Don't Ask, Don't Think (by Richard Cohen)

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Woiyo:

Quote:
As usual, you are shortsighted in your opinion as is the author.

As a vet, I can agree with the ban of homosexuals from the service, or at least, from the "front lines".

(Feel free to insert whatever "phobes" you like)

Many times, military life is lonely especially in the Navy where I served. Spending months at sea the LAST thing I wanted to deal with in the "macho" world of male dominated military life, is some "known" homosexual looking at me.

This is a concept you will never EVER be able to understand.

You don't get it, yet, Woiyo?

The only people who are scared of gays are those who are worried that they would actually suck a d*ck put in front of them....

It really says a lot about ya!

Cycloptichorn

Oh...was that what Phoenix was getting at.

Now I understand!

0 Replies

St Petersburg Times May 20, 2004

Shortage of interpreters foreshadowed prison excesses

By Susan Taylor Marting

It is one of the best-read reports in years - Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's explosive findings that U.S. soldiers committed "sadistic, blatant and wanton" acts of abuse against inmates at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.

But little attention has been paid to earlier reports foreshadowing problems that could have contributed to the brutal treatment: a critical shortage of Arabic-speaking interrogators and the Army's slowness in adapting to a world in which "the enemy" includes not just nations but shadowy terrorists and insurgents.

"The challenge military intelligence has in Iraq is that this is not a war most of them were organized, trained and equipped to fight," says John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan research organization.

"They were basically geared up for the major combat operation phase of the war. They have not been primarily focused on counterinsurgency - they don't like it, it's not much fun, it's not what they had planned on doing in Iraq."

Within weeks after President Bush stood under a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished," it became clear that coalition soldiers who so easily defeated the regular Iraqi army faced a far greater threat from a combustible mix of foreign fighters, Saddam Hussein loyalists, Islamic radicals and even secular Iraqis angry at the U.S. occupation.

As thousands of people were rounded up, the challenge was to get "actionable intelligence" out of them - information that could be used to track down insurgents and end the violence.

But in January 2002, more than a year before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the General Accounting Office warned that the Army was so short of translators fluent in Arabic and other difficult languages that "it does not have the linguistic capacity to support two concurrent major theaters of war." In other words, the Army, already heavily engaged in Afghanistan, lacked the translators to also support a major operation in Iraq.

According to the GAO, the Army had 84 authorized positions for interpreters but had filled only 42 - a 50 percent shortfall. That meant intelligence soldiers trying to extract information from inmates at Abu Ghraib have been forced to use Iraqi translators of duous reliability.

And blah blah blah http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040520-interpreters-shortage.htm

0 Replies

I can't speak for the other service, but as a fourth generation Army veteran, I only speak for my experience in the combat arms area of the military.

There are certain unpleasant items that must be remembered when speaking of the homosexual 'question' in the military.

1) The military is one of the last bastions of conservative attitudes and actions in this country. (This is conservative ain the actual, not Republican definition of the word.)

2) The military has always greatly resisted the 'social changes' which have occured in society. (Part of this is because many the attitudes the military presents come from the top officers who, rightly or wrongly, are usually 25 to 30 year soldiers who have been insulated from the outside world for that long and the other part is from the type of people who join the military in the first place.)

3) Combat units, moreso than other military units, operate on TRUST. You have to trust the man next to you to cover your flank. You trust the others in your unit to provide covering fire as you advance at the enemy. You trust your buddies to stay alert on guard as you sleep. If you don't trust your buddies, morale suffers. When morale suffers, combat effectiveness drops and people die who shouldn't have died in the first place.

The issue of homosexuality directly affects that layer of trust. When a homosexual joins the military, he or she knows that if they are discovered, the military will kick them out. This means that the homosexual individual is already a weak link in the unit, not just from a trust issue, but as a person who may cause a vacancy in the unit at a critical time if they are discovered.

The homosexual individual becomes a very weak link in a unit that REQUIRES each link to be as strong as possible. (Keep in mind, weak links can form whenever someones mind is not 100% on the mission at hand, this is why units try to help with marriage difficulties, problems with children, money problems or any other difficulties that a soldier experiences. This is to help keep the person in place and thinking only of the mission.)

I served during the time before the 'Don't ask, don't tell' era, but the problems and difficulties of combat units do not change.

This really has nothing to do with 'gay bashing' or homophobia, it is only about trust and survival.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

I can't speak for the other service, but as a fourth generation Army veteran, I only speak for my experience in the combat arms area of the military.

There are certain unpleasant items that must be remembered when speaking of the homosexual 'question' in the military.

1) The military is one of the last bastions of conservative attitudes and actions in this country. (This is conservative ain the actual, not Republican definition of the word.)

2) The military has always greatly resisted the 'social changes' which have occured in society. (Part of this is because many the attitudes the military presents come from the top officers who, rightly or wrongly, are usually 25 to 30 year soldiers who have been insulated from the outside world for that long and the other part is from the type of people who join the military in the first place.)

3) Combat units, moreso than other military units, operate on TRUST. You have to trust the man next to you to cover your flank. You trust the others in your unit to provide covering fire as you advance at the enemy. You trust your buddies to stay alert on guard as you sleep. If you don't trust your buddies, morale suffers. When morale suffers, combat effectiveness drops and people die who shouldn't have died in the first place.

The issue of homosexuality directly affects that layer of trust. When a homosexual joins the military, he or she knows that if they are discovered, the military will kick them out. This means that the homosexual individual is already a weak link in the unit, not just from a trust issue, but as a person who may cause a vacancy in the unit at a critical time if they are discovered.

The homosexual individual becomes a very weak link in a unit that REQUIRES each link to be as strong as possible. (Keep in mind, weak links can form whenever someones mind is not 100% on the mission at hand, this is why units try to help with marriage difficulties, problems with children, money problems or any other difficulties that a soldier experiences. This is to help keep the person in place and thinking only of the mission.)

I served during the time before the 'Don't ask, don't tell' era, but the problems and difficulties of combat units do not change.

This really has nothing to do with 'gay bashing' or homophobia, it is only about trust and survival.

It all sounds good, Fedral...and you made some excellent points..and did it in an exemplary manner.

I suspect however, that it rationalizes the problem rather than explains it.

Mind you...a rationalization is often a good explanation..and many times, my be part of the actual reason for whatever it is that is (possibly) being rationalized.

Many of the reasons you gave were used to rationalize why blacks were not totally integrated into combat units back not too many years.

They really didn't stand up to the test of time.

Let me say this...and there is absolutely no proof that I can offer of this...if you have been in combat...more than likely you have depended on a homosexual at some time. My guess is that most people who have been in combat...have depended on a homosexual at some time. And my further guess is that the homosexuals were no less dependable than the heterosexuals.

Hell...the history books indicate that there have been effective armies that had plenty of homosexuals in their ranks. The Macedonian, Greek, and Roman armies

This whole problem has to do with mind set...and that mind set, in my opinion, is occasioned by a statement written into the bood of Leviticus in the Bible...many, many years ago....by a relatively unknowledgeable, relatively unsophisticated, superstitious ancient Hebrew who saw homosexuality as something to be dispised.

Honestly...that, in my opinion, is the sum basis for all this crap.

I'm not saying that other cultures have not had similar biases. But that is to be expected. Primitive cultures fear anything that is out of the ordinary.

Left handed people were feared...for no reason other than that they favored their left hand over their right.

We gotta get over this ****.

We have got to be inclusive with regard to this sexual orientation thing...everywhere in society.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

The issue of homosexuality directly affects that layer of trust. When a homosexual joins the military, he or she knows that if they are discovered, the military will kick them out. This means that the homosexual individual is already a weak link in the unit....

Talk about circular logic:

1. We gotta kick out homos when we find out about 'em.
2. Why?
3. Because they lied to us.
4. Why?
5. Because we kick out homos when we find out about 'em.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Talk about circular logic:

1. We gotta kick out homos when we find out about 'em.
2. Why?
3. Because they lied to us.
4. Why?
5. Because we kick out homos when we find out about 'em.

It was a horrible joke, but Doc Daneeka didn't laugh until Yossarian came to him one mission later and pleaded again, without any real expectation of success, to be grounded. Doc Daneeka snickered once and was soon immersed in problems of his own, which included Chief White Halfgoat, who had been challenging him all that morning to Indian wrestle, and Yossarian, who decided right then and there to go crazy.

"You're wasting your time," Doc Daneeka was forced to tell him.

"Can't you ground someone who's crazy?"

"Oh, sure. I have to. There's a rule saying I have to ground anyone who's crazy."

"Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger."

"Clevinger? Where is Clevinger? You find Clevinger and I'll ask him."

"Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I am."

"They're crazy."

"Then why don't you ground them?"

"Why don't they ask me to ground them?"

"Because they're crazy, that's why."

"Of course they're crazy," Doc Daneeka replied. "I just told you they're crazy, didn't I? And you can't let crazy people decide whether you're crazy or not, can you?"

Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. "Is Orr crazy?"

"He sure is," Doc Daneeka said.

"Can you ground him?"

"I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of the rule.

"Then why doesn't he ask you to?"

"Because he's crazy," Doc Daneeka said. "He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to."

"That's all he has to do to be grounded?"

"That's all. Let him ask me."

"And then you can ground him?" Yossarian asked.

"No. Then I can't ground him."

"You mean there's a catch?"

"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of the clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Fedral wrote:
The issue of homosexuality directly affects that layer of trust. When a homosexual joins the military, he or she knows that if they are discovered, the military will kick them out. This means that the homosexual individual is already a weak link in the unit....

Talk about circular logic:

1. We gotta kick out homos when we find out about 'em.
2. Why?
3. Because they lied to us.
4. Why?
5. Because we kick out homos when we find out about 'em.

No Drew, it is not circular logic, the actual sequence goes like this:

Talk about circular logic:

1. We gotta kick out homosexuals when when we find out about them.
2. Why?
3. Because they broke regulations.
4. Why?
5. Because the UCMJ says that it is not allowable in the military, we just aren't allowed to directly ASK you about your sexual status.

As to the other:

Hey Frank, hope this New Year finds you and yours well.

As to the point you make, it is an excellent one about rationalization, but I think that what you and some others here don't seem to realize is that the rationality (Or irrationality) of the soldiers on the line is is the only thing that matters at this point. Like it or not, we are in a war. This is the way things are at this point and it would not be in the best interests of all concerned to attempt wholesale social reorganization of the military in the middle of a war.

Rationalization it may be, but as much as you may think that it is unfair, politically incorrect or even homophobic, it is the way most of the soldiers on the line think. THEY are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of the actions you espouse. They and their friends are the ones who will come home in body bags if things do not go as perfectly as the academics say it should.

The integration of African Americans into the military was neither as easy nor as smooth as you all may think.
There WERE morale problems (Though no officer would admit to his superiors how much.)
There WERE numerous instances of violence against AA soldiers. (Most not reported.)
There WERE effects on combat effectiveness. (Although for the sake of their careers, most officers kept this covered up.)

To this day, 50 years after, there are still instances of racism and violence in the integrated military.

The Army is like a herd of buffalo stampeding across the plains. It is big and powerful and if you stand directly in front of it and yell STOP, you will get trampled. But if you nudge it correctly, you can slowly turn it in the direction you want. You just have to have patience.

I would gladly beat this dead horse topic once the war is over and we are in peace. THAT will be the best time to try some new social engineering on the institution of the military.

Just my 2 cents (Pre tax)

0 Replies

Always find myself nodding my head while reading a Fedral post.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

Always find myself nodding my head while reading a Fedral post.

If you mean nodding in agreement...I second that. Fedral is a very thoughtful poster.

Of course, you've got a cat for an avatar...and you may have meant "nodding in sleep."

Fedral...

...all was exceptional in 2004...and I'm looking for 2005 to be even better.

I've improved my grip and my putting. My short game has always been good...and I'm working on getting my skinny ass into my drives.

You can see where my head is! Twisted Evil

Happy New Year back to ya.

0 Replies

You've all put a new meaning on watching your backside when in combat.

0 Replies

Is there a single incident of troop morale, security breaches, or military efficacies being noticibly compromised because a homosexual was serving in the army?

We fire intelligent Arabic translators needed desperately for the war against terrorism mearly because they are gay, and instead inlist those at the bottom of the human genome pool.

The homosexual is NOT the weak leak in the Unit. It is the Army's policies which are the weakest link.

0 Replies

It's the fear that something might happen, doncha know? There is no precedent, no specific incidents that is proof of anything of the sort. Just a lot of fearful minds preying on themselves that a homosexual will look at them. Mindless fear prevails.

0 Replies

I am 75 years old. When I was about 25 years old I took an IQ test and it was about 125. I have taken several since that time some on the web and it is always about 125. I don't consider myself a genius because I uderstand that genius starts at about 140.

I have a son whose IQ has been measured at about 218. He is working on a doctorate in math.

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K robotic. You'll find a lot of subjects to discuss here.

0 Replies

Don't Ask, Don't Think (by Richard Cohen)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know