House of Eratosthenes

First off, big congratulations to blogsister Cassy for her name’s prominent mention in the pages of the Weekly Standard under the pen of Bill Kristol. Her take on this:

At what point does concern turn into hysterics, and when does it becoming insulting to our honorable men and women in uniform?

I think this is a valid question, and I’m glad she got the attention she deserves. I’m not in complete agreement on this though because, based on what I have seen, “hysterics” is an unfair description. If you’re going to argue about arguments, I think before you form your counter-argument you should make observations about the arguments that are accurate and hysteria is not accurate.

What I have seen is fairly cross-sectioned at Neptunus Lex (hat tip to blogger friend Buck). These are mostly-vets who are just plum worn-out from all the social experimentation on what is supposed to be our nation’s first & last layer of defense against enemies to the republic. What I’m seeing here is not hysteria, not even close; it’s fatigue. Something has to be said. I don’t know about you, but I’m not seeing a single shrill syllable in the lot of it.

I do agree with where she’s going with it though. Her point is that these men and women are tougher than a lot of people think, and they’re professionals. They’ll take their orders and they’ll find a way to make it work.

As for whether it makes sense to repeal DADT: I’ll leave it to those serving in combat, and those who have served, and those who command those who serve in combat to comment on the effect of the repeal. As a civvy, I’m just looking for a reasoned, rational and explainable selection — by someone who’s supportive of homosexuals serving in the military — out of one of the only three available options:

1. Bill Clinton and Sam Nunn are bigoted homophobes.
2. Bill Clinton and Sam Nunn lack socially progressive vision.
3. Bill Clinton and Sam Nunn got it right: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Which must mean Barack & pals just screwed things up.

I suspect the most popular response would be: None of the above. True to form, I’m looking for independent, critical thinking where nobody ever said such things exist even in trace quantities. This isn’t about making sense, it’s about bowing to the inevitable. It’s where the wind is drifting, and it makes sense for our fighting forces to follow along. Or lead the way. Whatever.

And here we come to my concerns about what’s going on: As a technology & software guy, I have made myself monotonous over the years repeating a tired mantra in the work place (very rarely): Doing things exactly the same way some other guy is doing them, or a bunch of other people are doing them, is the opposite of what technology is. Well, bowing to the inevitable and going-along-to-get-along is the opposite of defense’s ostensible purpose. If that is the mission, then there is no mission.

A fighting force should be kept in a state of readiness. And the readiness is to rise up, to interfere with something that is happening, and to reverse course.

If you agree with that — and I don’t see how you can disagree — then you must necessarily agree “they need to do it because that’s just the way it’s going” is simply not good enough.

One of my liberal cousins posted on his Facebook page what a wonderful thing it is that DADT was repealed. Now everyone can serve and “civil rights” have been restored. I avoided commenting, preferring to avoid causing a rift in the family, but I did note with some interest that A) he grew up in the US but moved to Canada many years ago and has since been living in France for the past decade B) the last time I saw him in person, I asked him about the Canadian military’s numbers, combat readiness, etc and he simply responded that Canadians prefer diplomacy over war.

The implication was that ” we aren’t like you warlike Americans.” Never mind that the guy was born in the United States and that Canada (and now France) are adopted countries at best. (He is, however, involved with a woman who is a been a Canadian citizen since birth). What was really interesting is that my cousin is not only past the age of military service, he showed no interest in it when he was younger. Likewise with his significant other. It made me wonder why he cares at all.

I was tempted to post on his page the following:

“Yes. It’s definitely more important to worry about social engineering than troop morale, especially as the United States is engaged in two wars in the Middle East. Curiously, the military units actually doing the fighting in these wars are the ones most opposed to full integration of homosexuals, and would also be the ones most affected (compromised? weakened?) by such a move. Frankly, this is a bad idea and I’m disgusted that the incoming Congress has no plans to overturn it. I would prefer we revert back to the 1980s-era policy of a complete ban on homosexuals in the military.”
- cylarz | 12/24/2010 @ 13:05
And the really funny part – I missed the part where military service is a “civil right” rather than a privilege – much like voting or getting married, for that matter.
- cylarz | 12/24/2010 @ 13:07
Homosexuality is about aggrandizing the self in the face of society. If it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be necessary to repeal DADT. People seem to focus on the “DT” portion, but the institutional imperative is on “Don’t Ask.”

Military service is about discipline and sacrifice. If I’m fat and I want to serve, I have to sacrifice and become disciplined to lose the weight. I remain unconvinced that removing a layer of discipline and sacrifice will do anything other than weaken the institution. All this will do is shift the burden from those who have incurred it to those who haven’t.
- Jason | 12/25/2010 @ 11:32
During the Viet Nam war there was something called “fragging.” It was the result of rebellion or mutiny in the ranks because some men hit a tipping point when it came to being subject to orders that were suicidal, unreasonably risky, or just plain stupid, by officers and NCOs who they saw as not being overly concerned with their well-being.

The kind of people who are willing to be out on the front lines need to know that their comrades are there because they share a common goal, not because some civilians want to claim some kind of success in social experimentation. Things or situations that can be disruptive to the mission at hand should be eliminated whenever it is logical, practical and possible to do so.

I don’t think we need any Bradley Mannings in combat situations, where he might suddenly decide to give away positions because he feels like he’s in an awkward place or is getting hazed by the tougher guys in his squad.
- Moshe Ben-David | 12/26/2010 @ 03:45
When I was in junior high, the fashion one year was to roll the cuff of one’s jeans tightly against the ankle. If you didn’t do this you were a dork, and a nerd, and a loser, and a homo, and every other insult junior high kids can fling. So I, like everyone else, tight-rolled my jeans. Sometime over the summer, though, tight-rolling fell out of fashion, and so when I came back the next year with my cuffs all scrunched up, I was called a nerd, a loser, a homo, etc. for not letting my pants hang naturally.

That’s leftism in a nutshell. They don’t care about gays in the military. Or gay marriage. Or gay anything, really — I live in a college town, y’all, where gayness is next to godliness, and after a brief flurry of “hooray”-type editorials gay marriage was never mentioned again after IA, MA, HI, etc. legalized it by judicial fiat. Nor have I seen one gay wedding announcement — or gay enlistment — posted on Facebook, even though I’m “friends” (for professional reasons) with people who never tire of posting tedious political screeds on every conceivable subject. It’s just fashion, is all, and if some of our brave soldiers have to die for lefties to feel good about themselves, well….
- Severian | 12/26/2010 @ 16:00

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Your Obligatory “Repealing DADT” PostFriday, December 24th, 2010

Your Obligatory “Repealing DADT” Post
Friday, December 24th, 2010