Rebane's Ruminations
December 2010
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Yesterday the Senate passed a bill to revoke the longstanding ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy banning gays serving openly in the military.  Senator and combat veteran John McCain pronounced the passage a “sad day” for the military, adding "I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage, and we could possibly … harm the battle effectiveness which is so vital to the survival of our young men and women in the military".  What did he mean by that?

Before liberals go ballistic on charges of unwarranted ‘discrimination’ and homophobia, it’s good to take a deep breath.  The opposition comes down to open homosexuality in a combat unit that is on par with open heterosexuality in such a unit.  I recall discussing this situation over the years, starting way back when I was on active duty as an artillery officer.  We always came back to the same sticking point – in combat you don’t want two people in love serving in the same unit that is in or about to be in harm’s way.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s your wife or husband or boyfriend or girlfriend or your same-sex lover.  People naturally make decisions that favor their lover over consideration for larger objectives the achievement of which would put their dear one in danger, or perhaps even sacrifice him/her.  Those kinds of considerations don’t belong in either the heat or anticipation of battle.  And if their existence is known to others, the collateral damage to cohesion and morale can be immeasurable, even to the point of totally compromising the mission and/or the unit.

So what to do about gays in the military?  Well, you can come up with a slew of other rules and regulations about who can get assigned where.  But if you have a unit that starts out with no one in love (or lust) with each other, but still have the possibility of that happening at some unknown point in the future, you have the same problem.  And it could be even worse for everyone if the lovers attempt to keep their relationship a secret from the others, because their actions will still be dominated by their concern for each other.

Because it also applies to heterosexuals, this is a tough problem that is totally independent of whether someone promotes or opposes other aspects of homosexual life – like same-sex marriage – in open society.  But I fear that its dissection will always bring in side charges of ‘homophobia’ etc to divert discussion of the real factors involved in having lovers share a foxhole.

Posted in , ,

66 responses to “Lovers in a Foxhole”

  1. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    SExual identity and skin color are two different things. To demean the sacrifice of blacks to gain equality in contra with people who have unnatural sex is a simple leftwing travesty.

    Like

  2. George Rebane Avatar

    I also think that confusing the black experience in the military with that of homosexuals does not address the essential elements of this debate.

    Like

  3. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    That’s not fair Paul,
    You know us conservatives go all wobbly at the knees
    when you pull out the Berry Goldwater card. Is there
    an argument left to which you guys don’t have a
    formulaic left wing response? What is the URL to the
    “How to respond to conservatives.” web site?

    Like

  4. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Sorry, Barry not Berry
    A sin Paul?

    Like

  5. RL Crabb Avatar

    Todd – Blacks and homosexuals do have something in common…they are all human beings.

    Like

  6. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    You your head of course they are human beings, the issue is civil rights.

    Like

  7. George Rebane Avatar

    Bob, is not that the same as opposing a progressive tax system with the argument that all should be taxed in common because the rich and poor are in common all human beings? Where I come from, such palliative conversation stoppers are looked at in askance, or worse …

    Like

  8. RL Crabb Avatar

    George, in my business I’m used to being looked at in askance, or worse. And Todd, “You your…” What the hell are you talking about?
    It’s pointless to debate this issue any further. Everyone has their position etched in stone. The best argument I’ve heard in favor is that it was decided by Congress rather than the courts. It’s a done deal. Period.

    Like

  9. George Rebane Avatar

    Didn’t know you wanted to stop the conversation Bob. But then again, you do have a point.

    Like

  10. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Bob, say what?

    Like

  11. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Barry was much like Ron Paul in that he had principals that were beyond political slogans or convenience . He was pretty much dumped by the Reagan crown because he didn’t go along with the social conservative tantrums of the time.
    If conservatives get wobbly at the Barry Goldwater card it’s because they have abandoned the principals of conservative thought that he believed in. Overcoming prejudice by integrating the military was not easy but it was a principal that was consistent with the evolution of freedom. Much the same with gays in the military. Five years from now it won’t even be an issue. That’s what Goldwater was referring to when he admitted he feared the worst when the military was integrated and became all voluntary.

    Like

  12. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    I don’t think RL wants to stop the conversation, he’s just sayin’ that because Congress made the decision instead of the courts, the debate will whither sooner rather than later.
    The judiciary cut short the abortion debate, for example, and here we are almost 38 years later still yelling at each other across the table about it.
    I agree that the analogy between minorities in the military and gays in the military doesn’t really match up quite right. Women in the military, however, does have a strong analogue.
    I agree with Paul E. that Goldwater and Ron Paul have some things in common. What they don’t have in common is that Ron Paul has far less influence now than Goldwater once did. The days of the political maverick are just about over. And that includes the Tea Party. You just watch.

    Like

  13. RL Crabb Avatar

    Far be it from me to end the conversation. It just seems that it’s going downhill, into the namecalling and insults you said you wanted to avoid. The ball is in the military’s court now. It’s up to the gay soldier to prove his/her worth and live up to the standards of military conduct. For the straights, it’s a matter of overcoming prejudice. That’s all I’m sayin’.

    Like

  14. Steve Enos Avatar
    Steve Enos

    “It’s up to the gay soldier to prove his/her worth and live up to the standards of military conduct”
    NEWS FLASH… the gay members of our armed forces have proving themselves for more than a few wars. Many have given their lives while serving to defend our freedom and the rest of the world’s too.
    Many gay service memebrs now rest in Arlington National Cemetery… they have no need to “prove” anything… they already have!

    Like

  15. Mikey McD Avatar

    Discussing the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
    Smokescreen, nothing more than smokescreen.
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    Like

  16. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Mikey
    Barry Goldwater and I agree with you.
    “It’s time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It’s time to get on with more important business.”
    Can you tell-I was once a Barry Goldwater supporter so so long ago.

    Like

Leave a comment