-
Obama’s Declaration of Political War
January 22, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Hagel’s Problem? He’s ‘Mainstream’
January 14, 2013 | 66 comments
-
Dereliction of Coaching Duty
January 8, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Understanding the Norway Massacre
July 25, 2011 | 225 comments
-
Run, Rudy, Run
June 10, 2011 | 116 comments
A Further Perspective
Heeding America’s Non-Commissioned Officers
John McCain’s opposition to gay military service can be explained by two interrelated principles: loyalty to America’s warriors and a recognition of their moral authority.
(Page 2 of 2)
I also know that our ruling class elites and the popular culture have done their best to bully and intimidate our warriors into silent submission and acquiescence. This, as I say, is wrong and unconscionable.
Like all of us, Sen. McCain surely has made many mistakes in his life. But one mistake that he has never made, even in his darkest and most nightmarish days at the Hanoi Hilton, is to abandon his brothers-in-arms.
That is why he has willingly suffered the slings and arrows of Hollywood and our ruling class elites to protect the cultural viability and integrity of the American armed forces.
I don’t know whether and for how long Sen. McCain will be able to withstand the tremendous pressure he is under to submit to the far Left. But I do know that, once again, he has shown great courage and resolve. And he has given America’s warriors reason to hope that, on another distant battlefield in Washington, D.C., they might yet prevail once again, thanks to their moral authority and moral courage.
About the Author
John R. Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @ResCon1.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (60) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John R. Guardiano
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/17/heeding-americas-non-commissio
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Career Soldier| 11.17.10 @ 7:57AM
Thank you for your service, Leatherneck. Your words are a true reflection of our nations armed forces. Without our NCO Corps support, it cannot and will not work, period. We already have a gender segregated force. Seperate barracks, latrines, and showers for our female soldiers, largely due to human sexuality issues. How then is the military to accomadate homosexual males and females? More seperate facilities? On every base or AO?
I'm sick of the cries of "it's not fair" or "it's discrimination". Unfair and discriminatory are key staples of military service. It's never fair (married soldiers get paid more than single ones) and it always been discriminatory (women are prohibited from combat units). And yet it works, day in and day out, our troops are the finest fighters in the world.
Alan Brooks| 11.17.10 @ 11:57AM
Goldwater would disagree, and he was a better man-- a better person-- than any of you here at AS.
ANY of you, including Tyrrell.
"this is just one example of many reasons"
Yeah, another is poor planning by Rummy.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 1:42PM
You hang-out here, too, dumbass. You're a wanna-be.
Hate to tell you, but just like in elementary school, middle school, and high school, we think you're a loser, too.
Evanston2| 11.17.10 @ 1:52PM
Alan, it may be inconvenient, but most military men are not "better" like you or Goldwater. They do not trust homosexual men. Psychology tells us that sexuality is extremely important. Homosexuals tell us that their sexuality is a defining thing in their lives. Yet suddenly when it comes to war, we're supposed to act like sexual preferences will not affect behavior at all. What will happen when its time to choose who takes a dangerous assignment (e.g., "takes point"), will the men agree that a homosexual officer made the choice due to professional criteria, or does his sexuality impact his decision? Or apply it the other way, when a homosexual is told to take point by a heterosexual officer, will he trust this decision? Trust is a fragile thing. It's called "unit cohesion" and when you lose it all the best equipment and training in the world will not save you. Of course, as a retired USMC officer, I am not qualified to have an opinion. Only better men like you are...
Derek Leaberry| 11.17.10 @ 4:50PM
Goldwater was such a wonderful man that, when his daughter was knocked up in the late 50s, he drove her out to Maryland to a "doctor" who killed Goldwater's grandchild for him. Abortion was a felony in Maryland at the time. Had the Republican Party known about his criminality and his lack of morality, Goldwater would not have been nominated as president in 1964. In fact, the Arizona of that era would never had reelected him.
Frank Natoli| 11.17.10 @ 5:53PM
It is true that Goldwater changed his tune on a number of issues very late in life. Something else happened late in life that apparently dictated the change. Remember what that was?
Rich Rostrom| 11.17.10 @ 10:40PM
"Separate facilities" would be of no use. Separating males from females means that no one is put into intimate association with a potential sex partner. But all homosexuals are potential sex partners for each other. Let's suppose most homosexuals would be responsible and try to practice restraint (probably true). Those homosexuals would still be sharing quarters with aggressive and irresponsible homosexuals. And the military is full of young people who aren't noted for being consistently responsible and restrained.
Ret. Marine| 11.17.10 @ 7:58AM
I am sorry to have top point out to you, of all people, I too was one of those NCO's of Marines and I totally disagree with the words moral authority and McCain in the same sentence. Its simply not true of this x-warrior. He's an opportunist first rate, those of us who know him, and I do not mean to infringe upon his honor whatsoever here, but this is a political whore at its best. He goes where the winds of the times blows him and just because he is getting behind an issue near and most dear to any leaders heart, moral authority, does not give him either a pass as a legislator of that of the moral superior.
But the premise of this article is most assuredly true. I have a son currently going into his 15th year of service and this is just one example of many reasons why he is, as he puts it, outta here when this current time is over. My inquiry about his "retirement pension" was a resounding, what retirement, hell this country is already broke for the next fifty years especially with the likes of McCain and all he has done with his advise, do you really think your account will be honored dad, remember these are the types who just go along to get along for political convenience, i.e. Mc Cain. Please I am gagging this morning with this puff piece about good ole Juan.
Paul D| 11.17.10 @ 8:14PM
You are correct about the opportunism. During the Presidential debates in 2000, McCain came out if favor of allowing Homos to serve. He has either changed his mind since then (possible), or the Tea Party movement has him running scared now.
Paul D| 11.17.10 @ 8:15PM
To clarify, I meant Republican Presidential Primary debates in 2000.
Tim*| 11.17.10 @ 8:10AM
The New Military," Hey Dude, Don't Touch My Junk,"
Kris Lepine| 11.17.10 @ 8:39AM
Whether John McCain is a moral "force" or not is irrelevant. This is about our current "fighting force". Isn't it interesting the incoming freshmen legislators are being warned (especially the ugly ones) about the pressures and temptations they will face to commit adultry, if married, or other immoral acts, now that they are away from home and living in Sodom and Gomorrah? Allowing openly gay acts within our military will be an obsenity on them and their families. And we all know it's going to happen and is probably happening to a great extent now. The ruling class has been pushing their "anything goes" agenda on us for many, many years. If they get their way, "sex with anything" will be the norm in this country. And we will be labeled "haters" or worse, if we object.
Am I the only one to remember what was going on in public parks and bath houses before AIDS began killing lots of men and women? My own little town of Port Huron, MI became a homo meeting/hooking up place and it was not safe for families to use the public rest rooms there. Those rest rooms had to be closed and locked.
And the last I knew, it's against the law for a doctor to tell a person's spouse in this country that their husband or wife is infected with AIDS. I'm praying America is now awake and we will continue to vote out John McCain and his ilk and we will elect honorable men and women to "serve" us.
Dan Hirsch| 11.17.10 @ 8:44AM
Mr. Guardiano;
You have managed to crystallize what is wrong with Senator McCain in just a few words:
"...I think, Senator McCain has wisely decided to oppose (at least for now) any attempt to summarily force the military -- and especially the combat arms -- to accommodate open homosexuality..."
Your parenthetical comment is the absolute definition of America's problem with Sen. McCain, whom I deeply respect as an incredibly heroic figure because of his military service and experiences: at least for now spotlights the fact that his position is subject to further review and negotiation. It shouldn't be-it should be principled and rightly immutable. But it's not, and that is Sen. McCain's problem for America.
A lot of Americans did not agree with RW Reagan, but they always new where he stood and that he'd be there tomorrow and the day after. That would be moral leadership that leads, similar to that which you describe of the non-coms...
Thanks for your fine work,
DH
Nolite me conculcare!
Reagan Loyalist| 11.17.10 @ 12:34PM
"...it should be principled and rightly immutable. But it's not, and that is Sen. McCain's problem for America."
Spot on Dan, thank you.
Petronius| 11.17.10 @ 9:32AM
The best response to repeal of DODT would be "Hell no. We won't go!" The current administration being a collection of trash from the 60's, that's exactly what they truly deserve.
Evanston2| 11.17.10 @ 1:54PM
Petronius, it's "DADT." You're right, there may well be recruiting problems over the long term and active resistance if there's a draft some day.
canuckistani| 11.17.10 @ 9:46AM
Executive Order 9981.
We need another one to end this stupidity of barring Americans from willingly serving their country.
Read the report of enlisted and NCO's enlightened view of the integrated military in 1942-45:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3461.....-Wonk-Room
Read and ask yourselves if asking people who take orders for a living should set policy.
The yankees were no better than rednecks in their disdain for negro integration at that time - not even integrated Army baseball.
The military needs leadership on this issue and BHO should issue the order and be done with it.
bull-gator| 11.17.10 @ 10:03AM
it's obvious you've never served in combat, mr. canuckistani...and drawing a parallel between race and sexual orientation is obtuse and irrelevant.
canuckistani| 11.17.10 @ 10:21AM
What's more of a threat to our military: Gays or a fat, uneducated lot?
Ask any recruiter, and I have, that the physical and mental condition of enlistees is DECLINING and forcing added demands on boot camps to get troops even to a bare minimum physical and mental standard. The combat troops I know and trust tell me the gay issue is irrelevant and speaks more to a man's insecurities than true operational integrity.
They were more concerned about mistakes, errors and the enemy while on patrol.
Uneducated hicks that could not follow simple procedures KILLED more troops than any fear of being buggered in the shower.
Soldiers take orders, and civilian authority is paramount.
RacerJim| 11.17.10 @ 11:30AM
The most recent Military Times poll on DADT I've seen (March 2010) showed that of 3,000+ active and reserve duty military personnel polled, 51% opposed repealing DADT, 24% favored repealing DADT and the remaining 25% had no opinion.
The overwhelming number of troops I've met and talked with at the National Navy Medical Center (Bethesda MD), Walter Reed Army Medical Center (Washington DC) and the Washington DC Veterans Medical Center oppose repealing DADT.
JP| 11.17.10 @ 12:10PM
You obviously never served in close quarters with gays. This is an all volunteer force. Let in people who are openly gay (thereby removing all prohibitions against sodomy) and you will see a stampede of NCOs heading for the exit doors.
Petronius| 11.17.10 @ 2:35PM
After the Rangers were overrun and slaughtered in Somalia field rank officers did precisely that.
JP| 11.17.10 @ 12:19PM
Do you hang out with military recruiters? Enough with the strawmen. And speaking of PT, how many AIDS patients can PT? And how will hetros take it they come into contact during PT with a homo who got a nosebleed? You never think of what it is like spending your time 24x7 with a bunch of people whose life style is not only nauseating but outright deadly. Again, only a civilian who never served in a combat unit would advocate such things.
Doctor Right| 11.17.10 @ 1:51PM
That's funny, because those uneducated American hicks have been doing a GREAT job of ridding the world of uneducated, misogynistic, Muslim scumbags since 2001!
But let's be honest...The words "Muslim" and "warrior" really don't belong in the same sentence, do they? I mean, Islam hasn't fielded a capable fighting force since Saladin. When the going gets rough, your average Muslim soldier from your average, 3rd-world cesspool can't wait to surrender. Oh sure, they're good at sneak attacks, and other cowardly stuff like that...It's a cultural thing...But when the crap hits the fan, Muslim soldiers fold like cheap suits.
Just look at how little, tiny Israel had made a mockery of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria!
So it's not their faults, really. They're just not raised to be tough. They're...hmmmmm...how do I say this diplomatically??? Why do they tend to What did Arafat used to say? "Women are for children, but men are for pleasure"..? Something like that...
Rich Rostrom| 11.17.10 @ 10:30PM
Historically illiterate bigotry. The post-Saladin "Saracens" drove the Crusaders out of the Middle East. The Ottoman Turks conquered Byzantium, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, and Hungary, and held them for centuries. Sudanese "fuzzy-wuzzies" with spears and swords fought British troops with breech-loading rifles and Gatling guns - and broke a regimental square (see Kipling). In the last century, Turks defeated the British army at Gallipoli, and the Turkish Brigade was among the best UN troops in the Korean war. The Moslem warriors of Afghanistan fought the mighty Red Army to a standstill.
A lot of Middle Eastern armies have ingrained organizational problems due to culture and politics, but the soldiers aren't just weaklings or cowards. Ask the Israelis about that.
canuckistani| 11.17.10 @ 10:08AM
....and when asked about Jews:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3465.....about-Jews
READ IT and ask yourselves if people who take orders for a living should set policy.
JP| 11.17.10 @ 12:12PM
Canuck,
You are raising a strawman. No NCOs are demanding that civilians relinquish control. But, if you want to see how a military fights when the the concerns of the enlisted are ignored, check out the Austrians during WWI. Or, if you want something more up to date, check out the performance of the Americal Division during the later portions of Vietnam.
canuckistani| 11.17.10 @ 3:45PM
Answer the question: was the operational integrity of the units in Vietnam (forget the mandate) undermined by integration?
There have been bad outcomes in every conflict, and not due to the commitment of the fighters on the front lines.
Ted| 11.17.10 @ 12:27PM
So the people who will have to live with the results of the policy change (good. bad, or indifferent) that you favor should have no say in setting that policy because the majority of them are opposed to what you favor... You must be a leftist.
canuckistani| 11.17.10 @ 3:40PM
I'm not a leftist, I am for able bodied people serving their country.
I've read douchebag entries on this blog after the Ft. Hood incident demanding Muslims be discharged immediately. I've seen accounts of cabals of evangelicals banding together in the ranks and playing up the Iraq invasion as another crusade - and even modified recruitment pitches in that way.
If this is what our armed forces have become, then it needs a restructuring - and new leadership.
I pointed to the weblinks that showed the enlisted men's views of blacks and Jews in similar studies.
Do you suggest their opinions should have been heeded then? I doubt it, so what is the difference now?
There is no explanation other than good ole' fear and bigotry.
Mike| 11.17.10 @ 8:59PM
Canuk
You are the bigot and are clueless to boot. You have said it multiple times and I quote:
"Read and ask yourselves if asking people who take orders for a living should set policy."
It is sad that you believe that the job of the NCO's and enlisted, not to mention the commissioned officers is to "take orders for a living"
Why do you have such a low opinion of the folks who keep you free?
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
RacerJim| 11.17.10 @ 11:15AM
A Presidential Executive Order does not supercede enacted law or the Uniform Code of Military Conduct so the premise of your message has no basis. That established...
SCOTUS Ruling 11172010:
We need one to legally declare Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, ineligible to serve as POTUS and, thereby, immediately render null and void everything he has done acting as POTUS.
Since the Department of Hawaii Home Lands does not accept a Hawaii "Certification of Live Birth" ("COLB") as prima-facie evidence that one is a native born Hawaiian, ask yourself why should we accept Obama's COLB as prima-facie evidence that he meets the even stricter criteria of being a natural born U.S. citizen?
Last month the military Judge presiding over LTC Lakin's Courts Martial ruled that defendant's (Lakin's) "Chain of Command" ends at the Pentagon (i.e., that POTUS Obama is not the CINC of the military) and therefore defendent can neither request or present evidence pertaining to POTUS's eligibility -- adding that doing so "may embarrass the President."
The military does indeed need leadership. Eligible leadership first and foremost, accountable leadership second but not far behind. Barack Hussein Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro has proven himself neither.
If some controlling legal authority doesn't remove Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, from office asap then the military needs to and be done with it.
canuckistani| 11.17.10 @ 3:28PM
We're back to this?
Did you question Junior's authority when he enacted stop-loss? or when he canned Shinseki? or when he sent in divisions without adequate armor? or when he undermined the VA? or when he sent nearly 2,000,000 troops through a war that was a)undeclared and b) for baseless reasons?
I doubt it, because you followed orders - just like the grunts of the past followed orders when their President said "enough", and put blacks and even Jews in the combat ranks. There will be women too - when performance shows operational integrity is preserved.
The US is NOT the best trained fighting force on planet - it is the best equipped.
The Canadians, yes those donut-eating socialists, regularly beat our best in recon and even tank exercises. The SAS helps train our special forces as well. Both have gays openly in their ranks.
The best fighting force in fitness, intelligence and expertise is the Israeli Army - and their combat ranks include gays women and even Arabs.
The preservation of DADT is the strawman here, and wasting more time on the ban is disruptive.
There are gays in the military right now. There are laws against assault - just like on a woman or man on man that will deal with indiscretions.
There are NATO commanders giving orders to US squads right now in Afghan that could be gay.
JP| 11.17.10 @ 4:58PM
"The Canadians, yes those donut-eating socialists, regularly beat our best in recon and even tank exercises"
Good grief, it is obvious you never served in the military. The Canadians, not to mention the Dutch routinely win the NATO autumn tank excercises. So what? The small force the Candadians have in Afghanistan patrol a relatiely quiet area. And the SAS hasn't trained our spec ops people in almost 3 decades. Where have you been?
Our infantry from the units like the 10th Montain, 1st Cav, 3rd and 4th ID, not to mention all 3 Marine divisions have nearly a decade of hard combat expierence in some of the roughest terrain and climate in the world. The Canadians have a very limited role, with a very small force. If you wish to life in some civilian dream world, be my guest. But stop making a fool of yourself in order to make some ridiculous claims.
BTW, I can honestly tell you that the SAS has no queers in thier ranks. You obviously know nothing about how they recruit, screen, and qualify thier operators.
JimE| 11.17.10 @ 6:01PM
canuckistani,
I finally remembered where I met you before, you are the loser who told his hippy girlfriend to hit me after I kicked you in the face with my jumpboot for trying to spit on me at LAX when I came back from Vietnam. I'm sorry youR girlfriend ended up going to a hotel with me while you rolled around on aiport floor sucking your thumb.
C.K. Amos| 11.17.10 @ 8:43PM
"The US is NOT the best trained fighting force on planet..."
Prove it or have the testicularity to retract the statement.
C.K. Amos| 11.17.10 @ 8:36PM
'The yankees were no better than rednecks in their disdain for negro integration at that time . . "
If you mention Yankees, rednecks ain't the opposite.
Go far enough south and anyone north of them is either a Yankee or Northerner.
And, please, find some other moniker than "rednecks" to show your disdain for and geographic racism to Southerners.
Frank Drackman | 11.17.10 @ 10:05AM
I was a Navy Doc, and no, I'm not a Homo, even if I do get Goosebumps everytime I here Cher sing "If I could turn back time"
and if you can watch the Video of her on the Iowa(which incidentally almost sank because of 2 Homos) and not get a Woody, you suck.
but occasionally I'd have to do a physical and check a young Marine/Sailor for Ball Cancer, or a hernia, or even a Colonels Prostrate.
Heck, I even checked the Commandant's Prostrate once, was a little wierd to tell you the truth, cause he sent me flowers and eventually I had to get an unlisted phone #.
Seriously, even if DADT was repealed, you'd still have to repeal Article 69 of the UCMJ(OK, I don't know what Article it is, the one that prohibits that thing Homos do with each other, and yeah, its illegal for normal people to)
I mean would YOU want Major Barney Frank checkin out your Junk??
Frank "Straighter than Clint Eastwood" Drackman
Occam's Tool| 11.17.10 @ 11:57AM
Prostate, Frank. From one MD to another.
Occam's Tool| 11.17.10 @ 11:57AM
By the way---how about we let the fighters determine the criterion for fighting?
frank drackman | 11.17.10 @ 2:40PM
trust me Occam, the future Commandant was Prostrate...
David W| 11.17.10 @ 11:07AM
Oh come on, who cares what the actual fighters think or care about. The elite know what is right. Who knows, maybe our fighting "men" will be able to learn new things from their fighting sisters such as inflating their scrotums (apparently it’s something that the fruits, flakes and nuts in San Fran do). No need to go into town for R&R – everyone can get their jollies in the barracks. They’ll be just one big happy (and strange) family.
I too remember when the rest rooms in a nearby city park had to be closed because it was advertised as a meeting place (the police grew tired of having to patrol it all the time). Or the rest area on highway 287 in Texas that had to be closed because it also became a meeting place.
It doesn't matter what is truly right or makes sense, just do what some sick minority wants you to do (who knows, maybe we can create a special brigade of pedophiles and pederasts - that ought to scare any country that dares challenge us).
Perhaps we should create two militaries. The first would be a small one that is shiny and polished and full of the proper diversity. It can't fight worth a damn but it looks good and makes the liberals and other elites proud. The second would be kept hidden from the public, it would be mean, evil, and homophobic. But it would be able to kick butt and keep us free.
Paul| 11.17.10 @ 11:28AM
I think you guys look at the wrong stuff. As someone who wants to join the army but cant until this stupid thing is repealed your thinking of sexual issues. Lets break it down for you in a more simple term that doesnt have a thing to do with sex. Would you rather have a gay soldier that is experienced and knowledgable or some straight soldier that is fresh out of basic and inexperienced standing next to you fighting. This isnt about how uncomfortable you feel about your sexuality as you may know the army or any military branch doesnt care about "your feelings" This is about getting and keeping highly skilled people in the forces. A better question to you is if one of the soldiers that was kicked out or didnt have the ability to join in the first place could have saved at least one soldiers live wouldnt that be worth it?
JP| 11.17.10 @ 12:07PM
Actually it has nothing to do with the individual soldier, and everything to do with the combat readiness of the units involved. The DOD already experiemented with mixed gender combat units (exception the USMC) and found many of those units were not up to standards. The Gulf War of 1991 saw all kind of problems in this regard. From sexual favors, prostitution, harrasement, to problems with the chain of command (it happens when the platoon leader or sergeant is having sex with one his/her subordinates), inserting sexual tensions into combat units (and thier support units) is bad news. It matters not if we are talking about hetros or homos. Been there, done that.
Dave F| 11.17.10 @ 12:28PM
you're comparing apples to oranges. A more exact comparison is would you rather have someone next to you in a foxhole who, all other things being equal (ability to shoot, coolness in danger, etc) is homosexual. Apparently most of our soldiers vote against the homosexual. The world isn't fair. But for myself, who do I want fighting for me? A bunch of a$$holes or a bunch of very nice guys. I vote for the former, but only if it is important.
Evanston2| 11.17.10 @ 2:05PM
Paul, you say "This isnt about how uncomfortable you feel about your sexuality as you may know the army or any military branch doesnt care about 'your feelings' This is about getting and keeping highly skilled people in the forces." Absolutely right, this isn't about YOUR feelings. Most men are repulsed by you and don't trust you, no matter how much training you get. And if DADT is repealed, how many heterosexual men will no longer want to be in the armed forces? On balance, your argument is self-defeating. You may believe that large numbers of homosexuals and liberals are waiting to speed-dial recruiters except for DADT. You are fooling yourself, as usual. We'll lose the rednecks, blacks (who don't trust you, either -- see CA voting patterns) and gain a few metrosexuals. And lose a war or 2...but who cares, as long as the casualties are proportionately multicultural and reflect your values?
RacerJim| 11.17.10 @ 11:43AM
As someone who enlisted and served during the Vietnam War let me break it down for you in simple terms that has nothing to do with sex. Would you rather serve in combat alongside at best, or in front of at worst, someone who has earned your absolute trust or someone who has not at best, or violated your trust at worst?
Serge from San Fran| 11.17.10 @ 12:02PM
I can't wait until the USMC is forced to take people like me. I mean I can't wait untl some Lee Ermy DI type begins to slap me. I like my men mean and rough!
ABNCP| 11.17.10 @ 12:30PM
Canuckistani. I really detest your disdain for my countries NCO Corps. You obviously have no idea about how this countries Armed Forces function. You mention "the combat troops I know". Give us a break, judging by your many posts the chances of you knowing ANY combat personnal is about ZERO. Having served for 28 years and retireing as a CMSgt I can tell you those "uneducated hicks" as you describe them, are the backbone of the best and most proficent Armed Forces my country has ever know. As for you, I have asked you before,that time you spent in Canada Canuckistani was that during the Vietnam War? And when you crossed the border were you wearing your skirt?
Al Adab| 11.17.10 @ 12:33PM
Instead of using our military for social engineering, perhaps we could train and arm them to defeat our enemies and protect our nation. Just a thought.
Dean| 11.17.10 @ 12:58PM
Winston Churchill once stated that tradition in the Royal Navy consisted of "rum, sodomy, and the lash." If the Obama administration has its way, it looks like our military will be getting the sodomy part. What is next, the lash for those who indulge in bondage and discipline fetishes? At least they could reintroduce the rum ration for our troops . . . they could sure use it with this mob in command!
Long Ben| 11.17.10 @ 3:04PM
Everyone should be aware that Barry Goldwaters opinion of homosexuality were schewed on account of having a homosexual grand son .
David| 11.17.10 @ 4:32PM
IF, the military ever does allow homosexuals to openly serve, THEN ALL heterosexuals out to insist on showering and bunking with the opposite sex. Fair is fair.
If the claim is that open (and I guess if one wants to be a "flaming" homo that will be okay, too) homos serving won't be disruptive, then it can be assumed that heteros bunking together will not be disruptive.
solipslip| 11.17.10 @ 4:40PM
I'd like to know how representative of the whole are the 24% are that advocate repeal?
I'd bet they skew heavily to administrative positions and such.
Assuming the sample size fairly represents the whole in the Military Times Poll on DADT (March 2010)
gary siebel| 11.17.10 @ 8:07PM
The debate has been mischaracterized. There is no objections to homosexuals serving in the military -- after all, there have always been some and there always will be -- but there is an objection to homosexualos announcing their desires. Dont ask, dont tell is a logical policy that does not infringe on anybody's rights whatsoever.
Comparing homosexuality to race, specifically the trials and tribulations of black Americans, is an insult to black people. Outrageous!
Led Display | 11.17.10 @ 8:42PM
This is just another version of the government sticking square pegs into round Fiber Optic Splice Closure. Collectivism at it's finest.
Jackson1925| 11.17.10 @ 11:56PM
I thought this was about the NCOs. As one of the dumest 2nd lt's in the army I listened to my NCOs and was a success. I had one NCO who I had in training as regimental SMG who had a silver star from WW II and Korea who Identified him self later as gay and took a discharge. I hated to lose him
Evanston2| 11.18.10 @ 2:32PM
Jackson 1925, the article is definitely about NCOs, amongst others. They're the 'linchpin' as you well know. The question which you avoid is whether this NCO would've been able to lead his juniors, advise his seniors, and work well with his peers if he were openly gay. And the answer is???
Frank Knutson| 11.22.10 @ 3:42AM
Just a comment from perhaps the middle of the road. I served 30 years and never "Fired a shot in anger". The jobs I had did not require combat training or participation. I retired as a CPO. I have seen and heard more than one Junior Officer chastised by his CO for not listening to his NCOs.
That said, the command authority, be it national or unit that does not pay attention to the experience and usually hard earned wisdom of the Non-commissioned Officers is severly handicapped and predestined to fail.
Case in point: I was once attached to a command that was in disarray. A new CO assembled his Chiefs and said (This a direct quote. I'll never forget it.) "Effective now, we're putting the SOB back where he belongs, in the Chief's Quarters. I expect my Chiefs to come to me with solutions, not problems"