Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is good because why?

(9:00 PM EST – promoted by On The Bus)

I wrote this months ago on my blog but since DADT is still being implemented I figured I’d post here.

Some retired military people decided to write an article for the Washington Post saying that they don’t want to serve with gays.

In doing so, they came up with perhaps the most. Freudian. title. EVER. Seriously. They should’ve just titled it, “Dudes, stay the fuck away from my ass!” But I guess that might appear to be homophobic or something. Wouldn’t want that.

First up is your standard “be very afraid!” argument:

Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.

Gay rights activists, allies (and people who want to fight and possibly die for the country) are just so awful and scary. I know. Shit, if we let the gays in we’ll never need to fight al Qaeda or France or whatever because the people in our own military will scare us enough!

So then let’s get right to the sex:

The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”


Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.

So you don’t want a gay roommate, because, I guess, you’re THE most irresistible person on the planet, and if a gay guy is anywhere near you he’ll have no choice but to do dirty, dirty things to your ass. I guess I could see how that’s scary.

In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not reenlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.

If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people — more than the total of today’s active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.

Really? Well fuck them. You either love the country or you don’t. If you’re willing to serve here and fight and die for our freedom and you consider America the best country in the world, UNLESS you have to work with faggots, then you really don’t care about America.

I don’t know about other people’s opinions but I personally don’t want some self-centered little pricks who might or might not give up on fighting for us to even consider serving in the military. It’s not a game and it’s not for fun and the reason I admire our troops is specifically because they are willing to die for my freedom. If you’re in the military and you might sort of kind of possibly not actually want that level of involvement and commitment, then get the fuck out.

“Zero tolerance” of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways. Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting.

So… the policy of the US military would become “intolerance of… intolerance”? Why is this bad?

There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces.

Well if there’s no national security reason, even though we’re in two wars and we have military bases all over the world and all over our own country, then, how about um, reducing the troop levels and military bases everywhere? Why not do what the constitution actually says and get rid of our standing army, and only use it for two consecutive years? If we really are doing so well national security-wise that we don’t need more people to enlist, let’s cut back.

Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America’s armed forces are models for our allies’ militaries and the envy of our adversaries — not the other way around.

And Germany and Israel… you know who Israel is right? Their IDF is pretty fucking massive and considering the threat from all the countries who dislike them, they have a lot of responsibilities. And somehow gays serve just fine in their military. Shocking. But don’t worry. You can leave that out and nobody will think to mention it. Especially not a twenty-five year old high school graduate in south Alabama.

As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military.

Not readiness to serve despite pre-conceived prejudices and not readiness to have a modernized military that accepts it’s 2009.

Consequently, our recent open letter advised America’s elected leaders: “We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

I would kind of think that it’d be a bigger burden to be stuck in pointless military operations all over the world while being subjected to the whims of a psychotic and painfully stupid Texan. That would probably break the morale of the military before gays would. And if people really care about the morale of the military, let’s, like, make sure the people in charge of the military don’t make lower-level soldiers torture people using justifications like Appendix M of the Army Field Manual. Because one would think that it would really hurt someone’s morale and enthusiasm for their military when they realize that the people in charge have gotten them to participate in illegal activities and then when the illegal activities are discovered, threw the lower-level soldiers under the fucking bus for the protection of the people in charge. Just a thought.

Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military.

There’s no constitutional right to refuse someone a job because you’re irrationally afraid they’re going to stare at your ass, either.


Skip to comment form



    • Robyn on June 28, 2009 at 03:34

    One more thing

    With Ellen Tauscher’s confirmation (finally), my friend Patrick Murphy now takes over as the lead on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act — i.e., “the thing that ends DADT.”  He’s been arguing DADT since he was in the military, and is ready to lead.

  2. it keeps military spending high, and allows the captains of “global governance” to believe they’re doing a good job while they steer world society along the path of mass suicide.  There’s really nothing to defend America from, today, that couldn’t be handled by a good police force and a public actually willing to lay its lives on the line for democracy, human rights, and (generally) something better than the proxy regimes typically created by US foreign policy.

    Perhaps priorities will change in a few years when abrupt climate change becomes a little more self-evident.

Comments have been disabled.