![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: As the Pentagon dithers over its reappraisal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) argues that you CAN’T let gays serve in the military because in a combat situation, victory depends on the soldiers looking after each other – and straight soldiers would rather let openly gay comrades die.
Yes, I know, James Inhofe says a lot of things. Still, I think this is worth highlighting for a few reasons:
1. Women, men and a third group?
2. Inhofe may be on the Armed Services Committee, but he was “Army” over 40 years ago, and for two whole years (1957-58) during a time when homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill. And he never served in a foxhole. So an argument could be made that he’s just guessing out of convenience.
3. He’s probably right, to a point.
Don’t get me wrong: most male soldiers today probably aren’t that worried about gayness, and if they are, it would be in the showers, not foxholes or combat missions. When the deal goes down and the training kicks in, most of them are not going to tell the gay guy, “Yr on yr own, fag.”
But a few might. People like Inhofe, perhaps. In which case, it’s the Inhofes in the foxholes who are the problem, not the gay dudes.
So how about we kick THEM out for not doing their f***ing job?
FULL DISCLOSURE: While I am an Army vet like Inhofe, I’m not necessarily more in touch with the attitudes of today’s soldiers, not least because I’ve been out for 22 years. And, like Inhofe, I never saw combat either, and the Army attitudes towards gays in 1985 hadn’t progressed all that much from 1958.
However, I did a four-year stint – twice as long as Inhofe’s – so technically I think I’m twice as qualified as him to comment on this.
Brothers in arms,
This is dF
“You have women, men, then you have a third group to deal with, and they're not equipped to do that. And you know – you hear the stories all the time. A military guy – I happen to be Army, and Army and Marines always feel that when we're out there, we're not doing it for the flag or the country; we're doing it for the guy in the next foxhole. And that would dramatically change that.
Yes, I know, James Inhofe says a lot of things. Still, I think this is worth highlighting for a few reasons:
1. Women, men and a third group?
2. Inhofe may be on the Armed Services Committee, but he was “Army” over 40 years ago, and for two whole years (1957-58) during a time when homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill. And he never served in a foxhole. So an argument could be made that he’s just guessing out of convenience.
3. He’s probably right, to a point.
Don’t get me wrong: most male soldiers today probably aren’t that worried about gayness, and if they are, it would be in the showers, not foxholes or combat missions. When the deal goes down and the training kicks in, most of them are not going to tell the gay guy, “Yr on yr own, fag.”
But a few might. People like Inhofe, perhaps. In which case, it’s the Inhofes in the foxholes who are the problem, not the gay dudes.
So how about we kick THEM out for not doing their f***ing job?
FULL DISCLOSURE: While I am an Army vet like Inhofe, I’m not necessarily more in touch with the attitudes of today’s soldiers, not least because I’ve been out for 22 years. And, like Inhofe, I never saw combat either, and the Army attitudes towards gays in 1985 hadn’t progressed all that much from 1958.
However, I did a four-year stint – twice as long as Inhofe’s – so technically I think I’m twice as qualified as him to comment on this.
Brothers in arms,
This is dF
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2010-05-18 09:24 am (UTC)If we have to worry about this, when facing a life and death,this "“Yr on yr own, fag.” situation could easily be "Yr on yr own, chinaman." or "Yr on yr own, jihad."... the gayness is not the only problem then.