The American Spectator : The Ship's Lessons for Today

Text Size

The Ship's Lessons for Today

By Hal G.P. Colebatch on 12.28.10 @ 6:07AM

Amid the furor over DADT it shows where military loyalties should lie.

It may have been unfortunate that those in a position to influence the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate probably did not read C. S. Forester's World War II novel, The Ship. My own copy, printed on wartime paper, is falling to pieces and it is high time there was a reprint.

The Ship is fiction but closely based on the real British light cruiser HMS Penelope at the second battle of Sirte in 1942, when a British force of cruisers successfully defended a convoy to Malta against a much more powerful Italian force led by a 15-inch-gunned battleship. Forester spent some time at sea in Penelope (nick-named HMS Pepperpot from the number of shell-holes in her), and, as one would expect from the creator of Hornblower, the story has a wealth of technical detail and knowledge. Also, as one would expect from the creator of Hornblower, it is a story of duty -- duty over-riding any personal attachments or likes and dislikes, and over-riding life itself.

Although nearly 70 years have passed since it was written, The Ship's themes of fighting men's ingrained duty and loyalty to a unit enabling them to achieve the apparently impossible are timeless.

The Ship examines about 20 men scattered about the vessel, including the loneliest -- the lookout at the mast-head and a stoker checking the bearings in the propeller-shaft tunnel, as well as the loneliest of all, the Captain, never leaving the bridge, sleeping on the deck there under a tarpaulin when it rains. There is the fanatical anti-fascist and the ex-IRA Man who has come to love the Navy in spite of himself.

The men are by no means supermen -- the man in the shaft-tunnel is struggling to make atonement before God for some largely imaginary sins. The captain's secretary, a reservist, feels painfully inferior and resentful in the company of officers who have been in the Navy since they were 13. The Captain knows his worst enemy is his own black rage which, under his mask of icy control, could overthrow his judgment to the ruin of them all.

There is the ship's chronically bad character, an exceptionally stupid man who the Captain has been trying to get transferred out of the Navy before he does any harm, now out of the way in one of the shell-handling rooms.

There is the Commander, the second-in-command, who is being turned into a fussy old woman by the demands of running the ship, fretting about paint-work and paper-work, and whose job is to sit and wait for something unpleasant to happen, such as the Captain getting killed or his beloved paint-work damaged. There is a clever young petty officer, marked out for promotion, in charge of the after gun-turret. In a compartment near the bottom of the ship the marine bandsmen are controlling the gun-directors. There is the chief electrician, even the chief cook, all entirely focused on what they have to do.

The light cruiser is no match for a battleship. We learn a great deal about this "egg-shell armed with sledge-hammers."

The ship is hit twice, with, as the Captain laconically reports "slight damage" and then "moderate damage." The after third of the ship is an inferno of flame. The clever young petty officer, we learn almost as an aside, is "baked to death in a steel box" because after ordering "Clear the turret!" he remains in the turret to report it is out of action, and by the time he has done this it is too late for him to get out. If he had failed to make the report, the gunnery might have suffered. The fire threatens the after magazine, and the wheels that control the valves that flood it are red-hot. In a terrible, almost unreadable scene, the stupid stoker forces himself to turn them with his bare hands. The Commander leads the damage-control party through the exploding shells cooking off from an anti-aircraft-gun.

The man in the shaft-runnel, his collar-bone broken and in darkness, with several feet of water slopping about, continues his reports, feeling that now perhaps God will be a little less angry with him. Turning back into its smokescreen the ship almost collides with another cruiser, and the captain raises his voice slightly. The point is that, as a result of discipline and tradition, every man aboard feels loyalty to the entire ship, but also to whatever task he is responsible for.

As the British ships leave their smoke-screen, the enemy admiral sees this, the leading ship, is on fire aft, but its forward guns are still firing as regularly as clockwork. Night is coming on, and the British destroyers are preparing an attack with torpedoes. He turns away. Aboard the British ship the Captain notes that the behavior of the ship's company was "most satisfactory."

The real Battle of Sirte was a brilliant victory by a greatly inferior force, though tragically after the convoy reached Malta it was destroyed by air-attack with only a few thousand tons of supplies unloaded.

What has this got to do with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an issue which, when Forester wrote The Ship, would have been as remote as the moon? It suggests, I think, that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was basically a good and civilized idea. In a combat unit people's sexuality is their own business.

There must be areas of privacy but there must also be an awareness, even if it is not expressed in so many words, of an over-riding loyalty to the whole unit. My own feeling is that Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which asked no more than that private lives be kept private, made this easier.

About the Author

Hal G.P. Colebatch's "Immram," Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (70) | Leave a comment

Chef Schnauzer| 12.28.10 @ 7:45AM

Excellent. Cheers to better men and better days.

Ft. Benning| 12.28.10 @ 1:55PM

Mr. Colebatch,

Same-sex attraction is represented throughout the animal kingdom.

Homosexuals are a minority, but it's high time you and other conservatives realize that gay people will NOT hide their affectional orientation.

We will NOT be ashamed of our sexual orientation, and keep it undercover.

Gays are everywhere, and they are represented in all occupations and professions.

We're here, and we're here to stay, and we will demand our rights and equality. We will NEVER be satisfied with second class citizenship. We will NEVER give up our DEMANDS for full equality under the law!

Young people are beginning to see nothing "wrong" whatsoever in being gay, so gays will have a much happier future.

We WILL be granted full citizenship and respect.

So get over it. Get over it now!

Clint| 12.28.10 @ 3:54PM

This is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for shootin', one is for fun.

Forward Prance Girls !

Sam Vaughn| 12.28.10 @ 4:28PM

I've been told that being gay is not a choice, you're born with it. So we're asked to tolerate and aberation of nature. OK, that makes sense. So are you now saying it's ok for you to hit on young men to "convince" them of your lifestyle? You would put your sexuality above all else? Honor, integrity, courage, morality? What are you so upset about? Gays have full equality under the law. I'm personally offended and disgusted having to hear about "gay" all the time. Get a life.

Quartermaster| 12.28.10 @ 6:37PM

Homosexuality is a mental illness. Any guy that sees another guy the same way I see my wife is one sick puppy.

They aren't after toleration. They after acceptance and the blessing of their sad and sterile lifestyle. Alas, they are filled with hate for anything normal and seek destroy any figment of it.

Negro X| 12.28.10 @ 5:32PM

Moron,
You post reveals your true agenda, not equality, but special rights. If you really want equality, immediately deemand that gays but treated as ordinary citizens, rennounce the special status of hate crimes, a crime is a crime, admit that gays spread STDs, admit that a large portion of gays are pedophiles. Of course we all know you will do none of this.

Big Leo| 12.28.10 @ 6:15PM

You are absolutely correct. However, if gays get what they want, you can probably be charged with hate speech and fired and everything else if you posted this. Welcome to the future.

Flee| 12.28.10 @ 6:44PM

I think the one that needs getting over is you sorry to say. DADT is the best policy. You don't need to know the preference of anyone and they don't of you. How do you think an openly homosexual soldier captured in battle by a Muslim is going to be treated? Humanely? With respect for his sexual pride? We don't care if you're everywhere. We care that you want us to know. Get over it...we don't.

Alan Brooks| 12.28.10 @ 7:51PM

Benning Boy, would you like to make love to me on this site just to celebrate the end of DADT? Would you lick my donut squeaky clean while I drain your shaft of all its creamy juice? Benning Boy, please do not ignore me! We don't have to hide anymore!

G.A.Y.| 12.28.10 @ 8:20PM

With your hyperhomophobia, you old Repukes are on the verge of giving yourselves epileptic seizures.

Lighten up a bit, you blabbering blowhards. You're all like a pack of rabid baboons.

Just shut the f*ck up before you have a stroke.

50&51;| 12.28.10 @ 8:22PM

Yo, Brada.

Amen!

carnot| 12.28.10 @ 9:22PM

hey...as long as PFC is executed.....I don't care about your inferiority complexes working themselves out at the expense of others rights!

rongordo| 12.29.10 @ 9:20AM

Full respect cannot be granted by law. In our own equality, we might be disgusted by grown men who act like little girls, etc.

Bill| 12.30.10 @ 2:49PM

Hey "Ft. Benning"- A reality check for those who live in a fantasy world. I am a proud military vet. A person who was in our duty station tried to molest me while I was sleeping! He was a sneaky, morose, gay liar. This stuff does happen in the military and why gays should go back into the closet and just live among themselves. The average gay has 75 "partners" and many continue to get HIV-Aids. The truth is that they have an urge that they just can't stop. The real troops in the military don't want them!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 12.28.10 @ 6:43PM

Hornblower was great stuff, the crafty Sherlock of maritimers.
Funny, though, alll the sailors I met were so sexually wild ("I can get anyTHING in the Navy, Al, and anyONE-- at a price") that banning homosexual behavior would mean nothing even if it were enforceable and PC.

Alan Brooks| 12.28.10 @ 6:45PM

...but if you all want to be pollyannish, that is YOUR business, you gullible old Republichumps.

Paul H.| 12.28.10 @ 8:06AM

I seem to recall reading an account of the goings on of another man-o-war vessel during war time.

In this other, not so heroic tale, the ship was rife with homosexual liaisons which destroyed the cohesiveness of the crew and imperiled the ship.
Anyone remember that tale?

Harry the Horrible| 12.28.10 @ 9:41AM

Mutiny on the Bounty?

MOS was 71331| 12.28.10 @ 10:25AM

You may be thinking of a different novel, "Mounting the Beauty."

gary siebe;| 12.28.10 @ 8:07AM

Conservatives are so retarded they used the wrong ammunition in favor of DADT, and are repeating the same mistake in the homosexual marriage debate. The argument must remain completely secular because any appeal to morality will be laughed out of court. But to maintain a secular line of attack conservatives must overcome their prudishness, and back burner the religious angle.

I got the following out of Al Jazeera of all places -- it certainly wasn't mentioned in the NYT or Weekly Standard:
from Al Jazeera 12/25.2010
Shamed into silence
Billy Capshaw was 17 when he joined the Army in 1977. After being trained as a medic he was transferred to Baumholder, Germany. His roommate, Jeffrey Dahmer, by virtue of his seniority ensured that Capshaw had no formal assignment, no mail, and no pay. Having completely isolated the young medic, Dahmer regularly sexually assaulted, raped, and tortured him.
Dahmer went on to become the infamous serial killer and sex offender who murdered 17 boys and men before being beaten to death by an inmate at Columbia Correction Institution in 1994.
Capshaw reflects back, “At that young age I didn’t know how to deal with it. My commander did not believe me. Nobody helped me, even though I begged and begged and begged.”

DADT was a logical policy that conservatives did not know how to defend logically. Before it is too late, they need to figure out that marriage is a privilege rather than a right, and push that line of attack hard. Rights are demanded rather than requested, but marriage is the result of a request. Homosexuals already have an equal right to get married; they simply choose not to exercise it. Keep religion completely out of the discussion. But, of course, conservatives are so hampered by religious brainwashing they are unable to do that, and as result the gay ball keeps rolling along, in drag.

Vern Crisler| 12.28.10 @ 8:49AM

I submit that it is precisely due to the decline in religion and in morality that we have so many problems today. The brainwashing of atheism and political correctness are why this country is on what may be an inevitable course of cultural and moral decay.

Paul D| 12.28.10 @ 9:16AM

You are incorrect. Religion has rarely been brought into this argument. There have been many sound non-religious arguments made against allowing open homosexuality in the military.

But it didn't matter. We lost. So you can look forward to many more Billy Capshaw incidents in the future.

DanH in Alaska| 12.28.10 @ 9:37AM

Consider the source: Al Jazeera 12/25.2010
His roommate, Jeffrey Dahmer, by virtue of his seniority ensured that Capshaw had no formal assignment, no mail, and no pay.
Horseshit!

Negro X| 12.28.10 @ 5:34PM

Agreed.

Quartermaster| 12.28.10 @ 6:40PM

Anyone who served in teh military would call BS on that story.

PolishKnight| 12.28.10 @ 11:01AM

Gary makes his point obnoxiously and also cites a very dubious source, but nonetheless, he makes a valid point: Defense of marriage and DADT should be based upon logic and not by appealing to religion.

That said, it is very logical to point out that if a majority of nation's people have a religious reason for a certain secular policy, that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional for them to implement it. Do liberals want the state to abolish Sunday and Saturday off? Well, they probably do, but that doesn't mean Saturday and Sunday off of work should be unconstitutional simply because they are repeating religious holidays.

The logical argument against gay marriage is quite simply that heterosexuals, who comprise a majority of voters, are against it. Yes, it's unfair, but it's also unfair that polygamists don't get legal recognition for their minority practices. Even as the left poo-poo's this slippery slope, the fact is the liberalism has taken advantage of this situation in the past. Who would have thought that unwed motherhood would be the norm by now?

Vern Crisler| 12.28.10 @ 8:37AM

Personally, I don't know why the older policy befoe DADT was thrown out. It was a way of keeping perverts out of the military and confined to San Francisco.

Now the question is, why does gay perversion rate? Why are other perversions given second-class citizenship? Why can't other perverts serve openly in the military?

We hear that Elton John and his "husband" have got a baby. What's to prevent "gay" soldiers from engaging in the same obscenity of "marrying" and adopting babies?

It used to be that character meant something, especially in the armed services. I suppose it was only a matter of time before the general amorality of our times would infect the services.

Are churches next? Will it be against the law for churches to fire openly "gay" priests or ministers?

2@2cents| 12.28.10 @ 2:06PM

Vern Crisler,

You and your kind are not worth a response.

Cardsfan112056| 12.28.10 @ 3:00PM

No 2-cents, its you and your ilk that aren't worth responding to where the perverted actions of homosexuality are being spread into society like radical islam. You will see the effects of repealing DADT in the combat units I guarantee you and it won't be pretty for the perverts that openly display their affections. That's a reality!!

Don Parnell| 12.28.10 @ 8:49AM

Concur. The best year for WWII study is 1942 because the ending was in doubt and the opposing sides were more equally matched in technology and material. I'm sure you are aware of a similar type battle in the Sundra Strait that same month involving USS Houston and HMAS Perth. These heroic surface engagements were overshadowed by the more decisive campaigns later in the war.

MoeBlotz| 12.28.10 @ 9:34AM

On board ship the demise of DADT will also have more poofters competing for a turn in the barrel.

Ned the Red| 12.28.10 @ 9:39AM

The book "The Thin Red Line" keeps coming back to my mind when this subject comes up.
I re-read it early this year while waiting for my copy of "Matterhorn" to arrive.
Homosexuality in the military is addressed in this book a couple of times. The most applicable instance concerns a Sergeant Doll who has the hots for a man in his squad, who has feminine features. Doll convinces himself it doesn’t mean he is a homosexual so long as he is on the correct end of the act.
Soon a battle situation occurs requiring the Sergeant to dive for cover. When doing so he lands squarely on the object of his desires backside. It is an embarrassing moment for him and the man. Later a dangerous mission comes up and the Sergeant sends someone else to perform the job. This upsets the supposed homosexual and causes him to express his anger to his superior, informing him not to show favoritism, or imply he is incompetent, for any reason.
This story in Jones’s book is a good example of the problems open homosexual behavior will cause.
There is a funny twist to this drama. Later in the book the Sergeant Doll finds himself alone with his hopeful quest and being drunk puts the moves on him. As it turns out the supposed gay man thinks it is the Sergeant who is gay (he is not) and gives the okay for him to go ahead and make his day, so to speak, only the green lighted act puts the sergeant on the wrong end, who, now, realizing the gig is up, denies all advances and heads off for safer friends.

Career Soldier| 12.28.10 @ 10:41AM

The Dahmer story is complete fiction, as any veteran would know.

Pelosi's statement on the floor of the house that "we have now put an end to discrimination in the military" is also complete fiction, as any veteran would know. By act of the US Congress, women are prohibited from being assigned to a combat unit. Open discrimination. Applicants considered too short, fat, stupid, color blind, poor vision (without their glasses) or having too many children are denied entry into the military. Open discrimination. Married soldiers are paid more than single soldiers, for the same job, rank, training, etc. Open discrimination. Security clearances are required for certain jobs and or promotions. Yet servicemembers with misdomeaner convictions or "questionable" pasts are denied clearances. Open discrimination. etc, etc, etc. As any veteran knows, it wasn't about ending discrimination in the military. The military has always discriminated in some way. It must, to be effective. It was about "normalizing" homosexual behavior thru government approval.

Next agenda item: "I risked my life in the military service of my country, but I can't marry my homosexual lover??" (and receive married benefits).

Ned the Red| 12.28.10 @ 11:23AM

Next agenda item: "If a members of the same sex can marry, then why can't a marriage be of multiple partners?"
One for money.
One for sex.
One for work.
One to ride herd.
All to have kids.

Anna K. from Emory U.| 12.28.10 @ 2:13PM

"It was about 'normalizing' homosexual behavior," says Career Soldier.

In my and most of my friends' opinion, homosexual behavior should be normalized.

There is a huge gay population in Atlanta, and residents my age and younger think nothing of someone being gay.

Also, there are many students at Emory who are openly gay, and may are quite brilliant, I might add.

I look forward to the day when there is full sexual equality for all.

Homophobia is so ridiculous. But some people always have to have other groups they can look down on and persecute.

Paul D| 12.28.10 @ 4:19PM

Thanks Anna,

We can always count on someone to remind us of the Party Line.

Quartermaster| 12.28.10 @ 6:44PM

To think Emory used to be a Christian University.

Brilliance really doesn't matter. They are mentally ill and Emory is spiritually sick.

carnot| 12.28.10 @ 9:34PM

fine....but folks like you...always seem to forget competing equities. no heterosexual should be forced to room with an openly gay male....or share shower/toilet facilities. that is certainly a privacy issue. if the Left choses to ignore this.....I advise all to reconsider whether they need to abide BY ANYONE'S privacy "rights"....in this country....any longer.

MOS was 71331| 12.28.10 @ 10:53AM

Another great novel about the WWII British Navy was "The Cruel Sea" about a convoy escort ship. The 1953 movie of the same starred Jack Hawkins as the ship's commander. I recommend both the book and movie.

For my money, the best US book and movie about the WWII USN was "The Caine Mutiny." There's no reason to go into the movie's cast. I expect most readers are familiar with it.

Lesser known was 1956's USN movie "Away All Boats," about an attack transport which carried marines and soldiers to assault Japanese-held islands. Jeff Chandler played the ship's captain, and there were other well known actors in the cast.

Marc Jeric| 12.28.10 @ 11:11AM

Let us wait a few years for new statistics on the incidence of HIV/AIDS among the soldiers and sailors. Please have somebody explain to me how a young recruit can reject the advances of his homosexual commander and so risk to be sent on night patrol into the enemy positions? Or at least a latrine duty?

PJ| 12.28.10 @ 11:23AM

You need to talk to those young women who were sexually harassed by their male bosses & couldn't leave their jobs & had no one to turn to? How did they solve it before the sexual harassment laws were written?

carnot| 12.28.10 @ 9:36PM

or the women who falsely claimed sexual harassment. but come to think of it.....that path didn't seem to work for Monica....who was very clearly harassed by her boss. oooops...that was ok by the barons of virtue on the Left.

the only good Lefty...is a ........

PJ| 12.28.10 @ 11:17AM

I'm not too sure how I feel about the repeal of DADT, although I lean towards against the repeal.

I do know this, the Navy has had some problems w/their sailors when the ships turned coed. Why was it that some ships had (& from what I hear some may still have) reputations of being floating brothels & some do not? It has everything to do with how well the captains enforce discipline.

I would also think the gay sailor/soldier would have his "lights kicked out" by unidentified individuals if he/she made advances to the wrong person at the wrong time. I bet a 1 time beating is enough to control "the urge."

This is 1 of the reasons companies prefer to hire persons from the military. They have self-control, something that is so lacking among people who have no experience in a disciplined life.

carnot| 12.28.10 @ 9:44PM

it's worse than you might think.

as for DADT repeal...this will become an EEO headache for senior officers and enlisted.

it won't be without its comical aspects, however. I remember as a young aviator the critical importance of social bonding at squadron parties. some of these parties got to be pretty wild (especially overseas when out of sight) - I have no idea how squadron integrity will be impacted once the 2-6% are slow dancing and sucking face at the same parties.

PJ| 12.28.10 @ 11:12PM

Obviously, you have to invite everyone to the squadron parties. Then move the "real party" to an undisclosed, private location for members only--- like a country club. You have to work w/everyone but that doesn't mean your private time has to be w/everyone.

carnot| 12.29.10 @ 11:35AM

that's not the way squadrons work. everyone knows what is going on. over time...there are no secrets in a squadron.

granted it's not 24x7. so...let's say a squadron is based in a warm weather city.....and the squadron officers attend local MLB games once or twice. a gay officer brings his significant other and expresses the usual affectations of love, like, whatever. it's gonna happen.

1) Glad I won't be there

2) I do think it would be amusing to observe how squadron personnel react in the quiet interactions that occur in every social context AFTER the game in the following weeks

not assessing rights here. just wondering out loud how that will impact the social cohesiveness that is integral to a squadron.

and laughing my rear quarter off at/for the people who are going to have to deal with this....along with all the other stressors that are military life.

Richard Baker| 12.28.10 @ 11:21AM

Gents:
By leaving religion out of the equation you render this discussion one without moorings. After all, whether you like it or not, religion is the basis for most of the Western concept of Law (the Ten Commandments are chiseled into the Supreme Court). Otherwise, it becomes an issue of whim. Some would call that anarchy.

Vern Crisler| 12.28.10 @ 10:37PM

Right. This is what Washington warned about. Our republic cannot survive without the twin pillars of religion and morality. The attempt to separate politics from religious morality is to abandon the Washingtonian principle in favor of ethical relativism and Progressivism.

Gary| 12.28.10 @ 11:40AM

I’m not concerned about the men and women in uniform. As always, they’re simply getting the job done in a fine fashion. I’m concerned about the government’s response to this new law. Imagine all the compliance that’ll need to be overseen. Each unit will most likely have a compliance officer in charge of this. New rules will have to be drafted. New education requirements, etc. The bureaucrats will jump all over this. There will be federal lawsuits resulting from simple disagreements between straights and gays. Straights will be accused of offending gays. Can’t you jus t see it?

carnot| 12.28.10 @ 9:47PM

man...your post sounds eerily like a job posting for the political officers who manned military units of the former Soviet Union.

Mike B (USN, ret)| 12.28.10 @ 12:55PM

I have just finished reading "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" non fiction, WW2. recommended to me by Adm. Hauser. Raw, gruesome truth! A must read for anyone in the Navy,or thinking of going in the Navy, or Naval history buff.

Al Adab| 12.28.10 @ 12:56PM

We, unlike The Left, need to remember that the military is not a social engineering institution. Is it not better to train, equip, and direct them for their true mission of defending the nation and destroying our enemies than it is to attempt to use them to foster a socio-political agenda?

The Left, from Wilson's day to this, cannot understand for they disagree on what "the mission" of the military is. That it exists to do violence to enemies of the nation appalls them.

Dale Cord| 12.28.10 @ 1:21PM

2011 a year that will live in Infamy. Future school history books will read: The year the Muslims conquered the United States of America. With not so much as a whimper from its cowardly military leaders, and name calling armchair patriots. Disgraceful,Shameful there are no words to adequately describe her defeat. As the 300 Spartans strength and ingenuity conquered all of those who challenged them, so a small band of renegades conquered the greatest country the world has known. When Davids rock slued Goliath. It also foretold a warning. "The bigger they are,the harder they Fall." Our country lost its battle of survival when it became intoxicated with its deceptive mentality, that it did not need its Creator anymore, and wisdom no longer was apart of its citizens physiology to survive

KyMouse| 12.28.10 @ 1:39PM

Looks as if amazon.com has about 21 copies of "The Ship" available, new and used.

PattyMor| 12.28.10 @ 2:09PM

I agree that our country has lost its bearings. One step at a time, we have been led away from the Creator to the abyss. It didn't end well for Babylon, Sodom & Gomorrah, or Rome. It isn't going to end well for the U.S.

We have been conquered from within by the Islamists and the Communists. Can multiple partner marriages be far behind?

Gary| 12.28.10 @ 2:40PM

The Tea Party and real conservatives in Congress must prove themselves VERY QUICKLY. If they fail to stand up to all the flak and get neutralized by the old guard, it'll be pitchfork and torch time. Their plan to read the Constitution at the start of the 112th is good, but then they must FOLLOW THROUGH asap.

Purpleguy| 12.28.10 @ 2:41PM

As a closet zoophile, I'd like to marry my dog but I'm already in a partnership with a man and married to a woman because I'm bisexual. Would the law require the dog to be male or female? Help me before I sue you for insensitivity.

Big Leo| 12.28.10 @ 6:22PM

It's only okay if it's a really, really cute dog.

Michael| 12.28.10 @ 2:46PM

The only reason homosexuals want to be in the military-- if they get AIDS, ect, then the taxpayers get to spring for their medical bills for life because it would then be considered "service related".

MERLIN| 12.28.10 @ 5:23PM

DADT was a bad policy; exclusion was the law:
1) People in combat bleed, and often on each other. A boxer can't step in the ring without an HIV test. Is this a test that homosexuals going into combat should take? How often while in combat?
2) The utter lack of privacy, including mass showering, is uncomfortable enough without someone (perhaps someone who out-ranks you) admiring your endowments. I will believe this is a clever policy when they let the men shower with the women.
3) My short experience in the military and long experience in academia (where homosexuality gives righteous victim status) informs me that homosexuals quite naturally form a very effective clique that insulates them from the rigors of standard evaluation because the charge of homophobia, as with the charge of raciscm, can ruin the career of an objective evaluator. (And evidently these days in the military, questioning the behavior of a Muslim is so career damaging that a jihadist officer, signaling for years his animosity and intentions, was nonettheless allowed to carry on until he murdered 14 soldiers and wounded more. The military investigation fails to mention that his jihadist act had anything to do with his status as a Muslim.)

carnot| 12.28.10 @ 9:52PM

bingo on bullet 3!!!

as for bullet 1....military have been receiving annual HIV blood tests for years.

bullet 2? well...that's a long story to tell......

Franco| 12.29.10 @ 12:43PM

The only legitimate concern about the repeal of DADT is the possibility of the careers of good troops being ruined by charges of homophobia. The potential for corruption is fantastic.

I couldn't give a rats ass what the other guy does behind closed doors as long as he does his job.

It's been a long time since someone admired my endowment (sigh)!

Conservative Teamster| 12.28.10 @ 5:54PM

The main problem I see with gays now being to openly display their sexual preference in the military is this: What will happen when a gay sailor or soldier 'hits' on a hetrosexual one? Will he stop when he knows his advances are going nowhere? Or will he try again, possibly causing the straight man/woman to react physically? If so, will the straight sailor/soldier be reprimanded or punished? How many 'hits' will be allowed before a straight sailor/soldier can be allowed to stop these unwelcome advances?If the straight one does not immediately show his resistance will he then possibly be seen by others in his/her unit as possibly gay? With all the problems facing this country at this time I would have put this DADT issue way way down the list of priorities.

carnot| 12.28.10 @ 9:54PM

as you/we saw in the run-up to the last Presidential election...the Left absolutely does not care about deaths of serving military. in fact, they view that as an advantage to be exploited.

Airborne All The Way| 12.29.10 @ 9:17PM

Dear Mr. Colebatch,

The American Press has a long history of sloppy, uneducated, untrained, inexperienced, and biased reporting on the U. S. Armed Forces. We can cite Bringing Up the Rear: A Memoir, The Big Story (by Peter Braestrup), On Strategy II: A Critical Analysis of the Gulf War, and Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez speech to the military correspondents. This covers every war from World War II to the present.

Many have made the comparison of the integration of African Americans in the U. S. Armed Forces to permitting homosexuals to openly serve. While one can ones own opinions, one can’t have ones own facts. During the Korean War, the U. S. Army integrated the white and African American units. The white units were performing their duties, but too thin. Too often the African American units failed. By integrating the African American units with the white units, it was less likely that an integrated unit would break in combat because the whites would still fight; see Bringing Up the Rear: A Memoir. As noted by Dr. Jerry Pournelle, the U. S. Naval Academy wanted to establish scientific criteria to recruit those best able to serve and to command. With the integration of the services and the requirement for diversity, we no longer promoted the best leader only the best minority candidate.

Are you suggesting that by integrating homosexuals into the units openly they will finally perform their duties effectively? We have a Bible Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Why do we want to encourage service by those that will bear false witness? We have the example of Private Manning, a homosexual, who has severely harmed national security that we may wish to give extra scrutiny to those who bear a grudge against an institution or society. Do you agree?

Anyone looking at the employment section of The Washington Post and other publications will see many advice articles about the problems with romance in the work place. The civilian workplace is not near as dangerous as combat and the civilian workplace does not have the same requirements.

Scenario 1
Two co-workers fall in love. This disrupts the team because the other team member fear the secret alliance between the two. They can’t criticize them separately to the other lover.

Scenario 2
A superior falls in love with a subordinate and gives them more favorable ratings, assignments, and support not given to others on the team. The superior protect the lover and give unfavorable assignments to other team members.

Scenario 3
A superior falls in love with a subordinate but the subordinate rejects the advances. Then the superior seeks to punish the subordinate through bad performance reviews and unfavorable assignments.

Scenario 4
Two co-workers, formerly in love, have a falling out. This disrupts the team and the two can not work with each other.

Translating the Scenarios 1 – 4 into the situations in a combat unit, we have:

Scenario 1
The two soldiers will watch each others back. However, while watching the back of the lover, they may neglect to look out for other team members.

Scenario 2
The superior will give the safest assignments to his lover and send others into harms way.

Scenario 3
The superior will deliberately send the subordinate into danger to harm them.

Scenario 4
The other team members don’t literally want to get in the line of fire between the two former lovers.

Scenario 5
This is the worst nightmare for men in combat. The King David and Bathsheba scenario. The superior will send someone into battle to die so that they can have his lover.

To ignore those possibilities is to ignore human nature. When people are handling explosives and weapons, we have too many possibilities for errors and loss of life. We don't need to add to the possibilities. Do you actually care for the lives and limbs of those in combat?

Sincerely,
Airborne All The Way

Pelligrino| 12.30.10 @ 2:26AM

Thank you "Airborne." You have obviously "been there" or are still there. You write of how it really is.

I concur in full. I would say that any servicemember anywhere experiences all 5 scenarios in just a year's time in his or her first unt -- and then more.

The military is a far more crude environment than most seem to understand. Even vets can easily fall prey to the all-to-common malady of just remembering thing with rose tinted eyeglasses.

I recall like it was yesterday a mid-level sergeant once speaking out of turn with me. Caught in a statement, I directed him to clarify his remarks. To his credit (and due to a good turn I had done for him when he was once in a true bind), he sat down and told me what most officers in my brigade either 1) choose to ignore, or 2) blindly avoided:

As a unit with about 18% integration of women in the enlisted ranks, there were plenty of young women in our 1,500-sized unit.

When a new female arrival finally reached her platoon, about half the males in the platoon (most unmarried but more than a few marrieds) would place $2, 5, 10, or 25 dollar bets on who would sleep with her first. (The dollar amount was set by a "leader" who determined her "babe factor.") So, from day one, the new female arrival was propositioned. But her new squad mates, by junior NCOs who knew this was fraternization.

The very people she should be able to trust were violating this trust -- before she even had her duffle bags unpacked.

And the crazy thing: Once a "veteran" of the unit after a couple of months, she'd be invited to enter the wagering pool if she had lesbian tendencies.

So....how will it be now? We've just upped all the possibilities and permutations with open activity of homosexuals.

Unit cohesion? Trust? Teamwork?

What people don't seem to understand: The military life is not all go, go, go. The ole "hurry up and wait" scenarios haven't changed in the centuries.

There is PLENTY of what the troops call downtime. There is plenty of opportunity for mischief; and lots of young minds and bodies always at the ready to pursue misdeeds.

So much of the military time is what is called garrison time; you're not deployed. You're between missions. Waiting. Sometimes days, weeks, even months.

As I have posted here before: The U.S. will now not have upright, bright, truly committed, military-focused young men ever even think of committing to enter our military academies or ROTC cadet training programs.

Why would a young man with a brain and soul do this? Sure, you'd love to do your part in our nation's military like your uncle or grandpa did.

But not when you'll never have a winning team to work with. (real Missions Impossible)

The upright leader will be drummed out with prejudice, labeled as the problem for trying to maintain discipline and standards. And handed a felony level UCMJ sentence for trying to hold the moral line.

Charles Stevens| 12.30.10 @ 6:45AM

I will not take the time here to debate the absurdities of homosexual politics. Suffice it to say that it is one of special rights and the deliberate trashing of traditional society, and has never had anything to do with civil rights. As for the military, one of the most evil days in US history occured on 22 Dec 2010, when Obama signed the bill turning the US military into a homosexual institution. The US military will now become one vast eternal social experiment for progressives. No longer will it be able to focus 100% of its energies on its primary purpose of defending the nation and projecting US power; in short, no longer will it be an efficient killing machine. As but one of myriad examples, consider eternally-chauvinist China. In ten years or less, China will deliberately provoke a military showdown of some type in Asia (it is planning one even now), and the US military will be revealed as totally unable to deal with it. On that day, the shift of loyalties in Southeast Asia will be rapid and unequivocal. They will have no choice but to deliberately reduce Western influences in their respective societies, and to ecourage all things Chinese, including language (for example, most Southeast Asian countries currently teach their children simultaneously English and the native language), culture, and economics. The West in general, and the US in particular, are now on the road to extinction, due solely to the overwhelming takeover internally by progressives. In the annals of world history, it will someday be seen as an immense tragedy for everyone concerned. But that day is most probably centuries in the future. Tell me, do you really feel safer now, or did you as an ostensible conservative let that whole gay situation pass you by as a non-event?

Kwillcox| 12.30.10 @ 11:36PM

To you vets.
1. Thanks for your service to our country.
2. What percentage of military jobs are without personal privacy - front line combat, submarine duty, and of those what percentage of the time is limited privacy?
3.Isn't the military now totally pre-occupied with comfortable and compliant diversity? I have heard some commanders say as much.
4. Now that many military are better educated and presumably better behaved, does this solve many problems?
5. Isn't the real problem that the military is so massively over officered, perhaps 500% too many Admirals and Generals?
6. Isn't another major problem the lack of sensible procurement? A good choice for troop carrier would have been the Israeli merkava conversion, but instead we use an inferior US model?
7. Isn't this really a tempest in a teacup. True 100% gays are only3% of adults. As long as there are no young teens around, who cares what they do? Like all adults they will sniff around anyone they want to have sex with of either gender, and try to get them drunk enough to agree to sex. There will not be any rape. As long as gay guys know who isn't gay, they will leave them along or get their teeth knocked out.

I think this is something the military will adopt without much trouble, but I can see that the Marines, in particular will have a hard time adjusting.

Society has a much greater problem with gay teachers and priests, who spend much effort seducing young teens and really screwing their lives up.

kwillcox| 12.30.10 @ 11:47PM

women now are often the pilots of the support aircraft in combat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

Adult toys| 7.4.11 @ 4:04AM

Q:what is the strongest muscle?
　　 A:the tongue—it can raise a woman’s hips.
　　 Q:what is the lightest muscle?
　　 A:the penis—it can be raised by a tongue.