Easing the Transition

What a dump!
--Beyond the Forrest (1949)

If you really wanted to mess me up,
you should have got to me earlier
—High Fidelity, Nick Hornby

Why can't they have gay people in the army?
Personally, I think they are just afraid
of a thousand guys with M16s going,
"Who'd you call a faggot?"
--John Stewart
_________________

2010 was a slog, and we found little of national import to celebrate. However, the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gays serving in the military was one bright strike for truth-telling.

In honor of that decision, Ranger is holding another contest, challenging all readers to answer the question: What changes do you think will happen now that gay soldiers can serve openly?

Some suggestions:

• The Soldier's Creed will undergo a grammatical revision. Instead of "I will never leave my buddies behind", now: "I will never leave my buddy's behind"

• No fuit drinks served in mess halls or vending machines

• Neckwear remains regulation -- no feather boas or leis
  

• Roger's Rules for Rangers will become, "Roger's Rules for Rangers and Rangerettes". Emendations include, "Never leave your lip gloss behind" (now available in grapefruit and musk options.) Motto change: "Rangers Lead the Way, Gayly" {RLTWG]
  

• Now, one can bend over and pick up soap if dropped in the shower
  

• The Meritorious Service Medal will be redesigned to change the ribbon color from pink to a more androgynous mint green

• Never start a forced march before you've had your pedicure

• Clean Machine Gun prior to manicure

• Doughnut pillows now standard-issue

• Never wear a thong on a night jump

• Troops may wear mascara like the Taliban, fostering a competitive fashion spirit

• No hooped earrings allowed in combat pits

• Issey Miyake deodorant fragrance, optional
  

• Multiple awards of the Meritorious Service Medal will no longer be designated with an oak leaf cluster; to be replaced by a petite rosebud

• Tracers will go from red to fuschia

• It is o.k to call your rifle "Betsy"

• Chipped beef on toast will be replaced by a framboise reduction over pork medallions

• Chaplains assistants are no longer to be used for joke fodder

• Never leave two gay soldiers on point at a time. Ditto for guarding an objective rally point, in a buddy team, or as a Machine Gun crew

• As Winter Rangers are unofficially allowed to use white thread to affix their tabs, gay soldiers may use pink thread

Well, that's Ranger's start to help ease the transition. What are yours?

Bunk Mates

Martin Sutovec (Slovakia)

Because I could not stop for Death
He kindly stopped for me
--Emily Dickenson

Death is always the same,
but each man dies in his own way
--Carson McCullers

--I'll give you nothing more to eat.
--Then we'll die.
--I'll give you just enough to keep you from dying.
You'll be hungry all the time.
--Then we won't die
--Endgame, Samuel Beckett
________________

In a rather non-cohesive statement on unit cohesion and why the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy against openly gay service should remain intact, General James Amos -- new commandant of the U.S. Marine Crops said,

"There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers," he said. "I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're looking at. It's unit cohesion, it's combat effectiveness" (Marines' Leader: Keep Policy on Gays in Military.)

In Ranger's experience, death is never a shared experience; one is either dead or not, and no man can die your death for you. Everyone witnesses death as an individual, and one's confrontation with death does not change based upon one's sexual affiliation. Homosexual soldiers die and can witness death, too.

Pity the General does not abide by his word when he states his concerns: "This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. That’s what the country pays its Marines to do."

If Gen. Amos was worried about Marines' combat effectiveness, he might remember Staff Sergeant Eric Fidelis Alva, the first Marine seriously wounded in the Iraq occupation; SSG Alva is gay.

Alva lost a leg to an IED. When asked by interviewer Paula Zahn if he had ever been attracted to a soldier in the field, Alva said, "I never took my personal life to work." Exactly, as it should be for hetero Marines and soldiers, too.

Alva has also said, "I come from a family of servicemen. My dad, Fidelis, is a Vietnam vet. My grandfather, also named Fidelis, was a World War II and Korean War veteran. I was named after them. My middle name is Fidelis. Fidelis means faithful."

Faithful. It is the least the Commandant can be to his fellow Marines.

Semper Fi.

On the Wrong Bus

Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn't talk, it swears
--It's Alright Ma, Bob Dylan

If you get on the wrong train,
you'll never get to the right station
____________________

Distractions. That seems to be the name of the game in the U.S.A. 2010.

Upon reflection on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, this is nothing but a diversionary battle. The question of "should homosexuals be fully integrated into our society" is an absurd one; the answer in a compassionate and democratic society, evident. Such inquiries are emotional hot button issues and pure smokescreen leading us from the urgent issues upon which hinge the survival of our nation.

The issue of allowing gays to serve like everyone else masks the far more important questions of why American soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan at all, and why are they still positioned in Iraq. These are the questions that eclipse both the sun and the moon.

Ditto the abortion issue on which we spin our wheels, while ignoring the poverty and hunger that afflicts large portions of our population. Some oppose abortion, but forget about the fetus once it launches into the welfare system. We are distracted railing against that which may be legislated, but not affected at all, while the clock is ticking and the contours of our nation constrict daily.

We ask the wrong questions, leading to conclusions which cannot help us address what sort of nation we will actually end up in.

Plessy Versus Ferguson II

We hold these truths to be self-evident --
that ALL men are created EQUAL
--U.S. Constitution
___________________

"Needs of military take precedence over liberal social engineering" was a recent USA Today op-ed by Marine Corps veteran Tony Perkins arguing against the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT).

Every one of Mr. Perkins' assertions was deserving of refutation, and away we go:


[1] First, his thesis is erroneous.

The military has long been a site of social engineering. Testing -- vocational and psychological -- began in WW I; racial integration of non-segregated combat units began post-WW II. The current Volunteer Army (VOLAR) is also a form of social engineering by virtue of creating a separate military caste (versus the previous draft army.)

Military academies and ROTC are also forms of social engineering, as they professionalize the officer class. The integration of minorities and females into the officer corps of the military has also been a social engineering project. Females serving in deployable units is yet another form of social engineering.


[2] "A soldier must represent his or her country and maintain military discipline 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is why sexual behaviors such as adultery and sodomy remain crimes under military law."

This is a non-sequitur, and a faulty comparison, to boot. Sexual behavior does not necessarily impact upon one's ability to represent one's nation or to maintain discipline. (Sloppy sexual behavior would be an exception.) Adultery is a crime, or certainly a breech of contract; sodomy is just a variation on a theme, and not one confined to homosexuals. It is not a crime (even in Texas.) Why is sodomy a no-no, but fellatio and cunnilingus aren't?

If we are so moral, why are illegitimate offspring of service members now afforded coverage under the Tricare system? Is this sanctioning of fornication any less of an offense to order, discipline and soldierly conduct? To equate adultery to sodomy to unsoldierly conduct is hypocritical.


[3] "To put people with sexual attractions to one another into conditions of forced intimacy — sharing bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters — runs the risk of increasing sexual tension, harassment and even assault. These are clear threats to good order, morale and unit cohesion."

But "people with sexual attractions" are already in proximity -- they are called "men and women". Mr. Perkins is carrying on the libel that homosexuals are predatory and not in control of their libido. His illogic is revealed if one replaces gay male soldiers with female homosexual soldiers, or heterosexuals of either gender.

Is Perkins presuming men are strong enough to be soldiers, but not strong enough to fend off unwanted advances? Or that homosexuals are not regimented enough to curb their libidinous drives? He is condemning them a priori. It is the Mandingo fantasy in its 2010 update.


[4] "There is no constitutional right to serve in the military, and individuals are routinely denied enlistment on the basis of characteristics that would rarely, if ever, be the basis for exclusion from civilian employment. These include height, weight, family responsibilities, or even relatively minor health conditions such as asthma."

Homosexuality is not a pathology. It is a gender orientation which has no bearing on the individual's ability to perform a task. It does not prevent the service member from executing duties faithfully. As an aside, the first U.S. military service member wounded in the Iraq Occupation was Marine Staff Sergeant Eric Fidelis Alva, who lost his leg to an IED. Staff Sgt. Alva is homosexual. (Alva is quoted on his Wiki page as saying that his name, "Fidelis", means "faithful, and that he has always been faithful to the Corps, as have many previous generations of his family.)


[5] "Polls showing support for homosexuals in the military have been distorted by biased wording."

Opinions are irrespective of the Constitution. We have all become such slaves to the talking heads and the pollsters, but their views or results are irrelevant to the topic. Polls do not trump the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of all.


[6] "Only one in eight of the world's countries allow homosexuals in their armed forces. The 10 largest military forces all exclude homosexuals."

Irrelevant. We are our own example, and lead by American exceptionalism. It would be more relevant to look at our NATO allies. Nations like Afghanistan are filled with good family men who keep personal dancing boys for their pleasure. (But they are not gay, you see, because they do not love the boys.)

If you prohibit homosexuals from the military, not only do you indulge in affirmative action bias, you do not remove the scourge of rape and sexual abuse which is rampant among hetero service members.


[7] "The needs of the military must come before the demands of radical social activists."

Au contraire. The needs of the nation precede those of the military. We are not a military dictatorship.

One wonders if Mr. Perkins has ever known or had any interaction with a homosexual. Surely he acknowledges that a percentage of our population is homosexual, and phony arguments cannot change that fact or marginalize these people.

His arguments are lacking in Christian compassion and understanding, qualities which should not go missing in a man who is the leader of the Family Research Council.

[Cross-posted at MilPub]

A Bridge Too Far

Tried to run
Tried to hide
Break on through
to the other side
--Break on Through, The Doors

Well I'm not the world's most physical guy
But when she squeezed me tight
she nearly broke my spine
Oh my Lola, lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
--Lola, The kinks

All men are created equal
--U.S. Constitution
__________________

Unit cohesion and morale issues are the usual arguments given for banning gays in the military, but those who take that position never explain how forcing gays to serve while in the closet improves unit cohesion.

Ranger doubts that unit cohesion is even relevant as the concept is unquantifiable, and the argument is usually delivered in an emotional, knee-jerk fashion. Surely open service would be less detrimental to morale than open-ended wars absent identifiable objectives. What is morale, anyway?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell will eventually be repealed, and the military must accept this fact. However, the typical soldierly passive-aggression will reign, and the military will stonewall any gay that identifies himself as such. This comment applies primarily to the males, as lesbian personnel have always been accepted as long as they were buff and gruff, and acted like men.

Open gay service has always been the prerogative of females; the problem has been in accepting the males. It is doubtful that most gay male soldiers can even be identified as such since gays gravitating to the military will seldom be the swishy-type. Yet these are the gays that scare the chain of command.

Nobody cares about the leather-dominant gays since these personnel will present as het males. However, there is a weakness in the male psyche that feels threatened in the face of its anima. Why would a man secure in his masculinity be threatened by a gay man

Further, why do those men often behave threatened by Ranger, who is not gay and has done the "manly things"? Why are they angered by his defense of gays?

Men are afraid their status as man would be diminished if a gay were to also perform at the same level. To be a Ranger or Special Forces is to be apart from the gender-integrated Army. It is the last bastion of masculinity in any aspect of our society.

Even if a gay soldier performs at the extremities of manhood -- more extreme than being, say, a pro football player -- his alternate sexual orientation would not be accepted. Why, when that man is performing the very same tasks as his hetero brothers? One's sexual orientation should be constitutionally protected as a right of privacy.

Even when DADT is repealed, it would be detrimental for any male in the combat arms to declare an alternate sexual orientation as the threat of less than superior EER's and OER's would loom. These would be oblique attacks that are the classic career-killers.

Can one believe that a DA promotion board would select an openly serving gay as a CSM or General Officer? DADT can be rescinded, but the institutional Army mindset will persevere.

It will be the same as when blacks were integrated into the Army by Executive Order. It took many years for a black to be promoted to General Officer. Did any black oficers win a CMH [MOH] in the Korean War? The first black West Point grad (Flipper) was drummed out of the service on trumped-up charges. The same will be the fate of gay men proclaiming their sexuality; the Army knows how to drag its feet when faced with an unpopular policy, regardless of congressional dictate.

Gays seeking a career in the Army would be well-advised to "don't tell", even when legislation deletes DADT. Regulations will not change attitudes.

For that, a societal shift in necessary. Until we integrate all members, there will always be a fracture line.

Queer as Folk

Michael Jackson got married.
There are shows like “I Want to Marry a Millionaire.”
How sacred can it be?
--David Sedaris on gay marriage

Hans Moleman: Lesbian?!
This isn't my army reunion
Gay man in army clothes:
You're coming home with me
Hans Moleman: Yes, Colonel
--The Simpsons

[I]f God had thought homosexuality is a sin,
he would not have created gay people
--Howard Dean
_________________

Word, Howard. Too bad your masculine yawp has relegated you to the dustbin of history. There is simply no room for unrepentant male exuberance in politics today, as our president, the King of Cool, has demonstrated.

Ranger has some thoughts on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy. Since he entered active duty in 1968, it has been evident to him that bull diker types inhabit the U.S. Army in prodigious numbers and a freely accepted manner. Many of these women compete avidly with the men, and exercise so strenuously that they cease to have menstrual cycles. They are buff, hard and masculine.

These women do not threaten the male command structure and are therefore accepted. In fact, they reinforce the manly nature of the institution in their desire to compete on a man's playing field

At Ft. McClellan in the 1980's there was a Major General called "Mother Mary". She lived openly with a female Lieutenant Colonel an all knew her homosexual orientation, yet she was a Post Commander. Fellow writer FDChief speaks of his service in Panama, which was known as "Clam City" for its rampant lesbian activity among the ranks.

Compare this with the shelving of Air Force gayviator LTC Victor Fehrenbach. A decorated pilot, he will be discharged after 18 years of meritorious service because someone outed him as a gay man. Though Major Margaret Witt is fighting her discharge at the same time, the number of gay men discharged under DADT far exceeds the number of discharged lesbians. Why?

Gay men threaten to disrupt the masculine military ethos of the military. As friend Sheerahkahn wrote today: "thus the issue for the heterosexual men is that they feel like women around homosexual men." Het men feel feminized and thus vulnerable around gay men. Word, Sheerahkahn.

Those who say overturning DADT would disrupt discipline due to proximity in close quarters do not have a strong argument. In peacetime, we no longer have squad bay living; there are no gang showers or toilets.Officers have always lived in private or semi-private quarters.

Of course, neither applies in combat situations, but in Iraq and Afghanistan many troops live in modern billets. The fear of crazed homosexual overtures in the bunkers simply doesn't hold water.

That President Obama will be commemorating the Stonewall Riots Monday at the White House seems the height of hypocrisy to us. (The 1969 Stonewall Riots occurred in New York City when patrons of a city gay bar fought back against police brutality and harassment.) Obama could, with the flourish of a pen, roll back Clinton's DADT.

Whether viewed from a moral, military, legal or financial perspective, DADT makes no sense.

Well, We Didn't Really Mean "Everybody"

--See you later, Comrade
--You're a communist?
--No. But I can still have comrades
--Army of Shadows (1969)
________________

In his recent Cairo speech, President Obama declared it is a human right to have "the freedom to live as you choose." However, this belies his administration's reluctance to overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy regarding homosexuals in the military.

Why don't homosexuals in the U.S. have the same rights our Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) and democracy advocates pitch for Middle Easterners?

"To find common ground . . . and to respect the dignity of all human beings."

Indeed.