printIn his “State of the Union remarks, President Obama said he would work with Congress towards repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law on which the policy is based.” The Generals, sitting in the front row, remained conspicuously stone-faced.
Today the news was all a-flutter when a politician in fatigues, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to ‘lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'”
As the top- old dogs of the military are replaced by younger, more hip men, faces will soften on hearing such ludicrous ideas. So will the will.
The issue can be solved by returning the military to an earlier formation of disciplined men, united in common purpose. The ubiquity of women in the military has introduced into its ranks rampant, promiscuous sexuality. Combine youth, on-hand studs, testosterone, abundantly available loose women, and enabling laws—and you’ve created an assembly line of unwed, welfare moms, operating in a sexually charged atmosphere.
Remove women from the military, and you’ve removed the toxic effects straight women have on esprit de corps (and on rates of illegitimacy and welfarism).
In this kind of all-male outfit, there is no need to parade sexuality, straight or gay. Think of an all-boy school. Yeah, some hanky-panky goes on, but clandestinely.
Gay men who’ve chosen a military career are probably inclined to keep quiet about their sexual exploits. If he is the very poofy, prancing type, who doesn’t shut up about his beloved or bathhouse exploits; then our gay military man is probably unfit to serve.
As a wise woman said back in 2002, “The closet, sadly, has come to signify oppression, not discretion.”
I propose restoring indiscriminate discretion.
My answer to this facile debate is thus, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” for all military men, hets and homos.
Update (Feb. 4): A while ago “some industrious Army general in Iraq sought to limit the wages of whoring in the military. Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, quite reasonably, issued a policy on Nov. 4, 2009, ‘forbidding pregnancy among his soldiers.'” Cucolo was shot down by just about everyone. His, however, is a reflection of a healthy traditional morality. So screwed up have we become—so corrupt a culture are we mired in—that we think that our “civil rights”; in this case the right to fornicate, impregnate, procreate on the public dime, must accompany us wherever we peddle our sorry behinds.
I suspect most individuals who associate gays in the military with prancing poofs who feminize the force have a stereotypical view of gays. Homosexual men are not necessarily feminine. Men who join the army are seldom feminine. Among the vocal DADT advocates I’ve seen on TV, none was feminine; in fact most were way manlier than Markos Moulitsas, the editor of the Daily Curse, who has served.
The point is to restore decorum and morals to an army in which everyone is sexing it up. See? Back in the closet, hets and homos.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with this one Ilana. I don’t think this new policy will likely change much in the way the modern military works as the overwhelming problem is still women, both gay and straight. Volumes could be written on this subject and I have encountered more than a few female Marines who admitted that they thought women should be banned from the military and detested the fact that they could never get equal respect as individuals because of the way they received favorable treatment as a group.
There was a time when I scratched my head and couldnt figure out what the attraction of women for the military was. It just didn’t make sense. Then I figured it was for politicians placating the growing, liberal base of our culture. But there’s one other consideration. Most teen-age boys seem to be crack head thugs, ritalin soaked mama’s boys or limp wrists who want to grow up and be dancers. Maybe the military needs women just to fill the rosters. Most girls think they can be seals and rangers anyway, just like in the movies.
I can’t believe that you’re defending DADT, which was an innovation of the Clinton administration. Before 1993, recruits were specifically asked whether they were homosexual, and any who answered in the affirmative were excluded. Though a false claim of homosexuality was a ticket out of military service, few recruits exercised the option. Most normal young men would rather die.
This ratcheting process is the reason why the left always wins in the end. Conservatives railed against DADT in 1993. Now, you argue for its preservation. The left never compromises, and none of the left’s advances toward degeneracy is ever reversed.
Needless to say, DADT is just a step on the route to transforming our armed forces into a homosexual haven. As things are, we admit homosexuals, train them, and then kick them out because they’re homosexual. That doesn’t make economic sense, does it? The left’s answer, naturally, is to allow homosexuals to serve openly. Naturally, the left fails to understand that no decent family will then want its sons to serve under homosexuals, no pun intended.
By the way, are you aware of the Army’s policy on HIV-positive members? They’re not discharged, even though the two most common risk factors for HIV infection are cause for discharge. HIV-infected “soldiers” are not depolyable outside the continental U.S. (CONUS), but continue to receive the same pay and benefits as real soldiers. For some reason, this absurdity seems to receive less publicity than DADT.
[I don’t usually post arguments that so blatantly misrepresent mine, but someone is bound to correct you.–IM]
Arguably, gays and women and heterosexual adulterers love their country. So do kids, old people, blind, deaf, midgets, and obese people. Why not let EVERYONE serve? It’s fair, right? Liberia has child soldiers – so why can’t a 16 year old carry and M16? What’s the problem with a 70-year-old pilot? Why can’t a deaf person do navigation? How does one draw the line?
Also – are there limits on BEHAVIOR? After all, it may not necessarily be about being gay but about promoting other gays, having a network of lovers, proselytizing vs. militant Christians also proselytizing. Maybe a few Klansmen and Black Panthers can serve too. Could be fun.
To that mix, add the usual “affirmative action” and “sensitivity training” sideshow. Who will fail to promote the black transgendered corporal and risk charges of bias?
However, does it really matter much? Our military budget is that of the rest of the world put together. Most of what the military does is to expand the American Empire, not defending our country. Thus, it is difficult to say whether this sideshow Love Boat circus really matters at all.
Well, I see that your main argument was against women in the military, a practice so absurd that nothing need be said. Perhaps you hadn’t arrived in the U.S. when DADT became the government’s policy, but the old policy of actively excluding homosexuals before wasting money on their training made much better sense.
Absolutely spot-on. But a federal army that is feminized to the point that young men will accept early discharge or simply refuse to sign up in the first place is a net gain for the real patriots.
No getting around it, we will have an open ‘single gender orientation’ segment in our military someday as we do a ‘female component’. My concerns are not with whether they can serve honorably or not, but what will be the internal policy dealing with it. There has to be a reason why so many women get pregnant in the armed forces now, when they didn’t when I was in the Navy; despite all the anti-reproductive methods available. That tells me that something internal is to the military is out of whack. Congress loves to try to develop military policy from Washington and the Chief of staff kow tows. Ilana wrote an article about a commander who stated that he would prosecute women soldiers for getting pregnant on active duty. (I can’t find it in the archives) which I believe is a good policy, if followed with common sense. The Joint Chiefs should have made it mandatory. The military knows how to make, women and ‘Gay’ service people effective integrated parts of the service branches, but I don’t see them trying.
Sorry, I missed editing out the “is” after “internal”
DADT, theoretically, is based on the privacy and integrity of the individual warfighters. Sadly, we are a society of busybodies that have to spy on our coworkers, make love to our coworkers, and preach to them (and to the rest of the world). The Anti-Gay forces went around spying on e-mails or harrassing gays. Conversely, the gays want to be protected to openly strut their stuff just like the heteros did at Tailhook, etc. Just our debased culture airing out its dirty panties in public.