Day by Day

Sunday, May 30, 2010

It ain't the Foxholes that are the problem

One of the biggest strawmen argument I've ever heard when it comes to gays in the military is "I'd be happy to share a foxhole with (name that homosexual)!"  But the foxhole isn't where the problems come in to play.  When you're in a foxhole, you're in combat.  You most likely won't be having sex while the shells are coming down.  No, the problems crop up once you're out of that foxhole and back in the rear.

Once again, does anyone think that the military would force me to room with a female?  "OK Dave, here's your barracks room and here's your room mate, Private Nancy Smith.  Enjoy!"  No, not only would the military not force me to do that, they PROHIBIT that by regulation.

Does anyone think that the military would force me to shower with the females?  "OK Dave, we have one latrine, so just drop trou and get clean.  By the way, that's PFC Shirley Jones in there right now, but she won't mind!"  Hell no I couldn't do that.  In fact, if I got naked and jumped in the female shower, I'd be arrested and charged with violating several different UCMJ articles.

And yet, the very same people who would slap me with sexual harassment charges if I tried to shower with PFC Shirley Jones are demanding that I accept that very same sexual dynamic being forced on me just because it's now someone of the same gender.

It's not about an individual Soldier's fighting skills.  It's not about a desire to serve.  It's about bringing a sexual dynamic into a situation that cannot have sex involved without negative and desultory effects.  If you want proof of sex being a negative influence in theater, all you have to do is look at what Gen Cucolo faced when he tried to enforce UCMJ punishment on Soldiers who either got pregnant, or got another Soldier pregnant while in Iraq.  This wasn't just a joke.  When a Soldier gets knocked up, they have to go back home, which means that the unit is either one Soldier down, or they have to pull someone from home station and cross level them into the unit.  That's not as easy as it sounds, and it puts unnecessary strain on the unit and the new Soldier, disrupting operations and causing resentment among other Soldiers who don't have the option of getting pregnant and going home to their family.

And let me tell you, if you want to see a unit go from decent headspace to negative headspace in less than a week, you just tell them that PFC Martha Johnson is preggers and getting to go home, but the rest of them have to stay in country.  It just does WONDERS for the moral of the unit!

Soldiers getting pregnant in theater is a problem across many levels, and this General was trying to deal with a few of the more harmful side effects.  But because of the political correct ideology that has infested the military, this Commanding General can't even punish Soldiers who violate General Order #1 and get knocked up.  You think that allowing homosexual Soldiers won't be a problem?  Sure, let's just add ANOTHER sexual dynamic into a mix that is already strained.  And the first time some guy cops a feel in the shower and gets his ass beaten like a drum, the lawsuits start flying.  The accusations of "EEEEK!  EEEEEK!  HATE CRIME!  HATE CRIME!" start flying around.  Even MORE politically correct bullshit infects the Army, like a tapeworm that keeps on growing.  No, scratch that, it's not a tapeworm, because you can shit out a tapeworm.  Heartworm.  Infecting the organ that keeps you moving and alive, eventually killing you as you stagger around coughing and wondering why you can't seem to breathe anymore.

Not one single person pushing for allowing open homosexuality in the military has bothered to answer any of the concerns people have brought up.  In fact, the people bringing up the concerns have been ignored, shouted down, silenced, insulted, called names, and pushed aside.  That tells me that the people pushing for repealing DADT know about the problems it will cause, but they don't care.  They'd rather push their ideology on the military come hell or high water, and when shit starts to fall apart they'll most likely blame the military for it because it's easy to blame people who can't respond or act.  It's easy to blame people who have to keep their mouth shut.

If you think that repealing DADT is a good thing, you are wrong.  Plain and simple.  The Army is not a social program.  We're not a civilian workplace.  We cannot operate under the same rules and principals of the civilian world, because we do not operate in a civilian environment.  And I really, really wish to hell that people would remember that before they try to push the next social experiment on us.


genedunn said...

"...back in the rear."

Really? You couldn't think of another way to say that?

Ragin' Dave said...

HA! I wrote it like that ON PURPOSE! So that dirty minded people will leave comments!

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Buzz said...

One of your better-written pieces, Dave. Sometimes, your passion about an issue affects your writing so it is more profanity than prose. I know and appreciate what you're saying in the vent posts, but the general public just quits reading after the second or third swear word.

You absolutely nailed the real reason for repealing DADT in the second to last paragraph and came close to why it's Obama pushing it: He wants to destroy the military by public opinion, just like his delay in the Gulf was meant to move public opinion againt drilling.

Again, a very well-written and compelling piece from a man that knows full well what really happens at the levels that will be affected by openly-gay men in the military.

Frankly Opinionated said...

Thanks Dave, for another one batted out of the park. They just don't see that side of it, do they? I will copy and paste this link into an e-mail for those dipshits too damned dumb to smell the coffee.
......back in the rear,,,, some would think that has a nice ring to it.

Nuf Sed

Goober said...


Don't misconstrue my questions here as my questioning your opinion, you'd know far better than i would - I've never served despite attempts to (I was denied - 4F) and as a result was wondering:

1.) You said that come-ons by gay men in the showers (or wherever) would result in beat-downs. My question is this... How often do fights occur, anyway? I mean, an Army unit has to be made up of a bunch of guys, many of whom I would assume don't like each other much. How often does one guy bang another guy's girl resulting in beat downs? Would the addition of this gay dynamic introduce a new phenomenon into the unit that isn't there now, or just make an existing phenomenon more prevalent? How would something like a shower beat-down be dealt with by upper management? How would something like a shower beat down be deterred althogether?

2.) I have to agree with your discussion about women getting pregnant on post. It is selfish, and often times deliberate, and I think should be punishable by immediate dismissal and dishonorable discharge. However, this seems more like a problem that would be experienced by heterosexual couples, not necessarily gay folk (no snark intended, even though it might read that way). You posted this as an example of why sex is a bad thing in a military unit, but gay sex doesn't carry this same consequence. Can you comment on the deleterious effects of sex, itself, within the unit? Is it, in and of itself, a harmful thing, or is it just the girls getting preggers? If so, why would gays having sex be a bad thing? (other than the obvious "Eeeeeeewwww!" factor).

3.) I have been of the opinion that the flaboyantly "gay and FABULAOUSSSSS!" crowd would not be interested in military service. I'm thinking more along the lines of the ROck Hudson's of the world, as opposed to the Perez Hilton's. If the guy was gay, everyone knew it, but he still pulled his weight in the squad, wasn't hitting on the guys in the showers, and wasn't running around all limp-wristed, foppish and faggy, would the unit still reject him in this day and age?

I asked that last question because I think that there is this pervasive stereotype of gay men brought on by TV shows like "queer eye" and foppish little prissies like Perez Hilton that they are all fashon-minded queens with limp wrists and a cutting, however lispey, wit.

That hasn't been my experience with many of the gay men I've met. One of them built drag racing boats by hand, balancing and blueprinting big block blown motors making thousands of horsepower in his garage out behind his house.

Buzz said...


I believe Dave already answered your first question quite well:

"Sure, let's just add ANOTHER sexual dynamic into a mix that is already strained. And the first time some guy cops a feel in the shower and gets his ass beaten like a drum, the lawsuits start flying. The accusations of "EEEEK! EEEEEK! HATE CRIME! HATE CRIME!" start flying around. Even MORE politically correct bullshit infects the Army, like a tapeworm that keeps on growing. No, scratch that, it's not a tapeworm, because you can shit out a tapeworm. Heartworm. Infecting the organ that keeps you moving and alive, eventually killing you as you stagger around coughing and wondering why you can't seem to breathe anymore."

It wouldn't even take contact. When one guy is even rumored to be gay, let alone a "closet doors thrown wide open" pole smoker, and he gives an undue or lingering glance at another dude's ass or meat, he's going to get himself throttled.

The lawsuits WILL fly and political correctness will strangle the military.

Ragin' Dave said...

Goober -

#1: Fights occur fairly often in a unit, although the seriousness of those fights vary. Sometimes it's just two troops exchanging words, sometimes it's fistacuffs. But nobody is going to file a lawsuit over a brawl out back. However, homosexuals already enjoy protected status in the Hate Crimes bill, and all it takes is ONE lawsuit to start that ball of crap rolling downhill.

#2: Sex itself in a unit is a problem, no matter if it's hetro or homosexual. Adding MORE sexuality and another sexual dynamic into a unit, where those things only interfere in the working of that unit, is only going to make things worse.

#3: What you just described is what happens under the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. A policy that is currently being removed. Such a removal can only lead to trouble.

Hope that answers your questions.

Goober said...

Thanks for the reply, Dave.

So, it isn't so much the FIGHT that you are concerned with, it is the hate crime lawsuit that will surely result from said fight - can't say i disagree with you there. It is a good point. A brawl between two dudes ends up with bruised knuckles and bruised egos. A brawl between two dudes when one is gay ends up in a long, protracted lawsuit against the US Army.

As far as sex within a unit, I'll have to take your word for it. I don't really see how it would hurt unless they were doing it instead of doing some other duty they were assigned to do, but there are existing policies for laggards and people that don't meet their responsibilities that could be used to handle this I think

As for the last one, I think you may have misunderstood (possibly because of my bringing Rock Hudson into the discussion). I'm talking about a guy who is openly gay, everyone knows it, but still holds up his end - works hard, is smart and dedicated, and so forth, but just happens to also be gay. The boat builder guy i knew was very much out of the closet, but he was far and away from a foppish, perez hilton "queer eye" type. He was just another dude - who liked other dudes...

He didn't go around advertising his gayness, but he didn't actively hide it, either.