View Full Version : Special forces wary of 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal
BMT (RIP)
12-28-2010, 05:44
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/special-forces-wary-of-dont-ask-repeal/
BMT
Is one lower ranking gay team guy worth more than the Team Sergeant and Team Leader who tried to make him toe the line?
When Joe Blow - oh crap did I just hurt someone's feelings - runs to the IG about how he's treated on the team who do you think the CofC is going to back - after the congressional and special interest groups park outside the office.
How many homosexual men actually want to join SF?
How many homosexual men actually want to join SF?
I assume both-that your question in rhetorical, and that your intent is to point out the abject stupidity of the premise.
Another question along that line: How many SF martyrs wouldn't mind a homo on their team?
How many homosexual men actually want to join SF?
I'm sure SF ranks right up there with joining The Village People
:eek:
BMT's article link refers to the fact that a lot of money would spent on writing policies regarding treatment of "openly gay" Soldier. The question is, if there are very few that actually attempt to go through the whole process, will it be worth for you guys given that attrition is very high during the selection process? When I say you guys, I mean the SF community. Since I am not part of that community, I would not know.
How many homosexual men actually want to join SF?
I have known two for sure. A couple of others wasn't so sure. Never had any issues. They kept their private life to themselves just as much as anyone else. Thats why I just don't see this repeal effecting our community. Were professionals. We serve as SF first. There will probably be one or two Spec Op's guys that come out to make a point, could be any unit, SEALS, Rangers, SF...etc.
The regular Army will have some problems. But thats why I didn't serve in the regular Army. We all have choices.
I have known two for sure. A couple of others wasn't so sure. Never had any issues. They kept their private life to themselves just as much as anyone else.
Then they weren't "openly gay", correct?
There's gonna be a big difference, IMO; even in SF.
Peregrino
12-28-2010, 09:41
BMT's article link refers to the fact that a lot of money would spent on writing policies regarding treatment of "openly gay" Soldier. The question is, if there are very few that actually attempt to go through the whole process, will it be worth for you guys given that attrition is very high during the selection process? When I say you guys, I mean the SF community. Since I am not part of that community, I would not know.
Attrition rates (promotion rates, any other personnel action statistic, etc., etc.) only apply to individuals that are not members of "protected" classes. Don't look now but quotas are alive and well - even within the SOF community (yes; I did use SOF, SF aren't the only people facing this problem).
You mean subjectivity is an established component in the selection and evaluation processes for SOF? I'm shocked. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
12-28-2010, 12:11
I have known two for sure. A couple of others wasn't so sure. Never had any issues. They kept their private life to themselves just as much as anyone else. Thats why I just don't see this repeal effecting our community. Were professionals. We serve as SF first. There will probably be one or two Spec Op's guys that come out to make a point, could be any unit, SEALS, Rangers, SF...etc.
The regular Army will have some problems. But thats why I didn't serve in the regular Army. We all have choices.
That is because of thre rules and policies that were in place then. Anyone who kept it private was free to serve. This is going to allow those who want to be openly gay and proud of it to serve.
Whole new ballgame coming now. In your face behavior will be not just okay, but impossible to complain about without being painted an intolerant homophobe.
Wiseman, as soon as the first openly gay candidate is not selected, he will be on the phone to his Congresscritter the same day and the selection letter will be in the mail within 72 hours. Bet on it.
Look at the only female to attend SF training and be awarded a certificate. She got the diploma only after legal action and political intervention.
If the people making these decisions knew how the promotion system actually works with quotas, AKA "goals", they might be more cautious about creating another protected group.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Attrition rates (promotion rates, any other personnel action statistic, etc., etc.) only apply to individuals that are not members of "protected" classes. Don't look now but quotas are alive and well - even within the SOF community (yes; I did use SOF, SF aren't the only people facing this problem).
Actually, we are all members of a protected class because we all fall under specific ethnic, gender, religious or racial catagories. Therefore, if you're a white male protestant, you are protected. But, if you decided to come out of the closet, you'd fall into an unprotected catagory.
Other catagories which are not protected such as age, disability, women for certain type jobs, and for the next six months or more, gays are therefore legaly discriminated against in the military. For instance, if I know you're physicaly disabled and unable to work on the ODA, I'm not going to recommend you for certain schools, and or perhaps a promotion above your peers, BUT if I know you're black, white, Jewish, Mormon, or any other protected class, I can't exclude you, or treat any different in regard to any administrative actions. Soon this will include gays.
You have now checked your EO block, and no I won't be giving gay awareness training...jd
Everybody in SOF understands that to be in the 'open' is to be in a danger area, and I'm thinking that anyone who is gay and has enough SA to be in SOF in the first place will continue to have enough SA to weigh the merits of avoiding the Lorelei's lure of 'openness' for the time being.
Richard :munchin
TrueBeliever
12-28-2010, 12:42
The U.S. Army survived and thrived for 218 years prior to DADT - certainly there were homosexuals who served during those years - the other military services also survived and thrived for many years prior to DADT. I am unsure if the repearl of DADT is really worth getting spun up about.
The Reaper
12-28-2010, 12:49
The U.S. Army survived and thrived for 218 years prior to DADT - certainly there were homosexuals who served during those years - the other military services also survived and thrived for many years prior to DADT. I am unsure if the repearl of DADT is really worth getting spun up about.
Have you served in a forward deployed or remote area as a member of an SF or infantry unit?
Have you spent a lot of time showering in a communal area with members of another gender other than your spouse?
TR
The U.S. Army survived and thrived for 218 years prior to DADT - certainly there were homosexuals who served during those years - the other military services also survived and thrived for many years prior to DADT. I am unsure if the repearl of DADT is really worth getting spun up about.
Of course you're unsure, you've never served. Many who have served are also unsure but, many who have or are still serving also have well founded reservations or outright apprehension.
For me, it's just another social experiment that deal more in the political agenda than what's best for our national defense while engaged. It seems that the rights and opinions of those who do serve have been subjected to an agenda which doesn't take anyhting else into account.
But, we'll see how it goes....jd
TrueBeliever
12-28-2010, 13:20
Have you served in a forward deployed or remote area as a member of an SF or infantry unit?
TR
No, I have not (my bio states as much, had you checked). Please educate me as to why that would make a difference.
TrueBeliever
12-28-2010, 13:34
Of course you're unsure, you've never served. Many who have served are also unsure but, many who have or are still serving also have well founded reservations or outright apprehension.
For me, it's just another social experiment that deal more in the political agenda than what's best for our national defense while engaged. It seems that the rights and opinions of those who do serve have been subjected to an agenda which doesn't take anyhting else into account.
But, we'll see how it goes....jd
No, I've never served. Do you believe that prior to DADT, the members within the units where homosexuals were serving did not know that they were serving with homosexuals? I doubt that. Did that adversely affect unit readiness? I don't know and don't think anyone does for certain. The politicians have always put their own self-interests first and the military has always put our national security first. This will not be changed by the reversal of DADT. This is why I am unsure of why there is so much hype. Warriors will remain warriors no matter what the politicians say or do.
The Reaper
12-28-2010, 13:40
No, I have not (my bio states as much, had you checked). Please educate me as to why that would make a difference.
I did check your bio, I just wanted to make the point.
So you have no experience in living in the conditions you would subject me and my brothers to, but you feel fine in stating that it will cause no problems.
Would it bother you if we were to pass a law mandating unisex restrooms, and tearing down the partitioned stalls?
TR
TrueBeliever
12-28-2010, 13:42
Have you served in a forward deployed or remote area as a member of an SF or infantry unit?
Have you spent a lot of time showering in a communal area with members of another gender other than your spouse?
TR
TR - your second question made your point that eluded me with your first. I apologize for my prior lack of understanding of your concerns - I didn't think of the communal showers.
TR - your second question made your point that eluded me with your first. I apologize for my prior lack of understanding of your concerns - I didn't think of the communal showers.
Single parents (male & female) is another social experiment forced on the military.
It was OK when the military didn't go much of anywhere in the old days. A little shuffling of assignments, making somebody pull extra duty a unit could get by.
But military recruiting stressed "family" and "schooling" not "service" for many years.
The leadership works hard and makes things work - but the big question is "Is the cure worth the hassle that comes with it?"
As many here have said, I've know gay soldiers while I was in. But that was under the old policy and DADT. There will be a big difference under the "Serve Openly" policy and it will be driven by the aganda folks and special interest groups.
This is not the end it is just the begining.
This is not the end it is just the begining.
Next up? Open coprophagia, no doubt.
Surgicalcric
12-28-2010, 14:50
Good order and discipline right out the window...and in the mean time the ushering in of equal opportunities for the dick-suckers (its bad enough people in political positions have their hands in the recruitment of minorities into combat arms, now they will find a way to force the recruitment of gays as well...)
Furthermore, I shutter to think of the shit storm which will be caused when someone gets their ass beat while meat-gazing in the showers...
No, I've never served. Do you believe that prior to DADT, the members within the units where homosexuals were serving did not know that they were serving with homosexuals? I doubt that. Did that adversely affect unit readiness? I don't know and don't think anyone does for certain. The politicians have always put their own self-interests first and the military has always put our national security first. This will not be changed by the reversal of DADT. This is why I am unsure of why there is so much hype. Warriors will remain warriors no matter what the politicians say or do.
After 31 years of service, yes. Of course I knew of gays within the command, most of us did who'd been around for awhile. Most of them did their jobs and didn't push an agenda or their sexual desires upon anyone, and neither did anyone else.
Otherwise......
Some people, especially those who never served, don't know the unintended consequences and ignore the counsel of those they choose to impose their agenda upon. Perhaps you're one of them? I would suggest you read the many postings on this site regarding DADT, and the many legitimate concerns which have been ignored.
:rolleyes:....jd
TrueBeliever
12-28-2010, 14:58
Next up? Open coprophagia, no doubt.
Isn't that when one eats SOS in the chow hall? :D
The people who force these things usually just do it to make themselves feel better as if they had stopped oppressive forces from winning and that everything will be right in the world after this. Unfortunately, they actually have power and sway. That's the way it is though...
blue02hd
12-29-2010, 01:10
Isn't that when one eats SOS in the chow hall? :D
Any issues with me showering with your daughter?
Tree Potato
12-29-2010, 23:42
I know it's been said before but it's worth repeating: we're still at war. Everyone in the military should be strictly focused on either winning the current war or scanning the horizon for emerging threats. Anything that interferes with that unity of effort and singularity of purpose during a time of war distracts people from the mission at hand and detracts from our ability to win. This issue should have been set aside to deal with later after we've achieved victory.
Every minute the SECDEF, any service secretary, or any service chief spends thinking about this is a minute their eyes are off the ball. Same goes for every military member at every rank and every echelon. We shouldn't be wasting time on this right now.
TrueBeliever
12-30-2010, 10:48
I know it's been said before but it's worth repeating: we're still at war. Everyone in the military should be strictly focused on either winning the current war or scanning the horizon for emerging threats. Anything that interferes with that unity of effort and singularity of purpose during a time of war distracts people from the mission at hand and detracts from our ability to win. This issue should have been set aside to deal with later after we've achieved victory.
Every minute the SECDEF, any service secretary, or any service chief spends thinking about this is a minute their eyes are off the ball. Same goes for every military member at every rank and every echelon. We shouldn't be wasting time on this right now.
Well said.
Roguish Lawyer
04-28-2011, 15:37
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110428/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military
I still dont know how to define "openly"...
Is "openly" heterosexual behavior finally going to be tolerated?
...or is it still going to be called PDA?
BrokenSwitch
04-29-2011, 10:11
Maybe it's just me, but the first article sounded like a confused jumble, with the odd stereotypes, misconceptions and political jabs thrown in -- they even HAD to mention black people being underrepresented because of racist WASPs:
“But, many parts of the SOF community are very white and conservative. That already hurts minority recruitment and will inevitably have an adverse affect on outwardly gay male soldiers.” A 1999 Rand study found that “blacks are particularly underrepresented [in SOF] when compared with their presence in the source populations.”
And of course there was this gem:
... to maintain unit cohesion of Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs or other elite covert warriors, the military services and U.S. Special Operations Command need to make a special effort to ensure both homosexuals and heterosexuals know the rules of conduct.
^ You mean the UCMJ? Let's cross-train them with the AG branch while we're at it. It'll keep this guy happy:
“My opinion is that they’re probably more clerical oriented. Medical profession. Corpsmen. Stuff like that.”
Isn't that how women started in the service? Meanwhile, dogs joined the military as MPs and EOD techs... I sense discrimination-- why can't Spike and Rex fly helicopters?
anotherjon
04-29-2011, 11:02
I hope I'm not out of place here, but I figured this was relevent. Circa 2005, there was an incident within an infantry company at 3/325, 82nd. A soldier dishonored his service by posting a video of himself performing random sexual acts on another soldier. He did this in uniform. One can only imagine what happened next...
One would think they had a party with balloon animals and sock puppets? Nope. Soldiers within the unit put out threats (rightfully so, as he dishonored every person who has worn/died in the unit before him). Consequently, the soldier was confined and discharged (I'm not certain of the nature).
There were threats and all sorts of disturbances within the battalion. The battalion and company had briefings and sit-downs. The point being, is that this incident was a complete waste of time for all. Time was taken out of the week to deal with this issue.
With DADT, I can't imagine the new mandatory sensitivity briefings to ensure no soldiers' feelings get hurt. :munchin
I see this as a complete waste of time.
my.0002
*Note. When I was in, I could care less about the sexual orientation of the guy serving next to me as long as it didn't interfere with his work performance.
Does anyone remember "McNamaras' 100,000" and how well that turned out?!
What happens down the road when your senior leadership is openly gay? First Sargeant? Bn CO?
Masochist
04-30-2011, 17:03
I still dont know how to define "openly"...
Is "openly" heterosexual behavior finally going to be tolerated?
...or is it still going to be called PDA?
Just like comedy, know your audience. :cool:
While the idea of women in combat arms, the repeal of DADT, etc. isn't new, why does it seem as though both are being forced down servicemembers' throats at the same time? Upcoming election? Good timing as we're "supposed to be" closing out the war on two fronts? Just a general assault on the status quo in the profession of combat arms? Or something completely different?
For those who have been in longer than me, was there another time where multiple drastic changes to the force (personnel-wise) were implemented at the same time? What were the short/long term effects?
Gates was quoted in the Houston Chronicle today as being surprised at the lack of push-back the DADT transition is receiving. I frickin' near spit my coffee out and I know the other customers were wondering what was so interesting in the paper.
I still dont know how to define "openly"...
Is "openly" heterosexual behavior finally going to be tolerated?
...or is it still going to be called PDA?
Don't be seen walking in uniform to the on-post movie threatre holding hands with your girl.
Utah Bob
06-14-2011, 12:46
This thread is so Gay:D
Not that there's anything wrong with that.;)
The U.S. Army survived and thrived for 218 years prior to DADT - certainly there were homosexuals who served during those years - the other military services also survived and thrived for many years prior to DADT. I am unsure if the repearl of DADT is really worth getting spun up about.
I think a lot of people forget that DADT was a step forward for the gays. Before the policy they were screened prior to entering the military and could not join at all if they answered yes to being homosexual. DADT gave them an inch and allowed them to serve as long as they were not open about it. Now they want to take a mile and flaunt it. This is a horrible change of policy and it will effect unit cohesiveness. The only reason there hasn't been an open backlash is because as military members we are professionals and obey orders.
As somebody mentioned above, what is going to happen when our commanding officer or another leader is gay? No amount of training will overcome the fact that most people view homosexuality as abnormal (at minimum) and will not have complete faith in the person leading them.
AngelsSix
06-15-2011, 16:00
I don't have a problem with anyone who is openly gay, then I know who to avoid. They are also likely not interested in me. I fear the people who are still acting like there is something to hide. Those are the ones who will cause problems.
Training on Bragg covers end of gay ban
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/06/17/1102271?sac=Mil
"Pfc. Michael Davis wasn't alive when the military began accepting women and blacks................"
From deeper in the story....
".......When it comes to benefits, soldiers in homosexual relationships will be considered single, even if they were married in one of the states where homosexual marriage is legal. But sodomy will no longer be a crime in the military as long as it's consensual.
The federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, which means the military can't................"
"Can't" means "but we will when the federal law changes".
When the form changes, and it will, all you straight guys had better mark "gay" if you want to be promoted.
Does anyone remember "McNamaras' 100,000" and how well that turned out?!
What happens down the road when your senior leadership is openly gay? First Sargeant? Bn CO?
I remember McNamara's 100,000! It dumbed down the Infantry tremdendously. I had a Private named John Prince, from West Virginia, in my platoon in Augsburg, Germany, that couldn't walk to the snack bar without signing a contract with one of the civilian vendors. It didn't matter if it was for cookware, encyclopedias or custom tailored English suits...Prince woild buy it. It was so bad that on paydays, I would have to march Prince to buy the barbershop to buy coupons for the month. I also had to take him to the cleaners to buy his coupons so that he would be able to have his Class A uniforms for Saturday morning inspections.
John was KIA during his 1st week in RVN.