Posted by Sam, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Combat units will be negatively affected by allowing openly gay soldiers. A patrol unit, with a gay lieutenant and one or two gay soldiers, will be suspect, because the lieutenant will be suspected of currying favor with his gay suborninates. It is the same thing with opposite sexes in combat patrols...but those don't exist.
The U.S. military is not a social experiment, like the Dutch military, which exalted in in its openess to gays. That same Dutch military did not shoot a shot at Srebrenicia. The Dutch are still trying to live down that shame.
This ruling will have a negative effect on our national security.
Posted by VoxPop, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Samuel, you are quite wrong. There's a pretty good list of militaries who have openly gay people serving with no detriment to security: Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, permit gay people to serve openly. Israel, one of the toughest armies in the world not only permits gay people to serve openly, it conscripts women -- who also serve in combat...they don't view it as a social experiment.
Here's a list of countries who accept gays in the military: Albania, Argentina, Australia (20 years), Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Republic of China, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark,Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom (10+ years), Uruguay
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 8:13 am
"You are saying a US serviceman can't be trusted with the lives of his team members because he's gay?"
I am saying that a perception of favortism by a gay officer for his gay subordinates will have a negative effect on unit cohesion. There is nothing new about all this. Ernst Rohm, head of the S.A. was a well known homosexual who favored other homosexuals in the S.A. In Israel, the IDF considered homosexuals to be a security risk, and routinely limited their influence in the IDF (until politicians forced them to accept homosexuals). The Dutch military leadership attributed part of the Srebrenica debable on an overemphasis of gays in the Dutch military, and a breakdown of unit cohesion (also forced upon the military by politicians).
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 8:28 am
Put it into straight terms for everyone to understand...A unit run by a man, with 2 females in the unit and the rest men. The men note that the women are being favored for less dangerous or difficult jobs by the leader, who also happens to have a twinkle in his eye for them.
That is why sexuality is kept out of units on the battlefield. Obviously, "in the closet" "don't ask don't tell" gays in the military exist. Not much of an issue in non-combat positions: Health Care and Administrative, for example. But, in the field, the difference is that there is a constant idea of "unit cohesion" not "individualism in the unit". The concept is "we are one" in a unit. We would have the same argument about a woman in the unit who can pass herself off as a man ( as has happened). As long as everyone believed she was "the same" as them, there was no tension around the cohesion. The moment it is revealed that she is a woman, not a man, there are problems.
This is one of the reasons women were taken out of front lines in Israel, as well. ( The other being they were a magnet for the enemy to fight harder and more, not wanting to lose to " a girl")
Nothing to do with "anti-gay" anything...
But, in the end, I think we have to let this play out in our military, as in others, and let the military decide what works best for their job...as well as for their survival.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 10:53 am
" don't think team members' lives can be trusted to another man. That's awfully silly, but maybe you men know something I don't about other men."
What a silly comment! Bosses at work have a long-established record of favoring their girlfriends at work. Same with professors, including homosexual professors. This is not rocket science!
Unit cohesion, especially in small combat (tip of the spear) units, is crucial to their success in killing the enemy. This is why the Marine Corps is so strong in resisting a repeal of DADT. If there is a perception that I am running point too often, compared to my fellow soldier/Marine, who is gay, becasue he and the lieutenant share a possible sexual attraction for each other, then that unit will be severely weakened.
Our nation's military should not be subject to social design experiments, just because the homosexual lobby demands it. The mission of the military is to kill the enemy, period. Nothing should get in the way of that mission.
Posted by Susan, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 1:50 pm
No reason there should be any issues with gay soldiers. It is just intolerance and hatred propogated by the religious right and the republican party. Sam and perspective are just showing us their homophobia. Their arguments are baseless and ridiculous (gay favoritism from gay commanders, the nazis and lies about the israeli military!!). Get over it, haters.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 2:18 pm
"Their arguments are baseless and ridiculous"
No Susan, they are very rational arguments. Your denial is ridiculous. If you simply flip the argument, as Perspective has done, and put it in terms of female soldiers under male control, you might get it. Our current military has had huge issues with females being pressured by male leaders...and this isn't even in front line combat units. I recall an issue, when females were first allowed to serve with men, in the Navy...it was called the "love boat", because so many women returned from that 11 month tour, pregnant (even though fraternization was forbidden). Sexual attraction is a force of nature, and it cannot be eliminated.
The homosexual lobby should not be allowed to control our military policies. It is very self serving, and destructive to our national security.
Posted by Susan, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Sorry, sharon (whoops, I mean sam) your arguments are ridiculous and biased. There is no problem to address. The military and congress has made a decision. Militaries all over the world allow gays to openly serve and it is not an issue. Also do not forget that because of intolerance, that is continuesd to be fostered by you, 9/11 occurred. Yes, we booted out of the service arab translators because they were gay. Messages that could have been used to stop the attack sat untranslated. That is what is destructive to our national security. Hatred and intolerance by the religious right and the republicans, the partners of al qeida. And booing of a soldier by people is shameful.
Posted by Susan, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Call it absurd if you want. The story is there look for it online. It is a fact that 9/11 may have been prevented had it not been for the intolerance of people like sam. Now these same people are booing soldiers serving in combat situations. Shameful, shocking and disgraceful. Hatred and intolerance trumps national security for people like sam and his fellow republicans. It is ridiculous comments from people like sam (gay commanders favoring gay soldiers, the SS and lies about the IDF) that preclude a rational discussion
Posted by Susan, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Sam(sharon) tries to cover up the fact that 9/11 could have been prevented had we not discharged arab translators with nonsense about OBL and bill clinton!! I must have sam (sharon) on the run since he/she is reverting to form-muddy the waters with nonsense. Unit cohesion will not be affected by gays in the military. It has been proven elsewhere to not be an issue. Amazing that people like sam (sharon) would jeopardize our national security to further their agenda of intolerance. Of course, sam ( sharon) is one of those people that would unapologetically boo a gay soldier serving in combat!! Sam (sharons) claims are absurd.
Posted by Susan, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Sam/sharon have not really raised any issues of substance and importance. The brass had made a decision, the troops will obey. These comments about unit cohesion were also bright up when the service was integrated. In the meantime out national security had been jeopardized by intolerance. 9/11 may have been prevented.
Posted by Susan, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Because he is gay.because the republicans hate gay people. Because saying anything positive to a gay person would upset te right wing zealots that control the republican party. Intolerance is more important than national security our expressing thanks to certain of our soldiers.sussu