Time to talk politics.

[Narsia Ny'Dhun]

On this day, Saturday the 18th of December, in the year 2010CE, the United States Senate passed repeal of the long debated Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that only allowed homosexuals in the Armed Forced to serve if they kept their sexual identity to themselves.

The policy that was set in place by then Democratic President William Jefferson Clinton (known in mainstream circles by his more popular moniker "Slick Willy") stated that while homosexuals could serve in the US Military, they could not do so openly. The penalty for being 'found out' was in all cases immediate discharge and the end of one's military career.

It has been a long debated topic for the last seventeen years since implementation, some citing the policy as a clear violation of the basic human right to give all for one's country while others praised the policy for allowing all Americans to serve in all branches without adding the danger of a potentially deadly 'distraction' to American troops on the battlefield.

For the last year, talk on repeal of the long standing policy has been fierce, with noteworthy Republicans leading repeated blocks against repeal. Most notable of all was Senator John McCain (R) of Arizona who called the bill's passage today the work of "elite liberals with no military experience pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime". McCain has grown a level of infamy among liberals for constantly using his prior service in the military to justify his views supporting the DADT policy while openly ignoring the opinions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a recent Pentagon study that cited an overwhelming support of repeal of the policy (a study that he initially demanded to see in its entirety before even allowing discussion on the topic of repeal, which he later discarded in favor of his own views).

Despite long opposition, and the attempt to kill the bill by Senator McCain by way of a filibuster voted, the bill to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell passed an overwhelming majority in both the House of Representatives (250/175) as well as the United States Senate (65/31). Surprise came in the form of eight Republicans who voted for the repeal, giving the Senate more than the 60 votes they needed to pass the bill under the Super Majority rule.

Sixty days hence, gays and lesbians serving in the Armed Forces may now serve openly without fear of ending their military career. Many have called this a giant leap for civil and equal rights. Yahoo! News was cited as saying, "Many activists hope that integrating openly gay troops within the military will lead to greater acceptance in the civilian world, as it did for blacks after President Harry Truman's 1948 executive order on equal treatment regardless of race in the military."

"The military remains the great equalizer," said Senator John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts. "Just like we did after President Truman desegregated the military, we'll someday look back and wonder what took Washington so long to fix it."

Love it or hate it, history has been made today. While in other parts of the world homosexuals may potentially face life imprisonment or even death for not hiding their identity, one small and influential corner of the world has taken a single step toward a world accepting of people who are different from the assumed norm.

In the opinion of this lone individual, this is the best thing to happen to my country all year. A Christmas miracle has taken place this day. I could not be happier if I tried.

[veraka]

Alright; time to get down and dirty.

To start with, I've never really minded the fact that no matter where I am in the world, I'll always find others whom are different, in both cultural, personal and moral beliefs. Does that mean that they deserve my apathy right on the spot, no.

Same thing applies to our armed forces. If one is homosexual, well, then they're homosexual. No one is gonna change that, and it's a nice thing to able to walk around, openly admitting it to other troops serving alongside them within our forces.

However, what I [b:356zpong]WILL[/b:356zpong] say is this; when such openness causes battlefield causalities, and our own troops die, then I raise my own hand and have to argue a bit. First to state this bluntly, it is a fact, that no matter what type of war one is in, chaos rains supreme in it. As such, our troops on the front-lines need to be able to focus without being hindered of any kind. That being said, my personal opinion of this part of my rant is this; it's great that homosexuals can now serve openly without worry about being punished for it. However, on the front-lines of combat, keep mind focused and the one thought in their minds; their squad's and fellow troop's survival comes first, personal feelings and openness, second.

I know I may seem a bit rhetorical, and redundant, but I've always been a HUGE advocate of our military and its soldiers, and as a friend of several on-duty troops, I'm all the more supportive of them as well. I guess my main point is that, as long as ALL of our troops can keep their heads in one piece during combat, where it counts most of all, then I'm all for the changes that have occurred and are to come, both for the military and civilian world.

[Aylstra Illianniis]

I am with you, Narsia! This is great news that hits close to home for me. I gave my first (and only) daughter to a friend and her wife for adoption when she was born, and though neither of them is in the military, the rights and concerns of same-sex couples is of interest to me for that reason. I've had reactions of everything from acceptance to down-right disapproval for letting my baby go to a same-sex family, but it was the right decision, and three years later she is happy and loved, and I'm glad I did it. Knowing that people like my little girl's mommies can now serve their country openly and without fear of retribution is happy news for me!

[Narsia Ny'Dhun]

Polls and interviews conducted before the Pentagon study had already indicated overwhelmingly that open service would have little to no negative effect on combat readiness, Vereka. The idea that it would negatively effect troop morale and unit cohesion is an overblown recycling of the same bigoted thinking that kept women out of the trenches for so many years.

Being a former Army brat myself, and having worked for a very long time on the NTS base I grew up on, I know well the sense of unity that is beaten into your head when you enter the military. The man beside you is your brother. He is your dearest friend. He is your right and left hand. He is the only thing standing between you and a bullet in the back of the head. This way of thinking is taught in all branches in the military, and is in chief why many who give up post-combat interviews explain that they did not run when they were afraid because they feared letting their unit down far more than they feared personal harm. To think such unity would be torn apart by knowing there's a gay or lesbian covering your ass in a fire fight is a sadly uninformed notion.

The only branch of the military that has shown any real sense of opposition to this openness in service has been the Marines, and I firmly believe this is due to nothing more than a misguided sense of machismo on the part of the Corps leadership. I also believe that if there is any validity to Semper Fi, that if they truly believe in the eternal loyalty that makes a Marine a Marine now and forever...that the soldiers themselves will not care.

I have always been fond of the old saying "There are no atheists in foxholes" not because of what it was meant to mean, but because of what it can be made to mean when you extend it as such: "There are no atheists in foxholes. There are no christians in foxholes. There are no catholics, jews or muslims in foxholes. There are no republicans or democrats, liberals or conservatives in foxholes. There are no heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals in foxholes. There are only soldiers in foxholes...and...foxes, I guess."

[Alak Xiltyn]

[quote="Narsia Ny'Dhun":247mtdf2]
I have always been fond of the old saying "There are no atheists in foxholes" not because of what it was meant to mean, but because of what it can be made to mean when you extend it as such: "There are no atheists in foxholes. There are no christians in foxholes. There are no catholics, jews or muslims in foxholes. There are no republicans or democrats, liberals or conservatives in foxholes. There are no heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals in foxholes. There are only soldiers in foxholes...and...foxes, I guess."[/quote:247mtdf2]

I like that, very well said.

I'm somewhat torn on this matter however. When the bill was originally put it place the emphasis was on the "Don't Ask" part of the bill; a standpoint I'm very fond of as my sexual orientation is between me and any partners I choose to take on. However over the last 10 years or so it has shifted to the "Don't Tell" part of the bill disallowing homosexuals to serve openly. My biggest fear is that some bigoted officer who hasn't touched a gun since basic training and never set foot in a fox hole will gather as many of the homosexuals under his command into on unit as he can and send them off on suicide missions.

The enlisted men & women and the non-coms may care more about their unit than the sexual preferences of the people in it but can the same really be said of the officers?

[Aylstra Illianniis]

If they are GOOD officers, then yes, they would. Fortunately, most lower-level officers are there strictly to keep their soldiers alive and in one piece during combat. It's only when you start getting into the higher levels of rank that politics and personal agendas start to come into play. That said, there may be a few lower officers who will feel threatened by having gays and lesbians in the military. But that's why we have rules in place for soldiers to make complaints against their commanding officers. Hopefully, the few bad officers who would cause problems could be removed before it becomes a serious life-and-death issue on the battlefield.

[veraka]

I am all to aware of the fact that all of the studies that have been conducted point to exactly what you're saying. I happen to agree with most studies on that note.

I'm more pointing out what Aylstra said [quote="Aylstra":aqx17uxo]higher levels of rank that politics and personal agendas start to come into play. That said, there may be a few lower officers who will feel threatened by having gays and lesbians in the military.[/quote:aqx17uxo]

It is when the higher ups let shit like politics and personal agendas and politics, like the controversy over the DADT policy, get in the way of their job, which is to direct their subordinates in the most effective way possible, therefore minimizing causalities both on the battlefield and at home, from stress-related effects, and possible psychological effects as well.

Proven fact that a squad that acts as one unit, doing their jobs, and keeping each at the others back come home with fewer, if no causalities at all, and are among the best of friends for the long time (generally speaking).

I'm a firm believer that a true, REAL commander will never order his own troops to do anything that he/herself wouldn't do to begin with.

What I think I was trying to say in my original post, is the same as what Aylstra said; any officer who makes it a problem on the battlefield, for his unit, should be removed effective immediately. Regardless of gender, sexual-preference, race, religion, or any other factor that society considers to be among important, an officer's duty is to first his troops, his country, and then his commander, (in my opinion) on the battlefield, when bullets are flying past your head, and IED's going off every five seconds.

The revocation of the DADT policy within the military IS a great thing; however, that does not mean that it will be met with open arms all around within the forces.

As you pointed our, Narsia, specifically the Marines, well probably have the most problems with this; but that's to be expected; they're the Corp, that ain't gonna change anytime soon.

What I will say is this; any officer, or soldier on the field, who makes it a problem on the battlefield for his fellow troops because of the revocation of the DADT policy, should be removed from the their unit, and posted somewhere else and/or removed from the field. Its not so much the social/cultural aspects of our troops that concerns me, it's the reactions of our soldiers and if those reactions would cause battlefield causalities and deaths.

I have the utmost respect for our soldiers, being a friend of a few Rangers, and knowing a couple of spec ops guys. It's wanting to see our troops come home, in one piece and back to their families, that is my primary concern and desire for our troops.

OH and just a side note; To add on to your epic quote, Narsia, I figured I'd throw in something that my friends and I love to say as a smack off to the Marines by the Army; "fight smarter; not harder."

Ok, rant done.

[Narsia Ny'Dhun]

[youtube:2b0pmddy]EOgISH7TOmA[/youtube:2b0pmddy]

I refer you to my dear friend Barney who makes my point for me. Go get 'em you magnificent Jew bastard you!