The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Guardiano Misunderstands Goldstein

By on 12.20.10 @ 10:57AM

This morning I read John Guardiano’s response to my post over the weekend in support of the repeal of DADT.

Where do I begin?

Well, let’s start with Guardiano’s premise that allowing the presence of openly gay military personnel “can wreak havoc with a unit’s military effectiveness and mission accomplishment.” He elaborates on this premise further:

What is at issue is the introduction of an overt sexual dynamic - backed up by the full power of the state, the full force of law - into small-scale military units. And that sexual dynamic is inherently disruptive and detrimental to military effectiveness, mission success, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline within the ranks.

Evidence please.

Let us see some hard empirical evidence to back up that statement. Of course, Guardiano cannot back up that statement because there is no empirical evidence that supports his contention that military forces which allow openly gay soldiers to serve are “inherently disruptive and detrimental to military effectiveness, mission success, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline within the ranks.” 

Of course, the inclusion of openly gay soldiers in various western democracies is a relatively recent development.  Now if there were studies that conclusively demonstrated that the presence of openly gay soldiers were “inherently disruptive and detrimental” then I would take that evidence under consideration. But absent that information, Guardiano can offer us only an opinion based on his negative perception of gays and lesbians.

Guardiano then expresses his frustration with my argument:

But what’s most frustrating about Goldstein’s post is that he blames U.S. military personnel for any problems that might result from openly gay service.  The problem, you see is them, those who “have reservations about homosexuality”!

Why, some of our servicemen and women are “uncomfortable with those who are openly gay,” Goldstein writes.  And this “says more about the character of uncomfortable military personnel than it does about the soldier who is openly gay.

With respect to Goldstein, his comments here say more about the modern-day liberal prejudices he harbors than they do about the issue at hand.

But it is the issue at hand. If Guardiano sincerely believes the presence of openly gay military personnel is inherently disruptive and detrimental then presumably he believes their presence is disruptive and detrimental to their heterosexual counterparts. Let us say there is a soldier within a unit who is known to be openly gay but does the job that is expected of him. Furthermore, he makes no effort to harrass his fellow colleagues, sexually or otherwise. Yet the mere presence of the gay soldier is enough to cause consternation amongst the rest of the unit. Who has the problem? Surely not the gay soldier. 

Guardiano states, “And again, a gay soldier needn’t be attracted to “every single member of the same sex” to cause a problem. A gay soldier need only be attracted to one soldier in one unit to cause one serious problem.” If a gay soldier should make advances to a straight colleague and said straight colleague makes it abundantly clear he is not interested in those advances and yet the gay soldier persists with his pursuit then his straight colleague has grounds to file a complaint of sexual harrassment against the gay soldier. If accusations of sexual harrassment can be substantiated then the gay soldier should be subject to disciplinary procedures up to and including a dishonorable discharge. But if the openly gay soldier is otherwise doing his job then how is his presence disruptive and detrimental?

As for “traditionalists and religious believers who harbor sincere and good-faith objections to homosexuality” let me remind Guardiano there was a time in this country not so very long ago when traditionalists and religious believers harbored sincere and good-faith objections to serving with those whose skin color was different from their own.

Now let’s consider Guardiano’s final argument:

Finally, the military obviously does not value “sexual orientation over competence and character.” That’s why - again, as I’ve observed here at The American Spectator many times — military commanders are “loath to initiate separation procedures against a gay service member unless and until that service member makes an issue of his sexuality.”

In fact, gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines serve now, with honor, and without incidence (sic) or disruption: because under DADT, commanders don’t ask, and service members don’t tell.

So should a gay soldier from Massachusetts were to casually mention that he has been happily married to his male partner for five years does that constitute making an issue of his sexuality? If Guardiano is telling me that a singular remark is enough to disrupt his unit’s military effectiveness and ability to complete its mission successfully then he’s telling me our military cohesion isn’t that strong in the first place. If that is the case then I have a lot more confidence and faith in the men and women of our armed forces than Guardiano does.

View all comments (25) |

Jeff| 12.20.10 @ 11:24AM

Mr. G,

How willing would you be to share your living quarters with your "gay solider from Mass' ? To share your bathroom and shower facilities with him ? To get dressed in front of him day in and day out ?
When you can answer yes to all of those questions then you can be dismissive of front line soliders concerns. Until then you don't have a clue as to what the issues involved really are.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.20.10 @ 11:24AM

Aaron,
I have cheered for many of your thoughts here at Amspec.
This one ain't gonna' fly. period...

Gay pride has no place in the military.

Adios To The Stupid Party!| 12.20.10 @ 11:43AM

Mr. Goldstein, John Guardino nailed you on the fallacies in your column from yesterday as did Jeff a few posts before mine. Drop your sword & return to writing about MLB. Everytime you deviate from that subject you veer left & sound foolish. GOD bless!

JP| 12.20.10 @ 11:59AM

Mr Goldstein,
You treat this issue as if it is some abstract debate concerning the Laffer Curve. You demand statistics, facts, and figures but ignore human nature. As it stands currently, the DOD already has enough problems on its plate concerning fraternization between the sexes. Occaisonally the problems surface in the MSM, as when a commisioned Air Force Officer (a missle launch supervisor, no less) had an affair with an NCO who reported to her. The NCO was married. At the very least, the DOD attempts to seperate the sexes and come down hard on violations (there are no official same sex dorms in the military - at least not with combat troops). The repeal of DADT will add now another layer of sexual tension to the ranks. You don't need stats, pie charts, and Power Point presentations to see the problems that it will create. Female service members are not forced to bunk with males for obvious reasons. But you seem don't have any problems with hetro males being forced into bunking with gay men. Why?

And there is another aspect that you either ignore or are not aware of. That is the potential for the courts to begin setting DOD personnel policies. The courts will more than likely look at the repeal as a civil rights break through. And activist gays will use the courts to extract concession from the DOD (gay marriage, gay living quarters, repeal of sodomy prohibitions, even transgender enlistments).

And with each court victory, the hetros will just leave the service, But hey, you liberals have gotten your repeal. That is the only thing that matters, right?

Grzmlyk| 12.20.10 @ 4:11PM

Not only that, but the point of a military is not to create a perfect mini-society in which all victim groups get their fair share of "social justice."

To liberals, the army is a plaything, a petrie dish that came with their little Utopian chemistry set. To Americans, the military is what stands between us and malevolent, naked aggression, and ought to do so using any means possible.

On the other hand, now that DADT has been repealed (and remember when THAT was considered the frontier of liberal thinking?) I'm sure that if a ruthless, murderous Jihadi on the battlefield were to come face to face with an "openly gay" soldier, he would no doubt think twice about messing with such a paragon of social virtue as the United States.

If this isn't an obvious red herring, I don't know what is; liberals HATE the military.

Next it will be allowing "handicapped" people to join the infantry.

I remember Jessica Lynch, the soldier assaulted and captured in the early days of the Iraq War. Of course publications like the NY Times lionized her, talked about what a brave hero she was. Indeed, even after the real truth began to trickle out - about how she was overmatched from the outset, in part because of her inferior physical strength - the NY Times applauded and crowed about how her capture proved women belong in combat (you read that right). When more of the truth dribbled out, proving that Jessica Lynch had no business being anywhere near the battlefield, the Times was mum - choosing to bask in the glow of its pyrric victory. Never mind how many resources had to be diverted, how many brave MEN had to be pulled from their normal jobs - so that she could be rescued.

As a country, we have completely lost our way when the military's prime directive is to reflect our moral vanity.

Randy| 12.20.10 @ 12:11PM

Is the military really the place for social experimentation? You ask for evidence, I just want them to blow stuff up and kill people which is their job, not to right some supposed social injustice.

Greta| 12.20.10 @ 12:25PM

Foolish arguments trying to justify a deviant lifestyle has a place in the military. Sad day for America when those who have long history of hating the military push one more agrument against great soldiers reenlisting to serve our country.

tatosian| 12.20.10 @ 12:51PM

"If a gay soldier should make advances to a straight colleague and said straight colleague makes it abundantly clear he is not interested in those advances..."
Now why should that homosexual soldier feel he has the right to make any advances at all to a straight colleague? Does the presence of homosexuals in the military immediately change the status of straight soldiers to maybe they're homosexuals but don't know it yet? Maybe those straight soldiers just need some guidance from the friendly homosexual? Is that why straight males should join the military now? To seek help in establishing their true sexual identity?

Purple Lips| 12.20.10 @ 1:31PM

You know, you have point. Using the same logic, why does the military seperate males from females? As every male knows women want to have sex every where and any where with anyone. The very fact that some women are prudes only proves the point that they have deeply repressed sexual desires. And it is the DOD's obligation to bring out thier "inner slut".

Oldefarte| 12.20.10 @ 1:25PM

Goldstein's arguments regarding a homosexual making 'advances' toward a heterosexual being the eventual subject of a diciplinary action is incorrect. Why should not ANY sexual 'advance' be grounds for military dismissal, if proven? Since homosexual activity is IMMORAL under the NATURAL LAW and also repugnant[if said action is flagrant, which most homosexual actions are, such as the typical gay pride parades] to normal/straight individuals, why should any of their demostative actions HAVE TO BE TOLERATED IN PUBLIC? Homosexuals were again allow to serve previously in the military [and were protected by laws adequately from discrimination etc], but it is their flagrant demonstrated actions that they seek acceptance of. They invaded the Catholic Church to gain access to vulnerable children in order to molest same, and they have now successfully destroyed that church [by taking advantage of the Church's requirement of celebacy vows for their priests]. Now they are seek to similarily to gain access to sexual objects of their same sex for their gratification, and they will ultimately destroy our military [by causing an extreme reduction/decrease in the enlistment ranks of same] accordingly. Goldstein is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

David W| 12.20.10 @ 1:52PM

Here is another facet of the problem. I was talking with a friend who worked at a different company. The event was not company sponsored but his company allowed the use of the facility. We were talking about stuff and homosexuality came up. He stopped, looked around to see who was near him, and then said something that wasn’t 100% supportive of that lifestyle choice. I couldn’t understand why he was acting so paranoid. I later learned this his company was one of those which had a very strong (some would say radical) homosexual support group. The kind of group that would take any negative comment to HR. Since he would have no way of defending his comment, if he were "reported" he would be disciplined – up to and including being fired.

One day several years ago a manager (for whom I used to work) came to me and said that an employee who was leaving had said that I had not dealt with him like I did others because he was “gay”. Imagine my surprise when I found out he was a homosexual (I had no idea). It was suggested I talk with him to find out what the problem was. I rarely had business reasons to deal with him (any interfacing was on an irregular basis, just as it was with other developers in the same group – if he had no problems then I didn’t deal with him) so I could not understand why he had said that. I learned from him that his manager had tried to find out why he was leaving and, pressed to give an answer, had mentioned my name. Had I not had a good working relationship with the manager I potentially could have been reported to HR.

Now that homosexual behavior can be in the open how many of those men and women will now have a chip on their shoulders (and don’t say they won’t because there are those who will – just watch any gay pride parade or protest)? How many supersensitive men/women/? will make it a point to report any and all “negative” comments. How many will join the military and then file suits over “hostile work environment”? Given the inability of the upper echelons of the military to deal with the Fort Hood in a non-politically correct manner, what do you think they will do with the appearance of “homophobia” in the ranks? How many good soldiers will undergo disciplinary action as a result? How many will decide to leave instead of putting up with the politically correct crap.

I guess we will get to find out won’t we. Let’s just hope that I and others are wrong.

Eric Cartman| 12.20.10 @ 1:54PM

"And that sexual dynamic is inherently disruptive and detrimental to military effectiveness, mission success, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline within the ranks.

Evidence please."

Evidence? Really? Look at all the "good order" and "cohesion" just the topic creates here on a fairly homogeneous web site. Evidence? Are you serious, Inspector Clouseau?

Purple Lips| 12.20.10 @ 2:29PM

Eric,
There is one easy answer to Goldman's question: PFC Manning.

Eric Cartman| 12.20.10 @ 8:07PM

They should name in the Manning Act.

Derek Leaberry| 12.20.10 @ 2:05PM

The problem with socially left-wing "conservatives" is that they don't know what they should want to conserve. For instance, the military is an organization that relies on man-to-man respect. Because of their degeneracy, homosexuals do not earn that respect. The military will be changed for the worse as it becomes homosexualized on top of how the military has been feminized. Because liberals hate everything decent about this country, they want the military to decline. Furthermore, liberals fervently like the idea of sodomites giving orders to red-state conservative military youngsters. Why some "conservatives" would want this situation is hard to fathom.

In the end, "conservatives" like Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Klein don't like cultural conservatives and have no respect for Christians, to whom homosexuality is an abomination. So be it. Win elections without cultural conservatives, if you can.

Occam's Tool| 12.20.10 @ 2:16PM

Different situations require different measures. The Israelis have a "back against the wall" mentalilty somewhat different from our own. That's why it may work there but not here, for instance.

Here's what I suggest: we have an Operational Research unit in each of our armed forces. Run it past them to evaluate before implementing anything which might reduce effectiveness in the middle of a war. This is a very serious issue.

Occam's Tool| 12.20.10 @ 2:16PM

"mentality," sorry.

Bruce Berger| 12.20.10 @ 2:53PM

Another major difference between Israel and the US is that Israel has mandatory service. It is easier to impose rules on a conscription force than a voluntary one.

Bruce Berger| 12.20.10 @ 2:51PM

There is a very simple reason why Goldstein is wrong, and, indeed, he is very wrong.

He approaches the issue from the perspective that DADT-repealed military is the starting form and that it is up to the proponents of DADT to prove that repeal causes harm.

Goldstein has it backwards. The military as currently constructed, with DADT intact, is the starting form, and a very successful one by the way. It is the advocates of repeal of DADT who bear the responsibility of proof of betterment or neutrality in the event of repeal.

In short, the burden of proof rests with Goldstein, not Guardiano.

Goldstein's lack of logic is striking.

ECM| 12.20.10 @ 3:14PM

This is painful stuff, Goldstein. Even if your arguments had any merit, the fact that you find the need to construct such tiny, test tube-like, arguments to circumvent the broad, accurate, outlines of Guardiano's argument is indicative of your emotional need to be vindicated on this issue.

The fact is, any reasonable* reading of Guardiano's comments, contra yours, leaves you grasping desperately at straws.

*That is to say: any reading that is even the least big generous and honest, rather than pedantic and nitpicky.

Nikolai| 12.20.10 @ 3:24PM

wow so much vitriol from those on the loosing side of history- i have not seen the Israeli army (arguably more religious than the USA ) implode, neither the other counties with openly gay soldiers. ergo your orations are just verbal garbage being spewed, either which way the army will not collapse and degenerate and if you are hoping for that, who is the one hating the army now????

Bruce Berger| 12.20.10 @ 3:34PM

Nikolai,

Wow so little logic contained in your statement.

I have never stated that I was against the repeal of DADT. I have argued, simply, that there has not been enough evidence put forward that shows that the repeal of DADT would have at worst a neutral effect on the armed services of this country. I would like to think every other citizen of this great country would demand the same proof. Instead, it seems that supporters of repeal were satisfied with emotional appeals to fairness.

We will never have to see that proof now and that is a very sad statement on how decisions are made, particularly when they involve life and death.

Margie| 12.20.10 @ 3:26PM

To wit:

“Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” Proverb 14:34

“The wicked shall be turned into Hell, and all the nations that forget God.” Psalm 9:17

Look here!

Entitled: Restoring our Biblical and Constitutional Foundations

http://www.daveblackonline.com/no_king_but_king_jesus.htm

seriocomic222| 12.20.10 @ 3:44PM

Like it or not, there is a macho dynamic embedded in units that fight the enemy close up. With DADT, soldiers who swung the other way played the game, so no effect on bonding and unit cohesion.

With repeal, no need to play the game, though I suspect that many still will. The ones that come out will not be part of the "band of brothers" in the same way as before. Even if their comrades accept them, the dynamic is different; there's now a divide. And there is no way that divide can make a unit more efficient.

I wish they had left the whole business alone.

Andrew Silverberg| 12.20.10 @ 3:47PM

Aaron seems awfully concerned about this. Who's the boyfriend?

More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/20/guardiano-misunderstands-golds

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.21.13

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 5.21.13

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 5.21.13

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|11 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|11 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|9 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|3 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|2 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|3 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|5 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|4 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.