama….whoooo-boy. Deployed or not, you always have drama.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:51 PM

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:49 PM

One thing I will have to admit, at least the gays will have to adhere to the same physical standards that the straights do.

Because the physical standards for women are an absolute joke. An 18 year old woman is allowed to be less fit than a fifty year old man. Ridiculous.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

SoonerMarine on February 23, 2010 at 4:45 PM

The problem is that we as humans have a very strong sex drive and will do just about anything to “get some”.

That problem will always exist because humans are fallible and prone to do stupid stuff. I’m not sure what the correct answer on this one is. I think a lot or our guys are professional enough to handle a repeal of DADT, but as you rightly point out, we have enough problems with the hetero guys.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:54 PM

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

25 push-ups is a Good High? 13 min for a 1.5 mile run? Man, I tell you what. I’ve always wished I could get away with stuff like that.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM

A presidential order commanding the military to segregate along racial lines might well violate the Equal Protection Clause (or the Fifth Amendment version of it), although I can imagine a separation-of-powers Article II counterargument to that.

I think this is a great point AP. While the CINC is the commander of the armed forces, the Congress is responsible for seeing to it that order and discipline are maintained.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

By that same token, however, there are plenty women in the service who could kick my butt. I have no doubts about that.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

That said, I’ve never been in a bathroom without stall doors and wouldn’t want to even if it were filled with all women.

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM

I spent five months training at Fort Gordon. We had NO STALL DOORS. Though I admit, it did speed up the time spent on the throne.

usarmyretired on February 23, 2010 at 4:57 PM

By that same token, however, there are plenty women in the service who could kick my butt. I have no doubts about that.
Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

You do realize you have just outed yourself as a beta male.
Well at least you will save rent money by living in Mom’s basement.
And you and AP can have epic WoW games and discuss who was better Kirk, or Picard.
Goos luck.

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Because the physical standards for women are an absolute joke. An 18 year old woman is allowed to be less fit than a fifty year old man. Ridiculous.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

That really needs to change.

I spent five months training at Fort Gordon. We had NO STALL DOORS. Though I admit, it did speed up the time spent on the throne.

usarmyretired on February 23, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I don’t get the benefit there. Were people using them for “alone time” or “not so alone time”?

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Perhaps a few test cases (test platoons or companies) need to be run to determine if the repealing of DADT effects the proficiency of the units and YES these should be combat arms; as was said previously, you don’t mess with something that ain’t broke.
I was in the Army from 66-69 so I really have no dog in this fight, but I do recall a joke from that time regarding a ‘Brit’ who was immigrating to the U.S.A. When asked why he was doing it he replied it was the whole homosexual issue, “First it was tolerated”, he said, “then it became accepted, I thought I’d better leave before it became bloody mandatory.”

The_Basseteer on February 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I meant “good luck”

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM

heatherrc77 on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Wasn’t making an argument. I’m tired of being told by people outside of the military that I should just shut up and follow orders. The military isn’t like Forest freakin Gump. We can actually think and make decisions, including ones that have long term consequences such as the logistics of including gays in the Military. You are worried about being fair, I’m worried about mission accomplishment at home and abroad. Folks in wheelchairs don’t get to serve, are you going to complain about that to? Colorblind folks don’t get to be pilots or bomb techs, does that bother you? Is that discrimination? For the record I’m not necessarily against gay’s serving, but it isn’t implemented as easily as you would have everyone believe.

gator70 on February 23, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Bigot! Homophobe! Intolerant!

/MadisonLiberal

2Brave2Bscared on February 23, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Impressive banality, even for you.

*eyeroll*

Diane on February 23, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM

I’d like the 33% body fat provision. I’d have 15% more to binge with.

Some female sailorettes look like the Michelin Man in whites, complete with leopard panties.

And what demonstrates pride in your uniform like maternity cammies? Has our enemies shaking in their shoes I bet.

There are women who are in exceptional shape – for women and a few for men and women.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM

I have no hope that it will change.

I’ve seen female Navy Captains who could be promoted to “Zepelin” and they are permitted to have 33% body fat and to do 3 pushups or so, so they are within standards and promotable.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Well, I’m primarily thinking of Marine women. Mostly MCMAP instructors.

I’ve freely admitted I’m a beta-male.And I play D&D thankyouverymuch. WoW is for weenies with no imagination.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Good point! We do have lot’s of problems with the guys. Remember we are talking about 18 year old hormones here. Now we add into the mix 18 year old gays who are ready to let loose like everyone else. We don’t let males and females sleep together, unless they are married, so now how do we control gay male behavior amongst the military population? Since we have to recognize them as a legitimate sexual orientation, they have to follow the rules like everyone else don’t they? The people who advocate this completely just do not understand the 2nd and 3rd order effects.

gator70 on February 23, 2010 at 5:07 PM

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 5:03 PM

I think the maternity NWU’s are a bit over the top. Really, it’s like a tent to begin with.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 5:08 PM

I spent five months training at Fort Gordon. We had NO STALL DOORS. Though I admit, it did speed up the time spent on the throne.
usarmyretired on February 23, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I don’t get the benefit there. Were people using them for “alone time” or “not so alone time”?
Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Well, to be a little delicate; where as girls may leave rabbit pellets when doing a number two, real men tend to leave something larger, on the order of, if left in the woods, could scare off bears and impress Bigfoot. This is very true when a man has had a lot of meat and fiber (like a cheeseburger) he needs a little bit of time to accomplish the mission of loaf pinching, as we would not want to the volume and pressure of the excretion to exceed the normal limits of the sphincter and cause a cramp or tear.
I hope this answers your question.

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

gator70 on February 23, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Well I’m assuming that some gay soldiers are sneaking some nookie just like the straight ones. the only thing keeping that in check is that it’s even more not allowed. Catch a straight sailor with another straight sailor, they get punished. Catch a gay sailor with another gay sailor, you discharge them.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 5:11 PM

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Very eloquent.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 5:11 PM

I’ve seen female Navy Captains who could be promoted to “Zepelin” and they are permitted to have 33% body fat and to do 3 pushups or so, so they are within standards and promotable.

NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM

What’s a “Zepelin”? Does it require physical fitness? If so, this is beyond messed up. I’m all for women serving the country in combat but only those who are qualified. It doesn’t make sense that we wouldn’t let in a man who wouldn’t pass the test but could pass the women’s test if we’re willing to let women in with lower standards.

I hope this answers your question.

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I appreciate the effort, but that actually confuses me further. Wouldn’t it be easier to take that kind of time if they had stall doors?

Oh, and two more things:

1. I’ve been told by my husband that women don’t go number 2.
2. You don’t need to be too delicate with me. I watched the South Park episode, More Crap and laughed.

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 5:17 PM

“Zepelin” (actually more like “Zeppelin”) was being used sarcastically. As in a blimp.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

“Zepelin” (actually more like “Zeppelin”) was being used sarcastically. As in a blimp.

Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

That’s what it made me think of, but I thought it might also be some kind of term I’d never heard. Thanks.

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 5:25 PM

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Not necessarily. USMC General Peter Pace made a statement against homosexuals, and I doubt it ruined him. That, and if Congress gets a socially Conservative majority, they wouldn’t hold it agains him.

I know I wouldn’t.

Virus-X on February 23, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I appreciate the effort, but that actually confuses me further. Wouldn’t it be easier to take that kind of time if they had stall doors?
Oh, and two more things:
1. I’ve been told by my husband that women don’t go number 2.
2. You don’t need to be too delicate with me. I watched the South Park episode, More Crap and laughed.
Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Yes it would, but the military does not like you to dawdle while you make “brown pythons”, so no stall doors and people will do their dooty faster. And you get the full effect when some poor schmoe ate too much cabbage and cauliflower and it has compacted into a sphincter tearing bar of iron 2 inches wider than the maximum stretch. So with no doors you not only get the smells, and the screams, you get the facial expressions to go along with them, as you try and shave.
I have heard that Southern Women do not sweat, curse or excrete, but they do get attacks of the vapors, not sure if I believe it or not, but I have seen woman scat that looked amazingly like a large bunny ate to many carrots and had an intestinal distress. I guess it is up to the individual woman. I have heard grunting, as though a pygmy tribe was having a celebration, coming from the woman’s latrine accompanied by a smell I usually associate with cows in the field, but I am sure it was nothing.
Well not all are as understanding as you, and I had to figure a way past AP’s naughty language filter while still making my point.

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Do gay men attack?

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Yeah, as a matter of fact they can’t keep their hands to themselves! Do women like men groping them without invitation? I sure didn’t. The military did zip about it.

Just about every place I was stationed had open bay showers and no bathroom stalls. Only the officers got private rooms and bathrooms then.

Do women want to be forced to have male roommates?

dogsoldier on February 23, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Way to much hassle and BS for a tiny percentage of the population and and even smaller percentage of the military.

The sideshow and unintended consequences are far worse than the actual proposal.

Obama is a jackass for even stirring this up while people are deployed.

If people have a problem with don’t ask… tough. The military doesn’t need nuanced, senstive-to-issues types. It needs people who ultimately (and simply put) go out out kill people and blow things up while making sure the same doesn’t happen to their buddy.

They don’t need any other distractions.

(Of course I’m speaking of combat MOS’s, I wonder if there will be different rules applied for different units.)

reaganaut on February 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM

barnone on February 23, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Yikes!

Why, are gay men not men? Are gay women not women? You do realize you could be sharing a bathroom with a gay pretty much any time you go to a restaurant, don’t you? Does that present a problem?

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 3:43 P

Civilian decorum is quite a bit different than life in the military. Civilian bathrooms are also divided by privacy panels.

Do women share open showers and sleeping spaces with straight men in the military?

dogsoldier on February 23, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I could go on and on about the freedoms you lose when joining the military, but that is not the real issue.

The real issue is about control and money.

Being in the military is not like a trip to the beach or a stay in a hotel. They force cohabitation. You have no choice in the matter. I’m not even talking about being deployed right now. Until you hit (Generally) E-5 or above (If you are single), your ass is stuck in the dorms, often times with a roomate, and you have no choice.

Does the private sector do this? No, and that is why everyone in the private sector have such a hard time understanding the problem with this.

Here is the kicker, the military is very good at keeping people from having sex. I spent two years in tech school. Guess what you CANNOT have in your room while in tech school (Besides guns, cigarettes, posters, ect, you know, things free people have)? A member of the opposite sex. Why? I’ll tell you…. So you cannot do the nasty.

Even more awesome, say you are married to another military member and you end up deployed at the same base or cop or whatever. Guess what you cannot do… Stay with your spouse. Why? So you can’t bone. There are many valid reasons for this. That however is not the point.

You run into a very very sticky situation (pardon the pun) when you put members of the same sex, who are now permitted to have sex, in a cohabitant environment.

The “Gays in the military” concern is all about fairness. Being in the military provides great opportunities all time to see how things are not at all fair(Also, see: Life). This will only compound the whole issue. They say it’s also about rights, but forget that military members waive their rights upon joining the military.

So now we have to figure out how to quell the rage when non-married gays are boning (Because military living is sexually segregated, reminder for those who forgot, and mandated by the government) and married couples are restricted from doing so. Another fun thing to try in the military is switch a roommate because .

If you think the defense bill costs too much right now, just wait until they have to try to figure out how to separate gays from other gays, while keeping straight men who would be uncomfortable having a gay, transgendered, or transsexual roommate cohabited with them. (Whether it is a spiritual, moral, or ethical issue for them)

Sure, straight men live with gays right now, but many of them don’t know it, therefore are not uncomfortable with the situation. Is that fair? No. However the military does not pride itself on fairness. They pride themselves on kicking ass when names need to be taken.

Rights issue? Sure! Make sure to give back all the other military personnel’s rights as well while you are at it.

carti3r on February 23, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Let the troops vote on it. They’re the one’s that will have to (literally) live with it. It sure as hell won’t be the Palace Princes of the Pentagon. Or the screwed up politicians in Washington.

GarandFan on February 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM

I have heard that Southern Women do not sweat, curse or excrete, but they do get attacks of the vapors,

You know us well. Even in a triple digit summer, we’re just “glowing” not sweating.

Honestly, I have no idea where the “women don’t poop” idea came from though. He’s been saying that one to me for years now. I can’t imagine what he’ll be like if we ever have a girl.

Well not all are as understanding as you, and I had to figure a way past AP’s naughty language filter while still making my point.

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 5:31 PM

And I appreciate the consideration. But I’m rarely bothered by graphic language. Well, unless throw up is involved. You can censor those stories.

Esthier on February 23, 2010 at 6:06 PM

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 3:48 PM

What’s with this guy?!? Has he ever served? In the Corps, we thought ourselves damned lucky if we had a private shower and even then, the enlisted folks probably had a roomie. I really doubt the straight guys are going to enjoy shacking up with a homosexual guy. Maybe in the Air Force or Coast Guard they have such things but the grunts and navy guys are stuck with communal facilities. There are so many strikes against this change I can’t even believe it is being discussed. It makes me want to pull my hair out.

timhagen on February 23, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Yes, let’s study the possible effects of repeal, but don’t go tinkering with military effectiveness in the middle of two wars without first knowing what you’re getting yourself into.

It is clear by the polls that any study will be rigged in favor of repealing it. What a joke!

Blake on February 23, 2010 at 6:16 PM

I really doubt the straight guys are going to enjoy shacking up with a homosexual guy. Maybe in the Air Force or Coast Guard they have such things but the grunts and navy guys are stuck with communal facilities.

timhagen on February 23, 2010 at 6:10 PM

It’s fun to watch the Marines roll around on the ground hugging each other all the time for training purposes.

What is it groping or grappling?

carti3r on February 23, 2010 at 6:16 PM

normal limits and purpose of the sphincter

LincolntheHun on February 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

FIFY.

platypus on February 23, 2010 at 6:17 PM

What is it groping or grappling?

carti3r on February 23, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Neither. They’re usually teaching how to repel a serious sexual advance.

platypus on February 23, 2010 at 6:21 PM

carti3r on February 23, 2010 at 6:16 PM

For straight guys, it’s called combat training and the proper term would be grappling. For people like you who this wonderful policy change would allow into the military it may just degenerate into a groping session. Thanks for the help making my point.

timhagen on February 23, 2010 at 6:21 PM

For straight guys, it’s called combat training and the proper term would be grappling. For people like you who this wonderful policy change would allow into the military it may just degenerate into a groping session. Thanks for the help making my point.

timhagen on February 23, 2010 at 6:21 PM

I guess you missed the long post above yours with my name on it. Or maybe you didn’t miss it, because you pretty much copied what I said with just less words so your buddies could get the point without getting a headache. I admire how the Marines look out for their own.

carti3r on February 23, 2010 at 6:27 PM

carti3r on February 23, 2010 at 6:27 PM

I think you missed my short post pointing out that it took you all of six minutes to apply a sexual innuendo to a common military situation, thus disproving your previous analysis. See m-w.com for the larger words in my post you don’t understand.

timhagen on February 23, 2010 at 6:43 PM

I think you missed my short post pointing out that it took you all of six minutes to apply a sexual innuendo to a common military situation, thus disproving your previous analysis. See m-w.com for the larger words in my post you don’t understand.

timhagen on February 23, 2010 at 6:43 PM

I’m not sure how a little ribbing between two military men negates the financial, micro-societal, and logistical issues stated in my post.

Next you are going to tell me that no one in the military makes homosexual jokes about their sister services.

By the way, I took your advice.

Main Entry: grope
Pronunciation: \ˈgrōp\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): groped; grop·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English grāpian; akin to Old English grīpan to seize
Date: before 12th century

intransitive verb 1 : to feel about blindly or uncertainly in search
2 : to look for something blindly or uncertainly
3 : to feel one’s way

I’m sure you see every part of the person’s body you handle as you repel the attack. Dirty groper.

carti3r on February 23, 2010 at 6:58 PM

I don’t mind them taking their time to study the issue, although as I said last night, the conclusion is a fait accompli politically

Which is shorthand to say that military effectiveness is secondary to the filthy lying coward keeping the homosexuals in his camp. I would remind the rat bastard traitor that he is also CINC and as such owes those serving better performance than using them as a political pawn so gays will keep contributing to his campaign funds.

Done in the pell-mell manner the gays want, repeal of DADT would result in absolute chaos. How many troops would die just so some closeted gay soldier can swish across the camp feeling better about himself?

highhopes on February 23, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Gen Casey is concerned that the homos would offend the Muslims I think

Sonosam on February 23, 2010 at 8:44 PM

You have no more “right” to join the military than you do any organization.

You do however have to show a Birth Certificate…..

/runs off……

RealMc on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

This made me laugh.

scotash on February 23, 2010 at 9:39 PM

What happened to the blanket parties outed gays had 30/40 years ago?

Vince on February 23, 2010 at 9:40 PM

RBMN on February 23, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Goodbye, Good Men is a very informative book.

Honestly, I think straight guys forget that they are with women when they are in bootcamp/OCS.
Rightwingguy on February 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM

As a female who went through AOCS, I didn’t find that to be the case.

I did have to deal with open showers, though thank goodness we had stalls on the toilets.

Because the physical standards for women are an absolute joke. An 18 year old woman is allowed to be less fit than a fifty year old man. Ridiculous.
NoDonkey on February 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

I feel pretty sure I never would have made it through AOCS with ‘men’s rules’. I can’t imagine that I would have made it over the high wall. I barely managed the low one. And at more than a foot shorter than our guide-on, I never would have kept up in the rifle run if the DI’s hadn’t kept us at a slower pace. I was in darn good shape, but as a rule, women just aren’t as strong. I felt then and I feel now that it isn’t fair and it isn’t right. There should be one standard. There was one woman who PT’d the o-course, men’s rules, but she was an exception to the rule.

It isn’t just the physical standards, either. There was a female aviator who landed her plane gear-up and actually made at least XO of a command. Any male would have been out on his ear. The nonsense that goes on at captain’s mast because of all the hanky panky that goes on during ship deployments is ridiculous. Women actually prostituting themselves… I sometimes believe that women shouldn’t be on active duty. Now they want to give homosexuals the green light to be open… I agree it will be bad for morale and discipline.

A soldier I know nearly pounded a homosexual into the ground for making a pass at him. Only his fiancé stopped him when she showed up just in time. He’s a great soldier and I have to wonder what would have happened to him. The homosexual didn’t make it through the training they were attending and I think he was discharged, for other reasons. The thing is, in my experience, normal men don’t take kindly to homosexual advances and it has nothing to do with some nonexistent phobia. I think it has to do with male pride and testosterone. There was a study recently about openness to sexual experimentation. It concluded that young males were far less open to experimentation with same sex activity than females were. I would think homosexuals already in the military would realize this and want to keep it quiet, but you always have the in your face types and when they get the green light, they will use it to be in the face of men they know are sickened by their behavior. It will end badly for someone.

Personally, I think the progressive Marxists are trying to destroy the military. I don’t even need my conspiracy theory hat to believe this is one way for them to do it. And men will stop enlisting. I just hope there are enough of those really honorable ‘gay’ guys who want to serve their country and are willing to step up and take their places to make this social engineering project worth it. Somehow I really doubt it.

pannw on February 23, 2010 at 10:32 PM

No one, I mean absolutely no one, has the right to join or remain in the military if they don’t make the cut. Seems everyone these days has a sense of self entitlement at taxpayers expense.

I see issues arising with discipline. Supervisors afraid to do anything to a gay military member for fear of reprisal or the gay military member filing complaint after complaint against their chain of command even though they are treating the person no differently than anyone else. This happens today but an increase increases investigations which increases manpower and budgets. (Guess this is job creation for investigators)

Housing, segregation will have to happen. Women aren’t attracted to all men and all men aren’t attracted to all women, no problem, then why don’t they let them share facilities now? Straight or not, there will still be an attraction to a certain percentile and that percentile increases exponentially the longer your in the field. You may not get attacked in the shower but unwelcome advances during daily life affect morale, man or woman. (Another jobs program, construction of more dorms and tents)

Another issue may be suicide rates. According to a 2005 report by HHS adolescents are very high risk. Does this carry into adulthood? It is tough enough with the suicides that occur today in the military. Regardless of sexual orientation no one wants to see someone take their life and an increase in suicide rates sure won’t help the military. Not to be insensitive but suicides and hospitalizations for attempts cost money. Also, are homosexuals more prone to depression? Death benefits, hospitalizations, and treatment cost big bucks. (Hell, enlist/commission everyone, free crappy medical care all around.)

I think everyone in the military has worked with someone where there was a pretty good suspicion that the person was gay and that is fine. I don’t need to see or hear details and as long as they are doing their job and leaving it outside the gate, don’t ask don’t tell. I think this is just an attempt by the more “outgoing?” of the gay community to instill their values on what is pretty much the last bastion of conservative values in the government. Navy week can be an all out orgy of hedonism in San Fran then.

I’ll be long gone before any conclusion is reached but I think reversing don’t ask don’t tell is a bad idea. As others posted “Don’t fix what ain’t broke.”

Russ86 on February 23, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Only three gay threads today? Wow, a sorta Christian organization takes over and we start cutting back on gayitude. That figures.

Akzed on February 24, 2010 at 8:58 AM

What does his opinion matter? This is about upholding the God-given right of men to do guys. We need homosexuals in the military. If you don’t support having homosexuals in the military, you’re with the terrorists.

spmat on February 24, 2010 at 9:28 AM

In ten years, the military will be nothing but single mothers, immigrants, and gays.

spec_ops_mateo on February 24, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 2